Anti-Porn Activist: ‘Ethically Sourced’ Porn ‘Sounds Like an Oxymoron’

Anti-Porn Activist: ‘Ethically Sourced’ Porn ‘Sounds Like an Oxymoron’

The following is a response to this article (Link): Lutheran Pastor Defends ‘Ethically Sourced Porn,’ Wants to Remove ‘Shame’ From Industry

I have a comment or two to make below these excerpts….

(Link): Anti-Porn Activist: ‘Ethically Sourced’ Porn ‘Sounds Like an Oxymoron’

By Michael Gryboski , Christian Post Reporter | Nov 13, 2018 7:42 AM

An anti-pornography activist has taken issue with an Evangelical Lutheran Church in America pastor’s support for “ethically sourced porn” and the removal of shame from the sex entertainment industry.

“What she is saying about shame sounds to me like a condemnation of shame in general, that there is nothing good about it,” Peggy Cairns, Education chairperson with the Maryland Coalition Against Pornography, told The Christian Post. “I would contend that there is a place for shame in life, it’s part of how our consciences work, and we need more of it rather than less in today’s compass-less world.”

Lutheran pastor and author Nadia Bolz-Weber recently argued that there should be no shame in consuming pornography, especially if it is “ethically sourced.”

Continue reading “Anti-Porn Activist: ‘Ethically Sourced’ Porn ‘Sounds Like an Oxymoron’”

“‘I Kissed Dating Goodbye’ [Book] Told Me to Stay Pure Until Marriage. I Still Have a Stain on My Heart” – Regarding: Dating Book by Author Josh Harris (with other related links about the IKDG book) and Criticizing “Purity Culture”

“‘I Kissed Dating Goodbye’ [Book] Told Me to Stay Pure Until Marriage. I Still Have a Stain on My Heart” – Regarding: Dating Book by Author Josh Harris (with other related links about the IKDG book) and Criticizing “Purity Culture”

August 24, 2016 update: I added a new link at the bottom of this post: people continue to attack the idea of sexual purity by publicizing backlash against the Harris IKDG book.


I myself have never read the IKDB book, which was written by Harris. I have read about the book on other sites in the past, and it is my understanding the book discussed how to date, and other such topics, and is not strictly about sex or virginity.

The author uses this review of the IKDG book to bash “purity culture,” and in so doing, touches on the topic or staying chaste until marriage.

I am in the middle of this debate. I cannot completely agree with all the critics of “purity culture,” depending on what they are criticizing about it and why.

I believe that the Bible teaches both male and females are to sexually abstain until marriage, so I don’t believe in tossing out this teaching all because some young women feel they have been hurt or oppressed by it.

On the other hand, how some Christians have taught about sexual purity has been lop-sided – males are typically not addressed, only females – and Christians could do a better, or more sensitive job, in how they present the concept of remaining a virgin until marriage.

With that introduction, here is the link, with some excerpts (and note, I am not in complete agreement with all views in this piece; however, I’m not a supporter of a lot of Christian dating advice. Christian dating advice tends to act as an obstacle to singles who want to someday marry):

(Link): “‘I Kissed Dating Goodbye’ told me to stay pure until marriage. I still have a stain on my heart

Excerpts:

July 27, 2016

In 1997, Joshua Harris published “I Kissed Dating Goodbye,” a book that was in part a warning about the harm that relationships before marriage could cause. Harris evoked images of men at the altar bringing all their past partners with them into the marriage to reinforce the point that love and sex before marriage took pieces of your heart and made you less.

At the time, Harris was just 21, but he was already a rising star.

…He [Harris] was what we, as young evangelicals, wanted to be. And so we strove passionately to attain the ideal of premarital purity he laid out for us. Now, almost 20 years later, even Harris appears to be questioning whether his advice did more harm than good.

…But Harris’s book was hugely influential.

…On the surface, I am a purity-culture success story: I am a heterosexual woman, a virgin until marriage, now with two small children and a husband I deeply love. We attend church. We believe in God. And yet, for me, the legacy of purity culture is not one of freedom but one of fear.

Viral Virgin Brelyn Bowman Talks Purity Backlash From Christians, New Book ‘No Ring, No Ting’ (Interview)

Viral Virgin Brelyn Bowman Talks Purity Backlash From Christians, New Book ‘No Ring, No Ting’ (Interview) 

I agree that those Christians (or ex Christians) who are opposed to sexual purity (virginity) lifestyles or teachings have gone overboard with it – as have some secular liberals.

Women (or men) who, of their own freewill, choose to abstain sexually are mocked or ridiculed for abstaining. (I have links with examples to this under the “Related Posts” section at the end of this post).

I think it’s very hypocritical for people to champion all sexual behaviors or choices of women EXCEPT FOR staying a virgin until marriage. Celebrity women can yak all day long about their sexual conquests on Twitter or in interviews, and nobody raises a fuss – but the moment a woman makes public that she’s waiting until marriage (or a serious relationship) to have sex, she will be faced with a lot of ridicule and criticism. Even by so-called feminists, who claim to respect all sexual choices of women.

I have blogged about this woman previously (Link): here.

(Link): Viral Virgin Brelyn Bowman Talks Purity Backlash From Christians, New Book ‘No Ring, No Ting’ (Interview) by C. Thomasos – March 8, 2016

  • Brelyn Bowman says she wasn’t surprised that people in the secular world disapproved of her posting a gynecologist’s purity certificate on social media after her wedding day last year. But she was shocked by the backlash that came from Christians.
  • The 23-year-old wife of gospel singer Tim Bowman Jr. says she made the decision to honor God by abstaining from sex until her wedding day. Soon after she proudly announced to the world on Instagram that she had remained a virgin until her wedding day by showing the certificate she presented to her father, a number of Christians responded in anger.
  • Bowman told The Christian Post that she was mostly surprised that many of those who left negative comments about her decision to show her father the results of her gynocological exam that revealed she was still a virgin before her wedding day identified as Christians.
  • “That’s what I couldn’t understand. So it was kind of like, why do we, as Christians, bash one another instead of protect one another and spread the message of God to those who may not understand?” she questioned.
  • “It’s OK for a girl who gets pregnant out of wedlock to say ‘OK, I’m pregnant’ and we celebrate the baby. But it’s not OK to say ‘Hey, I’m a virgin.'” she asserted. “Maybe the certificate wasn’t right, but neither was her getting pregnant. We still celebrate the baby.”

Continue reading “Viral Virgin Brelyn Bowman Talks Purity Backlash From Christians, New Book ‘No Ring, No Ting’ (Interview)”

Salon Author Amanda Marcotte Thinks Media Shouldn’t Judge Women’s Sexuality But She Has Mocked Women Over Their Sexual Choices Before (To Remain Virgins)

Salon Author Amanda Marcotte Thinks Media Shouldn’t Judge Women’s Sexuality But She Has Mocked Women Over Their Sexual Choices Before (To Remain Virgins)

My memory is a bit rusty here, but in a previous, older editorial on Salon, either Marcotte ridiculed women who choose to remain virgins until marriage, or, when she was mocking the concept of virgin- until- marriage, it escaped her notice that some women, of their own volition, choose to abstain until marriage.

