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 ————-
Zhana Vrangalova late last month wrote a piece for Them about the results of a study by two Canadian researchers that showed that the vast majority of cisgender people (those who identify as their biological sex) would not consider dating a trans person, and that is just another example of the discrimination trans people suffer.
Of 958 participants in the study, only 12 percent said they would consider dating a trans woman or trans man.
Why Are Conservatives Forcing Mothers From Their Kids?
I am marginally still a social conservative, but as the months go by, I find myself drifting further and further away from it (though I’ll never be a liberal).
I was a stalwart social conservative for many years, but I’ve become more attuned to some of the hypocrisy or double standards contained within some socially conservative points or views.
One of the things I’ve struggled with the last couple of years is that Republicans (I’m an ex Republican) and social conservatives claim to be “pro-family,” yet, they often want to push through policies that cut off or limit families or kids or single mothers in some way.
Yes, I grasp that Republicans are for smaller government and want to cut expenses, but I don’t see how they can do that in the area of family benefits.
How can you claim to be “pro family” and to support children, and say that liberals are the evil anti-family types, when you keep promoting legislative material that wants to cut funding for families or kids? (Please see the “Related Posts” section at the bottom of this post for more.)
By the way. Many social conservatives and Christian conservatives fret, fret, fret that marriage and baby-making are on the decline in the United States – see for example links on my blog such as this one –
And yet, they penalize women who do become pregnant and give birth. If you are a Republican, Christian, or social conservative who thinks family is great, motherhood is great, and that women should have more children, then why on earth would you penalize women who do in fact give birth?
Shouldn’t you be willing to help all mothers – whether single or not – more? I don’t understand the hatred for mothers who need a helping hand from the very people who bray on and on about how horrible it is today’s culture supposedly disregards motherhood and the nuclear family.
Many Republicans, social conservatives, and Christians I’ve seen since I’ve been a teenager reading political columns, have regularly argued that children are better off if their mothers stay at home, rather than dropping them off at a daycare to hold down an outside-the-home career.
But as this editorial by Walthers explains, some of the Republican reforms of welfare has forced women into working outside the home, thus leaving their children motherless during the day.
How is it out of one side of their mouths that conservatives are saying it’s bad for women who are mothers to work outside the home, but then forcing them into the position to do that very thing?
Liberals Bully Porn Actress Online For Refusing to Film Sex Scenes With Homosexual Actors
(Links to follow.) Story as I understand it: a porn actress, Ames, who identified as bi-sexual, tweeted that she refused to film sex scenes with a male actor known to also film homosexual sex scenes with other male actors, because she had health safety concerns.
After she tweeted that, Liberal Social Justice Warriors piled on, some even sending her death threats about it. They really think a woman should have to have sex with someone, or a certain type or category of person, even if she does not want to.
The day after receiving all this online bullying, the actress committed suicide by hanging.
I thought liberals were supposed to be pro-woman, feminist, and supportive of a woman’s chose? No, some of them are not (the ones who are wholly sold out for supporting a Liberal Agenda vs. sincerely helping all women), as this story once again demonstrates.
A Response to the Editorial “America Needs a New Sexual Revolution” by Melissa Mackenzie
I guess Ms. Mackenzie drank from the Gender Complementarian Kool-Aid, or something like it.
The complementarian world is a world in which one is taught there are only two options concerning women (I know this because (Link): I used to be one myself for many years):
-either be and live as a traditional values person who believes all women are, or should be, passive, dainty, and delicate and should marry young and have children, or, -be and live as a bra-burning, man-hating, liberal feminist.
I present a third option, which is hated by some liberals (when I bring it to their attention), and it’s an option that is never even considered by other conservatives, which is as follows:
I am a right wing woman who rejects sexism, and finds fault in both the left and right wing on some women’s issues, but who also sees some merit to some arguments on either side, depending on the topic.
In this blog post, I am commenting upon this editorial on The American Spectator:
A foundation of the opening of this editorial rests upon a presupposition that, and to paraphrase my understanding of the author’s perspective:
“Everything that is wrong today in regards to culture, sex, marriage, dating, and women, is liberal, secular, FEMINISM, and feminism is EVIL! One can directly trace the downfall of American sexual morality to the feminism of the 1960s!!”
Such thinking is a common trope in about every right wing publication I’ve ever read on these subjects.
To that point, about feminism supposedly being to blame for all of society’s marital or sexual problems, I would ask you to read this off-site post, which is by a Christian (not by a left wing, secular feminist):
There’s a coarsening of relationships between men and women, parents and children, and people with each other.
