The Selfish, Lazy Husband Who Kept Blowing Off His Stressed Wife to Go on World War 2 Reenactments – Male Entitlement in Relationships: Why Women Divorce Men – and Churches and Culture Support This Male Entitlement

The Selfish, Lazy Husband Who Kept Blowing Off His Stressed Wife to Go on World War 2 Reenactments – Male Entitlement in Relationships: Why Women Divorce Men – and Churches and Culture Support This Male Entitlement

This may be the start of a series. I may do more posts like this as I come across more examples. I kind of already did a part one a couple of years ago (Part 1). This post was not the Part 2 I had in mind, not really.

The things this post covers pertains to one of my big pet peeves as related to men, dating, marriage, culture, church, and relationships.

First, here is the story, (and then below, I’ll analyze or comment why this bothers the hell out of me).

Over a year ago, I watched an episode of the TV show “Restaurant Impossible,” hosted by Chef Robert Irvine on Food Network.

This married couple owned a restaurant that was failing financially, so they had Chef Irvine come in to rescue their business.

I don’t remember all the details of the show, the couple, or their restaurant. I don’t remember their names or where they were located. I cannot recall if both the husband and wife wanted the business, or just the wife did, or what.


The wife was having a nervous breakdown from all the stress of being a restaurant owner. She was running all aspects of the restaurant by herself (with a small staff who helped cook), but the vast majority of the responsibility for the restaurant was on her shoulders.

Although the wife kept begging her spouse to help her, because she was at a breaking point, he would not help her. He would sort of promise or act like he agreed to coming in more often to help, but he would bail on her.

If I am not mistaken, the husband did not hold down a regular job at this time. I think he had quit his regular “9 to 5” job to be in the food business with the wife.

However, the idiot (the husband) spent all his free time chasing down his passions and hobbies, which included stuff like parachuting out of planes on weekends with other men as part of a World War 2 para-trooper re-enactment group, and I think the guy was also part of a barber shop singing quartet the rest of the time, or something.

Continue reading “The Selfish, Lazy Husband Who Kept Blowing Off His Stressed Wife to Go on World War 2 Reenactments – Male Entitlement in Relationships: Why Women Divorce Men – and Churches and Culture Support This Male Entitlement”

Preacher Mark Driscoll Disparages Virgins and Virginity (Again) – The Feelings of Fornicators Always Take Precedence With the Anti-Purity Culture, Anti-Slut- Shaming, and Pro- Cheap Grace Crowd

Preacher Mark Driscoll Disparages Virgins and Virginity (Again)

Disclaimer 1.
If you have found this blog post by way of another source, please note that the person sharing it likely does not necessarily agree with all opinions expressed below.

Disclaimer 2.
I do not personally agree with ALL of Purity Culture teaching (or with how it is taught), but I still believe that Bible does prohibit sex except for married couples (married being ‘one man to one woman’).
Unfortunately, many of the anti-Purity Culture proponents I see online seem to think the Bible does not teach sexual ethics at all, or, they seem to feel that everyone should just ignore what the Bible says about sexual morality and do whatever they want.

This is the sort of post I would rather not make. It’s the sort of post I sit around hoping another blogger will address, but it looks like it falls to me.

Preacher Mark Driscoll has disparaged virgins and virginity before (see (Link): this post on my blog)- his views on adult singleness are also narrow and un-biblical.

As I’ve noted in a much older post (please see (Link): this post), about the only people I see defending fornication (pre-marital sex) are those who are either on an “Anti Purity Culture Crusade,” or are they themselves self-admitting fornicators.

How convenient that adults who have not lived up to the Bible’s standard of no- nooky- prior- to- marriage are the very same ones who shame adult virgins for being virgins, for wanting to marry a fellow virgin, and/or for being upset that their intended spouse is not a virgin.

I’m pretty tired and worn out by self-professing fornicators lecturing me (or people like me), a 40-something actual, honest- to- God virgin, about sexual sin, sexual standards, and grace.

Here is a link to the piece I am discussing in this post:

(Link): Mark Driscoll Admits to Being Sexually Active Before Marriage in Message on Marrying a Virgin (hosted on the site “The Christian Post”)

Continue reading “Preacher Mark Driscoll Disparages Virgins and Virginity (Again) – The Feelings of Fornicators Always Take Precedence With the Anti-Purity Culture, Anti-Slut- Shaming, and Pro- Cheap Grace Crowd”

Virginity is a Sacred Choice, Not a Shameful Status by C. Martin / Giving Sex to a Man is Not A Relationship Lasting Guarantee Contra Comic Chelsea Handler

Virginity is a Sacred Choice, Not a Shameful Status by C. Martin / Giving Sex to a Man is Not A Guarantee for a Lasting Relationship – Contra Comic Chelsea Handler

The following blog post contains strong profanity in places and some frank sexual talk.
Not that I object to this editorial per se, but it’s being carried by the same site (a pro-life site) that (Link): usually denigrates female virginity – because they put too high a premium on people pro-creating, and if a woman is remaining chaste, she is, in their opinion, in sin, or error or some sort, for not having sex and making babies, because supposedly, a woman’s only purpose in life is to make babies (even though the Bible no where teaches this concept).

But here is a guest editorial they are featuring where the author is defending a person’s right to sexually abstain, and it’ okay.

(Link): Virginity is a Sacred Choice, Not a Shameful Status by C. Martin


  • by C. Martin
  • Our society is obsessed with talking about sex, regardless if you’re having it or not. Take for instance the recent March (Link): cover of People magazine, which featured the title, “Bachelor’s Sean & Catherine, Waiting for Our Wedding night.”
  • To make things a bit clearer, they added below the title, “No sex until ‘I do.’” The cover may intrigue those who scratch their heads, wondering in earnest why anyone would (gasp) wait to have sex.

Continue reading “Virginity is a Sacred Choice, Not a Shameful Status by C. Martin / Giving Sex to a Man is Not A Relationship Lasting Guarantee Contra Comic Chelsea Handler”

The Failure of Macho Christianity – from NR

The Failure of Macho Christianity

The church is not “too feminine,” nor does it cater to women. If it did, you would not see so many Christian women leaving the church. I am only partially Christian now, I am a woman, and no, I don’t get my needs met at churches. Most churches cater to men.

(Link): The Failure of Macho Christianity


  • By Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig
  • In an era of things coming undonefamilies from their traditional bonds, populations from their places of origin, genders from their longtime rolesthe impulse to retreat into the lifestyles of steadier times is detectable in discourse and media, from our fascination with costume dramas to our encounters with ever more reactionary conservatisms.

Continue reading “The Failure of Macho Christianity – from NR”

Former Executive Elders of Mars Hill Church May Face RICO Lawsuit

Former Executive Elders of Mars Hill Church May Face RICO Lawsuit

(Link): Former Executive Elders of Mars Hill Church May Face RICO Lawsuit


  • According to former Mars Hill deacon Rob Smith and Seattle attorney Brian Fahling, a lawsuit is being prepared with Mark Driscoll, Sutton Turner, David Bruskas, and Jamie Munson named as defendants.

My only commentary on this consists of this:

Ha Ha!
Ha Ha!
Ha Ha!
Ha Ha!

A Critique of a Driscoll Apologist Post written by S. James (Driscoll The Bully Portrayed as Victim)

A Critique of a Driscoll Apologist Post written by S. James

(Link): To Christian Bloggers, from a Pastor’s Kid: Don’t Follow Mark Driscoll Around by Samuel James.

Christian Radio host, personality, and occasional blogger Janet Mefferd tweeted a link today to this opinion piece by Samuel James, which reads like a big Driscoll apology.

Here are some of my observations or critiques of the post. I’ll quote the comments by James and then remark below them.

By Samuel James:

  • Christian bloggers, please don’t report on the movements of Mark Driscoll. I’ll give you four reasons:
  • 1) It really serves no good purpose. Driscoll has been publicly rebuked and has lost his ministry. As bad as Driscoll may have been in leadership, as potentially disqualified as he was from the pastorate

As has been noted on another blog or two:

Driscoll has not truly lost his ministry, and he left his former church before he could be rebuked or disciplined by the elders, or the group they referred to as the BOAA (Board of Advisors and Accountability), for years of misbehavior and misconduct.

Driscoll was dodging responsibility on that point, which is not a sign of growth, maturity, or even trustworthiness.

Driscoll is no longer a part of Acts 29 and Mars Hill specifically, but he apparently is making a move to open shop as a preacher, or some kind of Christian talking head, either in California or Texas (for more on that, see (Link – off site): here).

In Driscoll’s faux apology or letter of resignation, he framed his situation as not having been disqualified from ministry by the BOAA. I suspect he did that to lay the groundwork to become preacher at another church in the future because that is his intent.