I blogged about this before here, on my blog:

Either way it went, Marcotte ended up ridiculing the choice of some women to stay virgins until marriage – and some women do in fact choose to remain virgins until marriage, like this lady, who was in the media about a month ago:

This recent editorial at Salon, by Marcotte, is my reason for writing this blog post today:

(Link):  Now we’re leering at suicide bombers: The grotesque objectification of Hasna Ait Boulahcen by Amanda Marcotte

Here are a few excerpts from that page, about a woman terrorist who was blown up in Paris, France (I have some more comments below these excerpts):

  • by Amanda Marcotte
  • November 20, 2105
  • …But Boulahcen [woman terrorist] was female, and so the forces of sexual objectification are kicking in, creating a grotesque display.
  • …Both articles obsessively comb over every detail of Boulahcen’s pre-conversion life: Her partying, her drinking, the amount of sex they suspect she had, her clothes and even her “heavy makeup”, which both articles take pains to point out. It’s the same kind of thing you see these right wing rags doing day in and out, simultaneously inviting their audiences to leer at and sit in judgment of young women for their clothes, their sexual choices…

Continue reading “Salon Author Amanda Marcotte Thinks Media Shouldn’t Judge Women’s Sexuality But She Has Mocked Women Over Their Sexual Choices Before (To Remain Virgins)”

Pastors avoid ‘controversy’ to keep tithes up, author says – Confirms What I’ve Been Saying All Along, Re: Churches: Contrary to Progressive Christians, Churches / Christians Do Not Support or Idolize Sexual Purity, Virginity, or Celibacy – they attack these concepts when not ignoring them

Pastors avoid ‘controversy’ to keep tithes up, author says – Confirms What I’ve Been Saying All Along, Re: Churches: Contrary to Progressive Christians, Churches / Christians Do Not Support or Idolize Sexual Purity, Virginity, or Celibacy – they attack these concepts when not ignoring them

Pastors avoid ‘controversy’ to keep tithes up, author says

(Link):  Pastors avoid Biblical positions on today’s issues to keep tithes up

(Link): Barna: Many pastors wary of raising ‘controversy’

(Link): Study: Pastors avoid controversy to keep tithes up

I linked to this same article in my previous post and discussed it from another angle,

This time, I am bringing this story up for another reason.

(Link):  Pastors avoid ‘controversy’ to keep tithes up, author says

I’m not surprised. Every time I see the progressive Christians, the ex Christians, and left wing secular feminists complain that Christians over value a woman’s virginity, I want to laugh. I see the total opposite.

Virginity for men and woman is being attacked by Christians, not upheld, defended, respected or esteemed.

(Usually, the entire subject is ignored FOR MEN. Men are not expected to be virgins by anyone on either side of the debate. Men get a pass, even from progressive Christians and secular feminists; ironic.)

Virginity, celibacy, and sexual purity are being written off even by most conservative Christians as being unrealistic, impossible standards for any man or woman to meet, so they have reversed course and say fornication is really not such a big deal.

Further, Christians have sanctioned phrases such as “born again virgin” or “secondary virginity” to console sexual sinners.

With the exception of a tiny minority of far, far out fringe kook groups, like the weirdos who want to see the USA governed by Old Testament laws and penalties, I am not seeing Christians who are demanding that people stay virgins until marriage, speaking out against pre-marital sex, or making sexual purity an idol that they insist Christian girls pursue.

Here are some excerpts from:

(Link):  Pastors avoid ‘controversy’ to keep tithes up, author says

  • by Tom Fontaine
  • Aug 24,  2014
  • Few pastors preach about today’s most challenging political and social issues because they worry about losing members of their flocks and the money they donate, according to a researcher who focuses on issues of Christianity.
  • “Controversy keeps people from being in the seats. Controversy keeps people from giving money, from attending programs,” California-based researcher George Barna said this month in an American Family Radio interview.

Continue reading “Pastors avoid ‘controversy’ to keep tithes up, author says – Confirms What I’ve Been Saying All Along, Re: Churches: Contrary to Progressive Christians, Churches / Christians Do Not Support or Idolize Sexual Purity, Virginity, or Celibacy – they attack these concepts when not ignoring them”

Theologian Says ‘Love’ Is the New Cultural Apologetic Affirming Immoral Activities – Theology of Hurt Feelings – Why Christians Are Reluctant To Call Out Sexual Sin

Theologian Says ‘Love’ Is the New Cultural Apologetic Affirming Immoral Activities – Theology of Hurt Feelings – Why Christians Are Reluctant To Call Out Sexual Sin

(Before I get to the link proper, here is a long introduction by me.)

I agree with this guy’s editorial (linked to farther below). I’ve written of this phenomenon before on my own blog, going back a year or maybe as long as three years ago (see links at the bottom of this post under the “Related Posts” section).

I do not like legalistic jerks. I don’t think Christians should be rude, mean, hateful jerks to other people, even when condemning certain behaviors as being sinful.

However. HOWEVER.

I can’t say as though I’m a whole-scale supporter of legalism’s opposite characteristics, either – which amounts to extreme leniency and “watering down of standards” in the name of Love and Tolerance.

I have seen some Christians so very afraid of hurting the feelings of Non-Christians (or even that of fellow Christians) who are in sin, or in confronting Christians who are openly supportive of behaviors the Bible condemns, they tip toe around the sin in question to an absurd degree – where they end up practically supporting, condoning, or excusing said sin (whatever it may be).

These Christians are hyper-sensitive to other people’s feelings, and it is a huge annoyance to me.

This tendency to treat other people’s feelings with kid gloves has gotten so bad in Christendom (particularly in regards to sexual sin), that some preachers have admitted they are afraid to speak out against sin in public, in their blogs, TV shows, books, or from the pulpit.

It’s also very common among Christian lay persons, or by ex-Christians or liberal Christians, who confuse God’s propensity to love and forgive with the notion that God (and Jesus Christ) are hunky-dory with behavior the Bible thoroughly condemns, such as hetero pre-marital sex or homosexual sex acts, for example.

(Transgenderism is a sexual state which has become the new liberal Christian, moderate Christian, Theology of Hurt Feelings Christian, ex-Christian, and left wing secular Sacred Cow that you may not criticize at all.)

It’s also intriguing to me that on the spiritual abuse blogs I have visited, whose owners and members champion the downtrodden (i.e., adults who have been mistreated by churches, or victims of sexual abuse whose abuse was swept under the rug by their fellow church members), have forum or blog participants, who will, on one hand, quite understandably call for the heads of such abusive church members on a platter, rightly call out Christians as being naive fools about abuse in churches, but – many of these same people are also very dismissive of, or blind to, abuses by Muslim militants and homosexual militants.

They are very naive of abuses by Muslims and homosexuals. They seem to have a huge blind spot in those areas.

How they can so easily spot and repudiate Christian and church bungling of spiritual and child sexual abuse, or of preachers who exploit their church members, but fail to recognize the dangers of Muslim and homosexual militancy in American society and other regions of the world, I will never understand.

The blindness and naive nature by folks on those sorts of forums and blogs also extends to Roman Catholicism.

I have had a few Roman Catholic friends in the past, and they are fine people, but their church? No.

The Roman Catholic Church used to burn people at the stake, but one Roman Catholic individual recently thanked a (Protestant) blogger for bringing to everyone’s attention the anti-Roman Catholic commentary expressed by yet another blog (a Protestant one which was critical of perceived sinful RC behavior).

I mean, really? Some Protestant writing a critical comment about Roman Catholic behavior in general on a blog is thought somehow worse than the Roman Catholic Church in years past doing things such as:

-Covering up priest sexual abuse of children, or….

-Burning people to death for refusing to convert to Roman Catholicism, or for (Link to Wiki page): translating the Bible into English, or….

-The same Roman Catholic Church that historically has held the position that the Gospel (which includes sola fide) is anathema (to be damned)?

        (Off site link for more on that:

      Roman Catholic Church condemns the Gospel itself

          )

        Seriously?

        But you can’t easily point these issues of the Roman Catholic Church out at some forums or blogs – the ones who are into The Theology of Hurt Feelings – as it might offend a Roman Catholic somewhere.

        The Roman Catholic Church historically persecuted a lot of people (see again: burning people to death at the stake for things like not converting to Catholicism), but criticism on the internet of their church is considered by some of them to be the height of persecution against Roman Catholics.

        At any rate, I agree with the gentlemen quoted below.

        There is most certainly a Theology of Hurt Feelings, where-in some Christians are so incredibly concerned with not offending various classes of sinners (e.g., hetero fornicators or active homosexuals), they think Christians speaking out publicly (on blogs, radio shows, in church services, etc) is “unloving” and therefore Christ would object to it.

        The mind boggles at this. Jesus Christ died on the cross to pay for hetero fornication and homosexual sex acts, among other sins of humanity. But these “lovey dovey” types want other Christians to pipe down about all this and act as though God is totaly fine with, and accepting of, all manner of sin.