// end MacKenzie quotes ///
I don’t think secular, left wing feminism was the start of the “coarsening of relationships between men and women” but is a response to it.
One can read the Old Testament of the Bible, which dates back several thousand years, to see men raping their own sisters, owning harems of women (in some cases, women having no choice but to be in a harem, or to be a concubine), and men committing adultery. There was no 1960s, American- style feminism around in Biblical days.
On Offering Up Prayers and Thoughts – and how it annoys Liberal Christians and Atheists
I had been thinking about doing a post about this subject for the past one to two years but never got around to it.
This has become a really big pet peeve of mine, and I see it all the time from liberal Christians, ex Christians, and atheists: criticizing people of faith who publicly offer up prayers or thoughts for people, especially after a national tragedy, such as a mass public shooting or a natural disaster.
….The more freedom we have, the more there will be very feminine and masculine subcultures too, and this might explain a great deal of recent political developments — in particular the campus identity politics movement and the alt-right.
The former is heavily female, while the latter is overwhelmingly male — in fact, not just male, but populated by men who seem to have difficulties with women.
…Single women tend to be politically very liberal, voting for the Democrats in huge numbers….
Generally speaking, the culture wars are far more intense between women because women have to make more sacrifices — whether children or career — and this inevitably influences their worldview.
Mutual Exclusivity on Social Issues by Liberals, Atheists, and Some Moderate Christians
Over the past two years on twitter (and on some blogs), I keep seeing some people – usually liberals, but sometimes atheists and moderate Christians – engage in this game of mutual exclusivity as concerning social issues.
They also seem to have a blind spot or two. They will point out the “sins” committed by Christians, Republicans, or conservatives all damn day long, but then ignore those very same sins when committed by liberals, Democrats, or Muslims, atheists – or whatever other special interest groups they usually pander to.
For example, if you speak out in concern against CIS men using transgender bathroom policies to rape CIS women, trans-activists will say you should be more concerned about churches who harbor child sex abusers.
I think I may have addressed that argument in this post:
The fact that so many churches harbor child rapists, or handle child sex cases improperly, does not automatically make it acceptable to allow CIS men into women’s bathrooms or locker rooms under the guise of being “trans friendly.”
The two are separate topics.
Therefore, I am against this argument from some people that everyone should be more, or only, concerned about child safety at churches than they should be with child welfare at public rest-rooms or public fitting rooms.
It is not a mutually exclusive concept.
An individual can be concerned about CIS men exploiting trans-friendly bathroom rules to rape CIS women, and that same individual can also be concerned about predators using churches to victimize children.
Yes, it’s possible to care about more than one issue at a time.
… There is a reason that liberal Christian movements like those championed by Jim Wallis, Rachel Held Evans, Shane Claiborne and others are so ineffective and unpersuasive in American culture.
Rather than seeking to glorify and build the Kingdom of God, they regularly appropriate the language of Scripture to advocate for earthly, largely political causes that never address the principal need of humanity: redemption from sin.
American Christians, Liberals, Liberal Pet Groups, and Persecution
(This post has been edited and updated, especially towards the bottom, to add more commentary or links)
For about the past year, I have thinking about blogging about this topic but put it off until now.
I have seen liberal Christians, ex-Christians, left wing Non-Christians, and moderately conservative Christians complain or mock American Christians who claim that American Christians are being persecuted in the United States due to being Christian.
In the past, I’ve seen liberal Christian blogger RHE (Rachel Held Evans) comment on this subject on her blog, on her Twitter account, as well as the Liberal, quasi- Christian, Stephanie Drury bring this up on her (Link): “Stuff Christian Culture Likes” Facebook group from time to time.
I’ve also seen moderately conservative Christians I am acquainted with discuss this in Tweets or on their blogs.
To reiterate a point I’ve made before, I do sometimes agree with SCCL’s Drury on some issues, and I even periodically Tweet her links to news stories I think she may want to share on her Twitter account or on her SCCL Facebook group.
However, I totally part ways with Drury on some topics – like this one.
The view of liberal Christians, ex-Christians, liberal Non-Christians, and even some moderately conservative Christians, is that American Christians are not under persecution in the U.S.A. for being Christian, or for practicing Christian beliefs.
I am not sure if the liberal or moderate conservative disagreement on this issue pertains to semantics (the terminology involved), or if they are actually blind and oblivious to the harassment that Christians, especially conservative, or traditional valued, Christians, face in American culture.
It is my position that American Christians do in fact face harassment – especially from the left wing – in the United States for being Christian, for wanting to practice their faith and carry it out in public, and for defending it in public.
