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 ————-
Category: lookism lookist too much emphasis on physical appearance
Obnoxious, Below- Average- Looking Dude Explains Why He Won’t Date “Hot Women” Any More
I almost forgot to post about this. I saw this story go through my Twitter feed a few days ago, and from there, a lot of people on other sites mocked this guy for his arrogant demeanor.
In all seriousness, the guy quoted is not that good-looking. In my opinion, he’s a little on the homely-looking side, but he seems to feel he’s a real hottie and that hot women find him hot.
I find it amusing that some of the people in this article (men and women) describe themselves as “nines or tens” but they look like “fives” to me (there are photos of some of the people interviewed on the page).
When it came to dating in New York as a 30-something executive in private equity, Dan Rochkind had no problem snagging the city’s most beautiful women.
“I could have [anyone] I wanted,” says Rochkind, now 40 and an Upper East Sider with a muscular build and a full head of hair. “I met some nice people, but realistically I went for the hottest girl you could find.”
He spent the better part of his 30s going on up to three dates a week, courting 20-something blond models, but eventually realized that dating the prettiest young things had its drawbacks — he found them flighty, selfish and vapid.
A Song for All the Male ‘Ones’ (the Fat, Balding, Sexist, and/or Ugly Guys) Who Rate Women on Scales of One To Ten
I present to you the song “Numbers,” recorded by Bobby Bare some time in the 1970s or 1980s.
For all the male idiots out there who think they can and should rate what women look like on scales of 1 to 10.
This song is Doubly applicable to males who are fat, balding, and/or look like they fell out of the Ugly Tree and hit every branch on the way down ~AND~ who think they deserve to date or marry women who look like movie stars or models.
Death, Grief, Marriage, Single Again, Soul Sleep, Christianity, Obnoxious Male Fixation on Female Looks
I have several topics I’d like to address here. I’m going to discuss death, grief, dating, how men are too fixated on women’s looks, etc, and so on, all in the same post.
I learned from watching the Christian program “It is Written” today (Feb 2017) that the wife of Christian TV host Mike Tucker, Gayle, died. I’m not sure when the episode was first filmed or first aired.
You can read a transcript of that episode, “From Grief To Hope” (Link, off site): here.
You might be able to watch that very episode or one like it here: (Link, off site): Coping with Grief.
I see from an online obit that Gayle Tucker passed away in April 2016.
Why, after decades of feminism, do we seem to demand that women in the public eye be extraordinarily beautiful but their male counterparts can get away with being ordinary?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The art critic John Berger famously said that, in our culture, “men act and women appear”. He didn’t mean that women didn’t actually do anything, or that men never looked pretty. His point was that this was how men and women were depicted.
Men were supposed to be effective, and women were supposed to be attractive. He was right. And it was a travesty. But that was in 1972; it was a long time ago.
Or was it? Four decades of feminism later I am reading the comedian Angela Barnes’ blog. “I am ugly, and I am proud,” she writes. She goes on to say: “The fact is I don’t see people in magazines who look like me. I don’t see people like me playing the romantic lead or having a romantic life.”
At the top of the blog is a picture of Barnes. And the thing is, she isn’t ugly. Neither is she beautiful. She’s normal looking. She’s somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, just like lots of women you see every day in real life.
It made me think of this year’s Wimbledon ladies’ final between Sabine Lisicki and Marion Bartoli. When Bartoli won, the BBC commentator John Inverdale infamously said, “Do you think Bartoli’s dad told her when she was little, ‘You’re never going to be a looker, you’re never going to be a Sharapova, so you have to be scrappy and fight’?”
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.
No one feels particularly special on a dating app. That’s what I want to tell her. My best friend, who looks like the racially ambiguous lovechild of Brad Pitt and Pocahontas, waves her phone at me in righteous indignation. She is not alone.
Several of my “classically attractive” friends are pissed. Society tells them they’re beautiful and they’re mad at Tinder and OkCupid for not providing better prospects.