        The Bible presents a God who is not only loving, forgiving, and gracious, but also one who is Holy, just, and who does not tolerate sin, he does not like sin, and he won’t put up with sin indefinitely. God is not fine and dandy with sin. And the Bible does in fact call out hetero pre-marital sex, and all homosexual sex acts, as sin.

        I suspect that this well-meaning, yet wrong-headed, tendency to want to be Very Loving, Very Accepting, and To Spare People’s Feelings, is partially responsible for what gave rise several years ago to the ridiculous, non-sensical, un-Biblical habit of referring to fornicators as “Born Again Virgins,” “Spiritual Virgins,” and similar monikers (see links below, this post, for more about that).

        (Link): Theologian Says ‘Love’ Is the New Cultural Apologetic Affirming Immoral Activities

        Excerpts.

            BY ALEX MURASHKO , CHRISTIAN POST REPORTER 
            July 25, 2014|8:33 am

          Advocates for behavior considered immoral by Christians who believe the Bible is God’s inerrant word, have successfully used the idea of “love” to affirm homoerotic behavior, to redefine marriage and family, to justify pedophilia, and as theologian and pastor James Emery White recently pointed out, to justify assisted suicide.

          The problem, White writes in his blog, Church & Culture, is that the “love” described to normalize these behaviors is “not the biblical idea of love.”

          Continue reading “Theologian Says ‘Love’ Is the New Cultural Apologetic Affirming Immoral Activities – Theology of Hurt Feelings – Why Christians Are Reluctant To Call Out Sexual Sin”

          Christian Post Columnist And Wife Maintain Stereotype That Men and Women Cannot Be Friends, Should Not Meet Alone for Dinner in Public, and All Women Are Sexual Temptresses

          Christian Post Columnist And Wife Maintain Stereotype That Men and Women Cannot Be Friends, Should Not Meet Alone for Dinner in Public, and All Women Are Sexual Temptresses
          —————————————–
          Notice from Christian Pundit blogger: There is coming a time when I will either not be blogging as frequently or not at all. Please read more about that here in this post (Link): Blog Break – May 2014 – and List of This Blog’s Best or Most Relevant Posts
          —————————————-
          No, married lady who wrote to the CP advice columnist below, you should not be concerned that your husband is talking to other women including un-married women.

          It’s a nasty, stupid steretype held by Christians and Non Christians that single women are easy harlots who go about wanting to bed married men.

          Why is the Christian Post even publishing this? It’s only perpetuating the negative biases against single women, or women in general.

          Granted, this specific letter does not divulge what the martial states of the women in question are, but it still gets to the notion that ALL relationships have a sexual undercurrrent, or will.

          It is possible for men and women to be platonic friends. It is possible for two men to be platonic friends with each other.

          Jesus was recorded in the Bible as having spent time alone with women, including women who were known to be “easy” or who literally worked as prostitutes – and Jesus is to be your example if you are a Christian. If Jesus did not avoid alone time with women, what is your excuse?

          The Bible also says Christians are not to bear false witness against their neighbors.

          Every time Christians repeat the secular lie that women are sexual temptresses (with the logic being that men should avoid them), they are in effect bearing false witness against an entire group of people.

          This also shatters a very popular evangelical, Reformed, and Baptist myth about sexual purity and marriage: these types of Christians frequently repeat (or used to, up until a few years ago, when they started jumping on the “bash virginity” band wagon), that if one waited until sex to have marriage, that the sex would be “mind blowing” (their usual word of choice), and it would, they implied, be regular – daily or weekly.

          Hand in hand with that nonsense, is the idea that un-married people are having lots of sex outside of marriage. The idea being that married people are supposedly getting their oats sewn in marriage, that married sex is so satisfying, that they will not be the least tempted to boink anyone else.

          Well… if Christians are sitting there worried that their husbands are meeting alone with other women on business dinner dates and the like, and these Christian advice columnists are telling them “damn right you should be worried, that is how affairs start” then these ideas of marriage being a magical protective shield from sexual sin is totally bogus, is it not?

          This reminds me of the blow back over the post by the Christian lady who shamed other women in her post called “My Husband Doesn’t Need to See Your Boobs.”

          If you have not heard of this latest controversy in blog land which broke out last week, or the week before, about a Christian woman who, in her blog post, commanded other women to cover their cleavage adequately during bikini season, you can read about it here (off site link – this is a rebuttal to that woman’s post): My Boobs Are Not A Threat To Your Marriage (By Rachel Kramer Bussel)

          The woman who wrote the “boobs” post was treating all other women as her enemies, as though all women are sexual temptresses out to turn her man’s head and make him stumble – she was holding other women accountable for what her husband may say, think, or do, rather than holding him squarely accountable.

          I am a hetero lady. One of my movie actor crushes remains Hugh Jackman. I guess Christians don’t care every time I see Mr. Jackman in a movie or a movie poster – particularly in those shirtless shots showing off his fine chiseled features – I sure do come close to stumbling.

          Actor Hugh Jackman
          Actor Hugh Jackman

          Why aren’t Christians engaging on a large scale letter writing campaign to encourage Mr. Jackman to keep fully clothed, for my sake? I guess Christians don’t care about a woman’s sexual purity, or think that men should be held responsible for causing a woman to stumble. Sigh.

          Without further ado, here is the link that prompted me to write this post to start with:

          (Link): Should I Be Concerned My Husband Spends Time With Other Women?

            BY JOE BEAM,
            CP GUEST COLUMNIST
            July 4, 2014|8:32 am

            QUESTION: Joe, my husband works with several women, and occasionally they will have lunch meetings (usually as a group).
            I was okay with this until a friend told me recently that she saw my husband and one of his co-workers at lunch (in a very trendy lunch spot) and that they looked “too comfortable” for her liking.
            She said they laughed, looked at iPhone photos, and seemed to be socializing more than working. Should I be concerned my husband spends time with other women?

          Here is in part how the guy answered this woman’s concerns:

            Second, I personally think that in most situations it is a bad idea for any married person to have lunch with a person of the opposite gender. Groups are one thing; lunch with just one other is another.

            Every month I conduct a workshop for marriages in trouble. While difficulties range from controlling behavior to in-law problems to fighting over money and more, by far the most common marriage problem we work with is infidelity.

            Typically, unfaithfulness does not occur because someone looks for a sexual partner, but stems from two good people crossing boundaries.

            They become friends. Then the friendship deepens as they begin to share their thoughts, histories, frustrations, dreams, and feelings.

            They erect no barriers because they do not intend to do anything wrong. As I said, good people living good lives. However, somewhere along the line their openness and transparency with each other develops emotions much stronger than friendship.

            … In his organization, The Lampo Group, my friend Dave Ramsey refuses to allow one man and one woman to work together without others present. Why? Dave is wise enough to know how many wonderful people wind up in trouble from such seemingly innocent beginnings.

          Hmm, so, you mean to say that married people can only hang out in groups? I’m sorry, but I totally disagree with the thinking that to avoid fornication, one should totally avoid the opposite sex at all times, or never, ever be alone with one.

          See my other posts on this topic:

          (Link): Jesus Christ was not afraid to meet alone with known Prostitutes / Steven Furtick and Elevation Church Perpetuating Anti Singles Bias – ie, Single Women are Supposedly Sexual Temptresses, All Males Can’t Control Their Sex Drives – (but this view conflicts with evangelical propaganda that married sex is great and frequent)

          (Link): Hey Ed Stetzer: Opposite Gender Friendships Are Not Sinful – Ed Stetzer’s Advice: “Avoid Any Hint” – More Like: Re Enforce UnBiblical Stereotypes About Men, Women, Sex, and Singles

          (Link): How the Sexual Revolution Ruined Friendship – Also: If Christians Truly Believed in Celibacy and Virginity, they would stop adhering to certain sexual and gender stereotypes that work against both

          (Link): Why So Much Fornication – Because Christians Have No Expectation of Sexual Purity

          (Link): Focus on the Family advice columnist perpetuates stereotypes about single women

          Mother Entitlement – Selfish, Self-Centered Mothers Complain that They Are Not Getting ENOUGH Mother Worship from Culture, Church, or Family on Mother’s Day and Some Moms Complain About Churches Showing Compassion to Childless Women

          Mother Entitlement – Selfish, Self-Centered Mothers Complain that They Are Not Getting ENOUGH Mother Worship from Culture, Church, or Family on Mother’s Day and Some Moms Complain About Churches Showing Compassion to Childless Women

          I remember seeing posts like this (see link below) last year at Mother’s Day – there are actually mothers out there, including Christian and Mormon ones, who feel that their churches do not do ENOUGH to honor them on Mommy’s Day.

