views and thoughts on topics, especially ones pertaining to christianity – with an emphasis on how most christians either ignore or discriminate against unmarried christians – and how christians have turned marriage and parenting into IDOLS and how there is no true support for sexual purity, virginity, or celibacy among christians – this is a blog for me to vent; I seldom permit dissenting views. I don't debate dissenters ————-
New Research Is Taking Women’s Sexual Pleasure Seriously by L. Cowart
And most conservative Christians, gender complementarians in particular, will continue to ignore information such as this, because they basically feel that women don’t like sex, don’t want sex, and only a man’s sexual needs or preferences are important.
….In a study published this summer in the Journal of Sex & Marital Therapytitled “Women’s Sexual Experience With Genital Touching, Sexual Pleasure, and Orgasm: Results From a U.S. Probability Sample of Women Ages 18 to 94,” researchers from Indiana University asked that age-old but oft-neglected question: What feels good to you?
People should not be judged poorly or harassed or shamed for deciding not to have children. Women especially bear the brunt of this – men who decide not to procreate don’t seem to receive as much condemnation for remaining childless as do women.
As for myself, I was not terribly interested in having kids of my own. Had I married when much younger, I was open to the possibility of having a kid or two within marriage, but as I’m still single into my 40s, I have no interest in having kids now if I marry, and I sure as hell have no desire to have a kid out of wedlock and raise it alone (nor do I have the means to do so).
Society needs to get off the backs of people who are childless – whether it’s by choice or circumstance.
I cannot understand why other people act as though everyone has to share the same life goals or choices as they do, and then shame or condemn them for choosing or living differently, especially over something like this.
Data representing individuals from across the United States indicates that U.S. adults are increasingly delaying the decision to have children or forgoing parenthood entirely. Yet evidence suggests that voluntarily child-free people are stigmatized for this decision, according to a study published in the March 2017 edition of Sex Roles: A Journal of Research.
Leslie Ashburn-Nardo, an associate professor of psychology at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, recently investigated this bias against those who choose to not have children.
“What’s remarkable about our findings is the moral outrage participants reported feeling toward a stranger who decided to not have children,” Ashburn-Nardo said. “Our data suggests that not having children is seen not only as atypical, or surprising, but also as morally wrong.”
Getting Married Is Not an Accomplishment by N. Brooke
Many of the commentators at the bottom of this page written by N. Brooke at “Huffington Post” don’t get it.
Often times, when someone points out how culture makes much too much out of marriage and parenthood, to the detriment of singles or childless and childfree people, married parents take this as being some kind of attack on their lives or lifestyle choices (which it is not), and they get defensive and act offended.
I’ve said many times on this blog that I have nothing against marriage or parenthood per se – my quibble, my problem, is with a culture and church that either ignores those who are NOT married parents, or else insults singles and the childless, and treats them as though they are not “real” grown-ups, or treat them as though they are flawed.
I maintain that women get FAR more pressure to marry and/or have children than men do. Women are judged on the basis of their marital status in a way and level that men are not.
Women are valued by culture ONLY for virtue of being baby-making machines, and/or if they are attached to a man.
Men may face some of this pressure from church or culture, but not anywhere near the level of insanity that women do.
Men have more freedom in our culture to stay bachelors – nobody thinks them pathetic, sad, peculiar, a loser, or a failure if they never marry or never have kids. Not so for women.
I too tire of a culture that makes more a big deal out of weddings than a woman’s non-martial achievements, such as purchasing her own home, or getting a promotion at her job.
Ask Amy: Wife Says She Is Turned Off By Husband’s Fat Body and Muffin Top
I am publishing this to disprove one or two common stereotypes among conservative Christians: that women are not interested in sex, and women are not “visually oriented.”
Here we have an example of a woman who is sexually turned off by the sight of her husband’s obese body and muffin top. Women do in fact pay attention to what men look like and DO CARE about what men look like, though I’d have to say women are a lot less strict and picky about the looks.
Women might be willing to date a “so-so” looking man, so long as he compensates in other areas, like, he treats her really well, or he has a great sense of humor.
But women do notice and care about what men look like, and women can and do get turned off by flabby male bodies, receding hairlines, and so on.