For more on that, if you would like, please see:

(Link – off site): Mars Hill Pastor Mark Driscoll Resigns, Claims He Is Not “Disqualified From Future Ministry”


  • However, (Link): in his resignation letter, Driscoll appeared to leave open the possibility of his return to public ministry by stating that he was thankful to the Mars Hill church oversight committee for making it clear that he (Driscoll) has not been disqualified from future ministry. His basis for making such a claim seems to rest on the fact that the oversight committee had stated that Driscoll had not been charged with “criminal activity, immorality or heresy.”

But then there’s this:

(Link – off site):  Current Mars Hill Pastor Says Investigation Findings Showed Mark Driscoll Not Qualified as Elder

Quote by James:

  • …there is no godly or compelling reason to keep tabs on where he goes.

Says Samuel James. That is the author’s opinion, and he is certainly welcome to it, but it’s subjective.

Continue reading “A Critique of a Driscoll Apologist Post written by S. James (Driscoll The Bully Portrayed as Victim)”

Sometimes Fornication Can Impact Another Relationship Later – One Example

Sometimes Fornication Can Impact Another Relationship Later – One Example

A lot of times, I see apologists for sexual sin – those who rant against “slut shaming,” who insist pre-marital sex is no big deal and so on – like to argue that the idea that a person having sex before marriage cannot or should not impact later relationships.

But sometimes, it does.

I remarked in an earlier post that after my ex fiance and I had been dating for several months, the topic turned to sex. He confided in me he had sex previously, with one or two women.

Finding out that he had given himself away to another woman / women bothered me on several different levels. I had to work through negative feelings about his sexual history, and it took several months or a year.

At the end of the day, my ex fiance’s virginity belonged to him, but in one sense, he did “give it away” to the other woman he slept with, when he should have been waiting for me. I had to come to grips with that.

Be aware that just because society is telling you that everyone is fine and accepting of your sexual history or “should” be – they say most people aren’t going to care that you’re not a virgin when you end up with them – is not going to be true in every case.

Here’s an example. (Letter to Ask Amy, September 2014.)

  • Dear Amy: I married my girlfriend when we were 17. She was pregnant. We have been married for over 25 years. Our marriage has been happy and successful.
  • The issue is that she cheated on me before we got married. I spent the summer with family out of town, and when I got back she was dating someone else. She didn’t tell me about him. She pretended everything was fine between us.
  • So she and I continued our relationship. She got pregnant. I found out about the cheating. Even though I hated her, I married her because she was pregnant. She married me because she was pregnant.
  • Other than the initial reaction when I found out, we never discussed her cheating. She never really acknowledged it and she never apologized. I never brought it up again. It was as if it never happened. We fought a lot but never directly about her cheating. I felt a sense of obligation. I decided to put it all behind me and enjoy my beautiful wife.
  • I buried all the anger and resentment and thought I would be married forever. Now, more than 25 years later, the anger and the resentment are back. I brought it up for the first time with my wife a year ago, and we have been arguing about it off and on ever since.
  • She has apologized a thousand times, saying that it was a stupid mistake in the past. That she never meant to hurt me. That she didn’t know it hurt me so much. And that I needed to get over it.
  • Is it too late for me to divorce her over her teenage cheating? Do I just bury those feelings again? We have both invested a lifetime in this marriage, and she doesn’t want a divorce. I don’t want to hurt her or the kids, but I am not happy with our situation. I have suggested counseling, but she refuses. — Too Late

So, here you have a guy whose wife had sex with some other guy when she was a teen, and now that the guy is in his late 30s or early 40s, he’s disturbed by it.

Maybe there are other factors as to why this guy is having issues with his marriage, but the interesting part is that he repeatedly focuses on the wife’s fornication with some other guy as being the crux of the matter.

You can sit there and argue that this guy should not feel this way, that it’s sexist or wrong, or whatever for him to feel negatively about it, but it is what it is. The guy does in fact feel robbed, cheated, or wronged that his wife had sex with some other guy before they were married.

As much as preacher Mark Driscoll is a douche canoe (link – summary of Driscoll saga on NY Times site – and this other link), I recall reading comments he made, excerpted from one of his books, that he was upset when he found out that his wife had sex prior to marriage with someone other than him. In his case, it’s a bit more hypocritical, since he admitted he was not a virgin when he married his wife (link).

The take away from all this is that some people do have a difficult time coming to grips that their partner has a sexual history – and it’s not necessarily because they are prudes, or sexist, or have hang ups about sex.

Not everyone you meet has this laissez faire attitude towards sex, and they tend to value sex more than the rest of culture, who consider having sex as no more meaningful, consequential, or no more important than tying one’s shoes or ordering a pizza.


Related Posts:

(Link):  “My boyfriend was intimidated by my sexual history. So I dumped him.” by T. Hornung

(Link):  Fornication or Previous Marriages Can Negatively Impact Other Relationships Later – Another Example or Two (via Ask Amy, Hax)

(Link):  Boyfriend is insecure about girlfriend’s past (Ask Amy Letter)

(Link): Ramifications of Pre Martial Sex – Sky Diver Husband; Also: Stereotypes About All Men Wanting Sex Constantly and Being Visually Stimulated Disproven Again

Placing One’s Marriage Ahead of The Church – Preacher Used Prioritizing and Rebuilding His Marriage as Rationale for Bullying His Church Members (Re: Driscoll and Mars Hill Church)

Placing One’s Marriage Ahead of The Church – Preacher Used Prioritizing and Rebuilding His Marriage as Rationale for Bullying His Church Members

(Link): The Storm at Mars Hill Church: Mark Driscoll Explains It All

In that page, there is a description of how Driscoll claims the reason he came down hard on his church members was to save his marriage. He says he and his wife Grace were going through a tough time in their marriage.

Here is an excerpt:

    “For me [Mark Driscoll] to recover, for you [Grace Driscoll] to recover, for us to build our friendship, I feel like we’re kind of at that watershed moment where our marriage is gonna get better or it’s gonna get colder,…

  • I told Grace, I said “I’m going to give it one year, and if it doesn’t get fixed, I’m going to quit, because you’re more important to me than ministry, and I feel like if I quit right now, the church will probably die, and there’s all these thousands of people that met Jesus.” I said “So we’re either going to change it or I’m going to quit, but we’re not going to do this forever and you’re my priority,” and that led to everything that I feared, quite frankly.
  • It was really brutal, and I couldn’t tell the story at the time of and here’s why- because Grace is really hurting, and I love her….

This is an example of what secular researchers call a “greedy marriage.” See this post:

(Link): Do Married Couples Slight Their Family Members as Well as Their Friends? / “Greedy Marriages”

(Link): Do You Rate Your Family Too High? (Christians Who Idolize the Family) (article)

(Link): If the Family Is Central, Christ Isn’t

As Throckmorton surmises,

    What is striking about this narrative [by Mark Driscoll explaining why he abused people at his church] is the self-focus.

  • Instead of “men stepping up” perhaps this video should be named “men stepping on” others. The implication is that the damage to others (culture of fear, lay-offs, firings, shunnings, the pile of dead bodies under the Mars Hill bus) was necessary because Mark and Grace Driscoll needed time to repair themselves and their marriage.

So, part of Driscoll’s rationalization of why it was acceptable for him to bulldoze over people at his church was to save his marriage.

Even if Driscoll is lying, and his marital troubles are being used as an excuse only to cover his misbehavior, that doesn’t change the thrust of my criticisms.

And yet many conservative Christians think un-married men and women should not serve as preachers?

Let me tell you something, if you had a single (as in, un-marrred) man or woman serve as pastor of your church, there would be no on-going marital stress and strife that would cause them to terrorize and abuse the people of your church.

You would not have an unmarried person stressing out over his or her marriage (because their is no marriage), and abusing church members to work on his or her relationship with his or her spouse – because there would be no spouse.

Evangelical Christians, Southern Baptists, fundamentalists, and some Neo Calvinists, often believe or teach that marriage and parenthood mature or sanctify a person (though the Bible does not teach either concept), and they often portray the never married or childless or childfree as being selfish, but here we have an example of a married preacher who selfishly put his marriage and children above people at his church.

Being married and a parent sure as hell did not mature Mark Driscoll, nor did it make him more loving, godly, or considerate. Far from it.
Related posts:

(Link): Preacher Mark Driscoll Basically Says No, Single Christian Males Cannot or Should Not Serve as Preachers / in Leadership Positions – Attempts to Justify Unbiblical, Anti Singleness Christian Bias

(Link): How Christians Have Failed on Teaching Maturity and Morality Vis A Vis Marriage / Parenthood – Used as Markers of Maturity Or Assumed to be Sanctifiers – Also: More Hypocrisy – Christians Teach You Need A Spouse to Be Purified, But Also Teach God Won’t Send You a Spouse Until You Become Purified

(Link): Male Preacher Marries For First Time At Age 44

(Link): Adult Singleness and Virginity Ridiculed by Preacher Mark Driscoll from 2000 – and anti Homosexual and Sexist Rhetoric ( Re Driscoll Rant known as Pussified Nation )

(Link): Pervy Preacher from Seattle who teaches men “to objectify women, by his over emphasis of sexualization of women and subservience” (Re Driscoll)

Mark Driscoll’s Hypocrisy About Single Men – and other Driscoll stuff

Mark Driscoll’s Hypocrisy About Single Men – and other Driscoll stuff

This is sort of a part 2, or a follow up to this post on my blog:
(Link): Adult Singleness and Virginity Ridiculed by Preacher Mark Driscoll from 2000 – and anti Homosexual and Sexist Rhetoric

The WenatcheeTheHatchet blog has been covering Driscoll and Driscoll’s Mars Hill church in depth now for a few years.

