Oil Town Where Single Male Population Vastly Outnumbers Females and they practically rape the women – Reflections on the Christian argument that men will treat women better if women in short supply

Oil Town Where Single Male Population Vastly Outnumbers Females and they practically rape the women

This is a creepy story (see link way below), but also odd, in that, one argument I’ve heard from Christians about young single men (or older single males) not “manning up” and being into prolonged adolescence, is that one reason (according to Christians) is that churches make women too readily available to single men.

If the company of single women was kept more rare, it would behoove the single men to date the women and make more marriage proposals. (That is what I’ve read by Christians, I am not arguing that point myself.)

To put the argument another way, rather than the current practice of churches – which is to let the single men hang out with the single women in classes or church dances, thus giving them lots of female companionship – some Christians think churches or parents should limit the time women spend around such men.

In this article, there is a woman shortage in this one town described. But instead of the men stepping up to the plate, treating women with respect, and courting them as gentlemen, most of these men have turned into almost-rapists (I am not exaggerating).

If I remember right, this article, which interviewed female prostitutes, said that some of their clients include MARRIED men.

Some of these married men travel to this city “X” months out the year, leaving their wife back home, and once in City Z, these men hire prossies.

And what do we learn from this? We learn that, contrary to Christian mythos, married people are not immune from sexual sin, nor are they more godly or ethical than adult singles.

(Link): An Oil Town Where Men Are Many, and Women Are Hounded

    Published: January 15, 2013

…The rich shale oil formation deep below the rolling pastures here has attracted droves of young men to work the labor-intensive jobs that get the wells flowing and often generate six-figure salaries. What the oil boom has not brought, however, are enough single women.

At work, at housing camps and in bars and restaurants, men have been left to mingle with their own. High heels and skirts are as rare around here as veggie burgers. Some men liken the environment to the military or prison.

“It’s bad, dude,” said Jon Kenworthy, 22, who moved to Williston from Indiana in early December. “I was talking to my buddy here. I told him I was going to import from Indiana because there’s nothing here.”

This has complicated life for women in the region as well.

Many said they felt unsafe. Several said they could not even shop at the local Walmart without men following them through the store. Girls’ night out usually becomes an exercise in fending off obnoxious, overzealous suitors who often flaunt their newfound wealth.

“So many people look at you like you’re a piece of meat,” said Megan Dye, 28, a nearly lifelong Williston resident. “It’s disgusting. It’s gross.”

Continue reading “Oil Town Where Single Male Population Vastly Outnumbers Females and they practically rape the women – Reflections on the Christian argument that men will treat women better if women in short supply”

Gender Complementarian book by David Murrow that upholds most every gender stereotype I rail against on this blog

Gender Complementarian book that upholds most every gender stereotype I rail against on this blog
Reminder: there is coming a time I will not be blogging here at all, or not nearly as often. Please read more about that situation here: [Blog Break]
This other blog discusses Christian gender complementarianism and covers some of the same topics I discuss on this blog. Here is a review the blogger did about a gender comp book by Murrow:

(Link): “What Your Husband Isn’t Telling You”: Is this book telling women the truth about men?


    In his book entitled, “What Your Husband Isn’t Telling You,” David Murrow makes a number generalizations about men. He seems to believe that his view of what it means to be a man is normative, healthy and Christian. He writes as if men are simply “wired this way” by God.

    Here are some of his assertions, followed by my responses:

    Murrow (makes a number of comments about sex):

    … “Men actually get a cocaine-like shot of pleasure from looking at a beautiful woman. So here’s your assignment: Give your husband as many cocaine shots as possible. Satisfy his addiction by looking your best” (pp. 163-164).

    “And why are looks so important to men?” “Men compare. Men compete. Men size each other up by their spouses” (p. 164). “Having a knockout wife raises your social standing at work, among your relatives, and even a bit at church” (p. 165).


    Women are not responsible for their husbands’ behaviour.

    … If he has married his wife because he believes her beauty enhances his social standing at church (or anywhere else), he should seek to understand his worth as a loved child of God and friend of Jesus Christ.

I would encourage you to visit that blog and read the ENTIRE post, click here.

This Murrow guy expends a lot of time and effort blaming women for why their husbands cheat. He puts all responsibility on the woman to stay physically attractive and hot-looking to keep their husbands from looking at porn or from having affairs. First of all, it’s not a woman’s responsibility to keep her man from straying – it’s his own duty.

Secondly, a woman being hot, attractive, sexy, and babelicious does not keep a man from straying, witness all the famous movie star men, sports stars, and male rock singers who get married to stunning model beauties but who have affairs on those wives anyway (see: golfer Tiger Woods).

If you find yourself married to a partner who has let him or herself go, and she/he refuses to get in shape or make an effort at his appearance after you’ve talked to them about it, consider divorce… don’t have an affair or wank off to porn all day.

If a man is that terribly hung up about what his wife looks like, that indicates he is very immature. This disproves the Christian notion, believed and taught by some Christians, that God only grants a spouse to people who are fully deserving of one (e.g., godly, humble, self-less, etc).

Other good posts at that other blog include:


(Link): Why Complementarians “See” Male Leadership as God’s Design: The Psychology of Perception (Seeing What We Already Believe)

I like the title of this blog post, because it gets to the heart of the matter – Christians who are into gender complementarianism claim that women are equal to men, but their views and teachings on women totally belie that claim, because they spend their time rationalizing their sexist views (e.g., women cannot or should not lead or teach men, or husbands have authority over wives, etc):
(Link): Rationalizing Inequality

(Link): Is Mutual Submission Really a Myth?
Related posts this blog:

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

(Link): Gender Complementarian Product for Females: Don’t Base Your Value on Your Looks, but Wait, Yes, You Should

(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): Atlantic: “The case for abandoning the myth that ‘women aren’t visual.’”

(Link): Christian Gender and Sex Stereotypes Act as Obstacles to Christian Singles Who Want to Get Married (Not All Men Are Obsessed with Sex)

(Link): When Women Wanted Sex Much More Than Men – and how the stereotype flipped

(Link): Following the Usual Advice Won’t Get You Dates or Married – Even Celebrities Have A Hard Time (Good Looks and Lots of Money are NOT guarantees you can get a spouse or even dates) (part 1)

(Link): Part 2 – Following the Usual Advice Won’t Get You Dates or Married – Even CHRISTIAN Celebrities Have A Hard Time

(Link): Modesty: A Female-Only Virtue? – Christian Double Standards – Hypocrisy

(Link): Groundbreaking News: Women Like Sex (part 1, 2) (articles)

(Link): The “Feminization” of the Church by K R Wordgazer

(Link): Pat Robertson to married woman: All men are cheaters and sex crazed horn dogs, but that’s okay because they’re men

(Link): Pat Robertson raises the old canard about females dressing modestly and males supposedly being visually oriented

(Link): Advocate of Family Values Doesn’t Uphold Family Values | Stop Asking Pat Robertson for Advice America!

(Link): Do men really have higher sex drives than women? (article/study)

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

(Link): Some Christian Women Use Pornography – No Duh. I’ve been saying this all along.

(Link): The Secret Women’s Porn Problem (article about Christian women who use porn)

(Link): Getting Married Does Not Necessarily Guarantee Frequent Hot Satisfying Sexy Sex / (also discussed): Gender and Sex Stereotypes (article)

(Link): Letter to Advice Columnist: Husband Upset That Wife Masturbates – Marriage Doesn’t Guarantee Hot Regular Sex For Both or Either Partner, Contra Usual Christian Claims

(Link): Yes, Some Women Use and Look at Pornography

(Link): New Study Released: Cheaters: More American Married Women Admit to Adultery (links)

(Link): Superman, Man Candy -and- Christian Women Are Visual And Enjoy Looking At Built, Hot, Sexy Men

(Link): Ryan Gosling and Shirtless, Buff Cowboy Photos on Social Media – Yes, Women Are Visually Stimulated and Visually Oriented (Part 2)

(Link): Boy Bands, Rock Singers, and Other High School Crushes – Yes, Women Are Visually Stimulated and Visually Oriented

Four myths about sex and women that prop up the new misogyny

Four myths about sex and women that prop up the new misogyny

Some of the the myths the author describes in this are some of the same ones spread by conservative Christians.

(Link): Four myths about sex and women that prop up the new misogyny

    Sorry, would-be pickup artists. There is no such thing as a “friend zone”


    This article originally appeared on AlterNet.

    Trading in myths and misinformation is the bread and butter of any reactionary movement, as is amply demonstrated by the various myths that prop up everything from gun nuttery to the anti-choice movement.

    Unsurprisingly, then, there’s a great deal of misinformation upholding the troubling trend of new misogyny that festers in everything from “men’s rights” forums to “pick-up artist” communities to the various rape apologists and two-bit woman haters that litter the right wing media landscape

    [Note from this blogger: the left wing also has woman-haters among them. Some of them have done things like made “rape jokes” against conservative, right wing, female politicians, such as Sarah Palin. Funny how liberal writers usually fail to acknowledge the sexism inherent in the LEFT WING].

    The tragic shooting in Isla Vista, which was committed by a young but hardened misogynist named Elliot Rodger, has shown a spotlight on this weird but influential world where ugly myths about gender and sexuality flourish.

    Here are some of those myths, some of which influenced Rodger, and why they are so very, very wrong.

    1. Evoutionary psychology nonsense.
    While the more mainstream conservative movement embraces a religious form of misogyny, the new misogyny often prefers to pretend to have a “scientific” rationale for its negative attitudes towards women.