The ad gives a brief description of Brooks, including a photo with the disclaimer, “I look just like my picture, except I now have grey hair.” The “About You” section states applicants “Will be attractive being height and weight proportional.” It also goes on to say that applicants should be prepared to have children with Brooks and also be a stay-at- home mom.
He said his father has been ill and wants a grandson to carry on the family name.Brooks compared his father to Larry David’s character in the TV series “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” saying he “thinks he does the right thing, and then it all blows up in his face.”
He said he’d never buy an ad like this himself, but “it’s worth a shot. Can’t hurt.”
…The folks behind the billion-dollar bra business have good reasons to start shaking things up; although Victoria’s Secret has long enjoyed a reputation as the sexiest store in your local mall, that signature sex appeal is posing challenges as the company tries to lure younger shoppers to its stores.
If Victoria’s Secret wants to avoid the same fate millennials meted out to the once super cool and sexy Abercrombie & Fitch, it’ll have to answer the question: “What is sexy?”
More specifically, Victoria’s Secret will have to reconsider “what is sexy” according to today’s diversity-minded, politically correct, socially conscious millennials and their changing consumer ethos, which could present some serious problems for the panty powerhouse.
Consider Victoria’s Secret’s stable of supermodels, the busty bombshells whose depictions of beauty and sexiness are at risk of being seen by teens and twenty-somethings as boring at best, backwards at worst.
Our culture’s current standard of physical desirability seems to be shifting away from the VS model of impossibly tall and thin and toward fuller, curvier physiques (think Kim Kardashian) that are more representative of the average American woman.
The Unsurprising Sexism of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz
I am right wing, but I have come to realize the last 2 or 3 years that yes, some right wingers harbor some sexist views towards women.
I used to regard left wing complaints about this to be fabricated or greatly exaggerated.
I do think in some ways, on some topics, liberals do unfairly peg right wingers with sexism, but in some other ways, depending on the particular situation or topic, I think there is merit to their charge.
There are small fragments of right wingers – like Quivering type families, or a Christian family the Duggars who believe in “Gothardism” – who do hold to some pretty outlandish, backwards views about women, but I do think that a lot of liberals go too far by ascribing labels such as “Christian Taliban” to all or most conservative Christians (yes, in years past, I’ve seen left wing Hollywood actors or commentators make such comments about all Christians, not just the small percentage).
Here is an interesting article about the sexism of Cruz and Trump – how they each denigrate the other’s wife.
I see that the treatment of women by both Cruz and Trump somewhat mirrors that of Christian gender complementarians – they treat women like sex objects, or as children, or as ‘lesser than’ men.
As physically unattractive as Trump is, I can guarantee you his wife, who, according to papers was once a supermodel, didn’t marry him for love. Maybe wealthy guys don’t care if they are loved for their wallets and not who they are.
It’s interesting and sad how an entire group of people – Republicans or conservative Christians – often present themselves as being “pro family,” but then their actions betray how sexist they are. Being disrespectful of women, who comprise some members of nuclear families, is not being pro- family values at all.
Christian gender complementarians play at the same game; they declare that women are of equal worth to men, but their actions betray this statement.
Christians often like to teach that marriage is necessary to make a person more godly and mature – here we have two married persons – Trump and Cruz – behaving quite immaturely and rudely on Twitter.
The use of wives as proxies in the struggle between the two leading Republican contenders [Trump and Cruz] shows how much American conservatism has changed.
….For the lasts several days, he and Ted Cruz have been in a Twitter-based Battle of the Wives, pitting Melania and Heidi against one another in contests of appearance and virtue.
….Ted Cruz was also always that guy: the one who would look away as his allies circulated a naked picture of the wife of his enemy, and then suggest that “real men don’t attack women.”
That guy who who stands silently by as his allies suggest that a man’s fitness for office can be measured in terms of the chastity of his wife—that her comparative purity, and his willingness to defend it, are tests of his manly authority. That guy who would suggest the only female Democratic presidential candidate in this race (Link): needs a spanking.