          Some mothers I’ve seen go further than that and insult or mock childless (or childfree) women in the comments of blogs that ask people to be more sensitive to the feelings of non mothers.

          These bitter, hate-filled mothers spit out, on such blogs, comments such as, “Screw the childless women, what about me, I work hard as a mom all year and DESERVE some recognition.”

          Yep, they are that blunt and nasty about it in their comments. (I have a real sample below, with a link to said blog, but it’s by a guy, not a lady, but it’s representative of the type of crap angry mothers who whine about being under-appreciated leave on blogs).

          No, I am not exaggerating, I have indeed seen a smattering of such vitriolic comments by mothers on various blogs the last two years, even on Christian blogs by women who claim they are Christian!

          Even though churches WORSHIP motherhood 24 hours a day, 365 days a year and hype it up on Mother’s Day itself even more so, these selfish mommy dolts think churches should worship mommy-hood EVEN MORE than they already do.

          Meanwhile, never-married, childless, divorced, widowed, and childfree adult women get absolutely NO HOLIDAYS in THEIR honor, so why should I care if mommies don’t feel honored enough on Mother’s Day?

          Some mothers are the most selfish, hateful people on the face of the planet.

          Some mothers expect and demand everyone around them in their families and at church to make a big fuss over them.

          I thought motherhood was supposed to be its own reward?

          If motherhood is so lofty, so noble, so high and mighty, and it supposedly makes a woman totally content, and you buy into Christian swill about mom-hood being a woman’s only, or most, godly role in life, why do you, little Ms. Entitled Mommy, need or want others to validate the position for you, by throwing you parties and handing you carnations in church services?

          I thought Christians said parenthood automatically makes a person more godly and giving than being single and child-free, or it works out that way over a period of years?

          That is not so, because I see many mothers online whining like little children that they don’t get enough attention and presents from their spouses or preachers on the holiday.

          I cannot believe how self absorbed and self centered some mothers are.

          Here is a link to a blog page by a Mormon woman –
          Note that while this woman is a Mormon but her points sound about identical to the average Baptist, Reformed, or Evangelical women I see online; just swap out “Mormon” with the word “Christian” and it reads the same:

          (Link): Taking Mom Out of Mother’s Day – Have We Gone Too Far?

          Excerpts:

            In a desire to be sensitive toward women who are unable to have children I’m concerned that, perhaps, on Mother’s Day, we may be going a bit too far. Not that we can ever be too compassionate in acknowledging the pain that surely accompanies the inability to have children, but at the same time we shouldn’t need to pull back in giving the much needed praise, encouragement and recognition of Moms’, who are actually raising, or have raised, children — and all that that entails.

          • …In order to be politically sensitive, in all circumstances, where the issue of how women fulfill their role as mothers comes into play, it is my observation that we are becoming increasingly comfortable with relegating actual Moms’ to the back of the bus — even on Mother’s Day. And frankly, that kind of bothers me.

          Here was the comment I left on her page (but it did not show up last I checked):

            Never-married and childless women such as myself get ZERO holidays for us. None. There are no cards for us. No cakes, no brunches.

          • Churches never have a “recognize and celebrate mature, celibate, never married, childless women” type of service, so I have a very hard time feeling sorry for mothers who feel their churches or communities are not doing enough to honor motherhood.

          Continue reading “Mother Entitlement – Selfish, Self-Centered Mothers Complain that They Are Not Getting ENOUGH Mother Worship from Culture, Church, or Family on Mother’s Day and Some Moms Complain About Churches Showing Compassion to Childless Women”

          Otherhood – An overlooked demographic – the Childless and Childfree Women and Singles Especially Women Who Had Hoped to Marry and Have Kids But Never Met Mr. Right (links)

          Otherhood – An overlooked demographic – the Childless and Childfree Women and Singles (links)
          ——————————————
          The book Otherhood: Modern Women Finding A New Kind of Happiness by Melanie Notkin is available for sale on Barnes and Noble, and other sites.

          From a page about the book:

            More American women are childless than ever before—nearly half those of childbearing age don’t have children.

          While our society often assumes these women are “childfree by choice,” that’s not always true.

          In reality, many of them expected to marry and have children, but it simply hasn’t happened. Wrongly judged as picky or career-obsessed, they make up the “Otherhood,” a growing demographic that has gone without definition or visibility until now.

          —————————————-
          Disclaimer: I am not anti-motherhood, nor necessarily against people taking their mothers out to brunch on Mother’s Day.

          I am, however, against the onslaught of syrupy Mother’s Day hoopla on and before the day, and the church services that honor mothers because:

          • Some people (women included) were abused by their mothers and so find the holiday awkward or painful,
          • some people had or have mothers who are/were cruel or overly-critical,
          • some people’s mothers are dead and they miss them terribly,
          • some women desire to be a mother but cannot because they are infertile, their spouse is infertile, or they are single and cannot find “Mr. Right” (and don’t believe in getting pregnant outside of marriage, or don’t feel they could support a baby alone)
          • some women choose to be child free, but feel excluded or shamed by church and secular staggering emphasis on motherhood on the holiday

          Some Christians have turned motherhood (as well as fatherhood and marriage) into idols, which they should repent of.
          —————————-
          This post discusses “Otherhood” (women who delay motherhood for years, or who are infertile, or ones who were open to having children but who’ve not met “Mr Right,” and for whatever reason, do not want to have a child while single, but would prefer to be married before having kids)

          OTHERHOOD

          (Link): The Otherhood: Single women face ‘circumstantial infertility’

          Excerpt

            Melanie Notkin wanted love, marriage, and then the proverbial baby carriage — in that order.

          By the time she reached her early forties, the entrepreneur and author was still single and appreciated the likelihood that, despite wanting desperately to be a mother, she might never give birth to a child on her own.

          Like many women her age, Notkin, 44, a Montreal native, expected to reap all the social, economic, and political equality that her mother’s generation didn’t have. At the same time, in addition to her education and her career, she anticipated a traditional family track.

          In her new book, released today, “Otherhood: Modern Women Finding A New Kind of Happiness,” Notkin uncovers the personal stories of women like her, who are part of a growing demographic trend and suffer what she calls “circumstantial infertility.”

          Often, people presume that when a woman like Notkin is childless, it’s probably by choice. But many of the childless women in their thirties and forties simply want to do it the “old fashioned way,” she says, and find the right relationship before making a lifetime commitment to have kids.

          Continue reading “Otherhood – An overlooked demographic – the Childless and Childfree Women and Singles Especially Women Who Had Hoped to Marry and Have Kids But Never Met Mr. Right (links)”

          Warning: This Column Will Offend You – by M. Moynihan (Re: Trigger Warnings in Written Material, Terms such as slut shaming, man-splain, etc)

          Warning: This Column Will Offend You by M. Moynihan (Re: Trigger Warnings Before Written Material, Terms such as “slut shaming,” “man-splain,” etc)

          (Link): Warning: This Column Will Offend You by M. Moynihan

            Should students be warned that reading The Great Gatsby might “trigger” a past trauma? The campus censors think so. But they are only protecting your feelings.

            It’s with a twinge of nostalgia that I recall all those incredulous faces. Sometime in the 1990s, I suggested to a group of college friends that it wasn’t exactly right to brand Ian Fleming a hopeless sexist (his deeply held dislike of America, all agreed, was a more agreeable phobia).