    Anti-feminist writer James Taranto, who is not a scientist, distilled this theory in the Wall Street Journal, positing that evolution made men and women’s sexual desires complete opposites, with men trying to get away with sex with as many women as possible and women being “hypergamous,” which is the new pseudo-scientific word for “gold digger.”

    His sole evidence for this theory was a long-discredited 1989 study that showed that men were more quick to say yes to sex with a stranger.

    None of them have stopped pushing the belief that women are disinterested in sex itself, (Link): but only use it as a commodity to trade with “high status” men, since pushing this belief allows self-appointed “pick-up artists” to sell dating books and classes to men who want to learn to fake being “high status” to get more sex.

    Nor do they stop pushing the idea that men are more promiscuous than women, a self-serving myth that allows them to demand chastity in female partners while excusing their own sexual dalliance.

    In reality, men and women have roughly the same number of sexual partners over a lifetime.

    Both sexes are interested in casual sex, but men more readily agree because they both feel less likely to be violently assaulted by a stranger and are more likely to expect the encounter to end in orgasm. Nor are women programmed to be gold diggers.

    As women’s ability to make their own money has increased, there has been a decline in women seeking richer husbands. Women aren’t preprogrammed to be gold diggers, because the second they’re freed from having to chase rich men, most are happy to date men more like themselves.

    Continue reading “Four myths about sex and women that prop up the new misogyny”

‘Dating Lesson’ Asks Eighth-Grade Girls To Publicly Declare How Far They Will Go Sexually

‘Dating Lesson’ Asks Eighth-Grade Girls To Publicly Declare How Far They Will Go Sexually

(Link): ‘Dating Lesson’ Asks Eighth-Grade Girls To Publicly Declare How Far They Will Go Sexually

    At least one pair of parents is fuming after their eighth-grade daughter came home from school saying that every student in her class had to indicate – publicly – how far they are prepared to go sexually.

    The incident happened this week at Woodland Park Middle School in the San Diego, Calif. suburb of San Marcos, reports local ABC affiliate KGTV.

    The parents, who don’t want to be named, say their 14-year-old daughter was embarrassed because the teacher in her family life and health class instructed her and all of her classmates to stand under one of several signs. Each sign was labeled with a different phrase.

    Some of the labeled signs were innocuous, according to KGTV. These included “smiled at,” “hugged” and “kissed.”

    Other signs, such as “above the waist,” “below the waist” and “all the way,” were to varying degrees considerably less innocuous.

    “To put them up in front of their friends to be humiliated or to be asked questions that I believe are personal, it’s really none of the school’s business,” one of the peeved parents told the ABC station.

    The parent added that her daughter felt confused and peer-pressured afterward.

    Officials at the taxpayer-funded school defended the exercise, calling it a dating lesson.

    “The parents sign permission slips for the class and can look at the curriculum prior,” the Woodland Park Middle School told KGTV. “The purpose of the lesson was to open the lines of communication between parents and students about dating expectations.”

    It’s not clear how standing under signs labeled “above the waist” or “all the way” while at school would open up lines of communication between eighth graders and their parents.

    The principal added that the school found the lesson at a community clinic and has used it for several years now.

    According to the middle school’s website, the principal is Brian Randall.

    The angry parents suggested that perhaps an anonymous student survey could be less humiliating for students.

Related posts on this blog:

(Link): 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”

(Link): Las Vegas Police message to young girls: Have premarital sex and risk death or become a prostitute

After Pastor’s Son Comes Out as Homosexual, Southern Baptist Church Breaks With Denomination on Homosexuality – Once More Christians Allow Their Feelings To Cancel Out What God Says In The Bible on Sexual Morality – Christians worship feelings now, not God

After Pastor’s Son Comes Out as Homosexual, Southern Baptist Church Breaks With Denomination on Homosexuality – Once More Christians Allow Their Feelings To Cancel Out What God Says In The Bible on Sexual Morality – Christians worship feelings now, not God

I actually tire of hearing about homosexuality from secular and Christian sources.

My interest in mentioning the topic at all is not so much homosexuality itself but how Christians deal with it, because I think it shows how sloppy and un-biblical Christians have become towards HETERO sexual sins.

First, I will include a few links about this story with some excerpts, followed underneath these links and excepts with some of my commentary about the situation:

(Link): Southern Baptist ‘Church’ Votes to Keep Pro-Homosexual Minister Danny Cortez, Go ‘Third Way’

    By Garrett Haley, Christian News Network On June 5, 2014

    The leaders of a Southern Baptist congregation in southern California have voted to not dismiss their ‘pastor,’ despite recently stunning his congregation in announcing from the pulpit that he believes homosexual behavior is not a sin.

    Danny Cortez leads New Heart Community Church-a small congregation in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. Last year, Cortez concluded that he no longer agreed with the Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality and was instead “gay affirming.”

(Link): Baptist Pastor Abandons Scripture on Homosexuality After His Son’s Stunning Revelation

This is from the Huff. Post site, which is usually liberal and hostile towards traditional values and Christianity:
(Link): California Baptist Church Changes Views On Homosexuality After Pastor’s Gay Son Comes Out

(Link): After Pastor’s Son Comes Out, Southern Baptist Church Breaks With Denomination on Homosexuality

    June 5, 2014|12:40 pm

    A Southern Baptist church in California has broken with the denomination’s stance on homosexuality and has decided to accept the LGBT community without judgment. The church made the change after its lead pastor announced that he no longer holds to the teaching that homosexuality is a sin.

    Danny Cortez, who leads New Heart Community Church in La Mirada, explained his journey in a letter to progressive Christian blogger John Shore, founder of Unfundam

Here are my thoughts, which are nothing new, because I’ve mentioned this before in previous posts.

Because the church has been so obsessed with traditional (hetero) marriage and catering to the 1950s ideal of the “nuclear family” the past several decades, they ceased supporting adult singleness and adult celibacy for hetero-sexuals.

In recent years, even conservative Christians (some who are Southern Baptist, some are Reformed or Calvinist) have even been criticizing and mocking (hetero) adult singleness, (hetero) adult singles, (hetero) virginity, and (hetero) celibacy (see for instance my posts on Al Mohler and Tim Challies for examples).

Such Christians have been trying to ease the guilty consciences of (hetero) fornicators by downplaying the Bible’s teaching and insistence on sexual purity, including remaining a virgin until marriage.

Because Southern Baptists (and other Christian groups) have failed to support the concept of adult virginity and adult singleness, as well as failed to actually support adult virgins themselves, naturally homosexuality and transgenderism and other issues have taken over and cropped up in and among churches.

All this comes back round in a circle, however.

First, the church emphasizes hetero marriage out the ying yang, talks smack against (hetero) virginity and (hetero) singleness, so that homosexuality of course makes inroads in churches. Churches left themselves wide open to this situation.

Then, as homosexuality becomes viewed as the norm in churches, HETERO adult singles such as myself see churches not only excusing HETERO sexual sin but HOMO sexual sin as well and wonder, “why should I remain chaste when the church is not only not criticizing and correcting sexual sin, both homo and hetero, but giving such un-biblical behavior a stamp of approval.”

I an not the only individual to pick up on this.

Several months ago, a celibate adult HETERO single woman argued in an editorial on Christianity Today that as churches become more and more accepting of homosexual sin, they are eroding reasons for HETERO single adults to remain sexually pure. (I have a copy of that editorial somewhere on this blog.)

My other observation is that I am tired of Christians defining their theology based upon emotion or feelings.

I do think it’s important to treat all people with respect and consideration, please do not misunderstand me. I have no problem with church members who show kindness and compassion to homosexual people. That is all well and good.

But to step from treating people with compassion and politeness to going against the Bible and telling these people (and from the pulpit) that their behavior is not sin is beyond wrong. I actually consider that evil. To flatly contradict what God plainly says in the Bible is not only evil it is dishonest.

My position is if people are going to have hetero pre-martial sex or engage in homosexual sex, that is their prerogative, but it is not their right to insist that the Bible is vague on these topics, or that God or the Bible is fine and accepting of sexual sin (whether hetero or homo).

I’ve also posted links to this blog before to stories of preachers who have admitted in public that they refrain from preaching against sexual sin, for fear they may hurt the feelings of, or anger, fornicators and adulterers and homosexuals.

Where does the Bible teach that “feelings” cancel out sound doctrine?

Yes, there are numerous teachings directing Christians to love other people, and to “teach the truth in love,” but where does the Bible say that God is fine with Christians shutting up about the truth – in changing what God has condemned to say God now approves?

I am not aware of a single concept in the entire Bible where God says his views on morals change, or that God is fine with Christians declaring sanctified and acceptable what God says is wrong, sin, evil, or an abomination.

As a matter of fact, the Bible says, things like,

    “I am the LORD, and I do not change.” (Malachi 3:6)

    “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.” (Hebrew 13:8)

    “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.” (Isaiah 5:20)

No, there is not a single Bible verse which says anything remotely such as,

    “And if your son admits to being a child molester, start teaching from the pulpit that child rape is no longer a sin”

    “And if your son admits to being a thief, start teaching from the pulpit that stealing is no longer a sin”


    “And if your son admits to being a hetero fornicatior who has sex with prostitutes, start teaching from the pulpit that fornication and prostitution are no longer sins.”

By the same token, there is no verse or concept in the Bible that teaches if your own beloved son is guilty of X behavior (which God condemns) it’s okay to stand at the pulpit and declare God is fine with “X” and “X” is no longer a sin. Your feelings for your son do not get to over-ride the Bible’s authority on topics.

As a matter of fact, there is a story in the Old Testament of a temple priest who allowed his two sons to repeatedly defile the temple, and God killed the guy off. God doesn’t care how much you love your son, if you keep permitting the son to sin, God will deal with it.