Both men’s supporters are using their wives as symbolic weapons, but they’re fighting toward different ends. Cruz’s allies are making a claim about propriety: That modesty and sexual demureness are virtues, especially in a woman who will represent the United States.
Women Are Still Being Told To Lower Their Standards / Stupid Sh*t People Say to Singles by S. H. Weiss
One thing the author of this page brings up is something I have as well: women are just as visually oriented as men are and do care about what men look like. However, women are conditioned by secular society and religious groups to think they should not care about a man’s physical attractiveness.
Women are conditioned to look past a man’s ugliness to consider his other traits – is he smart, financially stable, and so on.
Now, I do think some people are in fact way too judgmental or picky regarding physical appearance in dating or whom to marry.
But, on the other hand, there is absolutely nothing wrong in wanting to date or marry someone you consider attractive. I don’t think people of either gender should be super picky about looks, but it’s okay to have some preferences or standards.
The woman who wrote this says she caught some guy she knew lying in his dating site profile – he was 35 years old but claimed on his dating profile he is 25 or 30 years old. She asked him why he lied about his age.
He claims it’s because he wants to start a family and a woman in her 20s is guaranteed to be fertile.
First of all, women in their 40s (and 30s) still menstruate and get pregnant, so you don’t need to marry a 20 something to have babies. Some women in their 20s are childfree or infertile.
Secondly, as I noted before, I advised single women who read this blog to lie on their dating site profiles about their ages, to make themselves younger than they are.
As so many men are this very shallow and particular about age in a woman (many of them have a cut off age of 29, while for others, it’s about 35), go ahead and cite yourself as being 20 or 30 something on your profile if you are over 40 and want dates.
The worst thing that will happen once the guy gets to know you after he meets you via a dating site is that he will decide to stop dating you. Big whoop.
I have seen or read about a lot of men ages 45 and older who lie about their ages on dating sites. I’ve had guys who are obviously 65 or older (they have all white hair) who contact me on dating sites, who claim to be 41 or 42 years old. Men lie out the ass about their ages (and their height, according to other women) all the time on these sites.
…It is Traister’s message that I would like to share with the women I have spoken with lately, women who feel they need to defend themselves to others about why they are not married, why they are not “just settling down already” and why they are “being too picky.”
The women I speak of range from early 30s to early 40s. Some of them have never been married, while others were married briefly. A third of them are divorced and have children. The one thing these friends have in common is that they all say that are not “single by choice.” They express the desire to find their perfect life partner.
..However, there are Yentas everywhere, some well-intentioned and others questionably motivated. This is especially true for those who are part of a tight-knit or religious community (ranging from the Mormons to the Modern Orthodox Jewish).
Why, in an era when we are succeeding in so many ways, do we buy into sexist tropes about aging?
…. Appearing on FOX to discuss the piece, Geraldo Rivera noted, to stunned female hosts, that what a woman brings to a marriage “more than anything else” is “her youth.”
Yes, “her youth,” Geraldo continued. Because a woman’s youth, he explained, “is a fragile and diminishing resource.”
Geraldo’s logic went like this: If a woman were to invest two precious years into a beta-marriage, and then, God forbid, have her man reject her (his words, not mine), she’ll have wasted her most valuable asset. The thing that is, obviously, going to determine not just whether a woman will have a family, but whether she’ll have a husband, and live happily ever after, at all.
…But Geraldo’s sin was not simply that what he said was impolitic. It’s that he put bluntly one of the most insidious and persistent smears: that women come with an expiration date.
It’s a concept that is still pounded into us at every turn, from media to pop culture–and not just by septuagenarian TV personalities.
It is there, almost tauntingly, in a recent article in Esquire, which seemed to bask in its own generosity by proclaiming that a woman could still be hot at 42–as if that were a reason to reconsider their value. It’s there in the endless media blitz by Susan Patton, the “Princeton Mom,” who’s managed to create a “mini empire,“as Salon recently put it, from “one crazy op-ed” about how women need to hurry up and find a man.