            This note of dissidence was interrupted by the sound of jaws shattering as they hit the floor, a crescendo of denunciations, and a few dramatic walkouts.

            One of those who remained said, with a jabbing finger, that mine was the argument of someone “unaware of his gender privilege.”

            It was almost inevitable, regardless of one’s personal politics, to find oneself — with bowed head, like an undergraduate Rubashov—accused of trespassing some previously unknown frontier of offense.

            I would soon learn never to object to the charge of privilege: it’s a phantom, something one possesses and abuses without knowing it. And like denying your alcoholism, a denial doubles as an acknowledgement that you’re afflicted with the disease.

            Floating in the fog of privilege, all sorts of voguish developments in language control bypassed me.

            But through the daily horror of Twitter, where these concepts are released into the non-academic world, I’ve been exposed to all the latest phrases doubling as argument, like the various prefixes affixed to “shaming” and “‘splaining” (the latter so rendered, I assumed, in homage to Desi Arnaz, before realizing this was a vulgar indulgence of Cuban stereotypes).

            Shaming” and “‘splaining” are fluidly defined verbs, though it seems an admonition to people with my biography (boring white guys) that they engage in conversation about race or gender in particular ways, with particular conclusions—and only when speaking to particular people.

            Thus, there is the scourge of “slut shaming,” which one can be accused of, for instance, when questioning whether the so-called Duke porn star is indeed “liberated” when shooting videos for defaceherface.com.

            And there’s the promiscuous use of “mansplaining,” defined by a fusty man at The New York Times as a condescending chappie “compelled to explain or give an opinion about everything — especially to a woman.”

            This midwived the now ubiquitous “whitesplaining,” best demonstrated (Link): in this Atlantic.com polemic upbraiding a member of the indie band The Black Lips for having opinions about—whitesplaining — hip-hop music. Not in a racist way, mind you. It’s just none of his cultural business.

            These faddish portmanteaus suffer from overuse, but one can at least see the point: They are polemical words, more pointed and ideological than what we used to call know-it-all-ism and sexist condescension.

            Being so behind the times, I only just discovered the neutron bomb of censoriousness masquerading as concern: the “trigger warning.”

            This is, roughly, a label that would accompany an article, film, song, book, or piece of art warning potential viewers that the content might make them upset or uncomfortable (often the point of art) and thus trigger memories of a traumatic event.

            Continue reading “Warning: This Column Will Offend You – by M. Moynihan (Re: Trigger Warnings in Written Material, Terms such as slut shaming, man-splain, etc)”

          Why People Rationalize Sexual Sin – You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours

          Why People Rationalize Sexual Sin – You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours

          This was an interesting interview by Janet Mefferd with Robert Reilly,
          (Link): Hour 3- Robert Reilly discusses his book “Making Gay Okay.”

          Reilly unfortunately does get into the perspective that heterosexuality is so necessary and awesome because it is the basis for families, with families supposedly being the basis for society – a view that I don’t totally agree with, see: (Link): Family as “The” Backbone of Society? – It’s Not In The Bible

          Other than that, I pretty much agree with what all else Reilly had to say.

          The points Reilly raises brings to mind a point I too recognized years ago but never thought to blog about before.

          Reilly starts out mentioning that not only do homosexuals rationalize homosexuality, but later he also gets into how heterosexuals have also been helping to rationalize homosexuality.

          Around the 10.25 mark, Reilly tells Mefferd in the interview (link above) that one reason a lot of heterosexual people are jumping up to defend homosexuality now is that they don’t want anyone judging their (hetero) sexual sin (such as adultery or pre-marital sex).

          Continue reading “Why People Rationalize Sexual Sin – You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours”

          Get Over It says Dr Ed Young on Christian show The Winning Walk – And People Who Maybe Do Need to Get Over It

          Get Over It says Dr Ed Young on Christian show The Winning Walk – And People Who Maybe Do Need to Get Over It

          I watched a few minutes of “The Winning Walk” television program hosted by preacher Ed Young Sr. today. He’s a preacher based out of Houston, Texas. I believe he is Southern Baptist.

          For about two or three minutes, he lectured his audience on how if something bad happened to them (or even something good, because sometimes people allow success to go to their heads), he said “don’t let that get you down.”

          He yelled several times over two minutes, “Get over it! Get over it!”

          If you’ve seen my previous posts, you know how much this annoys me. Please see this post:

          I could only withstand watching about two minutes of Young’s “get over it” rant and had to turn the channel.

          I will add a caveat, here.

          I have known a few people over my life who are consistently negative about everything, or about the same two or three topics, or, they allow one or two major hurtful life events from the past define them and their attitude now – even if they were victimized many years ago.

          I have listened to them complain or cry about the same problems for many years (and these people are often reluctant to listen to my problems and give me love and encouragement).

          I have been very tempted to tell them on occasions where they are once more bringing up the same problem from years ago to “just get over it” but so far have bitten my lip.

          I’d say most people I have known, though, do try to get out of the pain, anger, and hurt and not “camp out” in it.

          I think for those people, the ‘just get over it’ message is terribly heartless, and I wish preachers would stop barking it at their audiences.

          Christians Selling Out Hetero Celibacy By Defending Homosexual Behavior – Re: Jars of Clay Controversy

          Christians Selling Out Hetero Celibacy By Defending Homosexual Behavior – Re: Jars of Clay Controversy

          I forget exactly where I first saw this on Twitter, but here it is:
          (Link): Gay Marriage What Does God Say Not Jars of Clay by Shane Idleman

          I don’t like to post solely about homosexuality on my blog. Some of the only times I blog about the topic is how it reflects upon, or intersects with, issues pertaining to hetero celibacy, or how Christians today are dealing with discussing sexual sin.

          As I’ve pointed out previously on this blog the last couple years, the vast majority of Christians – not just Non-Christians, but conservative Christians now – are now attacking sexual purity, celibacy, and virginity.

          Some of them do this on the basis that teaching about those topics causes fornicators, that is, those who willingly had sex before marriage, to feel guilty, offended, or ashamed.

          This page by Idleman points out that some of the same strategies being used to excuse or downplay heterosexual sex sins are also being used to excuse, condone, or downplay homosexual sexual sins.

          Here are some excerpts:

            Gay Marriage What Does God Say Not Jars of Clay by Shane Idleman

            Dan Haseltine (singer for Jars of Clay) used Twitter recently to support gay-marriage; stating,

            “Because most people read and interpret scripture wrong. I don’t think scripture ‘clearly’ states much of anything regarding morality.”

          Many say that we cannot take a position on homosexuality because all positions will hurt someone.

          Here’s my question: “Are those who defend homosexuality, or who say nothing, truly loving the homosexual, or are they simply seeking to avoid conflict?” If they are more worried about being liked than being truthful, do they really care for homosexuals more than the person who is willing to risk their reputation, and quite possibly their safety, in order to speak the truth in love?

          Continue reading “Christians Selling Out Hetero Celibacy By Defending Homosexual Behavior – Re: Jars of Clay Controversy”

          The Isolating Power of Family-Centered Language (How churches exclude singles and the childless) by E A Dause

          The Isolating Power of Family-Centered Language

          (Link): The Isolating Power of Family-Centered Language by E A Dause

          Excerpts:

            I am 27, single, and my father has passed away. It seems everywhere I turn in the Christian world — churches, organizations, politicians — I am excluded, because I am not part of a family.

            A pastor comments excitedly on the number of new families joining his church. If I joined, would my membership be valuable? Respected Christian leaders urge us to support “family values.” Are values really tied to family units, or can I have values, too? A politician catering to evangelicals declares strong families to be the foundation of our nation.

            If he even knows I exist, a person without a family, does he even care about my vote?

            Christian magazines and organizations identify themselves by their emphasis on family. Where do I stand with them?

            A church bulletin asks me to bring enough food for my family to the church gathering. Am I even invited in the first place?