This is from (Link): 1 Samuel Chapter 2:

    Eli’s Wicked Sons

    12 Eli’s [temple priest] sons were scoundrels; they had no regard for the Lord.

    …. 17 This sin of the young men was very great in the Lord’s sight, for they were treating the Lord’s offering with contempt.

    …. 22 Now Eli [temple priest], who was very old, heard about everything his sons were doing to all Israel and how they slept with the women who served at the entrance to the tent of meeting.

    23 So he said to them, “Why do you do such things? I hear from all the people about these wicked deeds of yours. 24 No, my sons; the report I hear spreading among the Lord’s people is not good. 25 If one person sins against another, God may mediate for the offender; but if anyone sins against the Lord, who will intercede for them?”

    His sons, however, did not listen to their father’s rebuke, for it was the Lord’s will to put them to death.

    … 27 Now a man of God came to Eli and said to him,

    …34 “‘And what happens to your two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, will be a sign to you—they will both die on the same day.

    35 I will raise up for myself a faithful priest, who will do according to what is in my heart and mind. I will firmly establish his priestly house, and they will minister before my anointed one always.

    36 Then everyone left in your family line will come and bow down before him for a piece of silver and a loaf of bread and plead, “Appoint me to some priestly office so I can have food to eat.”’”

As we can see from that story, God does not excuse, pardon, or overlook the sins of adult children just because they have daddies who love them and are willing to tolerate the sin themselves.

I’m also tired of hetero singles being expected by some quarters to remain celibate, but homosexuals are getting permission from some churches to have sex.

I am fine with people being friendly, polite, and compassionate towards people – there is no need for Christians to browbeat or scream hateful messages at sinners for their sin – but I am also tired, and repulsed by, Christians allowing sentimentality and their feelings to guide their judgement on moral matters or to cancel out what God has declared in the Bible.

I suppose one of the main points of my post is that so long as churches and preachers keep tripping all over themselves to act accepting of homosexual behavior, they have removed any reasons for heterosexual singles to remain celibate, and I see no reason why married hetero couples should stay sexually faithful to their partners, given that churches are now adopting an “anything goes” sort of view.
Related posts, this blog:

(Link): Christian Double Standards on Celibacy – Hetero Singles Must Abstain from Sex but Not Homosexual Singles

(Link): More Anti (Hetero) Singleness Bias From Al Mohler – Despite the Bible Says It Is Better Not To Marry

(Link): Christian Preacher Admits He Won’t Preach About Sexuality For Fear It May Offend Sexual Sinners

(Link): Sometimes Shame Guilt and Hurt Feelings Over Sexual Sins Is a Good Thing – but – Emergents, Liberals Who Are Into Virgin and Celibate Shaming

(Link): Why Do Christians Ask if Homosexuals Can Change Their Orientation – Why Not Explain that Celibacy is an Option?

(Link): Christian Gender Complementarian Group (CBMW) Anti Virginity and Anti Sexual Purity Stance (At Least Watered Down) – and their Anti Homosexual Marriage Position

(Link): Anti Virginity Editorial by Christian Blogger Tim Challies – Do Hurt / Shame Feelings or Sexual Abuse Mean Christians Should Cease Supporting Virginity or Teaching About Sexual Purity

(Link): Typical Erroneous Teaching About Adult Celibacy Rears Its Head Again: To Paraphrase Speaker at Ethics and Public Policy Center: Lifelong Celibacy is “heroic ethical standard that is not expected of heteros, so it should not be expected of homosexuals”

(Link): New website launched to help Christians experiencing same-sex attraction / Editorial about Celibacy by Ed Shaw

(Link): Stop Rewarding People For Their Failure – Christians Speaking Out of Both Sides of Their Mouths About Sexual Sin – Choices and Actions and How You Teach This Stuff Has Consequences

(Link): Are Most Churches Too Judgemental About Sexual Sin? (of the hetero variety)

(Link): No, Christians and Churches Do Not Idolize Virginity and Sexual Purity (they attack both concepts)

(Link): Southern Baptists (who don’t TRULY support sexual purity) Announce 2014 Sex Summit

(Link): Southern Baptists open to reaching out to LGBT – but still don’t give a flying leap about HETERO CELIBATE UNMARRIED ADULTS

(Link): The Christian and Non Christian Phenomenon of Virgin Shaming and Celibate Shaming

(Link): Christians Who Attack Virginity Celibacy and Sexual Purity – and specifically Russell D. Moore and James M. Kushiner

(Link): Article: Our Born-Again Virgin Bachelor – Secondary or Spiritual Virginity

(Link): Criticism of Purity Teachings by Christians via a Woman’s Personal Testimony

(Link): More Snarky Virgin – and Celibate – Shaming, Courtesy the “The anti-purity movement” Facebook Group – the blog page “My Secondary Virginity” – and a Proud Slut Parody

(Link): Slut Shaming and Virgin Shaming and Secular and Christian Culture – Dirty Water / Used Chewing Gum and the CDC’s Warnings – I guess the CDC is a bunch of slut shamers ?

(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

Daddy Dearest: How Purity Culture Can Turn Fathers into Idols (Purity Ball Photos)

Daddy Dearest: How Purity Culture Can Turn Fathers into Idols
One thing I’d also like to add that is damaging about these purity balls is that

1. The parents involved with these purity balls ASSUME their daughters will grow up and marry.

What if their daughters never marry?

2. Male virginity is not taught, stressed, or supported by these groups.

I’ve yet to hear of a “Male Purity Ball,” where sons are encouraged to “pledge their virginity” to dear old mom. Why the double standard? Why are women expected to be virgins, but not the men?

(Link): Daddy Dearest: How Purity Culture Can Turn Fathers into Idols

    Our pledges belong to the Heavenly Father, not our earthly ones.

by Gina Dalfonzo

When we see a man and a woman holding each other tenderly, wearing fancy clothes, we think wedding, marriage, romance. It’s simply instinctive. So when looking through a series of purity ball portraits—girls in white dresses, beside loving fathers—we’re seeing something very familiar, but in a very different context. This juxtaposition strikes as jarring at best, inappropriate at worst.

The blogosphere erupted with their reactions to (Link): Swedish photographer David Magnusson’s “Purity” series. “Thoroughly f—ing weird … striking and frankly terrifying,” opined Tom Hawking at Flavorwire.

Jessica Valenti at AlterNet called the pictures “beautiful [but] disturbing.” In message boards and Facebook groups and comment sections around the Internet, words like “creepy” and “strange” were thrown around. On the flip side, there were those who said you’d have to be “perverted” to think there was anything wrong with the pictures.

Continue reading “Daddy Dearest: How Purity Culture Can Turn Fathers into Idols (Purity Ball Photos)”

Christian Mouthpiece – Russell Moore – Who Says Christians Are Prideful About Virginity Has Audacity to Make Pro Sexual Purity Arguments on TGC (Gospel Coalition) Site

Christian Mouthpiece Who Says Christians Are Prideful About Virginity Has Audacity to Make Pro Sexual Purity Arguments on TGC (Gospel Coalition) Site

Russell Moore is being a hypocrite on this topic. He speaks out of both sides of his mouth about it.

(Link): Can We Trade Sexual Morality for Church Growth? by Russell Moore, hosted on TGC site

Here is an excerpt or two from that page with observations by me below the excerpts:

    by Russell Moore

    From time to time we hear some telling us that evangelical Christianity must retool our sexual ethic if we’re ever going to reach the next generation.

    Some say that Millennials, particularly, are leaving the church because of our “obsession” with sexual morality. The next generation needs a more flexible ethic, they say, on premarital sex, homosexuality, and so on. We’ll either adapt, the line goes, or we’ll die.

    …Always Difficult

    The same is true with a Christian sexual ethic. Sexual morality didn’t become difficult with the onset of the sexual revolution. It always has been. Walking away from our own lordship, or from the tyranny of our desires, has always been a narrow way. The rich young ruler wanted a religion that would promise him his best life now, extended out into eternity. But Jesus knew that such an existence isn’t life at all, just the zombie corpse of the way of the flesh. He came to give us something else, to join us to his own life.

    …But even if it “worked” to negotiate away sexual morality for church growth, we wouldn’t do it. We can only reach Millennials, and anyone else, by reaching them with the gospel, good news for repentant sinners through the shed blood and empty tomb of Jesus Christ.

    If we have to choose between Millennials and Jesus, we choose Jesus.

    …No Amendment

    Some think the Christian sexual ethic is akin to our congregation’s constitution and by-laws, that it can be amended by a two-thirds vote. But this isn’t the case. Sexuality isn’t ancillary to the gospel but is itself an embodied icon of the gospel, pointing us to the union of Christ and his church (Eph. 5:29-32).

    This is why the Bible speaks of sexual immorality as having profound spiritual consequences (1 Cor. 6:17-20), ultimately leading, if not repented of, to exile from the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9-10).

    Sexual immorality isn’t simply a matter of neurons firing. A Christian view of reality means that the body is a temple, set apart to be a dwelling place for the Holy Spirit. Sexual immorality isn’t just bad for us (although it is); it’s also an act of desecrating a holy place.

And Moore’s editorial goes on like that for several additional paragraphs.

I don’t think a guy who advises Christian virgins that they are “idolizing” virginity if they are upset or disappointed that their betrothed is a non-virgin – as Moore has done preivously (see link below) – is really in a place to opine about how churches should not “trade sexual morality for church growth.”

Even sadder is that a well-known Christian apologetics group was tweeting a link to this Moore editorial yesterday, as though they approve of it.

