A ‘Romantic Way to Escape Persecution’: Online Matchmaking

A ‘Romantic Way to Escape Persecution’: Online Matchmaking

(Link): A ‘Romantic Way to Escape Persecution’: Online Matchmaking

Excerpt:

• Persecution watchdog group hopes romantic connections between Western and Pakistani Christians could lead to asylum. Other persecution groups aren’t so sure.

• An advocacy group for Pakistani Christians is now getting into the matchmaking business.

• The British Pakistani Christian Association (BPCA) (Link): launched an online dating site in May to connect Pakistani Christians living all over the world.

• Named for a common term for a South Asian wedding,  (Link): Shaadi4Christians serves as a tool for single Christians—and their parents, who still often arrange marriages for their children—scattered in the South Asian diaspora.

• The BCPA views marriage as a way to escape persecution.

Romantic Comedies: When Stalking Has a Happy Ending (from The Atlantic) / Men Who Mistake Platonic Friendliness For Flirting – So Annoying

Romantic Comedies: When Stalking Has a Happy Ending (from The Atlantic)

Some people confuse what this article from The Atlantic terms “persistent pursuing” with courtship. That is, men do it all the time, and some women, due to Hollywood Rom Coms, have been conditioned to view this as normal, romantic behavior.

May I add another related issue: men who mistake platonic chit chat with flirting?

That drives me up the wall. It’s one reason I am usually loathe to enter into pleasantries with men I don’t know when I’m in stores or sitting around in waiting rooms, because many men mistake idle, polite banter for,

• “Oooh, this lady is into me, she is warm for my form, she wants to marry me and make babies with me, I am one sexy beast, grrrrr.”

So these men ask for your phone number or they get all flirty back. And you, the woman, are like, “I did NOT send this dude any sexy signals, where is this coming from?”

No, dude, my romantic interest is only in your imagination. (Duran Duran (Link): sang of this very concept.)

Me saying stuff like, “Wow, some crazy weather we’ve been having lately, huh?” as we’re sitting in Wal-Mart’s auto care center waiting for our tires to be rotated is not me hitting on you.

Me hitting on you, men of the world, consists of me putting one hand behind my head, one hand on a jutted out hip, head tilted back, eyes narrowly parted, and me saying something (in a seductive sounding, cat like purr), like, “Hey there big boy, you come here all alone? Mama likes what she sees! May I have your phone number? Are you free for a date this Saturday?”

Think (Link): this.

Yes, (Link): this is what a woman who is flirting with you looks like, the facial expression and mannerisms.

About men who refuse to take “no” for an answer from a woman they are interested in, who confuse pursuing with stalking: other than entitlement, I wonder if what drives some of these men is a sense that they HATE to be alone and MUST have a romantic partner to “complete them.”

I know this sort of thinking is very common among a lot of women. I think secular society (and Christian culture) does try to convince people there is no way they can be whole and happy single. There is a lot of pressure on people to pair up and date or marry.

Culture (especially through movies and TV shows) and churches need to stop sending this bogus message that there is something wrong, flawed, or second class about being single as an adult.

There is no disgrace in being single. I understand if you are single and lonely and pine for a significant other how hard it can be at times, but you are okay on your own.

You are not some loser or in-complete if you don’t have a mate, contrary to the messages Christians and Hollywood like to send us all.

(Link):  Romantic Comedies: When Stalking Has a Happy Ending by Julie Beck

Excerpts:

Overly persistent pursuit is a staple of movie love stories, but a new study shows that it could normalize some troubling behaviors.

…Reasonable people know that rom-coms aren’t what love is really like, just as reasonable people know that porn is not what sex is really like. But these movies still create an image of romance that leaks into the atmosphere and may subtly shape people’s perceptions and expectations of love.

One troubling way they may do that is by making stalking behaviors seem like a normal part of romance, according to (Link): a new study by Julia Lippman, a postdoctoral fellow in the department of communication studies at the University of Michigan.

…[Lipman says] “Indeed, they may be seen as reflecting one of the great cultural myths of romantic love: that no matter how big the obstacle, love will conquer all.”

The website TV Tropes, which tracks, wiki-style, frequently-used narrative devices—not just on TV, but in all kinds of fiction—has a page for this. It’s aptly titled (Link): “Stalking Is Love.”Lippman files stalking under the broader umbrella of “persistent pursuit,” which can also encompass “more benign and even positively regarded behaviors such as some types of romantic courtship,” she writes.

Married Father and Baptist Preacher J D Hall – Another Example of How Marriage and Parenthood Does Not Make a Person More Godly or Mature

Married Father and Baptist Preacher J D Hall – Another Example of How Marriage and Parenthood Does Not Make a Person More Godly or Mature

(There is an update at the bottom of this post).

This involves a lot of back story I don’t want to get into because this blog post would be ten pages long.

I am blogging this primarily for adult singles who have felt marginalized or hurt by Christian denominations or churches that treat adult singles as though they have cooties.

I have a somewhat different motivation for blogging about this than other blogs do. There were a few other blogs who addressed the child abuse aspect of the story, that we have an adult (Hall) badgering a teen kid (Braxton Caner) on the internet.

J D Hall is a Calvinist preacher with a blog called “Pulpit and Pen,” a Twitter account, and a group of fan boys who follow him around online who actually refer to themselves as “Pulpiteers.”

At one time, Hall’s groupies were using the #pulpiteer (or “pulpiteers”) hash to follow each other around Twitter. I’m not sure if they still use the “Pulpiteer” label or not. I will continue to refer to them as such.

This group, and a few other people, have a long standing hatred of another guy named Ergun Caner.

Another Too Long, Too Strict Suitor List That Will Keep A Single Single Forever: “The Man Who Will Marry My Daughter” by Tony Miano

Another Too Long, Too Strict Suitor List That Will Keep A Single Single: “The Man Who Will Marry My Daughter”

The dude who wrote this, Miano, is sexist. He is a gender complementarian and thinks it is sin for a woman to teach the Gospel to men in public.