            Continue reading “The Isolating Power of Family-Centered Language (How churches exclude singles and the childless) by E A Dause”

          No Man’s Land – Part 3 – Liberal Christians, Post Evangelicals, and Ex-Christians Mocking Biblical Literalism, Inerrancy / Also: Christians Worshipping Hurting People’s Feelings

          No Man’s Land – Part 3 – Liberal Christians, Post Evangelicals, and Ex-Christians Mocking Biblical Literalism, Inerrancy / Also: Christians Worshipping Hurting People’s Feelings

          BIBLICAL LITERALISM AND INERRANCY

          Another common thread I see on forums for spiritual recovery sites (or ones by ex Christians, liberal Christians, etc), is a rejection of

          1. Biblical literalism
          2. Biblical inerrancy

          This is all so much intellectual dishonesty in another form it makes me want to throw up.

          I spent years studying about the history of the Bible, Bible translation, and so forth.

          I came away realizing that the Bible is inerrant and yes, we can trust the copies we have today; the Bible is not filled with historic blunders and mistakes, and all the other tripe atheists like to claim.

          It is not entirely accurate for critics to paint the Bible as a purely man-made document, that contains mistakes because it was copied and re-copied numerous times over the centuries.

          While there is an aspect of truth to that description, the end conclusion, or how that description, impacts the NIV or NASB Bible version you have sitting on your coffee table right now, is not how critics of the Bible paint it.

          Atheists and ex-Christians who are critical of the Bible are disingenuous and duplicitous in how they paint some of their arguments against the Bible, and they should be ashamed for it, as some of them claim to be truth lovers.

          Not too long ago, an ex-Christian woman at another site was declaring that Christians cannot “trust” the Bible because the originals (called the Autographa) do not exist.

          Oh please! I pointed out to her that is not so: as far as the New Testament is concerned, scholars have many thousands of copies of the Autographa (some dating within decades of the originals), and by use of lower textual criticism, they can reconstruct the READINGS of the Autographa.

          It is not necessary to have “the biblical originals” themselves to know what they said, as she was dishonestly arguing (but she later accused me of being dishonest!).

          I pointed this FACT out to her (about it not being necessary to have the autographa to know what the autographa said), where upon she shot back the falsity that one cannot trust the translations anyway because they are done by “conservatives.”

          Oh, but she is willing to grant liberal scholars or liberal theologians the title of un-biased, as though they do not have an ax to grind against the Bible and dating its documents and so forth?

          Because the liberal scholars do in fact start out their examinations of the Bible from an anti- Christian bias.

          The woman with whom I was corresponding on this matter doesn’t seem to understand that the practice of lower textual criticism is a science – a liberal who uses that methodology would come to the same conclusion as the conservative who uses it.

          So here we have an example of one type of ex-Christian I am talking about:

          This woman claims she was a Christian at one time, now fancies herself atheist or agnostic (and some kind of expert on the Bible), but who now spews inaccurate or untrue things about the Bible, because she disdains all of Christianity in general.

          My view: Do not lie about the Bible’s history, accuracy, and textual evidence just because “Preacher Fred” at your old church was a big meanie to you X years ago (or insert whatever other emotional baggage you carry against Christians that now colors all your other views about the faith and Bible here) – please!

          Give me a freaking break.

          I am genuinely compassionate towards people who have been hurt by churches, but not to the point I cover for their dishonesty about how they discuss church history, the biblical documents, etc.

          Because some of these folks claim to have been hurt by Christians in general, or a particular denomination, or what have you, they feel fine now rejecting biblical literalism and inerrancy.

          Continue reading “No Man’s Land – Part 3 – Liberal Christians, Post Evangelicals, and Ex-Christians Mocking Biblical Literalism, Inerrancy / Also: Christians Worshipping Hurting People’s Feelings”

          No Man’s Land – Part 2 – On Post Evangelicals or Ex Christians or Liberal Christians Ignorantly Hopping Aboard Belief Sets They Once Rejected

          No Man’s Land – Part 2 – On Post Evangelicals or Ex Christians or Liberal Christians Ignorantly Hopping Aboard Belief Sets They Once Rejected

          ✹ What follows is actually the heart of my “No Man’s Land” view. This is what prompted me to write it: ✹

          ✹ TAKING THE OPPOSITE POSITION OF WHAT YOU USED TO BELIEVE BUT NOW HATE – DUE TO EMOTIONAL REASONS OR A KNEE JERK RESPONSE OR FROM SPITE – IS JUST AS WRONG AND MISTAKEN ✹

          As to the forums and blogs by ex Christians, liberal Christians, self identifying post-evangelicals, or those still Christian who expose spiritual abuse…

          I notice a number of the regular visitors to these sites – the ones who left an abusive or legalistic church or denomination – simply now operate in the reverse in their thinking, which is, IMO, just as bad or wrong as the thinking they are leaving.

          There are different types of ex-Christians one must take into consideration when discussing this topic, so I shall present some sketches of them first.

          IFBs (Independent Fundamentalist Baptists)

          For example, there are ex IFBs (Independent Fundamentalist Baptists).

          IFB preachers and churches are ridiculously legalistic. They make up rules that are not in the Bible, or twist or exaggerate the rules already there to the point those rules then become unbiblical.

          IFBs are the contemporary, American versions of the Bible’s Pharisees: nit picky, anal retentive, legalists who make up man-made rules but insist they are “biblical” and thus binding on all believers.

          IFBs concoct man-made traditions they expect all IFB members to adhere to, just like the Roman Catholic hierarchy does towards Roman Catholic members.

          For example, IFB churches are legalistic about secular entertainment and clothing and physical appearance.

          IFB churches teach their congregations that women should not wear pants but only skirts. And the skirts should be only so many inches above or below the knee.

          According to IFBs, men should not have hair that touches the back shirt collar – not a mullet to be found in IFB, which may be a good thing. Secular music and television is sinful and should always be avoided.

          IFBs have other legalistic rules for just about every aspect of life.

          IFBs are vehemently anti-Roman Catholicism as well as anti-Calvinism.

          Continue reading “No Man’s Land – Part 2 – On Post Evangelicals or Ex Christians or Liberal Christians Ignorantly Hopping Aboard Belief Sets They Once Rejected”

          Long Editorial about Virginity at CT – Don’t Blame Evangelicals for the Cult of the Virgin – I Notice It’s the Fornicators Who Want to Ignore or Downplay the Bible’s Teaching that People Are To Stay Virgins Until Marriage

          Long Editorial about Virginity at CT – Don’t Blame Evangelicals for the Cult of the Virgin

          I am not in complete agreement with all points raised in this editorial farther below.

          In particular, I disagree with this view (among a few other portions of the essay):

            Additionally, Christians should extol obedience— in all its forms— not virginity. Chastity is, after all, an act of obedience

          Yes, virginity should in fact be extolled; currently in Christian culture, as well as this very editorial, it is being disrespected and downplayed.

          You know the Christians who do not want virginity upheld, valued and extolled? None of them were virgins when they married.

          The people who have failed at the Biblical command to remain virgins until marriage are the ones who want the teaching ignored or watered down.

          You may possibly be able to find some Christian somewhere, who stayed a virgin past age 35, who feels Christians should ditch or downplay the virginity teachings and stop esteeming virginity, but by and large, most of the people I am seeing talking smack about virginity are fornicators.

          Some are self-admitted: they will tell you they boinked around a lot as teen aged kids and hearing sexual purity lessons in Bible class when they were 18 or 25 years of age hurt their feelings or made them feel ashamed.

          This is like a convicted thief telling Christians,

            “Look, I’m 35 years old now. When I was a teen ager, I robbed a lot of convenience stores and a few banks.

          All those sermons I heard against theft when I was 18 or 25, and all the lessons on how stealing is wrong I heard at age 19 in Sunday School, made me feel so dirty and ashamed!

          Therefore, I think Christians should stop condemning theft and esteeming honesty in particular and just speak in very generic terms about being ethical in a very vague way.”

          That is what fornicators, those who had pre-martial sex, are asking the rest of Christian culture to do in regards to sexual sin and virginity.

          And it makes no sense to me why Christians should stop condemning “sin X” or stop extolling “virtue Z” just because some have failed to do “Z” or feel guilty about “X.”