He has many posts about Driscoll that are eye opening. The main one I wanted to discuss was the page pertaining to Driscoll’s hypocrisy about single men.

First, the other links – ones demonstrating that Driscoll is freaky, has some issues, hates women, and is obsessed with sex:

(Link): Mark Driscoll on the naked virgin Catholic model Adriana Lima at the Resurgence in 2006

(Link): From Mark Driscoll’s 2008 Spiritual Warfare series, on womens’ ministry, ” … you have to be very careful, it’s like juggling knives. … The wrong women tend to want it.”

(Link): Mark Driscoll in 2008 on the efforts he took to protect his wife

(Link): Mark Driscoll, “If you get the young men you win the war. … You don’t get the young men you get nothing. Nothing.”

(Link): Mark Driscoll’s October 9, 2006 Resurgence post ruminating on Jenna Jameson [the pornography movie actress]

In the “if you get the young men you win” commentary, Driscoll writes:

Most churches are built to cater to 40-something-year-old women and their children and the guys are nowhere to be found.
— end Driscoll quote —

No, let me assure you, as a 40-something woman, most evangelical and Baptist churches most certainly do not cater to me or to women in general, regardless of age.

Most churches either cater to married men (women and singles of either gender are not permitted to serve in meaningful capacities), or churches are built to support married couples who have two or three young children still living at home.

One reason of many I no longer attend church, and may never return, is precisely that churches do nothing for 40 something, single, childless women such as myself. Mark Driscoll is once again spouting off about a bunch of crap he knows nothing about.

Here is the main reason I am making this blog post – these posts:

(Link): a little clarification on the recent posts–a case for keeping Driscoll’s contribution to public discussion within public access (even if Mars Hill would wish otherwise)

(Link): Pussified Nation in the context of Driscollian real estate in 2000

(Link): The historical and social setting for Mark Driscoll’s development of William Wallace II as a pen name, a kind of postlude/preface to “Pussified Nation”

The point of those posts is that Driscoll, particuarly about ten years ago, ranted and railed against young, single men in books, forum posts, and sermons. He accused them of being lazy, homosexual, wussies, and clowns because they were not self-supporting, did not own their own homes and cars, etc.

What the post goes on to explain is that at the height of his single-man bashing, Driscoll himself was strapped for money. He had to take in young single men as roomies to help him make payments on his home.

Here are some excerpts (from WTH blog, the first link):

What problem needs to be fixed? The young men need to be yelled at so that they shape up and fly right. They need to get real jobs, find women, marry them, make babies and do all this for Jesus’ fame.

The possibility that many of those 20-something men won’t find “real jobs” because of changes in the economy in a post-industrial context where “we” exported a lot of our unskilled labor overseas or a lot of unskilled labor is unglamorous drudgery “real Americans” don’t want to do may not be on the Driscoll radar.

That neo-Calvinists lament the median age of first marriage has soared up to the highest levels we’ve seen in the last forty years may need to be offset by the observation that the last time that number got so high was during the Great Depression. Continue reading “Mark Driscoll’s Hypocrisy About Single Men – and other Driscoll stuff”

Adult Singleness and Virginity Ridiculed by Preacher Mark Driscoll from 2000 – and anti Homosexual and Sexist Rhetoric ( Re Driscoll Rant known as Pussified Nation )

Adult Singleness and Virginity Ridiculed by Preacher Mark Driscoll from 2000 – and anti Homosexual and Sexist Rhetoric

More anti-singlness and anti-virginity commentary from perverted, sexist douche bag and pastor Mark Driscoll has come to light. I have blogged about this creep before (see links at the conclusion of this post for more).

I am not a fan of tip toeing around people’s feelings and the extreme political correctness in today’s culture, (as I wrote of in a (Link): previous blog post here), but, I am not a supporter of this other extreme, the one Driscoll presents in the post I excerpt below.

It’s one thing to speak your mind – in a firm but respectful way, even if the majority of popular culture does not like your beliefs – but Driscoll seems to go out of his way to be unnecessarily rude, condescending, and hateful, or as obnoxious as he can be.

In the year 2000, Neo-Calvinist preacher Mark Driscoll, writing under the name “William Wallace II,” I think, wrote a bunch of inflammatory commentary on his church’s forum “Midrash.” In a book he wrote, Driscoll admitted to posting as “William Wallace II” on that forum (some sites linked to below have screen captures taken from online versions of the book that you can view).

In a series of very long posts, Driscoll ranted against women, feminists, homosexuals, men who are not manly-man enough in his view, and all this has drawn the ire and attention of many netizens after this was blogged about recently.

However, the portion of Driscoll’s post that caught my eye seems to subtly mock or ridicule adult singleness, singles ministries, and adult virginity.

Before I get to that, I wanted to mention this:

According to one source ((Link): source) in a Tweet:

    Driscoll through Wallace says women need a man to help them select a husband (p. 78). Eastern culture > Biblical example incl Ruth, then.

As I replied on Twtter in regards to that view by Driscoll:

    I’m a never married lady over 40, would still like to marry some day – Driscoll can eat my shorts

Yes, Driscoll can take his outdated, sexist views about single women and cram them up his butt.

There was also this (Willam Wallace parody account is quoting Driscoll (Link): Source):

Returning once more to the long rant by Driscoll:

(Link): Mark Driscoll’s Pussified Nation… – Matthew Paul Turner’s blog –
If Turner’s blog becomes unavailable for viewing (which it did earlier today apparently due to a stampede of traffic), you can read the Driscoll penned posts here:
(Link): Posts by Driscoll

Here are excerpts of what Driscoll wrote in 2000, under the name “William Wallace II” – with comments by me below this long excerpt (and additional links by other people about this Driscoll rant):

    We live in a completely pussified nation.

    We could get every man, real man as opposed to pussified James Dobson knock-off crying Promise Keeping homoerotic worship loving mama’s boy sensitive emasculated neutered exact male replica evangellyfish, and have a conference in a phone booth.

    It all began with Adam, the first of the pussified nation, who kept his mouth shut and watched everything fall headlong down the slippery slide of hell/feminism when he shut his the slippery slide of hell/feminism when he shut his mouth and listened to his wife who thought Satan was a good theologian when he should have lead her and exercised his delegated authority as king of the planet.

    As a result, he was cursed for listening to his wife and every man since has been his pussified sit quietly by and watch a nation of men be raised by bitter penis envying burned feministed single mothers who make sure that Johnny grows up to be a very nice woman who sits down to pee.

    Continue reading “Adult Singleness and Virginity Ridiculed by Preacher Mark Driscoll from 2000 – and anti Homosexual and Sexist Rhetoric ( Re Driscoll Rant known as Pussified Nation )”

Pervy Preacher from Seattle who teaches men “to objectify women, by his over emphasis of sexualization of women and subservience” (Re Driscoll)

Pervy Preacher from Seattle who teaches men “to objectify women, by his over emphasis of sexualization of women and subservience” (Re Driscoll)

I have blogged on this cretin before. Driscoll is sexist, and anti-singles, both anti male singles and anti female singles.

Driscoll, oddly, out of one side of his mouth, will condemn pornography in some of his sermons or books, but then tell his male church members on other occasions, whether in sermons or in books, that their wives are nothing more than sex blow up dolls, there to do their every sexual bidding, even indulging in sex acts most women do not want or enjoy, such as anal sex, or performing a blow job on their husband.

(That’s right men, most women do not like giving blow jobs, which is one of your seemingly biggest fantasies. Over the span of my entire life, all women I’ve met in person, or have read their musings online, only one or two have said they enjoy performing oral sex on a man. Most women get no pleasure out of it, it grosses them out, and many say it makes them feel like a five dollar crack whore.

I also notice that when writing about marital sex, or sermonizing on it, many conservative male preachers never, ever advise the husbands to perform oral sex on their wives, or perform whatever other sex act… it’s always very selfishly framed in how the woman can meet the man’s sexual needs.)

Mark Driscoll is a married father, and he is a sexual pervert… and yet, Christians insist on portraying or thinking of all older (as in over age 30) never-married, childless men as being homosexuals, over sexed Don Juans, or some other type of sexual deviant.

That Driscoll is on record (in his book on marriage, if I am not mistaken, or was it a sermon?) as saying he and his wife’s marriage was sexless for a few years (or unsatisfactory sexually in some other manner) also does not speak well of the conservative Christian propaganda that married sex is super great, so, if you just wait until you’re married to have sex, there will be fire works in the bedroom all the time.