Letter to Ask Amy advice columnist (Sept 2016):
How do I tell the man in my life that his huge muffin top is a turn off for me? He is more than plump, Amy, he is obese.
He blames his diabetes on the fact that he cannot satisfy me sexually, but I maintain that it is his obesity that is the reason he has diabetes.
I do not want to insult him or cause him any embarrassment, but I need to get across to him that he has to lose at least 30 to 40 pounds. Even his daughter gives him grief about his weight.
Please tell me how to talk to him without hurting his feelings.
Belle Boggs, author of ‘The Art of Waiting,’ talks fertility treatments, and the problem with how childless women are portrayed in literature.
…The Art of Waiting explores negative portrayals of childless women and families in popular culture (as sinister, resentful). It manages also to delve deeply into the scientific and political processes of IVF, a treatment that’s much more accessible to some communities than it is to others. Boggs gracefully touches on her own brush with infertility, and by sharing stories of those in her support group, she shows that the experience of yearning for children is multifaceted, not so easily whittled down to a harsh stereotype.
…What was one of the biggest myths you encountered while writing this book, and while undergoing IVF yourself?
I think there are so many myths and preconceptions and stereotypes that inform all of our thinking, whether we are experiencing infertility or planning to get pregnant, or planning a family in some other way, that it’s hard to just choose one.
I suppose the biggest myth would be the stereotype of the infertility patient. I was familiar with that stereotype from the media, from literature, from being a person in the world. Infertility is so often described as a woman’s problem, and typically an older, privileged woman’s problem. Women who put off having children until it was too late. And that’s really not the case. It’s just as likely to be a male problem as it a female problem. It’s also more likely to affect women with lower levels of education, it’s more likely to affect poorer women and men. That was something I thought about a lot as I researched this book.
Teen-Raping Texas Pastor Gets life in Prison After using the Bible to Justify Abusing Women – Equally Yoked is BUNK
Far below is a link to a page about a pastor who raped girls in and from a church. Notice in the article how other church-goers who went to church with this guy described him as being “very nice” or as being a “good Christian.”
My Christian parents brought me up to think if I wanted to marry, that the best place for me to meet potential spouses would be at a church. I suppose the assumption with that is that the type of men who attend church regularly are going to be “safer” or better moral choices than the type of dude you might meet at a bar.
However, in the last few years of running this blog, I have seen (Link): so many news storiesof church-going Christian men who get arrested for abuse or perversion, I now have my doubts about that.
Secondly, single women out-number single men in churches. I know that every church I’ve been to in person, I’ve been one of the few singles there. The only men in attendance and 80 years old, which would be fine if I were 80 too, but I’m not, and May December relationships (Link): make me want to barf. (I do not want to date or marry dudes who are over 5 or 10 years my age.)
I’ve done blog posts before about Pat Robertson, who has criticized women on his Christian TV show, for having married jerks, perverts, or abusers. Robertson seems to think women should be able to instantly spot if a man is a jerk, creep, loser, or abuser from the start. He’s wrong and an idiot about this.
The fact is, as this article below shows, even other adults who go to church with these kinds of deviant men are not aware of what a creep or pervert these guys are.
These are not people who are dating the guy – they are simply sitting next to him in church every week. If they cannot spot the perverts among them easily, why do Christian conservative men like Robertson think women who date men should be any better?
Five Things Every Married Man Should Stop Obsessing Over Around Single Women by J. Kamps
Thank you, Jean Kamps! Kamps is one of the very few married (Christian) women I’ve seen who comprehends how terribly Christianity, especially married Christian men, treat single women – the way most to all married, Christian men ASSUME (wrongly!) that all single women are minxes out to bed any and every married man we come across.
(These married Christian men must have some ego to assume I find them attractive enough to want to boink. I don’t. Women are visual too and have sexual desire, but we don’t want to sleep with any and every man we come across.)
Often times some of the assumptions Kamps is addressing here in an article by a married Christian man, are taught under the BGR “Billy Graham Rule.” I have blogged on this topic many times before. I will put links to some of those posts at the bottom of my post, under “Related Posts.”