I tweeted them a link to my rebuttal:
(Link): Christians Who Attack Virginity Celibacy and Sexual Purity – and specifically Russell D. Moore and James M. Kushiner

A person who claims to represent Christian sexual ethics and who scolds a virgin Christian for wanting, or hoping, to marry another Christian virgin, and accusing her of “idolizing virginity” or “being prideful” about it, has no place to write

    “Sexual immorality isn’t simply a matter of neurons firing. A Christian view of reality means that the body is a temple, set apart to be a dwelling place for the Holy Spirit. Sexual immorality isn’t just bad for us (although it is); it’s also an act of desecrating a holy place”

and similar things.

Continue reading “Christian Mouthpiece – Russell Moore – Who Says Christians Are Prideful About Virginity Has Audacity to Make Pro Sexual Purity Arguments on TGC (Gospel Coalition) Site”

Why People Rationalize Sexual Sin – You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours

Why People Rationalize Sexual Sin – You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours

This was an interesting interview by Janet Mefferd with Robert Reilly,
(Link): Hour 3- Robert Reilly discusses his book “Making Gay Okay.”

Reilly unfortunately does get into the perspective that heterosexuality is so necessary and awesome because it is the basis for families, with families supposedly being the basis for society – a view that I don’t totally agree with, see: (Link): Family as “The” Backbone of Society? – It’s Not In The Bible

Other than that, I pretty much agree with what all else Reilly had to say.

The points Reilly raises brings to mind a point I too recognized years ago but never thought to blog about before.

Reilly starts out mentioning that not only do homosexuals rationalize homosexuality, but later he also gets into how heterosexuals have also been helping to rationalize homosexuality.

Around the 10.25 mark, Reilly tells Mefferd in the interview (link above) that one reason a lot of heterosexual people are jumping up to defend homosexuality now is that they don’t want anyone judging their (hetero) sexual sin (such as adultery or pre-marital sex).

Continue reading “Why People Rationalize Sexual Sin – You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours”

Confusing Sexual Assault and Sexual Abuse with Consensual Sex and Then Condemning Sexual Purity Teachings – and other, related topics

Confusing Sexual Assault and Sexual Abuse with Consensual Sex and Then Condemning Sexual Purity Teachings – and other, related topics


    A lot of Christians (usually theologically and politically liberal or moderate) and Non-Christians think that because Christian sexual purity teachings (which includes the teaching that having pre-marital sex is sinful) causes victims of sexual abuse to feel sad, ashamed, or bad, that Christians should drop biblical sexual teachings altogether, or stop insisting that pre martial sex is sinful. I disagree.

While I am sympathetic to victims of sexual abuse, the Bible none – the – less still teaches that CONSENSUAL sexual activity outside of marriage remains immoral.

I was skimming over the “Stuff Christian Culture Likes” facebook group today, where I saw a link there to this discussion on Reddit:


How Christian Purity Culture Enabled My Father’s Abuse, submitted by J__P (aka King Coupons?)

Here are some excerpts from that page:

    [by JP / King Coupons]

So, as the daughters [of the self professing Christian men] were kept inside, while the sons worked, the fathers pushed the men with the motivation that one day they’d get to have their daughters, as if that was the only proper motivation.

I later learned, in college, after I’d already abandoned my faith in God, that this man had regularly abused his daughters, both physically and sexually.

They were still virgins, though, of course, by the technical standards of the Southern Baptist church.

Even though he abused them, he’d never “taken their virtue.”

I even found out that, on the few occasions I had been to their house, I had managed to visit both just after he’d abused them, and just before. That was the man I was supposed to look up to. He was the godly, masculine influence in my life.

This comes up repeatedly on liberal, emergent, and ex-Christian forums and blogs: throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

That is, because some self-professing Christians do not, have not, or will not live out biblical ethics that they parrot the rest of the week, this is taken to mean by the liberal Christians, ex Christians, and emergents (and amazingly, even some conservatives these days), that those biblical ethics can, or should, be ignored by everyone all the time.

I just recently left a post addressing this topic at Sarah Moon’s blog,


The Answer To Sexual Shame is Not MORE Sexual Shame, Carson T. Clark

In that post, sexual abuse was discussed and mixed in with sexual purity.

Here are some excerpts from the page by Clark at Sarah Moon’s blog, with some of Moon’s comments in the mix:

    [Content Note: Sexual and Spiritual Abuse]

[My understanding is that these are comments by Moon:]

When I was 16, I dated an abuser who was constantly coercing me into having sex with him.

I had been raised in fundamentalist purity culture, so I thought of sex as something gross and scary.

My boyfriend at the time tried to combat those feelings by sending me on guilt trips and by holding me to his manipulative, subjective standards of “responsibility.”

…Yes, I had a lot of hang-ups about sex because the the culture I’d grown up in, and it was liberating and healthy for me to learn later in life that my sexuality could be a good thing.

But the fact that purity culture hindered my acceptance of my sexuality does not excuse the way this person treated me for over a year.

Being in a relationship like this was a horrible process. I constantly felt guilty for not having sex, and then guilty for having sex.

Even when I consented to sexual activity, I felt violated.

I never felt like I really had a choice in the matter. I thought it was my responsibility to have sex with him, or I felt afraid of what might happen if I didn’t. I felt trapped, like I didn’t belong to myself and was no longer a person.

… If you don’t think it is okay to coerce a woman into sex before marriage, but feel that people have the right to coerce married women into having sex with their spouses, I want you to stop and think about why.

…Clark states that “[f]or the longest time…a marital rape culture existed. Just awful.”

I’m sorry to say, that marital rape culture still exists, and Clark’s words serve to reinforce it.

That this person’s boyfriend was an abusive jerk who wrapped his jerk-holery up in “purity” talk does not mean sexual purity teachings themselves are bogus.

This is part and parcel of the (Link): Genetic Fallacy, by the way.

If serial killer Ted Bundy were alive today, and if he were to tell you that murder is morally wrong, would you disagree with him and claim the opposite because of the source?

Would you say, “Nah, murdering people is fine! I’m not going to listen to you, because you have murdered people before, you hypocrite.”

I doubt that this person’s boyfriend was even a Christian to start with.

Before you trot out the “No True Scotsman” fallacy, bear this in mind:

Jesus Christ and Apostle Paul warn in the Bible that not all who claim Christ are actual followers, but are in fact, wolves in sheeps’ clothing who you need to either steer clear of or rebuke

    (see for example

this link (Matthew 7:21)


this link (John 14:15)


this link (John 14:23)


this link (1 Corinthians 5:11)


this link (1 Corinthians 5:1-5)


this link (Matthew 7:15)


this link (Matthew 7:15-18)

    – I could list several other verses, but you get the idea).

Quoting Christ (from Matthew 7:21-23):

    “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.

Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’

And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

I am semi-agnostic these days myself, after having been a Christian since my childhood, which makes it a little easier for me to stand apart from Christianity now and assess some of its flaws, or rather, how self-professing Christians are mishandling the faith.

But then, I can also call Christian-critics on the carpet a bit easier, too.

Sometimes the people who criticize particular Christians, or how certain teachings are presented by Christians, are absolutely “right on the money,” but sometimes, their criticisms are a huge crock or are inaccurate.

And in this group I include all of them; full blown agnostics, hard core atheists, luke warm atheists, feminist Christians, liberal Christians, and emergents.

When you’re not in any one, particular camp any longer, it becomes ten times easier to spot all the fallacies and biases from all sides.

Returning to Moon’s view that a rape culture exists – I guess she means in Christian marriages, and she mentions this because Clark raised this point first?

I am unaware of mainstream, every day, Baptist or other conservative Christians, who believe a man has the right to rape his wife or that he should. The Bible certainly does not contain such a teaching, that’s for sure.

Continue reading “Confusing Sexual Assault and Sexual Abuse with Consensual Sex and Then Condemning Sexual Purity Teachings – and other, related topics”

Sexual Equality, Sexual Decadence: The Emerging Menace of Female Predators – from The Other McCain – Also quotes feminists as saying Virginity Invalidates Lesbianism and is Hence a Terrible Concept

Sexual Equality, Sexual Decadence: The Emerging Menace of Female Predators – from The Other McCain – Also quotes feminists as saying Virginity Invalidates Lesbianism and is Hence a Terrible Concept

If you are a Christian person, please don’t assume other Christians are any better about this subject than secular feminists, because they are not.

I have a collection of links at this blog of Christians – yes, Christians – who “bad mouth” and criticize adult singleness, celibacy, and virginity. It’s not only secular feminists who denounce sexual purity / virginity but some Christians these days as well.

I will include a few links to examples of Christians who have bashed sexual purity and virginity at the bottom of this post, under “related posts.” It’s not just secular feminists who attack sexual purity, it’s Christians too, sadly.

I would say the guy at this Other McCain blog is not a fan of secular feminism, nor am I.

But, I do think secular feminists are right on some topics some of the time.

I am not in full agreement with Christian and conservative “modesty” teachings or always with how they are taught, or that males are excluded from such teachings (see for example these posts on that issue: (Link): Modesty: A Female-Only Virtue? – Christian Double Standards – Hypocrisy and (Link): Beauty Redefined Site Discusses Modesty: Modest Is Hottest?)

The blog page has a quote from some feminist author who thinks virginity is a terrible concept because it invalidates what she calls “queer sex.” So there you go, more virgin and celibate shaming from secular quarters.

I would encourage you to read the entire page below, of which I will only be offering a few excerpts:

(Link): Sexual Equality, Sexual Decadence: The Emerging Menace of Female Predators, by The Other McCain


    …. The Washington Post offers feminist Jessica Valenti op-ed space to argue that we need to keep talking about “rape culture,” coincidentally providing Valenti a chance to promote her book about “Female Sexual Power.” But what if female sexual power is actually a major contributing factor to rape culture?