A long excerpt from
(Link): Inside Mars Hill’s massive meltdown

    by By Stacey Solie
    July 2014


    It was also around the mid-2000s that members noticed Driscoll’s growing preoccupation with sex.

    Driscoll also started to preach more about male privilege and sexual entitlement. This had a damaging impact on many marriages, said Rob Thain Smith, who, with Merle, was acting as an informal marriage counselor to many young couples.

    “He created enormous abuse of wives,” Smith said. “He helped young men objectify women, by his over emphasis of sexualization of women and subservience.”

    “The way Driscoll talked, you thought that he was getting it every night. All these men are seeing his hot wife, and are thinking he’s got it made.”

    In Real Marriage, Driscoll bitterly describes a largely sexless marriage, and seems to imply that he’s been acting out all these years because he was sexually frustrated at home.

    Continue reading “Pervy Preacher from Seattle who teaches men “to objectify women, by his over emphasis of sexualization of women and subservience” (Re Driscoll)”

“Because I was single I felt second class.”-by Chandin, former Mars Hill member & single, on Mars Hill church

“Because I was single I felt second class.”-by Chandin, former Mars Hill member & single, on Mars Hill church

The lady who wrote this started out single at Mars Hill and later got married. But she discusses, that while she was single, there was some adult singles shaming going on at Mars Hill.

Early on, Chandin served as a leader of a woman’s only Mars Hill Bible study group.

(Link): Chandin’s Story, from We Love Mars Hill Blog

Here are excerpts:

    Community groups discussed the sermons from the previous Sunday. Group leaders were given guides to go through with our groups.

    This was particularly difficult when we studied Song of Songs. Driscoll’s view of sex and marriage in Song of Songs (the Peasant Princess series) was extremely uncomfortable to talk about in a group of single ladies who wanted to be married and one married woman (I am amazed she stuck with us!).

    I asked my coach if we could do a Bible study rather than discuss the sermon on Sunday. I was flatly told no.

    That this was good information to have while we were single, so when we married we would be prepared.

    The sermon series felt torturous.

    Because I was single I felt second class. I know Pastor Mark would address singles occasionally, but for the most part it was difficult to sit through and then lead discussion on it.

    I had attempted to step down from my group twice, but was talked out of it by coaches and pastors.

    …. One of the Pastors reached out to me shortly after the meeting and expressed that he wanted to get to know me more and talk about my abuse further. I agreed, thankful that he cared and wanted to help. I went over to his house for dinner with his family.

    We talked about Anchor and of Brian who I met there.

    Brian and I had discussed dating and marriage, and the pastor was interested in talking to him. After we finished our meal, we began to talk about the abuse I was just coming to terms with. I started to cry.

    His wife stopped me and looked me in the eye and said, “You don’t have to wallow in self pity”.

    I was stunned. I looked at her husband, the pastor, and he nodded in agreement. Crying about trauma, though it happened years before, was considered self pity. I didn’t want to talk about it further. I left confused and felt ashamed for crying.

    Continue reading ““Because I was single I felt second class.”-by Chandin, former Mars Hill member & single, on Mars Hill church”

Preacher Mark Driscoll Was Not A Virgin When He Got Married – He Admitted So In Book and Blog

Preacher Mark Driscoll Was Not A Virgin When He Got Married – He Admitted So In Book and Blog

It creeps me out and makes my skin crawl to think of anything involving Driscoll and sex, but.

Some months ago, some person (a lady I think) left me a catty post on this blog where she stated that Driscoll was a virgin when he got married to his wife Grace – the fact is, no, he was not. He admitted in one or more of his books that he and Grace had sex prior to marriage.

Yet, Driscoll rants often in blog pages and sermons about how all singles are fornicating. He projects too much. I’m still a virgin, and I’m over 40 years old.

So no, quite obviously, not all adult single Christians are having sex, contrary to what Driscoll often preachers.

Again, I am over 40 and a virgin. And no, God did not remove my sex drive or give me a gift of singlehood or gift of celibacy (the Bible does not even teach any such thing), as Driscoll assumes is the case for adult virgins.

(Link): Grace and Mark Driscoll Write a How-Not-To Book on Marriage by Amanda


    Driscoll explains that neither he nor his wife were virgins before meeting in high school.

    The book is suspiciously quiet on the early part of the their relationship, with only a few sentences devoted to the admission, leaving a bit of room to speculate as to the lack of negative effects felt early on.

    Though premarital sex is a sticking point for many Christians, there is no mention of any negative effects felt or their relationship suffering at the time. It’s almost like the premarital sex didn’t impact their relationship until they tried to rationalize problems later on.

    Ironically, things take a turn for the worse once Mark finds Jesus. Or, rather, began attending a church of his own volition for the first time (emphases mine): (snip Driscoll comments)

    … Unfortunately, Mark assumed that the doctrine of fornication as a sin would have no impact on their relationship:

      [Driscoll wrote],
      “I assumed that once we were married we would simply pick up where we left off sexually and make up for lost time. After all, we were committed Christians with a relationship done God’s way.

      But God’s way was a total bummer. My previously free and fun girlfriend was suddenly my frigid and fearful wife. She did not undress in front of me, required the lights to be off on the rare occasions we were intimate, checked out during sex, and experienced a lot of physical discomfort because she was tense.” (p. 9)

From a page on Driscoll’s own blog, by Driscoll himself:

(Link): Dating, Relating, and Fornicating by Mark Driscoll

    God’s plan of chastity before marriage and fidelity in marriage is still the best plan.

    I speak as the chief hypocrite. I was not a virgin when I met Grace at the age of seventeen.

    We were sleeping together until God saved me in college and I got some decent Bible teaching about sex.

    We stopped sleeping together until we were married between our junior and senior years of college. I wrongly thought we’d pick up where we’d left off, but I was wrong.

    We had set in motion a pattern of guilt and selfishness that took years to break and hurt the first years of our marriage.

So that lady who left that catty comment on my blog months ago proclaiming that Driscoll was a virgin until he married: you were lying or woefully misinformed.
Related posts, this blog:

(Link): Preacher Mark Driscoll Basically Says No, Single Christian Males Cannot or Should Not Serve as Preachers / in Leadership Positions – Attempts to Justify Unbiblical, Anti Singleness Christian Bias

(Link): More Singles Commentary by Mark Driscoll (“Two Mistakes Singles Make”)

(Link): Mark Driscoll on Single Christian Women Who Desire Marriage – the positives and negatives of his piece

(Link): Preacher Mark Driscoll Bashes Single Christian Males Some More

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

Power Point, Boring Churches, It’s all about Jesus, Church Quitters, No Community, Selfish Preachers, Churches As Stalkers / (Re: Why Some Drop Out of Church)

Power Point, Boring Churches, It’s all about Jesus, Church Quitters, No Community, Selfish Preachers, Churches As Stalkers / (Re: Why Some Drop Out of Church)

(Link): How Power Point is Ruining Higher Ed

That page has one slide with screen shots of various tweets by various college students complaining about their professor’s over use of Power Point, including:

    -Being a college professor would be easy. Read off a Power Point you made 10 years ago and give online quizzes with questions you googled.

    -College basically consist[s] of you spending thousands of dollars for a professor to point at a Power Point and read the bullets.

    -I hate when a professor makes class mandatory and reads straight from the Power Point instead of actually teaching… I can do that at home

There are many reasons I no longer attend church and am not eager to ever go to another one ever again, and that is one of the reasons.

Church is boring. (And it’s not personal; churches tend to be impersonal.)

I feel that is a perfectly legitimate criticism of church: church is boring.

I am not saying that from a bratty, entitled, immature, 10 year old kid mentality.

Do not misunderstand. I am not arguing that the only thing a person should look for is entertainment at church.

There are already too many churches today that try to draw in crowds by entertaining them with rock bands, coffee shops in the church building, and gimmicks, primarily the moronic “seeker friendly” churches. That is not what I am advocating.

I’ve read criticisms of the present church model that argue church as we know it today is not how it was when Christianity first began. The first churches were groups of Christians sitting around in someone’s home discussing God, singing hymns, sharing each other’s problems … everyone was invited to participate in those meetings.

A “church service” back at the start of the Christian faith did not consist of one guy at a podium reading verbatim from the Bible, or, in the case of seeker friendly churches, one guy at a podium spouting off personal anecdotes and funny one-liners and pep talk advice while the congregation (the captive audience) sat there in silence.

By the way: the “worship” part of evangelical / Baptist church services don’t uplift me. They consist of people looking straight ahead at a big screen with text on it that is very repetitive. Some people (though this is rare at Baptist churches), put their hands up and wave them around.

I have never felt moved during these music segments at church, and I abhor them. I wish churches would drop the music segments – at least the ones where the entire congregation is expected to participate.

The music sections where some lady or guy stands at front and sings while I sit and listen don’t bother me as much. I don’t like the parts where myself and everyone else is commanded to get on their feet and sing along to words on a big screen.