          I am not sure I am comfortable or trusting of sexual sinners dictating to the rest of the Christian community how churches should be discussing or handling topics such as sexual sin and virginity. (It also reminds one of this: (Link): How About Using Celibates as Role Models For Celibacy? (Oddity: Christians Holding Up Non-Virgins [Fornicators] As Being Experts or Positive Examples on Sexual Purity)))

          Virginity is a form of obedience, how odd the writer of this piece assumes otherwise.

          Oddly, while this paper at “Christianity Today” portends to defend virginity in some fashion, it actually puts virginity down by saying virginity is a lost cause and Christians should really only support a broader concept of purity or chastity. ~Way to abandon adults who have remained virgins past age 35, author of this web page.

          (Link): Don’t Blame Evangelicals for the Cult of the Virgin

            As the saying goes, we didn’t start the fire.
            by Karen Swallow Prior

          Even in the midst of a sexual revolution, of a generation drawn to open relationships, hookup culture, and “polyamory,” virginity still enthralls.
          Yet another beautiful young woman is auctioning hers off.

          The cable show My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding juxtaposes a cultural expectation to maintain virginity until marriage with a flashy celebration on the day-of. Feminist defenses of virginity crop up on edgy websites. A burgeoning academic field is devoted to (Link): “virginity studies.” Even the “first kiss” video that recently went viral is but a variation on the “first time” theme.

          In the midst of this, younger evangelicals question the church’s message to encourage Christians to maintain “purity” until marriage. They have a point: some of our efforts cross the line between encouraging chastity and venerating virginity. But as the examples above show, making an idol out of virginity is a problem that’s much bigger than evangelicalism.

          A recent (Link): article [Naked and Ashamed: Women and Evangelical Purity Culture] at The Other Journal that details virginity’s history in the church moves toward correcting a myopic vision that can’t see past the pews of personal experience to the broader historical and cultural contexts. Yet, the exaltation of virginity for virginity’s sake began, and continues, well outside the church.

          Rather than merely an evangelical hang-up, our adoration of virginity is a universal impulse with a long tradition.

          Throughout human history, virgins have been worshipped in paintings, sculptures, poetry, prose, and song. Today’s church needs to do a better job at distinguishing between biblical and cultural views of virginity to develop a robust theology of the body, human sexuality, and chastity.

          Chastity, sexual abstinence outside of marriage and faithfulness within it, has been a distinctive of the Christian church since its beginnings, brought into sharp relief by an array of sexual practices found in the surrounding pagan cultures.

          Unlike the balanced view of sexuality offered by the church—as a gift that promotes human flourishing when expressed within the limits of its Creator’s design—ancient sexual practices embraced the extremes: homosexual pederasty, for example, on one end and sacred virginity on the other.

          …Fascination with virginity is by no means limited to medieval Catholics, courtiers, and queens—and virginity was no less fashionable in the modern era.

          In the Victorian age, women were caught in a double bind: in her idealized role as wife and mother, the Victorian woman couldn’t, of course, be a perpetual virgin and fulfill those roles, so she was exalted instead as the “Angel in the House.”

          In the meantime, a thriving prostitution industry arose, perpetuating a dichotomous view of women as either angels or whores and nothing in between.

          … Christians, of course, are commanded to live chaste lives before and during marriage. But when we decontextualize the purpose and meaning of virginity or attempt to promote it through guilt or gimmicks, the church reflects ancient myths and modern fetishes more than biblical principles.

          While there’s no formula for how Christians can encourage chastity without accommodating cultural practices that are at odds with biblical principles, a few guidelines come to mind.

          First, chastity is best cultivated within the context of vibrant relationship and genuine community.

          Yet, the (Link): rituals and (Link): pledges [Study: Abstinence Pledges Aren’t Enough] popular with some Christians reflect ancient pagan rites more than a biblical faith centered on personal relationship.

          Continue reading “Long Editorial about Virginity at CT – Don’t Blame Evangelicals for the Cult of the Virgin – I Notice It’s the Fornicators Who Want to Ignore or Downplay the Bible’s Teaching that People Are To Stay Virgins Until Marriage”

          Some Lady Tells Singles Not To Feel Sad on Valentine’s Day

          Some Lady Tells Singles Not To Feel Sad on Valentine’s Day

          This is sort of like my last post,
          (Link): Insensitive Valentine Meme – you can’t feel sad about being single if your parents are still living

          From Jezebel:
          (Link): Instead of Getting Sad on Valentine’s Day, Try Not Giving a Fuck

          I’m not sure if the woman who wrote this is single or married.

          The odd thing about this woman’s page is that while on the one hand she seems to try to be encouraging singles, it comes across as a form of “singles shaming” to me. Maybe that was not her intent, but that’s how it came across to me.

          Here are a few excerpts:

            by M. Davies

          • So you’re spending Valentine’s Day alone and feeling sad about it. What do you do? Curl up on the couch and cry? Stare forlornly into the window of a restaurant packed with couples who are sharing the same long spaghetti noodle like the dogs in Lady and the Tramp? Well, knock it off, sister. You’re a grown-ass woman — W-O-M-Y-N — and it’s time that you figured out that Valentine’s Day only matters when you make it matter. SO STOP MAKING IT MATTER.
          • There was a time when I used to get really sad about being alone on Valentine’s Day. That time was high school, when I was too young and dumb to know better.
          • …But maybe your friends are different than mine and they do make you feel bad about being alone on Valentine’s Day. Well, I hate to break it to you, but you have some shitty friends. That or it’s projection on your part, in which case this probably goes deeper than Valentine’s Day and chances are you’ll be sad on February 15th, 16th and maybe even when you finally get a significant other because, guess what, they won’t solve all your problems either.

          That lady’s “buck up, buckeroo about being single on Valentine’s Day” page read more like “shut up you whiny cry baby whiner.” If she was trying to encourage singles who are unhappy about being single, I’m guessing it had the opposite effect on most people who read that page.

          Continue reading “Some Lady Tells Singles Not To Feel Sad on Valentine’s Day”

          My Secret Grief. Over 35, Single and Childless by Melanie Notkin

          My Secret Grief. Over 35, Single and Childless by Melanie Notkin

          This author goes on quite a bit about motherhood, but this editorial could equally apply to women who desire marriage but are still single past the age of 35.

          Like her, I get very offended by the negative assumptions people make over adult singlehood. The assumptions by people, but especially Christians, that if you are still single (and / or childless) once you’re in your 40s, it must be because you are too flawed to attract a spouse, or you must be career-obsessed, or whatever.

          A lot of women, such as myself, stop going to church (and even stop being Christians) because never married, childless adults are not made to feel welcome. Most churches cater to married couples who have children.

          (Link): My Secret Grief. Over 35, Single and Childless by Melanie Notkin

            … The grief hit me in my mid-thirties without warning.

            By all appearances, my life was fantastic, or pretty close.

            … The sadness I’d feel around my period was deeper than hormonal. I was mourning the loss of one more chance at the family life I always dreamed of.

            And I grieved alone.

            Grief over not being able to have children is acceptable for couples going through biological infertility.

            Grief over childlessness for a single woman in her thirties and forties is not as accepted. Instead, it’s assumed we just don’t understand that our fertility has a limited lifespan and we are simply being reckless with chance.

            We’re labeled “career women” as if we graduated college, burned our bras and got jobs to exhibit some sort of feminist muscle.

            Or, it’s assumed we’re not ‘trying hard enough,’ or we’re ‘being too picky.’ The latest trend is to assume we don’t really want children because we haven’t frozen our eggs, adopted or had a biological baby as a single woman.

            This type of grief, grief that is not accepted or that is silent, is referred to as disenfranchised grief. It’s the grief you don’t feel allowed to mourn, because your loss isn’t clear or understood. You didn’t lose a sibling or a spouse or a parent. But losses that others don’t recognize can be as powerful as the kind that is socially acceptable.