Based on other sites I have visited, he does not have a paying job, but his wife does, yet he teaches that a man is head of the house and actually lists this quality as being one he insists a man must have if a man wants to marry his daughter:

“[a man must] …be able to provide, financially, for his wife and family (1 Timothy 5:8) “

Miano himself is incapable or unwilling to financially support his own family (this is according to information I have read on other sites), so I have no idea why he makes that a requirement for a man who would want to date his daughter.

He also, based upon what others have said on other blogs, goes on his Facebook ministry’s page and begs for people to send him Wal-Mart gift cards and to buy him vans and stuff. If he was financially supporting himself, he would not have to beg funds and for cars from other people.

This blog posting by Miano, by the way, came to my attention via (Link): Stuff Christian Culture Likes. (I would encourage you to click that link and read visitor comments.)

(Link): “The Man Who Will Marry My Daughter” by Tony Miano

You’ll notice in this essay that this guy does not view his daughters as fully functioning, independent adults capable of making their own choices in life.

Miano has infantilized his daughters, who range in age at the time of this writing of about 17 years of age to age 26 or 27, which is a very huge mistake. It is not his duty to choose boyfriends or husbands for his daughters.

A father is certainly welcome to offer his daughter his advice or views on aspects of her life, including whom she is romantically involved with, but not to act as final arbiter of whom she marries.

I completely object to the “dating is sin” or “dating is wrong” mindset this guy has.

Notice also that Miano assumes each daughter will be married and that God “chooses” spouses for them – this is totally unbiblical.

The Bible nowhere states that God will send a spouse to someone; God makes no statement in the Scriptures that he promises that he will send you, or anyone else, a spouse.

Let me also use myself as an example of why this belief that everyone is destined for marriage and God “sends” them a spouse, or chooses a spouse for them, is a falsehood.

I am over 40 years of age, a woman, had expected to marry, was a Christian from girlhood, and prayed daily from childhood onwards for God to send me a husband, and I never got a husband.

It is simply not true that God “sends” or “chooses” spouses for people. If that were true, I would have been married years ago, but I am still single to this day.

It may be that even if you are a Christian and want to marry that God will never send you a spouse, no matter how long you pray for it, and no matter how much faith you have.

You may be single your entire life. Miano’s daughters may never marry.

Here, a bit below, are some excerpts from the page by Miano – please understand that his list is pretty long.

I am not going to reproduce the entire list here; this is only a portion of it (I have additional comments below this excerpt):

(Link): “The Man Who Will Marry My Daughter” by Tony Miano

by Tony Miano

Godly, manly young Christian men are harder to find these days.

But I will not lower my standards for my future son-in-laws.

I will answer to God, not the culture, for to whom I give my daughters.

Since our daughters were very young, Mahria and I have instilled in them a family commitment to courtship.

Our girls will not “date” before they are married.

We see no biblical precedence for “trying people on for size” or being in relationship with a member of the opposite sex because it is pleasurable or “something to do.” Courtship is a family affair.

… Mahria and I understand that the day will come, probably soon, when three godly men (one for each daughter) will seek our daughters’ hands in marriage.

… (Note to any potential candidate who may read this: if this first essential quality is not true in your life, you need not bother reading the rest of the list. You may be a wonderful young man, but you are not the one my Lord and Savior has chosen for my daughter.)

… not be an adulterer in any form, including pornography (Matthew 5:27-28).

… open car and building doors for women whenever given the opportunity. Chivalry is not dead (1 Peter 3:7).

… understand and accept his biblical role as head of the home and his wife (Ephesians 5:25-32).

Apparent Inconsistency at SCCL Group – They’re Repulsed by Sexualization of Some Relationships But Not All

Apparent Inconsistency at SCCL Group – They’re Repulsed by Sexualization of Some Relationships But Not All

Sometimes, I enjoy and agree with some of the views as expressed by S. Drury’s SCCL (“Stuff Christian Culture Likes”) Facebook group, but not always.

Folks who frequent the SCCL group generally despise Christian sexual purity teachings.

Me? Nope.

My position is that the church needs to start upholding sexual purity teachings more, rather than the SCCL group’s preferred option of backing off or halting.

Very few churches and Christians today condemn sexual sin, nor do many Christians support virginity or sexual purity, something I have blogged about on a recurring basis (see links at the bottom of this post for more).

One of the things that caught my attention were a couple of posts at the SCCL group this week.

Creepy and Weird: Preparing a Two-Year-Old for Marriage

Creepy and Weird: Preparing a Two-Year-Old for Marriage

I want to re-state my views upfront so as not to confuse any newcomers to the blog. I am not anti-marriage or anti-traditional values.

I do, however, think some self professing Christians are guilty of making marriage and the traditional family into an idol and then some.

I’m not opposed to parents instilling their values in their kids, but it seems way out there to emphasize marriage to two year old children.

The blog link below reminds me of the article with the preacher guy who said a prayer over someone’s infant daughter that God bless all the eggs she was ever born with so that she could be a mother of many children, or whatever.

These Christians think they are honoring traditional values, I am sure, but these things come across as slightly perverse or weird.

Also, why are there no seminars by this group on preparing their children for adult singleness? Nobody is guaranteed a spouse, and some of their kids may group up and choose to stay single. If they are going to offer a creepy “preparing two year olds for marriage” why not “preparing two year old for a possible lifetime of adult singlehood”?

This comes from a FIC (Family Integrated Church) blog page:

(Link): Morning Breakouts: Preparing a Two-Year-Old for Marriage

Posted by The NCFIC on Oct. 29, 2010
This morning Jonathan Sides addressed the importance of teaching our children about marriage from a very young age. It is folly to think that we can wait until our children are on the brink of marriage to communicate to them a Biblical vision of courtship and marriage. The world doesn’t wait; It begins attempting to instill an unbiblical, romanticized view of marriage in your children from their earliest years.