I am not against music in and of itself, I am saying it feels out of place during a church service. I’ve never felt closer to God during the music part. I don’t see how me mumbling a few simplistic lines from a song honors God.

If anything, the music bits make me feel MORE hollow and empty, because there is this expectation by other Christians that you’re supposed to feel all warm and fuzzy and so, so close to God during the music, or you’re supposed to be basking in the greatness of God, or whatever.

I look around in some churches I’ve been to during the music bits (including one large, non denominational, charismatic church) and see some people with eyes closed, arms uplifted, swaying back and forth. Those types look like they are really getting something from the music.

I hate the music segments. I’m always waiting for them to end the moment they start.

At any rate, church is boring and impersonal.

I am not a supporter of shallow sermons and a rock band – the gee whiz environment that is prevalent in 90% of American churches today. I am not arguing that the antidote to “boring church” is to inject more excitement via rock bands and more coffee shops.

At the same time, though, I have been to one or more earnest churches where the preacher basically reads straight from the Bible – and that is boring. I can do that at home.

I can read the Bible myself and sometimes do, even in the midst of my agnosticism and trying to figure out if I want to remain a Christian at all anymore. (I should explain I don’t read the Bible nearly as much as I used to. I only read very small portions now, every so often.)

I am literate. I am college educated. I can sit at home and read the Bible, I don’t need some guy at a podium on a Sunday morning reading 90% of the Bible to me.

Even the churches that make entertainment a basis bore me. I’ve been to a few Baptist churches, large ones, that have gigantic video monitors and rock bands, with a preacher making jokes and pop culture references in his sermons, and I was still bored out of my mind.

One of the reasons I get bored at church is that there is no “back and forth.” There is no room for me to participate. I am not able to enteract with the pastor or other people. (This is the opposite of my issue with music segments: I prefer to sit out of music performances at church. I hate participating in music at church – but I do want to participate in lessons.)

For those of you who say that is what Sunday School is for – no, that has not been my experience.

In most Sunday School classes I have visited, there is already a pre-planned curricula, a published workbook from “Lifeway” that the class’s Sun. Sch. teacher reads from, or uses as a guide.

It’s not that I object to some pre-planning. I am not saying that use of a guide or workbook is necessarily wrong. If you are a Sun Sch teacher who wants to come up with a plan or topic for the class to discuss beforehand, I am fine with that to a point.

What I don’t like is an hour-long Sunday School class that is 95% a teacher reading from a Life Way workbook, and not much more.

Continue reading “Power Point, Boring Churches, It’s all about Jesus, Church Quitters, No Community, Selfish Preachers, Churches As Stalkers / (Re: Why Some Drop Out of Church)”

The “Feminization” of the Church by K R Wordgazer

The “Feminization” of the Church by K R Wordgazer

Followers of Christ are called to model all of his behaviors: if you are a man, that means emulating Jesus not only when he displayed what we consider manly traits such as assertiveness and daring, but also the feminine ones: gentleness and humbleness. If you are a woman, you are called not only to emulate the sweet and tender side of Jesus, but his tough side, as well.

Why more Christians do not understand this and embrace it, I do not understand. But your gender complementarian Christians promote the very opposite: they instruct men to follow only the rough, tough side of Jesus and instruct women to follow the meek- and- mild side of the Savior.

Here is the blog link under consideration in this post:

(Link): The “Feminization” of the Church

I abhor it when Christians complain about church being too girly. The link you see above? Its author is also tired and upset about this as well.

My view on this has changed a little bit. I used to be a little more understanding about men who feel out of place at church, but considering the staggering amount of sexism against women in churches, especially against never married and childless women, I’m no longer quite as sympathetic.

And I abhor even more than that that they go and mess things up by trying to make Christianity or church more “manly,” or, they try to recast Jesus Christ as being a beer-drinking, belching, farting, quasi stoner – tough guy who sits around in a recliner in his boxers all day watching NFL games. A sort of Seth Rogen or Andrew Dice Clay, if you will.

I don’t think Jesus Christ was girly girl, but nor do I think he was a cage-fight watching, beer- can- crushing neanderthal who made sexist jokes about what poor drivers women are, and how ‘chicks’ are ‘too emotional.’

You would think as a person who was single, a female, who was Christian for many years, who desired marriage, who has noticed in frustration that churches suffer a great lack of single adult males for me to choose from, that I would be thrilled, just totally THRILLED, with churches trying to butch things up to attract more males, but no, I’m not.

I don’t think the solution to getting more dudes to attend church is to make church more of a pub, bar brawling, NASCAR, NFL, frat boy experience.

I resent churches pinning the blame on low male church attendance on the female gender for several reasons.

One of which is that by saying stereotypical female qualities are horrible for a church to have is to somehow say women themselves are terrible. It’s a round-about way of being sexist and slamming women themselves, though I’m not sure how to articulate this thought.

Next up is the fact that it further marginalizes someone like myself even more than I already am by most churches.

I have never fully been the picture of “biblical womanhood” that gender complementarians preach and harp about, and these are usually the ones pushing for Christians to make Jesus or the church “more masculine.”

Not only am I still not married in my 40s and without children – and gender complementarians put wifehood and motherhood on pedestals and say that a woman’s only calling in life by God is to be both – but I’ve always been a tom boy, to a degree.

Yes, I have some traits that gender complementarians would consider feminine and girly, but I am not, nor have I ever been, a 100% girly girl, pink-wearing, Barbie-doll-playing, type of female.

Yes, I wear eye liner, lip stick, mascara, and sometimes dresses and high heels and look feminine.

However, I have some hobbies, interests, and attitudes gender complementarians would consider masculine.

So, I do not appreciate femininity being boiled down to a very narrow set of roles or ideas, such as, one who is always passive, wears pink, is quiet, sweet, loving, and obsessed about baking, fashion, and nail polish.

I would encourage you to read this following blog page by KR WordGazer. The whole post is so good, I can’t pick just a bit to excerpt here. It’s hard to choose just two or three paragraphs.

(Link): The “Feminization” of the Church

Even though it’s very hard to excerpt this because all of it is excellent, here are a few of my favorite parts:

    The article also quotes David Murrow, author of Why Men Hate Going to Church (Thomas Nelson, 2004):
    “[W]omen believe the purpose of Christianity is to find “a happy relationship with a wonderful man”—Jesus—whereas men recognize God’s call to “save the world against impossible odds.” . . . While the church was masculine, it fulfilled its purpose. But in the 19th century, women “began remaking the church in their image” (and they continue to do so), which moved the church off course.

Needless to say, this line of thinking isn’t exactly complimentary to women! It implies that whatever is “feminine” encapsulates everything that’s gone wrong with the church.

A popular book on the subject even goes so far as to take the title The Church Impotent – because apparently a majority of women in the church means the church is emasculated, and therefore powerless and ineffectual.

Even though men still hold the vast majority of the leadership positions.

She has a subheading called “Why are there more women than men in most churches?,” and farther under that heading are these thoughts:

    This Forbes article defines”gender contamination” as the idea that when something is perceived as being a women’s thing, men want nothing to do with it. It’s the reason why men won’t drink “diet” soda and have had to have differently-named low-calorie versions marketed specially to them.

It’s the reason why men resist using lotions and moisturizers even if they have neutral, non-flowery scents, and why some companies advertise their products by denigrating competitors with such words as “precious” and “princess.”

In short, in our “male mystique” focused society, boys who believe girls have cooties still believe deep-down, when they grow into men, that women have cooties too.

There are still some very deep-rooted misogynistic elements in modern Western culture– and this, I think, has a lot to do with why evangelicals like Mark Driscoll and the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood are so distressed at the idea that churches are “feminized.”

If churches have more women in them, then churches themselves have cooties, and it’s up to the biblical manhood movement to remove the stigma by masculinizing the church.

She goes on to quote an editorial from Christianity Today which I found interesting:

    Christian Copyright Licensing International (CCLI) lists the 100 most frequently used songs in its database.

If contemporary praise music is problematically feminine in both lyrics and tone, as the Driscoll-Murrow crowd avers, we should expect the top 100 list to be dominated—or at least infiltrated—by women.

In fact, however, the list includes 145 male and 16 female composers. Thus more than 90 percent of the composers writing today’s most popular praise songs are male!

Continue reading “The “Feminization” of the Church by K R Wordgazer”

Your Preacher Sucks – and People Have a Right To Say So And Explain Why

Your Preacher Sucks

Did you know that your preacher is not God?

Did you know that the New Testament says that Satan poses as an angel of light?

Did you know that the New Testament makes reference to wolves in sheeps’ clothing, that is, false teachers who infiltrate the pulpit and churches, for the express purpose of fleecing the flock, getting rich, or taking sexual advantage of the ladies, or for pushing their false doctrines? Yeah? You were aware of all that?

There are sure a lot of Christians on the internet who don’t act like they are aware of any of this.