Jasmine’s story is an example of Benevolent Sexism. Hostile Sexism is fairly easy to recognise. Benevolent Sexism is sneaky and far more socially pervasive. It parades around wearing a facade of chivalry, making out women to be weaker, lesser, diminished, objectified, by using what are perceived as good manners, male consideration, and role definition.
Benevolent Sexism operates on the fundamental belief that, whether observed in practice or not, there IS a gender hierarchy.
….Benevolent Sexism even uses compliments and praise to disarm and disempower women. “Women are kinder, gentler, naturally more loving. Women are not as strong as men, so they require protection. Women are not as naturally competitive.”
How Do We Solve a Problem Like the Singles? by Rachel Kilgore
Before I get to the link to the essay by Kilgore, which is hosted at MOS (Mortificiation of Spin / specifically, Aimee Byrd’s blog, ‘Housewife Theologian’):
For years and years on this blog, here on “Christian Pundit” blog, I have been explaining over and over again that most evangelical, Baptist, Reformed, and Fundamentalist Christian denominations, churches, and groups IGNORE adults singles – the older a single you are, the worse it is – the more ignored you are.
I have also commented on other people’s blogs under the Christian Pundit blog name, and under other names, alerting Christians to how horribly American Christians treat adult singles. I have Tweeted about it.
When Christians aren’t ignoring us older singles, and they do manage to notice our existence, many Christians shame us for being single. They insult us. They try to make us feel like we are losers (seriously, see (Link): this post, (Link): this post, (Link): this post), (Link): this post – I could cite many more examples from my blog of anti-Singles bias by Christians, but that should suffice.)
I used to be what is called a gender complementarian. I am not interested in spending a lot of time explaining what that means.
I am no longer a gender complementarian.
I am linking you here to a post about adult singleness at a blog (the one by A. Byrd) owned by what I would term “soft gender complementarians.”
“My boyfriend was intimidated by my sexual history. So I dumped him.” by T. Hornung
I’m not going to take the usual, secular, left wing feminist standard here (for one thing, I’m right wing and don’t always agree with secular feminists), where I’m supposed to say a woman’s sexual history is not a boyfriend’s business, or the boyfriend should not be upset by his girlfriend’s sexual past, and say, “Rah rah, women’s sexual freedom.”
I am forever amazed that “sex positive” feminists, whether they are men or women, assume that their previous sexual choices should not, or will not, have any consequences upon them or the people around them.
Some of us are more “serious” about sex than other people – sex actually means something to us, so yes, we find it troubling, and I suppose this is doubly so, if we are virgins over 35 years of age, and have to grapple with the fact that our current partner has had sex with other people in the past.
The predictors of divorce, however, remain mysterious. But in a (Link): new study published in the American Sociological Review, Harvard sociologist Alexandra Achen Killewald has found that the things that increase the probability of divorce — as they relate to work, at least — have changed over the past couple decades. It turns out that the amount of money that either the husband or wife makes isn’t that important: For contemporary couples, the biggest determinant is whether the husband is working full-time.
I regard Mormonism as being a cult, not a form of legitimate Christianity (Mormons don’t believe in the Jesus of the Gospels, for one thing), but I think there are some parallels between Mormons and Christians, such as the over-emphasis upon marriage.
When your church makes an idol out of marriage, as Mormons and Christians do, it drives people away. Because sometimes people stay single by choice, or due to factors beyond their control.
And if you’re single in a religion that over-values marriage, there is a tendency to be ignored, set aside. Churches care more about marriage than singlehood. Churches care more about meeting the needs of married couples than they do adult singles.
There is no incentive for a single adult to remain in a church or denomination that marginalizes them constantly, or that behaves as though singleness is a disease or a second-rate life station.
We know, or can infer, some things about them from prior research. There is a correlation between certain life situations and leaving. This does not mean that being any one of these things will cause a person to leave, only that there is a relationship.
Being single. There’s been some tantalizing research over the last two years about singles in the LDS Church.
The hot flashes, night sweats, and vaginal dryness characteristic of menopause may no longer also signal the end of a woman’s fertility thanks to a blood treatment used to heal wounds.
Presenting their findings at the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology annual meeting in Helsinki, Finland, this month, researchers in Greece said they were able to reverse menopause in roughly 30 women, including one who entered menopause at 40 but five years later menstruated again, reports (Link): New Scientist.