————————–
Related posts:

(Link): Cloud’s Critique of Family Integrated Churches

(Link): Six Christian Homeschool Brothers Some of Whom Attended a FIC (Family Integrated Church) raped their kid sister over ten year period

(Link): A Critique of the Family-Integrated Church Movement by Brian Borgman – Christians turning the family into an idol

(Link): The Isolating Power of Family-Centered Language (How churches exclude singles and the childless) by E A Dause

(Link): Christians Who Sexualize Female Infants and Who Have Wacko, Weird, Unbiblical Gender Role Views They Actually Believe are Biblical / Re Botkins

Kook Christian Groups / Individuals and Their Nutty Beliefs on Pro Creation and What Constitutes Being Unequally Yoked

Kook Christian Groups/Individuals and Their Nutty Beliefs on ProCreation and What Constitutes Being Unequally Yoked

Here is another post or two with more quotes by people who claim to be Christian but who teach the thoroughly un-biblical view that God’s kingdom is to be spread by married couples pro-creating (making babies).

The Bible in fact teaches that the kingdom is to be spread and enlarged by Christians- whether married, single, divorced, with children or childless – telling the un-saved about Jesus Christ, not by marrying and having children.

As to this first link. I tend to lump all these categories together myself – patriarchy, quiverfull, complementarianism – because to me, they are all just a bunch of men teaching that men should control females.

The author of this piece below might kind of disagree with me, because he (or she?) seems very keen on people following very specific definitions of each term.

I do not agree with some of the sharp criticisms of this piece. I for one don’t see the problem with someone proclaiming that “Christian patriarchy is two steps away from making women wear a burka.”

Because you know what? It is. Some of the rhetoric and reasoning is very similar in “Christian modesty ” teachings as it is in Islamic teaching on how they feel women should cover their bodies and faces.

I actually think that comment is pretty dang accurate, in that many of these groups do advocate “modesty” teaching, which frowns on Christian women showing so much as an ankle.

Both groups – Muslims and pro-modesty Christians – tell women that they should cover their bodies because men are incapable of controlling their sexual urges and that men get instantly turned on beyond their control at the site of an attractive female. So, responsibility is placed upon women in both schools of thought to “dress modestly.”

Regardless of those issues, note the quote below about how this person believes that Christian women should “out breed” their opponents:

From the page, (Link): WHAT “CHRISTIAN PATRIARCHY” IS NOT , by R.L. Stollar

Quiverfull is, more or less, a specifically Christian form of natalism — the idea of employing procreation as a tool of sociopolitical dominion and categorizing birth control as rebellion against God.

Michael Pearl gave us a perfect embodiment of Quiverfull’s dominionist streak, when (Link): he recently stated,

“If you can’t out-vote them today, out-breed them for tomorrow.”

That is Quiverfull (albeit a distilled, intense version of it).

… Yes, there are many advocates of Christian Patriarchy who are Quiverfull.

And by all means, speak out against the dehumanizing and toxic idea that your children are your weapons, and a woman’s vagina is a weapons-building factory.

But remember these are distinct, especially considering there are many advocates of Christian Patriarchy who are not Quiverfull.

Take Doug Wilson, for example.

Doug Wilson is considered one of the pillars of Christian Patriarchy but believes birth control can be useful to ensure you’re actually taking care of your current children. That’s outright heresy to the Quiverfull crowd.

From this site:
(Link): Not On Your Side, Debi

Excerpts (emphasis added by me):

…. Several of the Pearl children’s spouses were raised in Gothard’s ATI program. (I say “spouses”, but Michael Pearl made it clear years ago that his children do not need any such thing as marriage licenses. A ceremony and their parents’ blessing is apparently good enough.*)

… Besides being given to racist and homophobic remarks, the Pearls are somewhat obsessed with sex. It gives Michael [Pearl] hope to envision homeschoolers “outbreeding” progressives.

He counsels the wife of an angry man to “make love” to improve her husband’s mood.

Debi often suggests that being sexually available is a wife’s primary responsibility.

Michael even wrote a book on erotic pleasure for fundamentalist Christian couples.

I can’t remember where I saw it – if on one of the pages above, but some page I read earlier today referenced quotes by Debi Pearl about being “equally yoked.”

Perhaps these comments can be found on her and her husband’s site, No Greater Joy, I am not sure.

Someone on another site quoted Pearl as having said that if you are a Christian, and you marry another Christian in a state that permits homosexual marriage, that your marriage – yes YOUR marriage to another Christian – is “unequally yoked.”

The argument seems to be that if you, a Christian, marry an opposite gender to yourself Christian in a state that also has legalized homosexual marriage, that a marriage performed in such a state taints yours, or makes yours invalid.

To put it yet another way (according to the Pearls): your marriage to another Christian is “unequally yoked” all because your next door neighbors, Fred and Stan the homosexual couple, are legally married by the same state too.

Please let that sink in and roll around in your brain for several moments: two Christians, one a man, one a woman, married to each other in a state where homosexual marriage is legal are said by the Pearls to be “unequally yoked”.

I’ve thought on it for awhile and still cannot make sense of it. What nuts these people are.

I ventured on over to the Pearl NGJ (No Greater Joy) site and see they have a page for singles ((Link): NGJ: Singles), and with pages on advice on how to find a mate, LOL, no thanks, won’t take advice from crackpots like them. The Pearls advise in their books on parenting that parents should beat their infant children with pipes.

There is much more nuttiness by them, but I don’t want to make this a huge post about the Pearls and every crazy thing they’ve ever taught.

On the main page for NGJ Singles is this:

PreparingToBeAHelpMeet.com

Shalom (Pearl) Brand

This is from the Preparing blog site. The girls are discussing Shalom’s article in the Sept/Oct 2012 NGJ magazine, “Where A

This page at NGJ Singles actually recommends that parents allow a brother to pick out husbands for their sisters:

(Link): NGJ site: Need a Spouse…ANYONE? By Debi Pearl

I’m in my 40s now and still not married.