…The thing is, reality no longer conforms to those old tropes. Women now get the majority of college degrees. We have careers. We are living longer than ever. We can freeze our eggs to buy us biological time.
And yet our conception of what makes a woman desirable and valuable in society hasn’t caught up. From every angle, we continue to hear that we need to “rush.” That we should make it easier and more comfortable for the men around us. That our youth — not necessarily even our fertility — is our most valuable asset.
Note: as to this link below, at the LA Times, the section on the page entitled “It misleads women into thinking they have time” was actually quite sexist. I have chosen to not paste that part of the page in.
That part was written by a Charlotte Allen who argues that all men will always favor 22 year old women over 42 year old women, mostly because most men want to have babies.
I don’t know what rock that woman writer is living under, but women in their 40s still get their periods every month and conceive ((Link): read this page for starters – that is one but several pages I have on this blog noting that lots and lots more women are getting pregnant, some for the first time, over age 40).
I personally never really cared if I had a baby or not, but I think it’s sexist to say that women over 40 are basically unvaluable (to men) because, in the writer’s opinion, they’re all barren (they are not, by the way. A lot of “oops” pregnancies happen to women over 40, because they go off birth control under the mistaken notion “I can no longer get pregnant, or not easily.”)
Women don’t need a writer dressed in feminist clothing to define her worth by his own narrow definitions
Tom Junod set the social web aflame with his article praising 42-year-old women. Never did one think that Esquire, a men’s magazine that’s stayed above the lad mag fray, could enrage so many people. But that it did, with people accusing Junod of sexism.
“Let’s face it: There used to be something tragic about even the most beautiful forty-two-year-old woman,” Junod begins. Now, he writes, “it may be said that the best thing that forty-two-year-old American men have going for them is forty-two-year-old American women.”
It might sound like a compliment, but women aren’t buying it.
… I asked some of our female writers for their thoughts, and here’s what they had to say.
Where has Junod been?
… And, men, you now have Esquire’s permission to objectify women in their 40s without being creepy to other men. (But, again, only if the women do Pilates and yoga.) This expands your potential ogling to hundreds, even thousands more women each year.
Kidding aside, I find the whole premise of the piece to be completely outdated, if it was ever true to begin with. It’s as though Esquire and Junod have been cryogenically frozen for the last 20 to 30 years and woke up to discover this new creature in mass media called the Modern Woman. She’s independent! She’s empowered! She’s still sexy at 40!
But my biggest complaint is that Junod and Esquire reinforce the sexualization of women in general — the idea that the value of a woman is how much she arouses a man.
by Jessica Valenti
Friday 11 July 2014 07.15
An homage in a men’s magazine to the ‘carnal appeal’ of 42-year old women is no great win for feminism
Breaking news! Men’s magazines have determined that it is not abnormal for men to ogle and objectify women over the age of 40! Women of the world, feminism has won! Rejoice!
To kick off its annual women issue, Esquire magazine on Thursday published an essay called “In Praise of 42-Year Old Women”, assuring the normally-depressed old hags that dudes (or at least the writer Tom Junod) still want to bang them. Junod – who has an “interesting” history writing about women – writes that, while “[t]here used to be something tragic about even the most beautiful forty-two-year-old woman”, they now have “carnal appeal”.
— start Junod quote
A few generations ago, a woman turning forty-two was expected to voluntarily accept the shackles of biology and convention; now it seems there is no one in our society quite so determined to be free. Conservatives still attack feminism with the absurd notion that it makes its adherents less attractive to men; in truth, it is feminism that has made forty-two-year-old women so desirable.
— end Junod quote
Protip to male writers gorging on self-congratulation as they deem grown woman fuckable: leave feminism out of it.
Junod, careful to qualify that the 42-year-old women worthy of praise are those who “have armored themselves with yoga and Pilates even as they joke about the spectacle”, seems to believe that he has done women a great kindness with this piece. But when he writes that 42-year-old women are “superior” to men and that “the best thing that that forty-two-year-old American men have going for them is forty-two-year-old American women”, he does so with the same benevolence of a lazy husband praising his wife’s laundry skills. (Or financial skills, in his case.)