Because as soon as anyone says anything critical about a preacher or that preacher’s theology, no matter how politely said criticism is stated, sooner or later, a follower of that preacher will show up on that forum, blog, or site to leave a message – varying from very nasty, downright hateful, to a more chiding tone of, “You’re being such a meanie, Pastor John Doe is such a gawdly man, how dare you criticize Pastor Doe! Who do you think you are?”

It makes me want to barf.

No man – NO MAN – is above criticism, and I don’t care if it’s a famous preacher or who it is.

By the way, this blog post also serves as as reminder about internet safety.

Continue reading “Your Preacher Sucks – and People Have a Right To Say So And Explain Why”

Biblical Gender Complementarianism, Unacknolwedged Sexism on Right Wing / Republican Sites, and Rare Admissions by A Christian Republican Politician that Women Have Sexual Drives – Re: Mike Huckabee’s Controversial Comments on Women’s Libido and Birth Control – Unlike Most on the Right and Left Huckabee Believes Sexual Self Control is Possible

Biblical Gender Complementarianism, Unacknolwedged Sexism on Right Wing Sites, and Rare Admissions by A Christian Republican Politician that Women Have Sexual Drives – Re: Mike Huckabee’s Controversial Comments on Women’s Libido and Birth Control

Note: If I find editorials, pro or con, on Huckabee’s views that I find interesting, I will edit this post to add them later, probably at the bottom of this post.
Before I copy in comments from an article or two I’ve seen about this, here’s a reminder:
I am a Republican (GOP) and a social conservative. I don’t consider myself a feminist and disagree with secular feminists on many topics. So don’t get teed off about this post if you are right wing or a Republican.

Me being right wing and a social conservative does not, however, mean I always agree with how other Republicans or social conservatives handle situations, or with how they feel that U.S. Government, should handle things. Nor do I always agree with their premises or assumptions.

Some Republicans – such as ones of the Christian, biblical gender complementarian variety, yes, can be sexist.

(Some Democrats, atheists, and left wingers can be sexist too, but that would be a topic for another post on another day.)

Here’s an example (both links are from left wing sites):

(Link): Congressman: ‘The Wife Is To Voluntarily Submit’ To Her Husband

(Link): GOP Congressman: Wives Should ‘Voluntarily Submit’ To Their Husbands

    By Laura Bassett
    Posted: 01/22/2014

    A Republican congressman published a memoir last month in which he expresses his belief that “the wife is to submit to the husband,” The Washington Post reported on Wednesday.

    Rep. Steve Pearce (R-N.M.), a Vietnam veteran, explains in his book that families, like the military command, need a leadership structure in which every person has a role. He says the wife’s role, according to the Bible, is to be obedient to her husband.

    “The wife is to voluntarily submit, just as the husband is to lovingly lead and sacrifice,” he writes. “The husband’s part is to show up during the times of deep stress, take the leadership role and be accountable for the outcome, blaming no one else.”

    Pearce goes on to write that the wife should have a say in important family decisions and that her submission does mean the husband should have “authoritarian control” or be considered superior.

    “The wife’s submission is not a matter of superior versus inferior; rather, it is self-imposed as a matter of obedience to the Lord and of love for her husband,” he writes.


Biblical gender complementarians (GCs, or gender comps, also known as “biblical womanhood and biblical manhood”) like to maintain this fairy tale, one that lacks biblical support, that women are equal in being but not in function (or role), which is really not a lot different from the Southern states’ “Blacks are equal but separate” philosophy of decades past.

The biblical gender complementarian expression that “women are equal in being but not in role to men” is merely a rhetorical device (and a shoddy one at that) to keep women from using and expressing all their God-given talents and skills, so that men can remain in charge, and not share power and influence.

If you truly think someone your equal, you don’t seek to maintain or limit their roles in life based on an inborn, immutable trait, or 2 or 3 Bible verses horribly plucked from context and twisted, and hide behind a flimsy rationalization that while you totally believe women are equal to men, you only think that is so in terms of their “value” (whatever that means), but that same inner value does not confer upon them the ability or right to use their skills or talents along side, or in addition to, men.

Using the authoritarian structure in military as an analogy to gender roles, or a boss to employee analogy, as gender comps are wont to do in these discussions, only further re-enforces and exposes their views as being what they really are: sexist – and not “women are equal but different.”

That is, if you truly believe women are equal to men, you are not going to seek to put a limit on what women may or may not do by using asinine analogies, such as comparing women to privates in the army and men to generals, and say, “See there, women are not lesser than men; we just don’t let them serve as army generals!”

If a woman is qualified to act as a general; if she has the traits, education, and talent to serve as a general – then yes, she should be permitted to act in the role of army general.

Your gender comps, though, say no, even should that woman have the set of skills needed for that particular role, she should be barred from holding it, based on her gender alone.

That is not equality in any way, shape, or form, no matter how much one blathers on about “being equal in worth and value but not in role.”

There is nothing in the Bible that says God the Holy Spirit grants “army general talents” (or ‘preaching to men,’ or ‘leadership ability,’ or ‘boss over employees’ talents) to men only.

If you want to read more on that topic and related ones, please see:

The end result in such thinking is the same from the gender complementarian, no matter how much they wish to couch it or soften it: you are basing who may do what, or be in power, based on an in-born, immutable trait.

It does not matter if you use the boss/employee analogy or the private/general analogy, the end result is limiting women based on their gender and not their education, talents, skill, or experience.

A woman can teach, preach, or lead as well as any man; the Bible says the Holy Spirit gives gifts to all believers, not just males, and the Bible even has positive examples of women, such as Junia and Deborah, leading and preaching to men, with God’s permission.


I, a right winger, have personally encountered rudeness, hatred, and vitriol by conservatives and Republicans on right wing forums, sites, and blogs, on topics pertaining to sex, marriage, divorce, gender roles, and family, with this hatred being based on sexism and very narrow views of what these types of right wingers feel is acceptable lifestyle choices for American women.

Many conservatives tend to assume, knee jerk fashion, that if one disagrees with them on gender roles or marriage, that one must be a feminist who hates marriage or traditional values.

They cannot seem to wrap their heads around the idea that a person can be a fellow right winger but one who realizes that women are not limited to only marriage and motherhood, nor should they be.

Even though I am usually careful to preface my remarks on right wing sites by reminding readers I am also a social conservative, sympathetic and respectful to a lot of Judeo-Christian beliefs, and that I vote Republican, the other conservatives – males in particular – will keep assuming or trying to paint me as a liberal, atheistic, feminist – or they treat me as such.

It’s also fascinating to watch how male conservatives will read things into my comments that I never said – even if I express the opposite belief!

For instance, even should I write, “I respect marriage and would like to be married some day myself,” and then mention that right wingers and Christians have made too much of marriage, some of the right wingers will act as though I said, “Hello, I am a man-hating feminist, a flaming lesbian, and I despise traditional marriage.”

They do this typically in discussions where I agree I support marriage, but I think many times, social conservatives and Christians have idolized marriage and pro-creation, to a point that not even the Bible supports.

I sometimes even provide quotes directly from the Bible to remind them of the words of Jesus and Paul about God’s valuing of singleness. The male conservatives (and sometimes females, though it’s usually males) really chaff at this reminder, though.

Many right wingers do not want to acknowledge that the Bible does not esteem traditional marriage and parenthood as much as they ASSUME it does.

Republicans, Christians, and social conservatives on political sites bristle and act upset when confronted with clear quotes from the New Testament that Paul wrote it is better to stay single than to marry.

Some right wing males behave as anything less than full nuclear family worship is tantamount to rejection there-of, or is an acceptance of homosexuality, or they assume I must be a liar who is really a lesbian, Democrat, feminist who hates right wingers, the family, and marriage.

In the process of hurling their many incorrect assumptions at me, and responding to points I never made, they tend to make very rude, sexist comments about all women in general.

I recently ran into one such right wing asshole on a political site who referred to any and all women as “sluts,” and he did this repeatedly in his posts. He was also very condescending to me, though I was polite to him through our exchange. I suspect that the guy might be a troll, but it’s hard to tell.

I have also noticed that many conservatives and Republicans, in discussions about sex, birth control, family, marriage, or divorce on political sites, also misquote and twist the comment from the Bible in Genesis about being fruitful and multiplying.

Just as atheists and liberals – some of whom can be terribly biblically illiterate who seem to know only ONE verse from the Bible (and that only when it suits them, and they tend to mis-use it), and that one verse being the one containing the comment of Jesus of, “judge not lest ye be judged” – your usual right wing, socially conservative Christians on political sites are only acquainted with the verse from Genesis about “being fruitful.”

(For more on this, see:
(Link): Misapplication of Biblical Verses About Fertility (also mentions early marriage) – a paper by J. McKeown)

Some Conservatives have blinders on about all the passages (which tend to be in the New Testament) which negate marriage and pro-creation being divine commandments or preferences, but which make each activity optional for believers.