    This paradoxical possibility isn’t something anyone at the Washington Post is willing to consider, yet the celebration of aggressive promiscuity in the name of “empowerment” may be implicated in all kinds of unintended consequences:

    [his points here can be summarized in my previous post here: (Link): Can Boys Be ‘Coerced’ Into Sex? (article from Daily Beast) ]

    So, “girls are more aggressive sexually today,” which Jessica Valenti and other feminists would certainly applaud as liberation and equality, an exercise of “female sexual power,” no matter what the parents of young victims might say.

    And in case you haven’t noticed, boys are not the only victims of “more aggressive” women. Careful readers may notice a recurring theme in the following stories:

    [he then notes several examples of adult women who preyed on female students]

    … Parents who invoke lost innocence in expressing disapproval of their teenage daughters having sex with lesbians are “bolstering up a highly heteronormative hierarchy,” as feminist Jess McCabe says, because “this concept of virginity, in a sense, invalidates queer sex,” as feminist Hew Li-Sha says, and as feminist Erin McKelle says: “Heterosexuality is the norm, and virginity just works as reinforcement to this.” The feminist message is consistent: Don’t be misogynistic homophobes, parents!

~ click here to read the rest of his post ~

His blog also contains other posts about sexuality and feminists – here’s the home page:

(Link): The Other McCain
★ Related posts:

★ Christians who espouse anti-singleness, anti-celibacy, anti-virginity views
(this is only a partial list, I have many more examples on the blog):

(Link): Christian TV Show Host Pat Robertson Disrespects Virginity – Says Pre-Marital Sex Is “Not A Bad Thing”

(Link): Anti Virginity Editorial by Christian Blogger Tim Challies – Do Hurt / Shame Feelings or Sexual Abuse Mean Christians Should Cease Supporting Virginity or Teaching About Sexual Purity

(Link): More Anti Singleness Bias From Al Mohler – Despite the Bible Says It Is Better Not To Marry

(Link): The Christian and Non Christian Phenomenon of Virgin Shaming and Celibate Shaming

(Link): Christians Who Attack Virginity Celibacy and Sexual Purity – and specifically Russell D. Moore and James M. Kushiner
★ Other Related Posts (secularists who bash sexual purity etc)

(Link): Inconsistency on Feminist Site – Choices Have Consequences

(Link): The Christian and Non Christian Phenomenon of Virgin Shaming and Celibate Shaming

(Link): Celibate Shaming from an Anti- Slut Shaming Secular Feminist Site (Hypocrisy) Feminists Do Not Support All Choices

(Link): Can Boys Be ‘Coerced’ Into Sex? (article from Daily Beast)

(Link): Slut-Shaming Is Bad—But The Overreaction Against It Also Hurts Women by J. Doverspike

(Link): How Feminists Are Making Women Easier Rape Targets

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

(Link): Modesty Teachings – When Mormons Sound like Christians and Gender Complementarians

(Link): Funny Satirical Piece: Woman Mocks Demands for Female Modesty By Shaming Males (and their judgy Mothers) For Being Immodest

(Link): Sometimes Shame Guilt and Hurt Feelings Over Sexual Sins Is a Good Thing – but – Emergents, Liberals Who Are Into Virgin and Celibate Shaming

(Link): Slut Shaming and Virgin Shaming and Secular and Christian Culture – Dirty Water / Used Chewing Gum and the CDC’s Warnings – I guess the CDC is a bunch of slut shamers ?

Fifty Shades of Feminine Hypocrisy – editorial by Gresh, discusses slut shaming, rape culture, modesty – has points I agree and disagree with

Fifty Shades of Feminine Hypocrisy – editorial

This editorial had some points I agreed with but some I did not. Under this long excerpt are rebuttals by a reader of this editorial on Christian Post.

(Link): Fifty Shades of Feminine Hypocrisy, by Dannah Gresh


    April 16, 2014|4:39 pm
    Recently, modesty proponents have been accused of promoting “rape culture” by both faith-based and mainstream bloggers and columnists. The thinking, led by secular third wave feminists, asserts that discussing modesty “sexualizes women” which in turn contributes to rape crimes.

    During the same time period over 100 million readers made E.L. James’ Fifty Shades of Grey the fastest-selling paperback of all time. Barna research reports no statistical difference in the percentage of Christian women versus the general public reading the series, which glamorizes sexual violence against women. The Christian media has been largely silent on this issue.

    As a leader in both the modesty movement and the fight against women being victimized by pornography and erotica, I find the Christian response to reveal a tragic double standard.

    Does teaching modesty promote “rape culture”? A better question to begin with is this: does “rape culture” even exist?

    Last month, a TIME Magazine article declared that it was “Time To End Rape Culture Hysteria.” Writer Caroline Kitchens championed the report of the nation’s leading anti-sexual violence organization, RAINN, which rebuked the overemphasis on the concept of “rape culture” as a means of preventing rape, citing that 90% of rapes on college campuses are committed by 3% of the male population. RAINN argues that rape is the product of individuals who have decided to disregard the overwhelming cultural messages that rape is wrong.

    The fact is rape crime is on the decline.

    …. The RAINN report argues that the trend towards focusing on cultural factors “has the paradoxical effect of making it harder to stop sexual violence, since it removes the focus from the individual at fault, and seemingly mitigates personal responsibility for his or her own actions.”

    … The “rape culture” idea is a feminist dogma implying that ultimately all women are victimized by men. This monolithic generalization paralyzes us from focusing together on how we can continue the good work of reducing the number of victims.

    The reduction would begin by cancelling out the fallacious “victim” label placed on those who’ve been encouraged to dress modestly. Case in point is the current verbal riot occurring over an Evanston, Illinois public school dress code, which showcases well how harmful the “rape culture” vultures can be. Under allegations that the school recently banned leggings and yoga pants, feminists accused the district of “slut shaming” girls.

    …And there’s nothing wrong with teaching Christian girls and women that God wants nothing they wear to distract from the good works they do and the great minds God’s given to them. In fact, from a biblical perspective it’s very right.

    …This same sad dichotomy is seen in the Christian dialogue with bloggers fueling the self-proclaimed “evangelistic” rhetoric of third wave feminists under the guise of Christian socialism, while those on the front lines as activists-teaching girls and women to respect themselves by training them in the biblical concepts of modesty and purity, and binding the wounds of those victimized by porn and erotica-take the blows of their hollow arguments.

    … The Christian media should lead the charge in righting this grave double standard. That is, unless, we are going to continue to take our cues from the feminist culture, which applies “tolerance” to any sexual preference unless it lines up with God’s plan for sexuality.

Responses by readers of the editorial:

    by RoyalCourt

    This is one of those topics where both sides – secular feminists and Christians – get some points right, but get some points wrong. I’ve nothing against parents teaching daughters to dress modestly – however, there are some incorrect assumptions being made by Christians who teach modesty.

    First of all, women are visually stimulated too, not just men, as Christians erroneously teach. There is a double standard, though, where Christians only tell women to dress modestly, but never advise young, hot sexy men with nice bods to keep their t-shirts on.

    Secondly, modesty should not be taught to females in such a way to suggest that they are responsible for the male gaze or male sexual sins.

    In the end scheme of things, it matters not if a buxom, nuible young thing parades naked in front of a Christian man: he is still responsible for his thought life and his actions, regardless of how a woman is dressed.

    Lastly, what one man considers modest another would still consider immodest, sexy, or a “turn on.” There is no universally-agreed upon definition or dress code for what constitutes “modest,” unless Christians want to start forcing all women to wear Islamic burkas.

    Continue reading “Fifty Shades of Feminine Hypocrisy – editorial by Gresh, discusses slut shaming, rape culture, modesty – has points I agree and disagree with”

Sex After Christianity by R. Dreher

Sex After Christianity

This starts out discussing homosexuality or homosexual marriage and moves on to broader sexual topics, and how Christianity impacts societal views of sex and so forth. Very interesting read.

(Link): Sex After Christianity by R. Dreher


    Gay marriage is not just a social revolution but a cosmological one.

    By ROD DREHER • April 11, 2013

    … In a dinner conversation not long after the publication of American Grace, Putnam told me that Christian churches would have to liberalize on sexual teaching if they hoped to retain the loyalty of younger generations.

    This seems at first like a reasonable conclusion, but the experience of America’s liberal denominations belies that prescription. Mainline Protestant churches, which have been far more accepting of homosexuality and sexual liberation in general, have continued their stark membership decline.

    It seems that when people decide that historically normative Christianity is wrong about sex, they typically don’t find a church that endorses their liberal views. They quit going to church altogether.

    This raises a critically important question: is sex the linchpin of Christian cultural order? Is it really the case that to cast off Christian teaching on sex and sexuality is to remove the factor that gives—or gave— Christianity its power as a social force?

    Though he might not have put it quite that way, the eminent sociologist Philip Rieff would probably have said yes. Rieff’s landmark 1966 book The Triumph Of the Therapeutic analyzes what he calls the “deconversion” of the West from Christianity.

    Nearly everyone recognizes that this process has been underway since the Enlightenment, but Rieff showed that it had reached a more advanced stage than most people—least of all Christians—recognized.

    Rieff, who died in 2006, was an unbeliever, but he understood that religion is the key to understanding any culture.

    For Rieff, the essence of any and every culture can be identified by what it forbids.

