Our Bodies Were Not Made for Sex by T. Swann

Our Bodies Were Not Made for Sex by T. Swann

Very interesting editorial.

(Link): Our Bodies Were Not Made for Sex by T. Swann

Excerpts:

  • The Genesis account of creation reveals that God created only one species of human. He said, “Let us make human,” and not “Let us make humans.” What essentially makes one a human then, is being created in God’s image, in God’s “likeness” (Gen.1:26-27). What defines us then is the ruah (Hebrew word for spirit) of God in our bodies (Gen.2:7).
  • God is a spirit. Therefore, when he said, “Let us make man in our own image,” he wasn’t speaking of bodies, but of essence.
  • God created the human body out of dust, a decomposable substance, but what is really human—the soul—is indecomposable. This is the God-like property that dwells in humans. The body is really the “house” or “clothing” of the soul.
  • So if we are the same underneath the “clothing” of our bodies, in our souls, why are so many arguments for gender hierarchy based on that outer covering?

Continue reading “Our Bodies Were Not Made for Sex by T. Swann”

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

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

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

I blogged about this before here, on my blog:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update on Born Again Virgin Reality Star TV Guy – and Christians and Their Smokin’ Hot Wives

Update on Born Again Virgin Reality Star TV Guy – and Christians and Their Smokin’ Hot Wives

I’m pretty sure this is the same guy I blogged about here:

For what it’s worth, I am opposed to anyone using phrases such as “Born Again Virgin,” “Spiritual Virgin,” etc. You can click that link above to see why.

If we’re going by penis in the vagina standards to define sex, either one is a virgin or is not a virgin; there is no such thing as a “born again virgin” or “spiritual virgin.”

This comes from SCCL’s Facebook page:

(Link): Sean Loweksu Status – where he refers to his wife as being “smokin’ hot”

Comment by Ariella Tuttle on that thread,

  • He was all about that purity stuff on the show…while he was tonguing like 15 different girls. I think 2 at the same time?

That thread attracted the attention of a few male sexist assh-les who think it’s okay for men to refer to their partners as “smokin’ hot.”

In his facebook status (which is pictured in the SCCL thread), Loweksu refers to his wife as “smoking hot.” Christian men often like to refer to their wives as being “smoking hot,” which is sexist.

Men need to get over valuing women purely, primarily, or only based on their looks.

I was engaged to a man who, for years, would go on and on about how “beautiful” I was, even after I told him that while I appreciated the sentiment, but it had none the less worn thin, and I’d prefer him to praise me on my career, and so on. I actually felt de-valued that he kept harping on my looks.

He never took an interest in my intellect, my opinions about politics or whatever else,/ With my ex, my greatest virtue or asset in his view always came down to how sexy I looked in skirts.

Some of the people in the SCCL Facebook thread are making a distinction between a man who does refers to his wife or sweetie as “smokin hot” in private vs one who does so on social media, in public.

My ex mostly complimented me on my Smokin’ Hot looks in private, but it still grated on my last nerve, I still found it insulting, and it was sexist and rude.

It is NOT “nice” or complimentary to a woman to pay attention to her looks or clothing, but so many men think it is. It’s not. Knock it off.

Women want to be noticed for their brains, hobbies, talents, and career, NOT their weight, hair, manner of dress, sexy legs, bust size, whatever.

Some of the only women who do enjoy this sort of compliment are generally insecure ones – the ones who were once ugly ducklings and the acne cleared up one day, they dropped the weight, and suddenly, they find themselves getting male attention.

I was actually in that group myself – used to have frizzy hair, weight problems – but turned into the beautiful swan; however, I detest it when the only thing men focus on is a woman’s looks, or only my looks in particular. It’s probably one of my top ten pet peeves in life.

If you are a man who is a FATHER, and your dear daughter is dating some guy or marries some guy, would it not bother you in the least if the only quality her husband or BF ever praised her over was her looks?

Wouldn’t you want that ass-clown noticing she’s funny, smart, and accomplished, and for him to tell her so?

How about if your parents divorce, your mother remarries, would it not turn your stomach for your stepfather to ONLY notice and care about your mother’s looks, and never notice or care about her brains, talents, etc?

That’s how women feel when men go on and on judging us for our looks, rating us on scales of one to ten, but don’t bother to take an interest in us as human beings.

Edit. although one idiot posting to the SCCL thread claims to be a father actually wrote,

  • post by Buzz Suplita
  • I have three daughters, no sons. I hope each of their future husbands “disrespects” them and all women in just this way.

And what if your DAUGHTERS do not want to be reduced to their looks and body parts, you’d still be fine with men objectifying them? Buzz is one creepy father.

Being objectified for one’s looks is something that happens to the female gender far more often and consistently than it does the male gender. 

Some of the men chiming in on that thread are either trolling or are being deliberately obtuse. Despite the fact they’ve had it explained to them six ways from Sunday why men publicly referring to their wife as “smokin’ hot” is sexist, they keep saying, “I don’t get it,” “how is this wrong,” or “how is this sexist.”

Here is one comment to some of them, by Annie Dotes, that I agree with:

  • Mike- you’re floating freely between talking about the specific dude [“The Bachelor” reality TV star guy] and talking about the cultural phenomenon. Every time someone addresses one of those you counter with the other. I have repeatedly taken great pains to distinguish between the two. (See my comment 3 above yours).
  • What you are doing is called moving the goalposts, it is a logical fallacy. If you’re being disingenuous on purpose, then knock it off. If you’re actually not keeping up then slow down and read through it again.

    This pic and caption [the photo posted by The Bachelor guy referring to his wife as being “Smokin Hot”], regardless of Mr Bachelor’s intentions, reflects a cultural misogyny where women are primarily valued for the sexual feelings they give men, and their status as conquests. He is participating in that cultural misogyny regardless of his intentions.

Anyway, here are links on other blogs about the annoying, sexist habit of men to objectify all women, or their wives in particular, by referring to them as Smokin Hot.

(Link):  I’m Sick of Hearing About Your Smoking Hot Wife

(Link):  Smokin’ Hot Wives and Water to the Soul

(Link):  Pastor, Your Wife Might Be “Smokin’ Hot,” But …

—————

Related posts on this blog:

(Link):  The Annoying, Weird, Sexist Preoccupation by Many Christian Males with Female Looks and Sexuality