WashPost Columnist: ‘Ghostbusters’ Haters Are ‘Virgin Losers’ – (via NewsBusters Site); Both the Right and Left Wing Get Some things Wrong About This
This story comes from NewsBusters, which is discussing a column written for Washington Post newspaper by columnist Kristen Page-Kirby about the new Ghostbusters movie.
The original Ghostbusters movie, released in the 1980s, contained four male leads. The reboot version of the movie, which was released July 15, 2016, contains four women leads instead.
Unfortunately, over a year or more ago, when news came out that there would be four women leads in the film, some of the sexist jerkwads who inhabit the internet started lambasting the movie all over You Tube, Twitter, and where ever else – not because the move was bad (it wasn’t even released yet), but because they were incensed that Hollywood was cramming some form of feminism down their throats.
Interestingly, I didn’t see as much backlash over the main character of the new Star Wars film, “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” being a woman – Rey.
At any rate, I will be discussing two or three different topics in this post that are related to this new film, or mentioned by the conservative essayist at the NewsBusters site.
This is another story where I am in the middle. I can’t say as though I’m completely on one side or another in regards to some aspects of this story, depending on what is under discussion.
I am currently a moderate right-winger (I used to be more to the right than I am currently. In the last few years, I’ve been reconsidering if some of my former political and Christian beliefs are wrong.)
I’ve been more open the last few years to hearing the criticisms and views of liberals and Non-Christians – which is not to say I agree with everything I see left wingers and Non-Christians espousing or arguing in favor of.
I sometimes think secular, liberal feminists have good points on some topics, but I normally disagree with them.
As far as the Ghostbusters film reboot is concerned, I do think some of the backlash against the movie does in fact stem from sexism. But then, I do think some people may honestly feel that the movie is genuinely bad due to having a poor story line, or what have you.
I have not seen the movie yet. I don’t go to movie theaters that much anymore.
I usually wait until movies air on cable television; I’m willing to bet that this Ghostbusters reboot will probably be shown on F/X channel, or SyFy, or some other cable network in the next two years, and I have cable television, so I don’t know if I want to invest my time and cash into driving down to a theater to see this, since it will eventually be on television.
I saw the original Ghostbusters in a movie theater when it was in theaters in the 1980s. I was a kid at the time.
The original was okay, it was quite enjoyable and plenty of fun, but it was no movie masterpiece, so to all the men online who were griping about the reboot featuring all women leads: get the hell over it already.
And yes, you were, or are, being sexist douche bags about it. I don’t buy for a moment that ALL male griping about the film is based on non-sexist reasons, like shoddy trailers, or supposed poor CG work.
The vast majority of the professional reviews (and I have read a ton of them) for the new Ghostbusters film have deemed it “okay.” -Not terrible. Not great. But just “meh.” It’s so-so, most reviews have said.
What I don’t appreciate is that the columnist for WaPo who was discussing male backlash about the movie is using virginity as an insult.
Remarks like Leadsom’s go far beyond the usual cut-and-thrust of the political arena and reveal how (Link): childless women are still viewed with innate suspicion. This, in spite of the fact that women in their mid-40s are now almost twice as likely to be childless as their parents’ generation. One in five women born in 1969 is childless today, compared with one in nine women born in 1942.
But there remains a taboo, a retrograde belief that (Link): we are in some way unnatural for not fulfilling our biological destiny. How else to explain the fact that the first question many people ask when I meet them is whether I have children, followed by an uncomfortable pause when I say that I don’t. “But why?” I can see them thinking. “What’s wrong with her?”
Sexual Assaults or Harassment Carried Out by CIS Men Taking Advantage of Trans-friendly Bathroom Policies – Collection of News Stories
I actually have a long list of such examples in a (Link): previous post of mine on the blog, but because some pro-Trans activists on Twitter are so lazy or stupid (they are incapable of finding those links in that post), here is a stand-alone on the topic.
I will continue to amend this post to add new links as I come across them. Should this post become way too long, I may make a part 2.
As an aside, out of my last 2 and a half or so years on Twitter under the “Solo Loner” account, the rudest, most intolerant, hateful, and vitriolic groups I have encountered on Twitter have been militant atheists(*) and pro-Transgender activists.