    Each imposes a series of moral demands on its members, for the sake of serving communal purposes, and helps them cope with these demands. A culture requires a cultus—a sense of sacred order, a cosmology that roots these moral demands within a metaphysical framework.

    … Rieff, writing in the 1960s, identified the sexual revolution—though he did not use that term—as a leading indicator of Christianity’s death as a culturally determinative force.

    In classical Christian culture, he wrote, “the rejection of sexual individualism” was “very near the center of the symbolic that has not held.” He meant that renouncing the sexual autonomy and sensuality of pagan culture was at the core of Christian culture—a culture that, crucially, did not merely renounce but redirected the erotic instinct.

    That the West was rapidly re-paganizing around sensuality and sexual liberation was a powerful sign of Christianity’s demise.

    It is nearly impossible for contemporary Americans to grasp why sex was a central concern of early Christianity. Sarah Ruden, the Yale-trained classics translator, explains the culture into which Christianity appeared in her 2010 book Paul Among The People.

    Ruden contends that it’s profoundly ignorant to think of the Apostle Paul as a dour proto-Puritan descending upon happy-go-lucky pagan hippies, ordering them to stop having fun.

    In fact, Paul’s teachings on sexual purity and marriage were adopted as liberating in the pornographic, sexually exploitive Greco-Roman culture of the time—exploitive especially of slaves and women, whose value to pagan males lay chiefly in their ability to produce children and provide sexual pleasure.

    Christianity, as articulated by Paul, worked a cultural revolution, restraining and channeling male eros, elevating the status of both women and of the human body, and infusing marriage—and marital sexuality—with love.

    Christian marriage, Ruden writes, was “as different from anything before or since as the command to turn the other cheek.”

    The point is not that Christianity was only, or primarily, about redefining and revaluing sexuality, but that within a Christian anthropology sex takes on a new and different meaning, one that mandated a radical change of behavior and cultural norms.

    Continue reading “Sex After Christianity by R. Dreher”

Nursing Home Hires Male Strippers for 85 Year Old Women

Nursing Home Hires Male Strippers for 85 Year Old Women

(Link): Lawsuit: New York nursing home resident subjected to unwanted performance by male stripper

    Fensterman also chided Ray [John Ray, the attorney for Bernice Youngblood and her family] for claiming that Youngblood was suffering from dementia, while at the same time noting the woman signed a power of attorney document claiming she was competent to sign it.

    “Ms. Youngblood suffers from partial dementia,” Ray said. “She has moments of partial lucidity.”

(Link): Nursing Home Stripper Scandal: “Entertainment Night” Results in Lawsuit

(Link): Lawsuit: Male stripper did show at NY nursing home

    WEST BABYLON, N.Y. (AP) — An 85-year-old nursing home patient was the victim of “disgraceful sexual perversion” when a male stripper gyrated in front of her against her will at the suburban New York facility, an attorney for the woman’s family said Tuesday.

    John Ray, the attorney for Bernice Youngblood and her family, displayed a picture of a man in white briefs dancing in front of the woman at East Neck Nursing and Rehabilitation Center in September 2012.

(Link): Man Sues Over Mom’s Nursing Home Stripper

    An 85-year-old woman with dementia had a male stripper gyrate in front of her against her will at her suburban New York nursing home, according to a lawsuit filed by her family but the facility’s lawyer said Tuesday the performance had been requested by its residents.

    John Ray, the attorney for Bernice Youngblood and her family, said the woman’s son found a photograph of a man in white briefs dancing in front of his mother when he visited her in January 2013 at East Neck Nursing and Rehabilitation Center.

    The photo, which Ray distributed to reporters, shows Youngblood putting money into the dancer’s waistband. Ray said Youngblood had been urged to participate and did so against her will.

    Continue reading “Nursing Home Hires Male Strippers for 85 Year Old Women”

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:

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.

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

Horny Celibacy – Another Anti Virginity, Anti Sexual Purity Essay – Also discussed: Being Equally Yoked, Divorce, Remarriage

Horny Celibacy – Another Anti Virginity, Anti Sexual Purity Essay – Also discussed: Being Equally Yoked, Divorce, Remarriage

All right. This one is interesting. I am actually rather sympathetic with some of this lady’s views and her reasons for arriving at the conclusions she has arrived at, some of them mirror my own. However, I feel she has a few points incorrect.

I think I have linked to her blog before, many months ago, concerning another topic. The lady that writes this blog was a Christian for many years (I think a fundamentalist or evangelical?), but somewhere along the way she got a divorce. I am not sure if she still considers herself a Christian.

If I remember the story from her blog correctly (I visited her blog months ago), the divorce and subsequent maltreatment by other Christians because of her divorce status caused her to reflect (and reject? I don’t remember) some of her former Christian beliefs. She probably has an “about” page at her blog you can read to get the details about her current views of faith.

Here is the link to her blog post that discusses celibacy, including her term “horny celibates”, and which I will be commenting on farther below:

Before I address her post itself, I wanted to discuss some of the issues it indirectly deals with, such as divorce.

I think most evangelicals, Baptists, and other Christians teach and believe incorrectly about marriage, divorce, and remarriage.

I do not believe the Bible teaches that divorce is applicable in cases of adultery only, or that re-marriage is sinful.

Some of these views are dangerous, in that the “permanence” view of marriage, which is taught by many Christians and preachers, can lead to some women being pressured to stay in an abusive marriage for years which is a waste of their time, and some of these ladies end up dead, murdered by their spouses.

You can read more about those topics at the following pages:

This site, A Cry For Justice, has many more posts about these issues, I am only linking to a small number here:


Being equally yoked is a belief Christian single women need to abandon, because it is one factor of several as to why they are staying single into their mid 30s and older.

Additionally, as many self-professing Christian males are abusive or negligent, and some Non-Christian males are loving, ethical, and supportive, it is important to Christian single women to recognize they need to judge men on the basis of character, not on if the male in question claims to have accepted Jesus as Savior, or if he prays, reads the Bible, or attends a church regularly.

The fact is, getting married to a Christian male is not a guarantee that you are getting a man who is going to love you, stay faithful to you, and be a good provider.

If you need examples (proof) of Christian men who misbehave, who raped women, had affairs on their wives, were into pedophilia, serial killing, stole from others, were drug addicts, or abused their wives, please see (Link): this partial list of such examples.

Given that so many genuine Christian women marry such abusive men makes the “maybe they (the abusive husbands) weren’t REAL Christians” argument moot.

Plenty of sincere, honest- to- goodness Christian women ended up with abusive, cheating, or negligent slobs who CLAIMED to be Christ followers and who had the outer trappings of what most would consider to be an actual, true Christian – whether these men who turned out to be abusive were truly “saved and regenerated” or not is beside the point and irrelevant to the women they were once married to.

We are talking about sincere, born again believers in Jesus who prayed, waited, hoped for, and expected to marry a CHRISTIAN man who would cherish them. But they ended up with Christian men who beat them, or who cheated on them repeatedly.

I do not know of any Christian single woman who sits about and day dreams, “I sure hope I marry a Christian man who beats me daily and tells me I’m worthless!”

I actually think teaching women that they can marry only other Christians is un-biblical, because it is placing an undue burden on them, and Christ said his burden is light.

But how Christians love to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.

Many Christians would rather Christian women remain single indefinitely in the guise of upholding “being equally yoked” as a doctrinal purity point…

Than realizing those women are entitled to some happiness and companionship while here on earth, even if that means them marrying an atheist.

The blog I linked to above, A Cry For Justice, has numerous examples of Christian women who married Christian men – they were “equally yoked” – and their Christian spouse
– I wrote their CHRISTIAN spouse there; that does not say “atheist,” “Jewish,” “Hindu” or “Muslim,” but CHRISTIAN spouse –
gave them daily verbal assaults that drove some to deep depression (and I’ve read of women who have been driven to suicidal impulses after enduring years of emotional abuse off a spouse), or, they received broken ribs and black eyes weekly or monthly – from their Christian spouse. Some of these Christian men are pastors or attend church weekly, too.

There is no rhyme or reason in telling a Christian woman she may only marry another Christian when there is no advantage to her in that, and it may in fact be a limitation and a burden, see (Link): Matthew 23:4, where Jesus discusses the Pharisees on a similar matter.

God created marriage for man, not man for marriage.

I want to write that again, but in a bigger sized font:

God created marriage for man, not man for marriage.

Too often, those who insist on a slavish devotion to “equally yoked,” or to no divorce or no remarriage, not ever ever!!!!!111!!! (or only in the most narrow of circumstances), appear to be placing rules and institutions above human beings (see this link, Luke 6:1-11).

Here are a few excerpts from the page by Hannah:

    Here is my best advice for good Christian kids looking to get married: have sex already.

    I’m watching too many couples play Russian roulette with their lives because they aren’t listening to their gut instincts about who they want or need to spend their lives with because they happened to have found one person somewhat enchanting and willing to play the Christian marriage game and the stakes are: your whole future on this decision, made in the worst possible state of mind, horny celibacy.

It appears to me she is confusing the topics of virginity and celibacy with early marriage.

I have said on this blog time and again that pushing early marriage, as evangelicals have been doing for the past couple of years, is not the solution for halting pre-martial sex.

Hannah continues:

    Hermeneutically speaking, St. Paul’s “it’s better to marry than to burn with passion” was probably not about what you think it’s about. All my books are in storage in boxes, so I’d love to have someone with an accessible library help me out with citations here, but it’s pretty widely accepted in schools of theology that he was talking about couples disturbing idealistic celibate communities by sneaking off to have sex and making everyone feel either jealous and upset.