Despite the fact I point out to right wingers on political sites that things changed under the teachings of Jesus Christ and Paul (e.g., (Link): Matthew 10:37), where-in pro-creating is no longer a mandate, not for believers, they remain incredulous about it. It’s in the Bible, particularly in the New Testament, that marriage and making babies is not mandated, but some right wingers continue to act as though it were.

I was only able to shut some of them up about it in one thread months ago when I quoted straight from Scriptures, from the New Testament, about these issues.

It’s as though some conservatives minds go totally blank about the New Testament passages that talk in positive terms about singleness and celibacy. They tend to forget such passages are in the Bible, and some lapse into the incorrect, wrong, unbiblical view that only “some are chosen for singleness.”

The Bible does not teach that marriage and making babies is the norm for any one in any culture. Americans may assume that getting married is the norm for Americans, but the Bible does NOT contain a teaching saying, “God wants or demands most people to marry and make babies.”

As 44% of American adults are single these days, being married is not even the cultural norm in the United States any longer, not that it once was.

For more on this topic, please see: (Link): False Christian Teaching: “Only A Few Are Called to Singleness and Celibacy” or (also false): God’s gifting of singleness is rare – More Accurate: God calls only a few to marriage and God gifts only the rare with the gift of Marriage

Many Republicans and conservatives only hone in one “be fruitful and multiply” verse from the Old Testament and harbor the assumption that being married and having children is the only God-sanctioned manner of living life.

Continue reading “Biblical Gender Complementarianism, Unacknolwedged Sexism on Right Wing / Republican Sites, and Rare Admissions by A Christian Republican Politician that Women Have Sexual Drives – Re: Mike Huckabee’s Controversial Comments on Women’s Libido and Birth Control – Unlike Most on the Right and Left Huckabee Believes Sexual Self Control is Possible”

Christian Stereotypes About Female Sexuality : All Unmarried Women Are Supposedly Hyper Sexed Harlots – But All Married Ones are Supposedly Frigid or Totally Uninterested in Sex

Christian Stereotypes About Female Sexuality : All Unmarried Women Are Supposedly Hyper Sexed Harlots – But All Married Ones are Supposedly Frigid or Totally Uninterested in Sex

(The post ahead may contain some rough or crass language. It contains adult material of a sexy nature.)

I have alluded to these particular stereotypes in posts I made over a year ago in several different posts, but I feel this topic deserves its own post.

I am in my early forties now, and still a virgin. For many years, I waited for marriage to have sex.

I was waiting for the Christian spouse Christian culture said God would send me (if I prayed, waited, had faith, etc, all of which I did. I also tried dating sites). That “Mr Right” never showed.

During all this time, and even before, when I was a teenager, I couldn’t help but notice in sermons I saw on television, in Christian books, magazines, advice columns, and pamphlets, and now, these days, on blogs or podcasts I’ve seen or listened to, that Christians have some peculiar stereotypes about female sexuality.

Not that Non-Christian culture does not have its weird views about women and sex too, but as this post focuses on Christian views, I’d like to stick to that.

One topic I’ve discussed plenty on this blog is the old trope that men are visual and women are not. That simply is not true. Many women are visually oriented too. But I’m not here to blog about that in this post since I’ve blogged on it before.


Another cliche’ I’ve seen from Christians is that single Christian women are hyper sexed harlots who bang ten different men every night, and above all, (the rest of this stereotype goes), the Christian single woman’s highest agenda is to have affairs with married men.

Never mind those cliches and stereotypes about single women are not true, Christians love to think they are, and they like to promote such thinking in books, blogs, radio shows and sermons about women, marriage, sex, and dating. (This is especially true of evangelical, Reformed, Baptist, and Fundamentalist Christians.)

Ergo, Christian single and married men are regularly coached in books, blogs, radio shows, pod casts, sermons, and other Christian media, and usually by male preachers, but also by insecure Christian wives, to stay the hell away from single Christian women.

I am a single woman (I was engaged once, years ago). I’ve never had sex. I don’t find most married men attractive. I would never have an affair with a married man, even if I did find one attractive. I can and do control my sex drive. But none of these facts matter to most Christians.

I am still regarded with suspicion by many Christians, just for being single. I am still deemed a Sexual Threat by Christian Culture for being single and female and nothing more.

I find this Christian stereotype of Christian single women being promiscuous sluts, or as being potential ones ready to detonate instantly with any and every man, extremely offensive.

Of course, married Christians and Christian dating advice books do not come right out and slap the label “promiscuous slut” on Christian single women when discussing Christian single women, but it’s assumed to be so.

After all, Christian men are told if they stay in a car with a single, Christian woman, or are alone with her any where (at a coffee shop, restaurant, office, house, etc), that it will always lead to sex, or probably will lead to sex.


It is assumed in a lot of Christian teaching on dating, the genders, and marriage, that all Christian men want casual sex and cannot control themselves, and that all single, Christian women have no standards or ability to resist such men, or that they are sexually aggressive and will intentionally prey on men, especially married ones.


    (I don’t know why married Christians assume that married men – especially middle aged to older, who are usually balding, out of shape, with beer guts, are such irresistible cat nip to un-married, Christian women.

I have higher physical specimen standards than that, thank you.

No, I don’t want to have sex with your 370 pound, hair- on- his- back, balding- on- the- head husband.

It’s insulting that married Christian culture or unattractive married men themselves assume attractive, single woman want to bed unattractive, married men.)


One thing the stereotype of “all single women are sluts or potential sluts who will sleep with your husband” does is discourage Christian married couples, or single men, from so much as forming platonic friendships with single women.

What happens? Single Christian women often end up very lonely and alone.

Nobody invites single women out for movies, or over for home cooked dinners, or over for the holidays.

Christians go against the Bible’s teachings and refuse to provide fellowship equally for all – they give single women the cold shoulder.


At the same time we have this bizarre and incredibly demeaning stereotype by Christians about all single Christian women being floozies, there is another stereotype I see about married Christian women.

I have watched many sermons on Christian television over the years. I also have read Christian magazine articles and books, going back to my teen years.

In the past few years, I have read blogs and sites, including editorials or articles about “marriage, family and sexuality” on Christian sites. (And I’m talking about professional sites, by groups such as Probe Ministries, Focus on the Family, etc, not only little “Mom and Pop” blogs, like mine here.)

I have seen a pattern come up repeatedly since my youth and it continues in my adulthood, in Christian content:

many preachers, and Christian broadcast or published content, assume that married Christian women are frigid, they hate sex, are reluctant to have sex, and / or prefer emotional intimacy or non-sexual hobbies (such as knitting socks or potting house plants) to having sex with their spouses.

Continue reading “Christian Stereotypes About Female Sexuality : All Unmarried Women Are Supposedly Hyper Sexed Harlots – But All Married Ones are Supposedly Frigid or Totally Uninterested in Sex”

Preacher Mark Driscoll Basically Says No, Single Christian Males Cannot or Should Not Serve as Preachers / in Leadership Positions – Attempts to Justify Unbiblical, Anti Singleness Christian Bias

Preacher Mark Driscoll Basically Says No, Single Christian Males Cannot or Should Not Serve as Preachers / in Leadership Positions – Attempts to Justify Unbiblical, Anti Singleness Christian Bias

Well then. This post by Driscoll (see link much farther below) will certainly come as a surprise to the guy, Steve Dewitt, I blogged about who worked as an unmarried preacher until he got married for the first time around age 44.
(Link): Male Preacher Marries For First Time At Age 44

(By the way, the Bible nowhere sets a mandatory or even recommended age for marriage; the “wife of your youth” bit that some marriage idolaters enjoy quoting is not prescriptive; it is not commanding that all people have to or should marry young. See also: (Link): Article by J. Watts: The Scandal of Singleness )

The real reason it is, as Driscoll states in his blog post response to a reader question, so “improbable” for a single man to obtain work as a preacher, is not because of any of the reasons Driscoll outlines in his blog page, but because of the prejudice and suspicions Christians harbor against unmarried Christian adults.
(For example, (Link): More Anti Singleness Bias From Al Mohler – Despite the Bible Says It Is Better Not To Marry)

Many churches are biased against hiring singles because:

    1. they hold the nasty, unfair stereotype all single adult males are sexual predators, or would-be predators;
    2. if they hire a married man, the wife is viewed as a freebie, a “bonus,” she will work in the church pro bono, say, as the church piano player

I tire of how Christians allow their personal views or cultural views color how they interpret Scripture to disqualify folks, which is precisely what Driscoll does in his reply to the question:

    Pastor Mark,

    Do you think that God still calls men with the “gift of singleness” into pastoral ministry? If not, what role do you think single males can play in serving the church?


(Link): Single Pastors?

Basically, Driscoll falls back on the old saw and some misunderstandings – which are used to discriminate against Christian singles – that only a few are given the “gift of singleness”

, and to note that Jesus and Paul were single, but for some reason, they are grand exceptions.

(And see: (Link): Ever Notice That Christians Don’t Care About or Value Singleness, Unless Jesus Christ’s Singleness and Celibacy is Doubted or Called Into Question by Scholars?)