My one brother is married to an atheist heroin addict. Yeah, I don’t think I’ll be going to my big brother for martial partner selection or input, thanks but no, Debi.

By the way, does it never occur to these Christian parents that their daughter may choose to stay single, a choice which God respects (see 1 Corinthians 7)?

Excerpt from Debi’s page:

Scores of young men asked for Shalom [one of Debi’s daughters].

She was gentle, cute, hard-working, and always cheerful, in addition to being the most compliant girl you have ever met.

But before they ever made it to our door to talk to Daddy Mike, most of them were already discounted as possibilities. Gabe or Nathan had seen to that with their reports.

Big brothers were watching out for their sisters, especially the sweet one.

How skin crawling is that, for so many reasons.

I have said it before, and I will say it again, but some Christian views on gender roles – whether we are talking patriarchy, gender complementarianims, or using the term “biblical womanhood” – is nothing but CODEPENDENCY under religious terminology, and is, therefore, un-biblical.

Codependent women are sweet, gentle, shy, compliant, soft spoken – they have poor- to- no- boundaries. Codependents are afraid or reluctant to be assertive, say no to people, and express anger.

Note too, that these are the same exact characteristics that are held up by Christians as being marks of biblical womanhood, or desirable for a Christian man to look for in a Christian wife: sweet, shy, gentle, compliant, soft spoken, little- to- no- boundaries.

Further note in books by experts on spousal abuse the sorts of traits abusive men intentionally look for in a mate:
sweet, shy, gentle, compliant, soft spoken, little- to- no- boundaries.

Seeing a pattern yet?

Yeah, Debi Pearl is (and I find this sad and chilling) totally thrilled that her daughter is prime pickings for an abusive man.

More excerpts from the page (advice to older brothers with younger single sisters):

Talk to your guy friends. Say something like this,

“Hey, you looking for a bride? I got four sisters and would consider it a privilege for you to drop in and take your pick. My parents trust my judgment and I’m giving you high marks. Of course, my sisters are picky, and they have the last word, but I’ll throw in a good word for you with them, too.

Now, the oldest sister is kinda bossy, but she always gives in after a little persuasion. She’s the smartest. So if you think you would enjoy a little challenge but get a good mate for the extra effort…she’s your gal.

My next sister is not so cute, but she is the nicest of the bunch.

…So how about it…wanta check out the fam? I got four other guys coming Sunday for brunch, so you better hurry if you want the pick of the litter.”

That whole excerpt is so horrifying and sexist, I hardly know where to begin.

I would not want my brother approaching his male friends and blurting out, “So, you lookin’ for a bride?” My god, that would scare away every man on the planet.

Not that I object to friends and family setting me up with eligible guys my age, but what Pearl is suggesting sounds almost more like arranged marriage, where the woman is playing a very passive role.

Pearl also makes it sound like the brother is supposed to “market” the sister to men, as though she is not a human being, but a brand of shampoo, a car, or a tube of toothpaste.

She is kind of asking the brother to play the role of a pimp.

This remark: “My next sister is not so cute”

If your own mother is basically advising your brother to tell his pals you are ugly, that is pretty damn insensitive.

At any rate, here we see above yet more examples fringe, wacko groups, or persons, passing themselves off as Christian, but who are teaching some bizarre, un-biblical things about marriage, having children, and re-defining what “equally yoked” means (or has been traditionally understood by most Christians to mean).

It’s bad enough when Christians are telling Christian singles to only marry other Christian singles

(there are not as many single adult Christian males as therer are females, so you are in effect asking single females to die alone and single)

but the Pearl family is basically telling Christian singles not to even marry another Christian single if they live in a state where homosexual marriage is permitted, as that would make their marriage “unequally yoked” (sorry I do not have a source for that, it is a quote someone pasted in at another blog without a link, I have no reason to believe he or she was lying about it).

I am really creeped out and appalled by these views of marrying, what constitutes being un-equally yoked, and pro-creation these groups are advocating. Their views are totally un-biblical. They have given themselves over to the worship of marriage, parenthood, and family.

Instead of worshipping the God of the Bible, they are worshipping their own peculiar ideas of culture, family, and marriage.

If Moses came down from the mountain today, he’d see most of the contemporary, American “Christian” people bowing down before a statue made of gold, of a figure of a man, woman, and child holding hands (a statue of “nuclear family”), with a “Focus on the Family” broadcast playing on a radio in the background, with a mountain of books with titles such as, “Ten Steps to a Great Marriage” and “How to Raise Godly Children.”
——————————————–
Related posts:

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

(Link): Hetero Couple Forced to Divorce Because They Say Homosexuals Are Ruining Their Marriage

(Link): Conservatives and Christians Fretting About U.S. Population Decline – We Must “Out-breed” Opponents Christian Host Says

(Link): 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

(Link): Christian Patriarchy Group: God Demands You Marry and Have Babies to Defeat Paganism and Satan. Singles and the Childless Worthless (in this worldview).

(Link): Gender Complementarian Advice to Single Women Who Desire Marriage Will Keep Them Single Forever / Re: Choosing A Spiritual Leader

(Link): Family as “The” Backbone of Society? – It’s Not In The Bible

(Link): Decent Secular Relationship Advice: How to Pick Your Life Partner

(Link): Being Unequally Yoked – should Christians marry Non Christians or only marry Christians

(Link): Married Female Christian Blogger Whose Mate Hunting Criteria is Guaranteed to Keep Marriage Minded Single Christian Men Single Perpetually

(Link): On Christians Marrying Non Christians -and- Unrealistic, Too Rigid Spouse Selection Lists by Christians

(Link): Are Fundamentalists Aiming to Out-Breed Secular America?