            Continue reading “My Secret Grief. Over 35, Single and Childless by Melanie Notkin”

          Old School Cheesy ‘True Love Waits’ Video and Non-Christian Reaction (Christian video about Virginity and Sex)

          Old School Cheesy ‘True Love Waits’ Video and Non-Christian Reaction

          The reason I have stayed a virgin, and I’m past 40, is due to several reasons, but one of them is not due to cheesy videos such as the one below, which appears to have been filmed in the 1990s, or possibly the 1980s, judging upon the appearance of the clothing, music, and bands interviewed.

          TLW (“True Love Waits”) is a little after my time. I was in my twenties when TLW started. I found it a little odd at the time and still do.

          Support for celibacy/virginity comes by treating singles (celibates) as equals, and doing things such as inviting lonely, adult singles over for holiday dinners, permitting them equal leadership positions in churches, and not by gimmicky, schlocky TLW videos.

          If you look at the comments left by visitors below the video on the You Tube page, most people are scoffing at the video for one reason or another.

          I first became aware of this video on a page that found it via the CN -“Christian Nightmares” – blog.

          It’s been a while since I’ve read about the CN blog, but if memory serves, the person behind it is either an atheist who never was a believer, or is an ex Christian (I don’t remember which).

          But the point is that this video below is on a blog conducted and usually visited by people who are hostile towards Christianity or towards Christians, who feel that most Christians are unloving, hypocritical, or judgmental.

          Sometimes I do think that critics of Christianity have valid complaints about the faith or how Christians in general behave, and at other times, I find their complaints unfair or exaggerated.

          Most people leaving comments under the video on the video’s You Tube page make fun of the clothing of the people in the video or what have you, but there are attitudes such as this:

            MisterInfide
            l8 months ago

            Brilliant scam for controlling people. First, go after teenagers because their mental faculties aren’t fully formed yet and they long for acceptance and approval. Then take one of their natural impulses and build all kinds of taboos around it. Then force it into a tiny, restrictive box and heap guilt and shame upon any expression that falls outside the box. Then use that guilt and shame to coerce them into a lifetime of unthinking conformity and, incidentally, ten percent of their income.

          Granted, having a cheese-ball video like this TLW video may not do much to foster positive attitudes towards virginity and celibacy, but I feel “MisterIndidel8” and those like him toss the baby out with the bathwater.

          I am so tired of living in a culture that holds certain attitudes, such as, all Christian kids (or adults) who abstain from sex are only doing so because they were brainwashed or are too ignorant to know better.

          I made a decision for me when I was a kid to wait until marriage, largely based upon reading what the Bible had to say about sexual morality, so it’s not entirely true that I was “brainwashed.”

          I do think Christian culture left me with some warped ideas and broken promises, though, which I’ve mentioned in previous posts.

          Those warped ideas (about sex, marriage, dating) I was presented with as a teen and early 20 something have played a partial role in why I have now reconsidered some of my views pertaining to Christianity in general and sexuality in particular, now that I am over age 40.

          The fact that this TLW video was even on a site such as “Christian Nightmares” tells me that more than likely, some ex- Christians (or atheists) think the concepts of virginity and celibacy are naive, stupid, and idiotic.

          It also teels me that there is possibly a lack of respect for an individual having strong sexual boundaries and choosing to abstain, which I find hypocritical, since often times, Non Christian society expects every one not only to tolerate the sexual choices and behaviors of Non Christians, but to CELEBRATE those choices and behaviors, or risk being thought a homophobe, repressed, or a prude.

          While I am not necessarily a supporter of phenomenons such as “True Love Waits,” or gimmicks shown in the video, such as having teenagers drive pegs into the lawn as a gesture representing their commitment to hold on to their virginity, I also can’t get on board with people who would ridicule or joke about those people’s decisions to abstain.

          Non-Christians, and some Christians (such as liberals, anti virginity conservatives, feminist Christians, and emergents), do not want to be judged for their sexual actions and sexual choices, or those of their friends, but they sure as hell have no qualms about mocking or judging the sexual choices of virgins or celibates. This is a double standard I see time and again.

          My one other criticism of the video or entire TLW movement is that you’ll notice that it is youth-focused. Not that I’m saying I’m in agreement with the TLW approach (eg, making videos), but it’s another bit of evidence of ageism in the church that there are no similar programs or videos giving encouragement for adults past 30 who are holding on to their virginity.

          It is always assumed by the majority of Christians that everyone will marry by the age of 25 or 30 and start having sex, when some adults find ourselves unwillingly still single past our mid 30s, and yes, some of us are still virgins.

          In the video, I heard several comments by various adults that sounded suspiciously close to the usual propaganda and platitudes Christians give teens about sex (ones which I’ve blogged about before), such as one adult in the video who says something such as, “waiting for marriage is worth it!,” which is a variation on the Christian line, “married sex is mind blowing, so wait until you get married, kids!” As I’ve posted about several times, people who are virgins until marriage don’t always have a spectacular sex life.

          (Link): True Love Waits video, Million Virgin March (on You Tube)


          ——————–
          Related posts this blog:

          (Link): No, Christians and Churches Do Not Idolize Virginity and Sexual Purity

          (Link): The Contemporary Church Undervalues Celibacy / Virginity

          (Link): Discouraging the Virtuous by Julia Duin – Sex and Never Married Single Christians

          (Link): Famous Historical Christian Figure Expects Everyone To Fail At Sexual Purity

          (Link): Anti Virginity Editorial by Christian Blogger Tim Challies – Do Hurt / Shame Feelings or Sexual Abuse Mean Christians Should Cease Supporting Virginity or Teaching About Sexual Purity

          (Link): Christians Who Attack Virginity Celibacy and Sexual Purity – and specifically Russell D. Moore and James M. Kushiner

          (Link): When Adult Virginity and Adult Celibacy Are Viewed As Inconvenient or As Impediments

          (Link): The Activist Who Says Being Gay Is Not A Sin – double standards for homo singles vs hetero singles

          (Link): More Married Couples Admit to Sexless Marriages (various articles) / Christians promise you great frequent sex if you wait until marriage, but the propaganda is not true

          (Link): Resident Christian Marriage Advice Writer at Christian Mag Admits Some Christian Marriages are Sexless

          (Link): Singles and the Church: Why It Sucks to be Unintentionally Overlooked (from The Sexy Celibate blog)

          (Link): The Trivialization of Sex (a post by A. Hamilton)

          (Link): Douglas Wilson and Christian Response FAIL to Sexual Sin – No Body Can Resist Sex – supposedly – Re Celibacy

          (Link): There is No Such Thing as a Gift of Singleness or Gift of Celibacy or A Calling To Either One

          (Link): Single Adults – Why They Stay and Why They Stray From Church – Book Excerpts

          (Link): Article: Our Born-Again Virgin Bachelor – Secondary or Spiritual Virginity

          (Link): Being Equally Yoked: Christian Columnist Dan Delzell Striving to Keep Christian Singles Single Forever

          (Link): Obnoxious and Sexist Preacher Mark Driscoll Wants Christian Singles to Stay Single Indefinitely – And Even Though Unwanted, Prolonged Singleness has Been a Huge Issue For Christian Singles for A Couple Decades Now – Driscoll: ‘Christians should not marry pro choicers’

          (Link): Preachers and Christian Media Personalities: Re: Marriage – You’re missing the point stop trying to argue or shame singles into getting married

          (Link): Regarding the post “Abstinence is unrealistic and old fashioned” at The Matt Walsh Blog vis a vis Stuff Christian Culture Likes group

          (Link): To Get Any Attention or Support from a Church These Days you Have To Be A Stripper, Prostitute, or Orphan

          (Link): Sex is Always the Solution – supposedly, according to Christian writers and preachers. (Also: Christian married men feel entitled to sex, contra 1 Corinthians 7:5.)

          (Link): Her Marriage is Sexless While She Cares For Sick Elderly Father

          (Link): Wife Writes to Ask Amy About Her Sexless Marriage October 2013

          (Link): Why Christians Need to Uphold Lifelong Celibacy as an Option for All Instead of Merely Pressuring All to Marry – vis a vis Sexless Marriages, Counselors Who Tell Marrieds that Having Affairs Can Help their Marriages