Yes, even though the founders of your religion were childless and unmarried, it’s not okay for others who follow their teachings to be single, childless, and in leadership positions. What a peculiar and unbiblical double standard.

That the Bible states in the New Testament that an overseer may be married with children, and that such a family should be orderly and under control (see (Link): 1 Timothy 3), does not need to be interpreted in such as way to mean, or does not necessarily mean, that ONLY married men with children may apply…

And what of married men with infertile wives, or married men who have only ONE child?

Being ‘overly’ literal or narrow with the “must be married with kids” verse unnecessarily disqualifies many people, so I think a fresh interpretation of, or study of, such passages is needed, since it is being used to discriminate against whole swaths of people.

I also note that Driscoll himself, despite being married, apparently fails several criteria of 1 Timothy 3, in that he is most certainly not “gentle,” is not “above reproach,” and has been, in the past, “quarrelsome.” Driscoll is, from my view, most likely guilty of being “a lover of money.”

To cite but a few examples (but I would encourage you to google the guy’s name and do more research):

    Driscoll’s odd obsession with sex and use of sexually explicit references in sermons (see Link);
    deeming heretics such as Trinity- denier T D Jakes as being a fellow Christian (and was this for the love of money, one wonders?) (see Link);
    bullying people out of his church and chuckling with glee at the thought of “throwing them under the bus,” (Link): Mark Driscoll – There is a pile of dead bodies behind the Mars Hill bus
    his grossly explicit sexualization of ‘Song of Songs’ (see Link);
    and teaching that Esther from the book of the same name was a whore (see Link)

Continue reading “Preacher Mark Driscoll Basically Says No, Single Christian Males Cannot or Should Not Serve as Preachers / in Leadership Positions – Attempts to Justify Unbiblical, Anti Singleness Christian Bias”

More Singles Commentary by Mark Driscoll (“Two Mistakes Singles Make”)

More Singles Commentary by Mark Driscoll

Hats off to Stephanie Drury who must have a stomach made of iron. I am guessing she visits the Mars Hill (Driscoll’s) blog daily? I don’t have the fortitude to do that.

Anyway, I found this link via Drury’s Facebook group, Stuff Christian Culture Likes (link)

Here is the link to Driscoll’s page, which I will dissect momentarily:
(Link): Two Mistakes Singles Make

Driscoll actually lists, under point 1,

Remember, Driscoll is directing this advice at the UN-married.

And I say: No, no, no (I sound like Amy Winehouse there, sorry).

It’s not singles who idolize marriage, it’s Christian culture, primarily the Christians who are already married, such as Driscoll himself.

Driscoll actually wrote an editorial idolizing parenthood a few weeks ago, called “Who’s Afraid of Pregnant Women.” You can read it here:
(Link): Who’s Afraid of Pregnant Women, by Driscoll.
Driscoll’s editorial was similar to the one I wrote about here, one by Hemingway:
(Link): Response to the Hemingway Editorial ‘Fecundophobia’ – conservatives and Christians continue to idolize children, marriage – which is unbiblical.

Both pieces, the one by Driscoll, and the one by Hemingway, idolize pro-creation and leave no room for the New Testament’s position that lifelong childless-ness and singlehood are fine with God.

It’s hypocritical for Driscoll to shame Christian singles who either desire marriage and parenting for themselves, or who choose to forgo one or both, when he is in fact upholding marriage and parenting in editorials, blogs, and sermons as being laudable goals all should aspire to, especially women.

Not only do married Christians idealize and idolize marriage and parenting, and hold both up as benchmarks a Christian needs to prove success in life, but if a childless or unmarried Christian actively pursues both or either, they will be guilted and shamed for it by these marriage- and parenting- idolizing married Christians, even as Driscoll did in (Link): his previous posts about singles.

If you, a single, admit to wanting marriage, or ask for prayer from another believer that God send you a spouse, or you admit to using a dating site to try to find a marital partner, these pro-marriage married Christians will accuse you of lacking faith, worshipping marriage, trying to fill Jesus’ place with a spouse ((Link): see Driscoll again), not being content in your singleness, and all manner of other negative accusations.

Marriage does not happen magically, folks.

If you were not fortunate enough to meet your sweetie while in college and find yourself still single at age 30 or older, you have no choice but to actively pursue a mate via bars, night clubs, dating sites, and so forth.

From the time I was a pre-teen up until my mid or late 30s, I sincerely believed the Christian propaganda that if only I prayed for a spouse, stayed sexually pure, put God first in my life, trusted God, etc, that God would send me a spouse.

And yet, I find myself still not-married at age 40+.

Obviously, being passive about getting a husband (ie, using prayer, faith, etc) does not work.

(I am not saying that being active is a guarantee, either: sadly, even though some people chase after a spouse and join many dating sites, they sill remain single.
But in my view, your chances of getting married are bound to increase if you do go out and look, and not simply sit about praying and waiting.)

In his introduction, Driscoll gets it wrong:

    For the first time in American history, the majority of adults are single rather than married. Nine out of ten people eventually marry. The average man is about 30 years old for his first marriage, and the average woman is in her late 20s for her first marriage. This is nearly a decade later than was the case 60 years ago, which has contributed to such things as fornication and cohabitation.

Later age of marriage does not necessarily increase, or contribute to, fornication. I’m in my 40s and still a virgin, hello.

It’s both a Christian and Non Christian myth that no human being can go without sex past one’s early or mid twenties, so to stave off fornication, it is assumed one must marry by age 18 or 21.

By the way: I may be a virgin at age 40+, but I have a normal libido.

It’s another false assumption by married Christians and married Non Christians that a 40 year old virgin must:
1. have a medical problem leading to low libido
2. be fat and ugly (not true, I was engaged and have been “hit on’ by both Christian and Non-Christian men)

One reason of several I am still a virgin in my 40s is due to SELF CONTROL and CHOICE.

God did not magically “gift” me or “call me to” virginity, celibacy, or singleness.

1b. Just because you get horny does NOT mean you HAVE TO HAVE SEX.

These (points 1a and 1b) are points that continue to sail over the heads of the Mark Driscolls of the world, due in part to secular influences in their thinking and a misunderstanding of the Bible’s teachings on celibacy, singlehood, and sex.

Also, marriage does not preclude or prevent sexual sin:
I have many, many blog posts on my blog here where I have linked to many news stories of MARRIED CHRISTIANS, some of whom are preachers, who have been caught, or arrested for, among other things, rape, pornography, spousal abuse, drug abuse, running prostitution rings, or for raping children.

It is simply naive or false to depict singleness as being a position where in one is more apt to commit sexual sin, when there are so many married couples who are having affairs, using porn, visiting prostitutes, or molesting children.

I could be wrong, but since Driscoll cites the information about age of first marriage being late twenties for most people these days, as opposed to a few decades ago, when many people got married early/ mid 20s, that he seems to be an advocate for “early marriage.” I have links below refuting the “early marriage” view that so many Christians are currently advocating.

Driscoll’s point two is MISTAKE #2: DEMONIZE MARRIAGE, where Driscoll writes,

    Your greatest joy is being alone. You like your freedom and don’t want anyone else to encroach upon your life because you’d be forced to consider them, accommodate them, or serve them.

This view is not biblical, so I have no idea why he’s putting contentment with being alone down, as though it is a negative thing.

The Bible does not command all to marry but rather presents life time singleness as being perfectly acceptable to God.

The Bible does not condemn preferring solitude, introversion, or singleness to being married or wanting companionship.

I’d also have to point out to this guy that as my dream of marriage fades, I’ve had no choice but to learn to accept my singleness. I’ve grown to enjoy my time alone (it also doesn’t hurt that I am naturally an introvert and prefer being alone, yay me).

Would this Driscoll guy rather I cry into my pillow nightly over being single, or just enjoy living my life as-is?

Driscoll just said in his (Link): previous post about single women that single females should not put their lives on hold and mope about over not being married.

Now, however, Driscoll seems to be saying if you have mostly made peace with your alone-ness, that is wrong too.

Well, FFS, which is it?

Does Driscoll want singles mooning, moping away, and pining for marriage, or coming to terms with being mostly okay with singlehood?

That’s one thing I hate about these articles by Christians about singles: they are chock full of double standards and contradictions, and this is but one:
Married Christians want you to be happy being single but not TOO happy.

You, as an adult single, according to married Christians, are supposed to find just the right balance of hankering for marriage, but not be so okay with being single that you’re not spazzing out and worrying over being single.

Married Christians claim they want you to be “content” with your singleness, yet, if you truly are content with it (at least part of the time, or most of the time), they disapprove of your contentment.

It seems to piss off some married Christians that you, the single, feel fine with being single, if not all the time, at least most of the time. Some married Christians want you, the single, to pine and hanker for marriage, at least a little bit, and if you do not, they assume you are selfish or unChristian in some capacity.

Continue reading “More Singles Commentary by Mark Driscoll (“Two Mistakes Singles Make”)”