(Link): Misapplication of Biblical Verses About Fertility (also mentions early marriage) – a paper by J. McKeown

(Link): Cultural Discrimination Against Childless and Childfree Women – and link to an editorial by a Childless Woman

(Link): The Irrelevancy To Single or Childless or Childfree Christian Women of Biblical Gender Complementarian Roles / Biblical Womanhood Teachings

(Link): Why Unmarried and Childless or Childfree – Single Christians Should Be Concerned about the Gender Role Controversy

(Link): Why all the articles about being Child Free? On Being Childfree or Childless – as a Conservative / Right Wing / Christian

(Link): Males and Females Raped at Christian College, College Doesn’t Care – Equally Yoked is a Joke

(Link): Pastor charged in wife’s murder was headed to Europe to marry boyfriend, prosecutor says – Single Xtian Ladies: Kick that Be Equally Yoked Teaching to the Curb! Also: Marriage and Parenthood do not make people more godly or mature or loving or ethical

(Link): Christian Single Women: Another Example of Why You Should Abandon the “Be Equally Yoked” Teaching: 21-Y-O Christianity Student, Children’s Minister Charged With Murdering Fiancée He Was to Wed in August; Made It Look Like Suicide

(Link): Study: Couples Without Children Have Happier Marriages / Study: Having Kids Ruins Your Life

(Link): Leader of Hyper Family Focused, Fertility Cult (Vision Forum Ministries) Steps Down After Admitting to Having an “Emotional Affair”

(Link): Bay-Bees – Have them, have lots of them and NOW, no matter what say some Christians

(Link): Motherhood Does Not Make Women More Godly or Mature (Mother Suffocates New Born and Shoves It In Toilet)

A Female’s Virginity Belongs To Her – Not Her Father or Husband – Re: Christian Purity Balls

A Female’s Virginity Belongs To Her – Not Her Father or Husband – Re: Purity Balls

This story has been making the rounds the past week.

(Link): ‘You are married to the Lord and your daddy is your boyfriend’: Purity balls, in which girls ‘gift their virginity’ to their fathers until marriage, sweeping America, from The Daily Mail

While I do believe the Bible forbids pre-martial sex and supports virginity until marriage; and that virginity until marriage has been under attack from Christians the past few years (in addition from secular culture); and that a person’s choice to remain celibate should be respected by all (not mocked); that Christian parents or parents with traditional values have a right to instill Christian or traditional morals in their children, I do not support things such as purity balls.

One of my first problems with these “purity balls” is that they focus on female sexuality.

In these balls, the young ladies are forced to dress in white wedding type dresses, dance with their fathers, their fathers give them purity rings, and the young ladies pledge their virginity to their fathers.

As far as I am aware, there is no male equivalent, where young males are told to give their virginity to their mother and later, should they marry, their wife.

The Bible is clear that pre-martial sex is forbidden for all, for both genders, not just the ladies.

It is sexist and unbiblical for Christian parents to emphasize virginity only for female children.

I do not feel purity balls are appropriate for several reasons, but if one is going to hold one for females, one needs to keep things evened out by forcing males to participate in them as well, by having the males pledge their virginity to their mothers.

Growing up, I was very much turned off at the idea of marrying a non-virgin male. My preference is still to marry a virgin male.

I do feel that people who have pre-marital sex cheat their future spouse out of something that is rightfully theirs (ie, their virginity).

I know a lot of liberal Christians, emergents, and so forth hate that reasoning, but I apply it equally to males. I am grossed out at the idea of going on a honeymoon knowing the guy I have married has already placed his penis in some other woman’s orifices.

As I get older, I realize I may have no choice, because fornication is rampant these days – adult, male virgins are not exactly a dime a dozen. I’ve made peace with that.

At any rate, male virginity is not valued or upheld nearly as much as female virginity is, especially in religious circles.

I suspect one reason for this is that religious parents do not want to deal with unplanned pregnancies. Who gets pregnant from sex, males or females? Exactly.

I suppose Christian parents find it easier to clamp down on their daughter’s sexuality so as not to have to deal with birth control, abortion, adoption, and medical bills, so they up the pressure on the female children not to put out. One does not have to worry about a son becoming pregnant.

A woman’s virginity belongs to her and her alone.

At this point, I don’t even want to say one’s virginity belongs to God, though I suppose a biblical case can be made that a person’s body, sexuality and so on belongs to God (and there are biblical passages which indicate this), but God does not force Himself on people, their bodies, and their choices.

I have seen numerous testimonies by Christian women who admit to having had slept around many times over their life, and they suffered no ill consequences from that behavior.

God may call pre-marital sex a sin, but He does not enforce any negative consequences – in this lifetime- upon those who engage in such behavior, so far as I have been able to ascertain.

I actually see the opposite: I often see testimonies by Christian women on television programs who said they were big sluts, they admit they knew the Bible is against pre-marital sex, yet had sex anyway, they say they came down with some kind of awful disease as a result, but when they turned to God again, that God completely healed them of their sexually transmitted disease.

Still others said the only bad outcome of whoring around is that they came to feel empty or guilty due to said behavior, later stopped, and later met a great Christian guy who they married.

So, in spite of all the pre-marital sleeping around, they later got married, and now live happy, conventional, married, middle- class- American life styles.

Whether a female chooses to engage in premarital sex is her choice and hers alone.

I am not opposed to parents teaching their children to save sex for marriage and bringing up potential health problems involved of having sex, but in the end scheme of things, one’s virginity is one’s own, and one can do with it as one pleases.

(Note, however, the Bible does in fact teach that pre-marital sex is a sin. You can certainly have pre-marital sex if you so choose, but God does not condone that behavior.)

Forcing girls to attend faux marriage-like ceremonies where they have to devote their virginity to their fathers is distasteful, borders on incestuous, and places unrealistic, unfair pressure on these young ladies.

Give the young lady the proper moral guidance and health information she needs, and step out of her way; stop it with the purity balls.

I find these purity balls to be just as bad as the porn-i-fied culture we live in.

It’s the reverse extreme: usually in our society, people are pressured to have sex, have a lot of sex with lots of people and to start young. They are told their sexual choice to remain celibate is ridicule-worthy, shame worthy.