If you are a liberal who objects to the term “persecution,” how about, instead, the words or phrases, “harassment,” “bullying,” “picking on,” “hounding,” or other terms?
I do not see American Christians getting a free pass in the United States to hold certain views or to practice their beliefs.
The left (and I’d include severe anti-theist atheists here, on this point, regardless of their political standing) insist that Christians keep their Christian faith walled off, private, and separate from all other areas of their lives.
Standard Christian View About Sex is Actually Creating Controversy: “Major Ministry Will Fire Employees Who Don’t Believe That Sex Is Only For Married Straight Couples”
(I have edited this post a few times to add additional thoughts – there is also a December 2016 update below in regards to the left wing BuzzFeed and ‘Stuff Christian Culture Likes’ witch hunt story about HGTV hosts Chip and Joanna Gaines)
Among some progressive Christians or progressive Christian groups, this news story was quite the controversy about a week ago when it was first published.
I read in another news source that IV (InterVarsity) says that their position on these issues has been misunderstood.
I have some more comments to make under the excerpts here:
A Christian organization that leads student religious groups on more than 600 college campuses will fire any of its 1,300 employees who say they do not agree with the organization’s theological interpretation on sex: that it is only appropriate within a heterosexual marriage.
That means that any InterVarsity Christian Fellowship employees who believe that churches should perform gay weddings, who endorse sex before marriage, who condone pornography or who hold any number of other beliefs might be included in what the evangelical organization calls “involuntary termination.”
Coming from a major evangelical institution, the policy revives debate about how churches should handle questions of sexuality and who can define themselves as evangelicals.
In an interview with The Washington Post on Friday, the ministry’s vice president Greg Jao said that since InterVarsity employees teach college students about biblical views, it is imperative that they share the same beliefs. Four or five people have been fired so far, and he expects more to follow in the next month.
Tolerance, Compassion, and Knowing People Personally
I keep running into politically left wing types or touchie-feelie Christians (some of whom may be somewhat conservative, which surprises me) on social media who assume the reason I must oppose certain things, such as–
-Mass Muslim immigration
-Allowing biological men into women’s bathrooms and fitting rooms under transgender laws
is due to some kind of personal animosity towards these groups of people.
The reason I object to, or am concerned about, things such as mass Muslim immigration or transgender bathroom bills has NOTHING to do with personal hatred on my part towards Muslims or transgender people.
I find this so frustrating that this is assumed about me from the start, and this assumption occurs constantly on Twitter and other blogs.
If you bother to get to know me, or read many of my blog posts on this blog, or stop and ask me my feelings about things (instead of JUST ASSUMING you know why I must hold thus- and- so an opinion on a given topic), you would discover I’m pretty laid back about things, more so than the people who yell at me online.
Editorialist at WaPo Argues That Single Christian Adults Can Have Sex So Long As They are Chaste About It – Also Speculates that Jesus Was “Probably” Celibate
Edit: I originally assumed when first writing this post that McCleneghan is a dude, but it appears that McCleneghan is a woman(?).
I’ve said this before on my blog, but I will say it again: if you want to fornicate (have sex outside of marriage), go right ahead, but stop trying to justify it by saying God, Jesus, or the Bible is fine with it.
I’m over 40, still a virgin, I did not have sex with my ex fiance while we were a couple. I have a libido.
I’m still celibate. By this stage in my life, I’m now okay with the idea of having sex prior to marriage if I am in a stable, committed relationship, but should that happen, I will freely admit that it is a sin as far as God or the Bible is concerned.
I’m not going to sit here and argue that my fornication (should it occur) is peachy keen with God because I’m being faithful to the one guy and only boinking the one guy.
…I’m compelled by the idea that Jesus was probably celibate, but that it would have been for a purpose, and that it might have been hard to bear sometimes.
…Jesus was fully in relationship with many. He had intimate friendships, and he was dedicated to his work. If his celibacy was hard, he was not overly anxious about it; he leaned into the other parts of his life.
Jesus was different and his path was likely puzzling to those around him, even as it puzzles us still today.
.. One of the most unfair things the Christian tradition has foisted on singles is the expectation that they would remain celibate — that is, refraining from sexual relationships.
Did Hell Freeze Over?: Liberal Rag Promotes Idea that Celibacy is Acceptable, and a Valid Life Choice / Re: 2016 Study Says Millennials Aren’t Having Much Sex
The following editorial comes from left wing site Salon, known for publishing pieces by left wing feminist Marcotte, who likes to insist everyone respect women’s sexual choices except for virginity and celibacy – she thinks it’s okay to mock those (see this link and this link for more on that).