It’s easy for men to call women “superior” in a society that privileges men at nearly every turn: they’re not the ones being grossly objectified under the guise of a compliment.
Certainly, women over 40 deserve more reverence and respect than they typically get – and I’d love to see women of all ages receive that … outside of women’s magazines and day-time talk shows. We live in a culture, often driven by the media and Hollywood, that paints women over 25 as desperate and pathetic: we’re considered past our prime, never to be “nubile” (a word worth banning from our collective consciousness if there ever was one) again!
But the validation that women seek is generally not of the erection-producing variety. It’s very nice and all that writers are catching on that women of all ages can be sexy, but framing that as an amazing new discovery makes it more about men than it is about us (which feels about par for the course).
For example, in a companion piece on Esquire’s website, writer Stephen Marche urges us all – in a slightly less cringe-inducing way than Junod’s overwrought boner-prose – to retire the word MILF. He writes that “there’s another explanation for the rise of 42, one that’s even more revelatory. Maybe it isn’t fashion at all. Maybe it’s what men wanted all along.”
Right. But maybe, just maybe, what men want isn’t – and doesn’t always have to be – the damn point.
Why, used to be, a woman at the age of 42 could hardly be glanced at, much less taken to bed and ravaged shame-free in broad daylight. No longer. Esquire has sent word across all channels that 42-year-old women have been removed from the Do Not Bang list and are no longer off-limits to respectable men. In other news, FIRE SALE AT CHICO’S.
Forty-two year-old broads everywhere can now pack up their loose but crisp linen shirts, let their slightly graying hair down, and select their finest modest but sexy cocktail dress and get back out there.
Behold the clarion call courtesy of author Tom Junod:
—- start Junod quote
Let’s face it: There used to be something tragic about even the most beautiful forty-two-year-old woman. With half her life still ahead of her, she was deemed to be at the end of something—namely, everything society valued in her, other than her success as a mother. If she remained sexual, she was either predatory or desperate; if she remained beautiful, what gave her beauty force was the fact of its fading. And if she remained alone… well, then God help her.
— end Junod quote
We’ve all seen those women — you know, the beautiful aging ones who just seemed so pathetic for existing at all. Also, he is right, I can’t think of more forceful beauty than the fading kind. The not-fading kind is great — don’t get me wrong — but if you think about it, it’s just not quite as potent, all said. However, a hint of beauty once there is just, well, sickening. Really sad, too.
The only thing more ludicrous than Tom Junod’s feelings about 42-year-olds are the misguided assumptions that lurk beneath them… like a 42-year-old woman clawing at the icy surface above her, desperate to escape the tomb of her old age and fading beauty, trapped in part because she acknowledges that icy cold water could significantly invigorate her appearance.
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.
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:
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.
When Suits Become a Stumbling Block: A Plea to My Brothers in Christ* by LP – from the Salt Collective Blog
This site (Salt Collective) is experiencing a lot of traffic, so if you click the link to read the blog page, you might have to try again later.
I am not necessarily opposed to Christian modesty and sexual purity teachings.
However, I do think there is a lot of hypocrisy going on, where Christians stress a man’s sexual desires over that of a woman’s (women also possess sexual libido but Christians deny this fact – at least when it comes to married women, Christians act like all un-married women are sluts), and women are made responsible for a man’s sexual thought life and sexual misbehavior, which is wrong.
Excerpts (note that the blog is peppered with lots of photos of very good looking male movie stars and models wearing suits, including one of my all time favorite actors, Mr. Hugh Jackman):
There has been a lot of talking, debating, and hand-wringing among Christian bloggers lately about modesty; particularly yoga pants, making men uncomfortable by being attractive, and in general, ways in which to combat everyone’s favorite “evil”: lust.
Well, I’d like to hop on the modesty bandwagon and discuss something that I have personally struggled with for many, many years.