The virgin’s or celibate’s sexual choice to refrain from sex is often not respected. It is belittled. Virgins are shamed and bullied into acting like whores.

The purity ball is the reverse, but just as bad – pressuring young women into a sexual choice they may not want to make for themselves.

It’s telling them that their body, their virginity is not theirs, but belongs to someone else, either a father or a future husband.

I do believe one should save one’s virginity for a future spouse – so in a sense, I’d say yes, your virginity is owed to your future spouse – but at the end of the day, one’s virginity is still really and finally one’s own.

Your body is yours, not your father’s, not your future husband’s.

What I am getting at is that one’s choices should be respected. If you make all your kid’s choices for her, she will never be able to function as an adult. At some point, she needs to make choices for herself about herself, and that includes what to do when it comes to sex and her body.

Another reason these purity balls are so damaging: they make the job of all Christians (or semi- Christian, semi- agnostics with traditional values) who defend the Bible’s teaching on sex, (such as myself), ten times more difficult.

I already have an uphill battle defending celibacy and virginity as it stands, without these lunatic, crackpot fringe Christian groups holding these bizarre father and daughter virginity dances.

Staying a virgin until marriage does not guarantee great, regular sex, as many Christians like to maintain. I have numerous examples on my blog; just use the search box and type in “sexless marriage” for example after example of people who stayed virgins until marriage, but then their sex lives were terrible or dried up totally.

By the way, I am not fully on board with the “you are married to God” talk one sees pop up among some Christians. It sexualizes God and Jesus. I am an adult single – God is not my husband, and I am not “dating” Jesus.

See these links for more:

(Link): Article: My Savior My Spouse? – Is God or Jesus Your Husband Isaiah 54:5

(Link): The Sexualization of God and Jesus

(Link): Dating Jesus / Oh No I’m Single! (videos) – for single unmarried Christians

(Link): How the Sexual Revolution Ruined Friendship – Also: If Christians Truly Believed in Celibacy and Virginity, they would stop adhering to certain sexual and gender stereotypes that work against both

(Link): Topics: Friendship is Possible / Sexualization By Culture Of All Relationships

Do the people who throw these purity balls ever stop to consider that their daughters may never marry?

I was a Christian since I was a child, I was raised with the expectation that I would marry some day. I am still single in my 40s. No “Prince Charming” ever entered my life.

Quivering Family Duggar Girls Write Dating Book

Quivering Family Duggar Girls Write Dating Book

I’m sure these are nice girls, but they’ve had the wool pulled over their eyes with naive, twisted ideas about dating, sex, and marriage by their gender complementarian- to- partriarchal upbringing, so I don’t think young ladies should necessarily take their dating advice.

I am obviously not opposed to them wanting to remain celibate until their wedding nights, but I believe I saw a blurb here or there where they said they don’t believe in kissing until marriage.

That is certainly their right, if that is their free choice, but I feel such teachings and beliefs are drastic and can lead to sexual or relational hang ups and issues in a marriage.

I just know that when or if news of this starts getting posted on atheist, ex Christian, liberal Christian, emergent, and post evangelical blogs, these young ladies will be mocked or ruthlessly insulted for wanting to stay virgins until marriage.

The guy who wrote the page “Jessa Duggar Is 21, Never Been Kissed, And Avoids ‘Sensual Thoughts’” wrote,

The Duggars are the archetypal Conservative Christian family.

What makes him think that? Quiverfull is not archetypal of conservative Christians.

I’m still sympathetic towards conservative Christians on some matters, and during all the years I was one myself, I never would’ve agreed with some of the Quiverfull teachings.

There are some evangelicals and Baptists who regard Quivering as lunacy (eg, having boatloads of kids, the quasi Old Testament patriarchy practiced, no kissing before marriage, etc), an aberration, unbiblical, and a distortion or misapplication of biblical teachings and topics.

At least the Duggar girls are trying to dispel the Christian and secular misunderstanding that celibate adults are asexual, uninterested in sex, and don’t want sex (see (Link): this previous post for more on that).

Concerning: Where the one Duggar girl says in some of these interviews she still has desire for male companionship, though being celibate, and she thanks God for “being normal.”

I’m not entirely clear on how she meant that comment, but I can imagine in the hours and days to follow, as the ex Christian, atheist, post evangelical, secular feminist, and liberal Christian blogs get ahold of that comment, they will assume she meant that as some kind of insult against asexuals or homosexuals – though I doubt that is how the girl meant it.

That won’t stop her from getting flamed on such blogs, though. Sometimes some atheists, secular feminists, post evangelicals, liberal Christians, and the other groups invent things to get pissed at or offended by.

They will choose to read her remark in the worst possible way and drag her over the coals for it. I will be surprised if that does not happen.

I am also expecting the post evangelical, secular feminist, and other such blogs to get into (Link): Celibate and Virgin Shaming mode, tell us how it’s so ignorant for these young ladies to remain virgins until marriage, since they need to make sure their boyfriends are “sexually compatible” with them.

One of the Duggar girls says she and her sisters avoid sexual temptation by staying away from men entirely, which is not a good solution. I have blogged on that many times before.

For Christians to teach other Christians to avoid one gender entirely sets individuals up for sexual hang ups and relationship problems later in life, and it also keeps gender stereotypes afloat (such as, all men are horny horn dog potential rapists, all married women are frigid, all single women are horny Jezebels who screw around).

These stereotypes actually keep single men and women apart, hinders them from marrying, and has other negative ramifications.

Though I find it interesting you have a group of females here advocating that women should stay away from men. Usually, Christian males teach in their literature, blogs, or sermons, that single and married men say away from women to avoid sexual temptation.

(Link): Jessa Duggar and her sisters unveil Christian dating rules in new book

The Duggar sisters say in their new book that in spite of their Christian upbringing they still have “have a natural physical desire toward men.”

March. 11 (UPI) — The Duggar sisters opened up about their home’s Christian rules when it comes to dating in their new book Growing Up Duggar: It’s All About Relationships.