    As in: don’t be Gnostic, early church! It’s okay to not require celibacy of all Christians. C.f., Reasons why no one should ever be forced into celibate living against their will. Not a lot of people have that gift, and that’s what Paul was acknowledging in that well-worn passage.

Celibacy is not a “gift.” The Bible nowhere teaches that God chooses who will remain single (celibate) and who will marry: in the New Testament, both are choices left up to each individual. I can only assume that is how she is intending the usage of that phrase there.

If I am not misunderstanding her here, I am afraid that Hannah is making the mistake that preacher Mark Driscoll, Doug Wilson, and a million other Christians make: they assume the only persons capable of remaining celibate are those who have been granted some kind of Sex Superpower by God, that God sprinkles magic dust on a baby at the time of her birth, and makes her magically able to resist sexual desire or sexual behavior.

I am still a virgin, and I am over 40 years old. I was engaged for several years and sometimes spent time alone – including over-night stays with my ex at his home – and we never had sex.

I experience sexual desire.

I did not choose to remain single; I had wanted to marry. God did not choose me to stay single or be single. God did not sprinkle me with Magic Sex Dust that makes me immune from sex or from having sexual desire.

My celibacy is due to this:
It’s good old-fashioned will power, and up to now, my former devotion to Christ and the Bible’s stance on sexuality, that kept me from caving in and doing the deed.

Every time Hannah, preacher Mark Driscoll, Doug Wilson, or other Christians chalk my celibacy up to The Supernatural, the Gifting of God, or God’s Grace, they are cheapening and making a mockery out of my hard work.

Mine. Me, me, me. God did not wave a wand and take away my sex drive, folks. It’s not God who kept me from engaging in pre marital sex, it was my own will power. It was my dedication.

There is nothing easy about being a virgin past your 20s, but it is possible.

I know Calvinists love to chalk everything, and I mean everything, up to God (I am not saying Hannah is a Calvinist, only I have seen this view expressed in their works), but the fact is I am a virgin because of me and my hard work – not due to Jesus Christ, grace of God, the glory of God, or any super power from on High.

The glory of my sexual purity goes to me…. me me me meeeeeeee. Not God.

Me. Me. Me. Me. I’m the one who has done the hard work of abstaining. God did not blow magic fairy dust on me at my birth or in eternity past to remove sexual desire. I do not feel any special “peace” about sex anytime I get sexually tempted.

An angel never did appear in the home of my ex when he and I were alone together when I was tempted – but I did not give in. It was all me. Me me me me me.

I was, and am, responsible for whether or not I cave in to sexual temptation. Choice and Personal Responsibility is what it’s all about, not God’s gifting or empowering.

That idiotic “gift of singleness,” and moronic “gift of celibacy” teaching unfortunately have these false views embedded in them: that God supposedly “chooses” someone to remain single, choosing them in eternity past to stay single; and that God supposedly gives such a person Special Powers and/or erodes all sex drive from them to make life as a celibate bearable. This sort of teaching (which is false and not biblical), removes Personal Responsibility, Free Will, and Choice from the equation.

And I’m no Calvinist: mankind has free will, and the will to choose to do what is good and right, not only evil.

Hannah continues:

    But what that passage doesn’t say (and honestly, what no passage in the Bible says) is “God’s best plan for your life is to be a virgin when you get married.” Seriously. Look for it. It’s not there.

Well, no, it does not say that explicitly, but the Bible does teach that one is to remain a virgin until marriage. The Bible may not tack on the phrase “it’s God’s best plan for your life” before the teaching, or after it, but the notion of “having pre marital sex is sinful” is still in the Bible.

Remaining celibate is a wiser life style choice, in that the individual who is not fooling around does not have to worry about getting STI’s (STDs), or getting pregnant, or being used.

But I think that’s all beside the point. While I can see how it is of benefit to a person to remain celibate until marriage, the Bible presents sexual sin as being a sin against God and against your own body.

Hannah writes,

    So we started searching the Bible ourselves and we haven’t found a much biblical basis for Christian purity culture and how it treats virginity and sexual experience.

The concept of sexual purity is indeed in the Bible, regardless of how screw-ball and legalistic fundamentalists treat the topic. And good Lord knows many conservative Christians are weird and legalistic about sex, I realize that.

But fundamentalists, Reformed, evangelicals and Southern Baptists being mean- spirited, kooky, or crazy about how they teach about such topics and present them to kids, women, or singles does not legitimize trying to argue away texts in the Bible that do support the notion of virginity until marriage, or in trying to find loop holes for them.

Hannah writes,

    Therefore I believe, based on my research, that it’s possible to have consensual, safe, and private sex* outside of marriage and not be transgressing any of the basic ethical guidelines for sexual behavior as laid out in the Bible.

This strikes me as quite similar to homosexuals who claim to find loopholes in the Bible that pardon homosexual sex. Homosexual apologists will argue, for instance, that the Sodom story was not condemning consensual homosexual sex, but only the forced variety (i.e., male- on- male rape). I provided links on a previous post to material that argue against such points (see that list of links here, they are listed about half way down the page).

It’s almost genius the lengths some will go to in order to find excuses to practice or defend behavior that the Bible forbids.

My stance is this: if you are an adult, you are free to make whatever choices you want to, including some pre- or extra- marital nooky.

But please don’t try to argue for it on the basis that the Bible is really hunky dory fine with it, when in fact, it’s pretty clear ((Link): yes clear) it’s not.

Have all the extra marital sex you want, but please, don’t try to insist the Bible is fine and peachy with it. That is just lame and intellectually dishonest.
– (Says someone who is a virgin at age 40+, who fully intends on getting into pre marital boinking whenever she gets in a serious relationship but who will not blog and argue that the Bible is really okay with it. Do what you want, but be honest about it.)

Hannah writes,

    Christian culture over-values virginity at marriage so much that it heightens to an unreasonable degree the tension of an already momentous and risky decision.

Oh stop it, you’re making my side split from all the laughter! As in tee hee hee, 😆

If there is one thing Christian culture does NOT do is over-value virginity, not at marriage, and sure as heck not over a lifetime. That is what this whole blog is about. (And Hugh Jackman photos. This blog is also about the occasional (Link): Hugh Jackman photo.)

Examples of what I am talking about (I have many such stories on this blog, this is only a partial listing):

Er, yeah, I am not seeing a lot of judgment there and not much over-valuing, either.

These days, Christians, even ones who claim to be “biblical,” who say they are conservative, who claim to value “traditional marriage” and “the family” now attack virginity and celibacy and keep reassuring the fornicators that they are fine and dandy in their fornicating.

Hannah says,

    1) we are required to take them at their word that sex is life-changing and terrible (in both senses of that word)

I’m not sure what this is about. Most commentary I have seen, heard, or read from Christians who advocate celibacy until marriage say how AWESOME sex is, not how “terrible” it is… it’s said to be “mind blowing” if one waits until marriage to have sex. Frequently, Christians say how great sex is, but that God intends for it to take place in marriage only. I’ve not heard Christians bill sex as “terrible.”

Unless she means the standard Christian scare-tactics of, “You can get an STI (sexually transmitted infection) if you have sex before marriage.”

But then, you can be a virgin woman on your wedding night, stay faithful to your spouse, and if your Christian spouse starts having affairs, he can pass an STI on to the wife. Food for thought.

Hannah continues,

    The bogey of sex thus becomes a looming question mark for us and the already-significant risks of choosing to get married to someone become exponentially more risky because there’s a huge piece of the marriage-choice puzzle that we are required to leave up to chance (which our good mentors have named God’s Will to keep us quiet).

    … we have to not question what our parents and pastors have told us—which is, essentially, that everything I just laid out in layman’s hermeneutics about biblical sexual ethics is lies and that God’s best plan for sexuality is total ignorance and total commitment to one person and one form of sexual experience forever and ever, amen—and to jump through all the Christian social hoops to land in bed with someone and not get ostracized or shamed for wanting to have sex in the first place.

    … and you got married because that was the only way to explore your sexuality and stay sane in the face of such overwhelming social pressure and potential shame, and if you’re really lucky you’ll both be moderately happy and mostly sexually compatible

I sincerely hope she is not attempting to utilize the typical ex-Christian, Non-Christian, or liberal Christian argument that you should have sex with someone (ie, your boyfriend) prior to marriage to find out if you are “sexually compatible” with the person. Could be wrong, but that sounds like what she is getting at.

If that is what she was hinting at, I addressed that in a previous post:

Hannah writes,

    But the chances of ending up with that ending to your story are pretty slim—and after my marriage ended, the stories of unhappy marriages launched on these terms started coming to me out of the woodwork. Our pastors and parents may adore Dannah Gresh, Josh Harris, and the Ludys, but those relationship and purity gurus are the lucky ones selling their stories through books and speaking events. They do not represent the vast majority of American Christians, and while they mean well, their idyllic solutions have shortchanged most people who bought into their system out of blind trust.

    So, as a divorced woman who did everything right by the assumptions of that system and found that it was full of empty promises…

I do think she is on to something here, in a sense. When I was growing up as a Christian, I had many other Christians and their publications telling me, or strongly implying, that if I stayed a virgin, prayed, had faith and simply waited, that God would send me a Christian spouse. But that never happened.

I remain single in my 40s, despite being sexually pure, despite praying, having faith, and so on. Christian singles, the women especially, were sold a bill of goods when younger. We were misled.