Specifically, men in suits.
Yes, folks: I struggle with lusting after men in suits.
I want to be brutally honest about this struggle. As young-ish, heterosexual woman who is trying to keep her thoughts pure and her eyes on Jesus, I have to say… every day, EVERY DAY, is a battle.
…Don’t these men have any self respect? Do they even understand how their clothing affects me? I wonder what is going through men’s heads when they decide to dress this way. All I know is that when a man wears a nice suit with pants that are juuuust tight enough, I will notice.
Therefore I am issuing a plea to my brothers in Christ for an understanding of where I’m coming from. When you choose to exist in public looking well-groomed and sharp, you are basically extending an invitation for me to lust after you.
Listen, as a woman I’m an emotional creature. I want to feel protected and safe, and nothing screams “I am a MAN and I will protect you” like a suit and tie. I can’t help it, that’s just how I’m wired.** It’s science. LOOK IT UP.
Now I know what you might be saying: “Well, isn’t it YOUR responsibility to control your thoughts around men?”
Of COURSE. We are all called to rid our thoughts of lust. But again, as my brothers in Christ, is it asking too much of you to simply be more attentive to what you wear?
If the purpose of our clothes is to glorify God, how are you doing so by wearing something that obviously causes others to sin in their minds? Yes, it is everyone’s job to control their own eyes, but you ALSO have a responsibility to not give them reason to sin.
…Remember: upholding an impossible standard that will never remain static and is subject to the cultural, religious, or societal context within which it resides must ALWAYS trump your comfort, convenience, and ability to exist in a public space in whatever manner you choose.
Men Posting Profiles on Dating Sites Could Use Some Tips (from Dear Abby column)
I totally agree with this. I would expect immature 18 or 20 something males to post immature, vulgar or moronic commentary or photos on their dating site profiles, but back in the day when I tried dating sites (in my mid 30s and a bit in my late 30s), I was astounded by the number of males, ages 30 up to 75, who say lewd things on their profiles.
This includes men who identify as CHRISTIAN. That’s right, men who claimed to be Christian would tell me up front or very early in the onlilne dating game what their preferred sexual positions were, or make inappropriate sex related jokes on their profile pages. None of that is attractive to women, especially not to Christian women.
To add to her points on the list below, I’d add:
-do not send unsolicited penis photos to a woman;
-do send or post anything of a sexual nature on your profile, unless you are specifically on a sex oriented site such as “Adult Friend Finder” or whatever that Whore Hook-up site is (and when I say whore, I’m including men who are looking for casual sex);
-do not make lewd jokes or use filthy language on your profile page
-do not state what your sexual preferences are on your profile or bring this topic up when sending messages back and forth with a woman.
-do not state you are 45 years old when it’s damn obvious from your profile photo you’re more like 75 years old
Gender Complementarian book that upholds most every gender stereotype I rail against on this blog
—————————————— Reminder: there is coming a time I will not be blogging here at all, or not nearly as often. Please read more about that situation here: [Blog Break]
This other blog discusses Christian gender complementarianism and covers some of the same topics I discuss on this blog. Here is a review the blogger did about a gender comp book by Murrow:
In his book entitled, “What Your Husband Isn’t Telling You,” David Murrow makes a number generalizations about men. He seems to believe that his view of what it means to be a man is normative, healthy and Christian. He writes as if men are simply “wired this way” by God.
Here are some of his assertions, followed by my responses:
Murrow (makes a number of comments about sex):
… “Men actually get a cocaine-like shot of pleasure from looking at a beautiful woman. So here’s your assignment: Give your husband as many cocaine shots as possible. Satisfy his addiction by looking your best” (pp. 163-164).
“And why are looks so important to men?” “Men compare. Men compete. Men size each other up by their spouses” (p. 164). “Having a knockout wife raises your social standing at work, among your relatives, and even a bit at church” (p. 165).
Women are not responsible for their husbands’ behaviour.