“It’s easy to put yourself into physical and moral danger and give into those emotions or sensual thoughts that promise pleasant, but only temporary, fulfillment,” the women reportedly say in the book, according to the Daily Mail.

They add that avoiding men altogether is the easiest way to avoid sin.

“By censoring our thoughts through the filter of God’s word, we will be able to recant any wrong thoughts or temptations that try to sneak in,” they say.

In spite of their Christian upbringing the sisters explained that they still “have a natural physical desire toward men” and that they “thank God for making us normal.”

The third Duggar daughter, Jessa, announced in September 2013 that she was dating fellow churchgoer Ben Seewald. Michelle Duggar said at the time that Jessa was allowed to “side hug” her boyfriend after they “were officially courting.”

(Link): Jessa Duggar Is 21, Never Been Kissed, And Avoids ‘Sensual Thoughts’

Jessa Duggar has co-authored a new book, together with three of her sisters, which explains their somewhat unusual outlook on life in general — and sex in particular.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say “lack of sex,” since they reveal in the book Growing up Duggar that they avoid spending time with men in case they sin and have sex before marriage.

Gender Complementarian Advice to Single Women Who Desire Marriage Will Keep Them Single Forever / Re: Choosing A Spiritual Leader

Gender Complementarian Advice to Single Women Who Desire Marriage Will Keep Them Single Forever / Re: Choosing A Spiritual Leader

Usually, I am not a fan of the “and that’s why you’re still single” view dished out in Lonely Hearts columns, but can I tell you, if you are a single Christian woman wondering why it is you’re 35, 45, or 55 years old and still single – though you want marriage – it may just be that you have too many qualifications you insist a man must meet before you will consider marrying him.

This isn’t quite the same thing as scolding a woman for “being too picky.”

Often, being “too picky” is distorted by critics of singles to mean that “you insist every man look like actor Brad Pitt and be a multi-millionaire,” when, usually, a woman who is “being too picky” is merely holding out for a solid, average guy, someone who has a steady job and who will treat her well.

And there’s nothing wrong with having standards, ladies.

Don’t settle for some ugly, fat, broke, and/or abusive guy just for the sake of being married, or getting your marriage-obsessed family to back off.

No, I’m not talking about being picky (having standards). I’m talking about erecting all manner of laughable, unwise, unduly limiting, idiotic restrictions on to mate selection that some Christians recommend you do, such as only be willing to marry a Christian man if he is your “spiritual leader” or if he goes to church every week.

From the ladies’ section of Christianity Today online magazine:

(Link): Advice to Women: Marry an Evangelist by Megan Hill

This seems to be a newish trend with Christians, erecting more and more criteria to what they feel – not what the Bible says, but what they feel – a Christian woman should insist upon in a partner.

For example, take this moronic, legalistic advice to single women from preacher Mark Driscoll:

• (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’

See how that’s designed to limit the number of potential mates a single Christian woman may choose from? Yeah, and it’s not helpful.

Look, in my Christian days, all I was looking for in a guy (in- so- far as religious traits were concerned) was that the guy was a sincere Christian.

I was not even insisting and demanding that a suitor had to be more spiritually mature than me, be my spiritual head, lead me in prayer, be at the same level as me spiritual-maturity-wise, or know the Bible better than me, or attend church weekly. And I am still single in my 40s.

There are not a lot of men out there who meet the Basic Christian Criteria – which is, the guy accepted Christ as Savior, so what makes the author, Hill, believe a single woman cannot only get a Christian (a man who accepted Christ as savior), but also one who is her “spiritual leader”?

Uproar at ‘Biblezine’ sex tips for kids / Christians in Aussie Public School Religious Classes Teaching Girl Students “Not To Make Their Nipples A Distraction and Temptation for Men”

Uproar at ‘Biblezine’ sex tips for kids / Christians in Aussie Public School Religious Classes Teaching Girl Students “Not To Make Their Nipples A Distraction and Temptation for Men”

Most of my commentary on these stories are farther below the excerpts.

(Link): Teaching children that dinosaurs didn’t exist: how public schools fail their brief by Marion Maddox

• Feb 25, 2014
• • Religious education in Australian schools should be scrutinised: most parents do not want children to be taught creationism, or their daughters told that their nipples are a ‘temptation to men’
  — end excerpts —

Most people who read this are probably going to focus on the dinosaur teaching, and even get offended at the ‘homosexual feelings’ comment. I am not terribly interested in any of that. Here is where I got tripped up (emphasis mine):

Another primary school’s principal demanded an apology and is now hosting a departmental investigation after SRI [Special Religious Instruction] volunteers gave year 6 children a “Biblezine,” advising girls how to avoid making their nipples a “distraction and temptation to men,” explaining that wives must “submit” to husbands and instructing children never to act on homosexual feelings. She called the material “completely inappropriate,” “against fundamental
— end excerpts —

Oh please.

In case you are wondering, this is a Christian group teaching this nonsense (from (Link): Vic principal calls for abolition of compulsory religious instruction):

SAMANTHA DONOVAN:

• The system, I understand, in Victoria has changed, in that now parents can opt in to the classes, whereas previously it was an opt-out system. Doesn’t that give parents more of an option?

JOE KELLY: Yes, it does and it doesn’t. It was very clear at this school that parents were very confused about what actually was on offer.

Quite a number of them thought the course was a study of religion, a comparative religious course – which I have no objection to.

But the course is not that – it is one, it is a course of instruction in Christian dogma, and there are children that attend this program because parents, for a whole range of reasons, either don’t understand exactly what it is, I’ve spoken to some parents who have their children going because they don’t want them sitting out in the corridors doing nothing for that period of time. I’ve had other parents say, look, my husband’s Indian, we have our own religion, but I don’t want my son to look different or to be out of sync with the rest of the class.