(*Please note I said “militant” atheists – I’ve run across a few non-militant atheists who were polite and agreeable.)
It doesn’t matter how non-inflammatory or polite my Tweet is in regards to atheism or transgenderism (even if all I am doing is re-tweeting a link without comments of my own), both those groups over-react and will send nasty, hate-filled rants. They are doing more damage to their respective causes than good.
Anyway, here is the collection of links to news stories about pro-Trans laws and regulations making it easier for CIS men to rape or otherwise sexually harass women and girls:
Examples of CIS Men Taking Advantage of Pro Trans Policies to Sexually Harass or Assault CIS Women and Girls
Persecution watchdog group hopes romantic connections between Western and Pakistani Christians could lead to asylum. Other persecution groups aren’t so sure.
An advocacy group for Pakistani Christians is now getting into the matchmaking business.
The British Pakistani Christian Association (BPCA) (Link): launchedan online dating site in May to connect Pakistani Christians living all over the world.
Named for a common term for a South Asian wedding, (Link):Shaadi4Christians serves as a tool for single Christians—and their parents, who still often arrange marriages for their children—scattered in the South Asian diaspora.
The BCPA views marriage as a way to escape persecution.
The Conservative, Christian Case for Working Women by J. Merritt
Some of the few complementarian Christians I follow on social media did not like this article at all. They seem to find any criticism of their position, or any suggestion of other options for women, to be a great affront to complementarianism itself, or to God or the Bible. Why do they feel their movement is so fragile?
Christian women who reject complementarianism – some of them may go by various labels, such as “Jesus feminists,” or “egalitarians,” or “mutualists,” don’t seek to limit women the way complementarians do. Non-complementarian men and women do not mind if a woman chooses to be a stay at home wife and mother.
However, complementarians do not truly afford all women, and especially not non-complementarian, women this same courtesy.
Much complementarian content will pay “lip service” to respect a woman’s right to choose to work outside the home and so on, but often times, from what I’ve seen, that very same site, or authors on some other complementarian site, will cry and clutch their pearls in sorrow or grief that more and more Christian women are choosing to stay single, not have children, and/or to work outside the home.
Notice that in this article, at one point, complementarian Owen Strachan, who is a spokes-head for complementarian group CBMW, comes right out and says egalitarianism, or any departure from complementarianism, is supposedly a sin.
Egalitarians are all about giving women more choices, telling them to go after their dreams, and doing whatever they feel God has led them to do.
Complementarians really chaff at that. Complementarians want women in boxes. I wrote a much older post saying that (Link): this is one reason of several I really have been struggling with holding on to the Christian faith. I was raised in a Christian family that bought into many of these complementarian ideas, and it’s not something that worked out well for me in my life.
An evangelical Christian and avowed feminist argues that God intends every woman to work.
The final episode of Leave it To Beaver aired in June of 1963, but many conservative Christians still promote a vision of womanhood reminiscent of June Cleaver. When Tobin Grant, political-science professor at Southern Illinois University, analyzed General Social Survey data from 2006, he found that nearly half of evangelical Christians agreed with this statement: “It is much better for everyone involved if the man is the achiever outside the home and the woman takes care of the home and family.”
Forty-one percent agreed that “a preschool child is likely to suffer if his or her mother works.” For these evangelicals, a woman’s place in the world is to get married, bear children, and support her breadwinning husband.
Katelyn Beaty—the managing editor of Christianity Today,America’s largest evangelical Christian publication—has set out to change this notion of gender. Her new book, A Woman’s Place, claims to reveal “the surprising truth about why God intends every woman to work.”
This declaration may surprise many of her magazine’s 80,000 print subscribers and 5 million monthly website visitors. And it may also rouse many of her fellow evangelicals who believe her ideas defy the Bible’s clear teaching, if not qualifying as outright heresy. While Beaty knows criticism may be coming her way, she is making a conservative Christian case for working women.
I’m a PANK. Yeah, you’re reading that right. I’m a PANK, a Professional Aunt No Kids.
….I recently shared something on my personal Facebook page that reads, “I’m tired of hearing, ‘When are you going to get married and have kids?’ Let me tell you, I could have done that already and chose not to.