… If he has married his wife because he believes her beauty enhances his social standing at church (or anywhere else), he should seek to understand his worth as a loved child of God and friend of Jesus Christ.
I would encourage you to visit that blog and read the ENTIRE post, click here.
This Murrow guy expends a lot of time and effort blaming women for why their husbands cheat. He puts all responsibility on the woman to stay physically attractive and hot-looking to keep their husbands from looking at porn or from having affairs. First of all, it’s not a woman’s responsibility to keep her man from straying – it’s his own duty.
Secondly, a woman being hot, attractive, sexy, and babelicious does not keep a man from straying, witness all the famous movie star men, sports stars, and male rock singers who get married to stunning model beauties but who have affairs on those wives anyway (see: golfer Tiger Woods).
If you find yourself married to a partner who has let him or herself go, and she/he refuses to get in shape or make an effort at his appearance after you’ve talked to them about it, consider divorce… don’t have an affair or wank off to porn all day.
If a man is that terribly hung up about what his wife looks like, that indicates he is very immature. This disproves the Christian notion, believed and taught by some Christians, that God only grants a spouse to people who are fully deserving of one (e.g., godly, humble, self-less, etc).
Other good posts at that other blog include:
From EQUALITY FOR WOMEN AND MEN IN THE CHRISTIAN FAITH Blog:
I like the title of this blog post, because it gets to the heart of the matter – Christians who are into gender complementarianism claim that women are equal to men, but their views and teachings on women totally belie that claim, because they spend their time rationalizing their sexist views (e.g., women cannot or should not lead or teach men, or husbands have authority over wives, etc):
(Link): Rationalizing Inequality
Bitter, Frustrated 22 Year Old Male Virgin Kills Several Women Because He Can’t Get Dates
I bet this lunatic considered himself a “nice guy.” *Snicker.*
One article says, regarding the gunman,
In a YouTube video titled “Retribution,” the gunman, who was a student at Santa Barbara City College,
expresses his frustration over being a virgin at 22 and the constant rejection from women.
“For the last eight years of my life, ever since I hit puberty, I’ve been forced to endure an existence of loneliness, rejection and unfulfilled desires, all because girls have never been attracted to me,” he said.
“In those years I’ve had to rot in loneliness. It’s not fair. You girls have never been attracted to me. I don’t know why you girls have never been attracted to me, but I will punish you for it.”
What a whiny cry baby.
I’m a virgin in my 40s, female, had hoped to marry, am still single, have a healthy sex drive, and you don’t see me shooting at men. I do not feel as though men “owe” me dates or anything like that, geeze.
By the way, this news story is spectacular evidence of how Christian culture has failed in teaching about celibacy, virginity.
Christians mock and ridicule (or else ignore) virginity as much as secular culture does (I have a few links about that at the bottom of this post).
Christians expend a lot of energy either ignoring adult singleness – in favor of endless pontificating about marriage and setting up ministries to meet the needs of married people – or some of figure heads within the faith insult adult singleness (see, for example, my posts on this blog about Al Mohler).
Here are some more links about the guy who shot some women dead over frustration due to being single and a virgin – you will notice this sicko feels tremendously entitled to have a woman, and “beautiful” women at that:
I’ve been through college for two and half years, more than that actually, and I’m still a virgin.
It has been very torturous. College is the time when everyone experiences those things such as sex and fun and pleasure. In those years I’ve had to rot in loneliness.
It’s not fair. You girls have never been attracted to me. I don’t know why you girls aren’t attracted to me but I will punish you all for it. It’s an injustice, a crime, because I don’t know what you don’t see in me.
I’m the perfect guy and yet you throw yourselves at all these obnoxious men instead of me, the supreme gentleman. I will punish all of you for it. [Laughs]
On the day of retribution, I am going to enter the hottest sorority house of UCSB [UC Santa Barbara]. And I will slaughter every single spoiled, stuck up blonde slut I see inside there.
All those girls I have desired so much, they will have all rejected me and looked down upon me as an inferior man if I ever made a sexual advance towards them.