Most of the time, liberals are loathe to admit that it’s okay for adults (or kids) to be virgins or celibates. They often portray the state of being abstinent as being sexually repressed or weird. They get all judgey-judgemental about it, but at the same time ask us not to “slut shame” the people, especially women, who boink around like dogs in heat.
So, I was quite surprised to see this liberal editorial defending the idea that it’s okay for people to be chaste, and that people need to stop pressuring everyone to have sex. This sort of editorial from a left wing site is very, very rare.
Everyone calm down and stop judging young adults for “missing out on a good time”
….While the study’s findings are of cultural interest about changing sexual practices, an unfortunate side effect is the concurrent media sex panic. To wit: a Washington Post headline asked if this means “(Link): the end of sex?” while (Link): The Cuttouted “Millennials Confirm That Sex Is No Longer Cool.”
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.
Sexual Assaults or Harassment Carried Out by CIS Men Taking Advantage of Trans-friendly Bathroom Policies – Collection of News Stories
(and related issues)
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
A new study by a pair of Notre Dame economists received some media attention this week. It found that school districts that instituted condom distribution programs in the early 1990s saw significant increases in the teen-fertility rate [as well as an increase in sexually transmitted diseases].
But more interesting is the question of whether criticism of economic libertarianism will be broadened to encompass the (Link): moral libertarianism that both underlies it and inspires the parallel drive toward the liberation of sexuality from moral judgment.
Understood in this wider sense, we’ve been living through an extended libertarian moment since the early 1960s.
Moral libertarianism presumes that no authority — political, legal, or religious — is competent to pronounce judgment on an individual’s decisions, provided that they don’t negatively effect other people. Thanks to this assumption, a grand edifice of inherited moral and legal strictures on sexuality have crumbled over the past half century, leaving individuals free to live and love as they wish, as long as everyone involved gives their consent.
I Waited to Have Sex Until I Was 26, And Now I Can’t Have an Orgasm (by a Woman Raised in Christian Purity Culture) – Provides Yet Another Reason to Ditch the Equally Yoked Teaching
I would not be surprised if (Link): my Blog Stalker, John Morgan, still visits my blog (and sometimes my Twitter account) and steals links and story ideas to blog on at his blog. He’ll probably swipe the following story I found and feature it on his own blog.
I did not see an author’s name on this. It just says “Anonymous”
I can’t even talk to my sister or some of my closest friends about it because they all still think I’m a virgin, living my life of purity for the Lord.
I was raised in an almost cult-like Southern Reformed Baptist church. I was told that sex was wrong, lustful thinking was wrong, and basically anything that involved sex before marriage would send me straight to hell. It wasn’t until last year that I had the first physical step of courage to go against my upbringing and risk losing everyone around me to do what I thought was right and okay as a woman — not what I was told by evangelical men.
….The church taught us that sex was one of the cardinal sins. Once defiled, always defiled. Women could not make decisions without a father or husband to do it for them, and how would we earn a husband if we were not pure?
They trained the young girls in our church, myself included, that we should live and die to find a husband. Education was fine, as long as it contributed to getting a husband. “Be fruitful and multiply” was the mantra.
I went along with this. It was all I knew, and I had no mother figure to tell me otherwise. As I grew older, though, I grew indignant of my small amount of options.
They told us to find a husband within the church, one who was “equally yolked,” but no man in the church chose from the church. They left the church to find wives and left a congregation of deserted and bewildered home-schooled hearts. Yet they were applauded for their fine, godly choices in women. Meanwhile, the women of the church were left to rot.
Jezebel Site and xoJane Site: Pot Meet Kettle – On Supporting All Women’s Voices
I saw this paragraph or so in (Link): an article on Jezebel’s site (by S. Edwards; title: “xoJane Publishes Terrible Article By a Woman Who’s Glad Her Friend Died, Then Deletes Her Byline“):
It’s a well-known fact that outrageous confessionals—the kind that populate xoJane’s section, It Happened to Me — garner traffic. Outrage, disgust and anger are the stuff of going viral (a phrase that conjures up disease as much as anything else). Yet xoJane seems to consistently cross an unspoken line, confusing any woman’s opinion as one inherently worth publishing, no matter the opinion, or its costs.
Abstinence advocacy groups say a new (Link):study criticizing virginity pledges misses the point of abstinence education.
The study, “Broken Promises: Abstinence Pledging and Sexual and Reproductive Health,” published on the website of the Journal for Marriage and Family, reports that the vast majority of virginity pledgers break their promise to save sex for marriage.