So there’s a very dysfunctional element about the whole management of it.
— end excperts —

But wait, there’s more – more insanity:

(Link): Uproar at ‘Biblezine’ sex tips for kids

• by Jill Stark
  Feb 22, 2014

Parents and teachers have called for an urgent overhaul of religious education in schools after year 6 children were given material claiming girls who wear revealing clothes are inviting sexual assault, and homosexuality, masturbation and sex before marriage are sinful.

Students at Torquay College were presented with “Biblezines” as a graduation present at the end of their Christian education program, run by Access Ministries – the government accredited provider of religious instruction in Victorian schools.

The magazines, Refuel 2 and Revolve 2 – which intersperse the text of the New Testament with dating advice, beauty tips and music reviews – warn girls not to go bra-less because “your nipples are much more noticeable and a distraction and temptation for men”, and not to wear tube tops and low-rise jeans because men are “sexually stimulated by what they see”.

“The Bible says not to cause anyone else to sin. Are you putting sexual thoughts about your body into guys’ heads? If you are showing a lot of skin you probably are,” it states.

The material, produced by the News Corp-owned Nelson Bibles, America’s largest Christian publishing house, also “exposes the lie of safe sex”, claiming that condoms condone promiscuity, and urges those who think they are gay never to act on it.

In response to an agony aunt-style question about, “How far can you go before you are no longer pure?”, the document reads: “Let’s put it this way: How much dog poop stirred into your cookie batter does it take to ruin the whole batter.”

…. Access Ministries says it did not approve the Biblezines, or their content, and they were a graduation gift from local churches, which normally donate traditional Bibles.

In a statement, chief executive Evonne Paddison said: “This year there was a huge rush for the Bibles and, for reasons we do not yet understand, it seems as though 15 copies of Refuel 2 were handed out. Students were asked to return them on the day . . . Our agreed curriculum teaches the basic beliefs of the Christian faith and does not stray into areas of sexuality at all. We are extremely disappointed that this has occurred and will continue to investigate how it happened.”
[—- end article excerpt ———]

There are parts of this stuff I actually agree with, and parts I do not.

Strawman Argument Against Celibacy / Virginity and Sexual Purity by the Anti Sexual Purity Gestapo – The First Person Argument – vis a vis Early Marriage debate (Part 1)

Strawman Argument Against Celibacy / Virginity and Sexual Purity by the Anti Sexual Purity Gestapo – The First Person Argument – vis a vis Early Marriage debate

(This is Part 1 – Link to Part 2 is at the end.)

I sometimes see liberal Christians use this argument, but it’s usually atheists, or other types of Non Christians, who have a very skewed understanding of evangelical ideas of sexual purity who use it.

This argument is most often seen in the comment sections under articles and editorials on blogs where early marriage is being advised by Christians, or where ever the issue is being discussed.

As you know, I do not support early marriage.

I’m not completely opposed to early marriage, but I do not think it should be hyped, marketed, or mandated or forced on anyone. I have blogged about my reservations of early marriage before.

It is not biblical or wise to encourage people to marry before they themselves decide they are ready to marry, as Early Marriage advocates do.

Instead of teaching Early Marriage, Early Marriage advocates should be doing what the Bible does: teaching sexual self control.

(Even where the Bible mentions ‘marrying rather than burning with lust’, it does not teach the idea that one experiencing burning, or one who MIGHT experience such burning, must marry by ‘age X.’
The Bible simply does not prescribe an age of marriage every one must follow.
The Bible does teach the concept of self control, however.)

The New Testament does not mandate marriage for anyone; it presents marriage and having children as being personal choice, nor does the Bible list an age by which God says people MUST marry, as I just discussed.

Some characters in the Bible did not marry until age 40 or older, and God was not the least bit upset by this fact (see this blog page for examples).

God even commanded one Old Testament prophet to marry a prostitute, and, unless my memory is off, I think God commanded another prophet to remain single (he did not permit the guy to marry).

Here is how the argument against virginity, celibacy, and sexual purity arises or plays out in these “Early Marriage” contexts among ex Christians, liberal or emergent Christians, secular feminists, and atheists:

You’re on a blog or online group that routinely likes to make fun of evangelical, Christian attitudes and practices. (Yes, some aspects of Christian culture are indeed laugh-worthy. I don’t hold that against these groups.)

The group moderator or blog owner links to a pro- Early Marriage editorial by some Christian person.

Immediately, the comment section under said link starts typically with guffaws, expressions of incredulity, and an attitude of, “Look at the imbecilic, backwards, idiot, hay-seed Christians telling people to marry before they turn 25 years old, har har, what morons!, what simpletons, ha ha, har har har.”

Invariably, wait long enough, and some atheist, secular feminist, or liberal Christian erects this straw man argument in the comments:

“I can’t believe these “early marriage” Christians believe that people should marry the first person they date!”

I am not saying such Christians do not exist. There very well may be one or two crackpot people of faith out there who do indeed teach that Christian youth should marry the first person they date.

However, out of all the Christian, early marriage advocacy material I personally have read, I have yet to read any Early Marriage proponent make that absurd claim.

I am going out on a limb here and take a stab at why these blockheads claim they believe Early Marriage proponents advise girls must marry the first boy they date. I could be wrong about it, but here goes my theory.

Just as Christians incorrectly conflate the phrase and concepts of “family values” with “biblical values,” (see (Link): this post for more on that, and (Link): this post), so too do Non-Christians or liberal Christians conflate sex with dating, or, they assume dating a person necessarily entails having sex with the date.

It is not true that dating a person can or always will lead to sex, or that the definition of, or practice of, dating requires sex.

Even in Non Christian culture up to the 1980s and a bit later, a normal secular date between teen agers (or even college students) would entail the boy picking the girl up at her home, taking her to a movie and maybe out for fries and a Coke, dropping her off at home afterwards, and, optionally, if he’s brave enough, giving her a kiss on the cheek good night on the front porch (or the girl kisses the guy), and the date ends.

Notice, no sex was involved in any of that at any time.

That was a normal, standard date for a lot of people in American culture, even for Non Christians.