Overall, she wrote a decent post there that you may enjoy, but I’m not buying the notion that the Bible is peachy fine dandy with pre-marital sex.
Related posts, this blog:

(Link): Douglas Wilson and Christian Response FAIL to Sexual Sin – No Body Can Resist Sex – supposedly – Re Celibacy

(Link): When Adult Virginity and Adult Celibacy Are Viewed As Inconvenient or As Impediments (including by self professing Christians)

(Link): Weak Argument Against Celibacy / Virginity / Sexual Purity by the Anti Sexual Purity Gestapo – Sexual Compatibility or Incompatibility – (ie, Taking Human Beings For Test Spins – Humans As Sexual Commodities) (Part 2)

This post discusses, among other topics, Rev Mark Driscoll’s false views of adult singlehood and celibacy:
(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): The Nauseating Push by Evangelicals for Early Marriage

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

(Link): Why Christians Need to Uphold Lifelong Celibacy as an Option for All Instead of Merely Pressuring All to Marry – vis a vis Sexless Marriages, Counselors Who Tell Marrieds that Having Affairs Can Help their Marriages

(Link): More Married Couples Admit to Sexless Marriages (various articles) / Christians promise you great frequent sex if you wait until marriage, but the propaganda is not true

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

(Link): Celebrity Deems Herself A Born Again Virgin And Vows to Stay Celibate “For A Year” – Oh Puh-leaze

(Link): How About Using Celibates as Role Models For Celibacy? (Oddity: Christians Holding Up Non-Virgins [Fornicators] As Being Experts or Positive Examples on Sexual Purity)

(Link): Being Equally Yoked: Christian Columnist Dan Delzell Striving to Keep Christian Singles Single Forever

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

(Link): Wife of Preacher Shoots, Kills Him, Recounts Years of Physical and Sexual Abuse – So Much for the Equally Yoked Teaching and the Notion that Christian married sex is Mind Blowing

(Link): Pro Ball Player Convicted for Kid Diddling Three Kids (Pedophilia) Claims to be an Outstanding Christian (and he’s married with a kid of his own) – again, why should Christian single gals limit themselves to only marrying Christian men? The Whole “Being Yoked Equally” thing is irrelevant and unduly limiting for singles

Modesty Teachings – When Mormons Sound like Christians and Gender Complementarians

Modesty Teachings – When Mormons Sound like Christians and Gender Complementarians

It’s creepy and alarming at times how some Christians wind up with beliefs or theology that sounds a lot like the things cults and what all believe, from Calvinism’s mirroring of Islam’s view of God, Christian gender complementarian views mirroring those of Islamic view of women, and the modesty and chastity teachings of Mormons.

While I am not an advocate of either men or women dressing slutty, I’m puzzled by some dress codes and think modesty teachings are, overall, pretty moronic as well as hypocritical, as all emphasis is placed upon females.

I’ve yet to deduce how or why American males find female arms sexy – some of them, after all, in their modesty teachings, teach girls and women to keep their arms covered. Some Christians (and Mormons) are against any top or blouse with spaghetti straps. I have no idea why, as there is nothing terribly sexy or tawdry about spaghetti straps.

I don’t think I agree with the comment in this page by a Mormon that
“Modesty is the foundation stone of chastity,” since a woman (or man) can be just as slutty in baggy jeans and while wearing a parka as a woman in stiletto heels and a mini-skirt (or for men, tight jeans and a tank or mesh shirt). It’s not the packaging, but the behavior.

I don’t have the quote below, but in the article, so intense is this stupid modesty teaching among females in Mormonism, that there is an anecdote about a four year old girl who refuses to go to the zoo with her granny until granny helps her put a t-shirt under her sun dress.

A four year old girl should not even be thinking in terms of sexuality, modesty, etc. I believe religious teachings that start out with good intentions do a lot of damage to their adherents, modesty being one of them.

(Link): Does Mormon modesty mantra reduce women to sex objects?


    Peggy Fletcher Stack / Salt Lake Tribune
    Mar 4, 2014

    SALT LAKE CITY (RNS) When Mormon leaders sense a decline of moral standards in the world, they roll out sermons on modesty.

    In the 1960s and early ’70s, they preached against miniskirts and hot pants; in today’s sex-drenched society, it’s spaghetti straps, bare midriffs and skinny jeans.

    The message remains largely the same: Cover up, lest you cause the males around you to sin.

    It’s often couched in the rhetoric of “virtue” and usually aimed at young women, even girls.

    “Modesty is the foundation stone of chastity,” former Young Women leader Elaine S. Dalton said in the May 2007 Liahona, an international LDS magazine. “Just as one does not hike trails inhabited by rattlesnakes barefoot, similarly in today’s world it is essential to our very safety to be modest.”

    The next year, the Utah-based faith’s Young Women program added “virtue” as one of the values to which Mormon girls ages 12- 17 should strive, but it was defined chiefly as sexual purity or chastity.

    This concern has reached down to girls as young as 4.

    …. Bare shoulders, even on children, are off-limits in LDS Church publications. An illustration in the December 2011 Ensign, the official magazine for adult Mormons, even added sleeves to female angels in one of painter Carl Bloch’s masterpieces.

    Continue reading “Modesty Teachings – When Mormons Sound like Christians and Gender Complementarians”

The Sex Economy – Why Buy The Cow When The Milk is Free – Or, When Sex is Free and Easy Why Should Men Bother to Commit to Marriage

The Sex Economy – Why Buy The Cow When The Milk is Free – Or, When Sex is Free and Easy Why Should Men Bother to Commit to Marriage
✦ This is one of those posts on my blog that contains strong, adult language. As in the “F” word is used several times, so if you are a dainty, wilting Christian flower who faints at the sight or sound of cuss words, have your smelling salts handy. I do not always issue warnings like this when strong language is in the content.
The Sex Economy – Why Buy The Cow When The Milk is Free – Or, When Sex is Free and Easy Why Should Men Bother to Commit to Marriage

It seems like once every year, or every other year or two, a right wing, conservative type of writer comes up with an editorial explaining to women about the sex economy, and why the expression “why buy the cow when the milk is free” still rings true.

Then your secular feminists get angry and write rebuttals to those editorials. I’m not quite sure why secular feminists so deeply object to the concept (though I do have a theory or two), but mainly, I find their objections vague and unmemorable, and I’ve read several of their anti-sex-economy editorials over the years. Despite having read some of their rebuttals, I’ve yet to make sense of why they object.

Here are the links:

✦ 1. The liberal / left wing/ secular feminist perspective ✦

(Link): Sex is Not An Economy And You Are Not Merchandise from the Jezebel site (author unknown; possibly Lindy West)

✦ 2. The conservative position ✦

2A  (Link): The economics of sex: Has the price gotten too cheap? by Naomi Schaefer Riley

2b (Link): Cheap Dates and How the ‘price’ of sex has dropped to record lows


✦ 1. The liberal / left wing / secular feminist perspective ✦

(Link): Sex is Not An Economy And You Are Not Merchandise

It’s hard to know what sections of what to excerpt from this liberal essay from Jezebel, because its author (who is perhaps Lindy West?) largely engages in ad hominem and a lot of snark.

For example, after quoting a long portion of conservative Riley’s piece where Riley says:

The “price” [of sex] varies widely. But if women are the gatekeepers, why don’t very many women “charge more” so to speak?

Because pricing is not entirely up to women. The “market value” of sex is part of a social system of exchange, an “economy” if you will, wherein men and women learn from each other—and from others—what they ought to expect from each other sexually.

So sex is not entirely a private matter between two consenting adults. Think of it as basic supply and demand.

When supplies are high, prices drop, since people won’t pay more for something that’s easy to find. But if it’s hard to find, people will pay a premium.

—[end excerpt]—

The Jezebel writer’s response to that view consists only of these words:

Oh, shut the fuck up.

—[end excerpt]—

Seriously. That is all the writer had to say in response.

Go click the link I gave to the page and read it if yourself you don’t believe me.

Much of the rest of the page consists of that sort of rebuttal. Which might be fine on a casual blog such as mine, but Jezebel is a main stream publication which I presume has a wide readership, and if the Jezebel writer is trying to change minds, she is not going to have much success by saying, “fuck you” and not much else.

Here I am, still pretty conservative in regards to sexual ethics, or pretty sympathetic to conservative views about sex, and I’m really, honestly trying to understand her liberal, feminist objections to why she is opposed to the conservative “sex economics” genre of editorial, but how can I arrive at an understanding of her view, when it consists of nothing but a “fuck you” to her ideological opponent?

Here are more excerpts from the Jezebel page (and the only name I see associated with this page is Lindy West, so I assume she is the author, but I may be mistaken about that):

If anything, sex is less commodified now than when my great-grandparents were courting. Before divorce; before reliable, effective birth control; before women’s advancements into the higher levels of the workforce; marriage was ALL about economics.

Now that women are able to leave abusive and unhappy relationships, support themselves financially, and choose when/if to have children, we don’t need marriage anymore.

It’s no longer an economic imperative, which means that people are free to be choosy about who they marry. So you’re damn right marriage rates are dropping and people are marrying later. It’s because we’re getting better at it.

[conservative Riley wrote:]
We now have a split mating market: One corner where people are largely interested in sex, and one corner where people are largely pursuing marriage. And there are more men looking for sex than women, and more women looking to marry than men.

[Jezebel author responds:]
Okay. Wait. So women are banging dudes willy-nilly on the singles scene and it’s lowering their “market value,” but women are also “vastly” outnumbering men “in the marriage market”? Which is it? I’m confused.

—[end excerpt]—

My response to the Jezebel author’s supposed confusion on this point: there are some women, who are celibate and waiting until marriage to have sex, such as me.

And yes, women such as myself, find it harder to get married, as we are virgins and are (or were) waiting until marriage to have sex. We find it more difficult meeting men who respect our celibacy- until- marriage lifestyle.

Many men these days (even a lot of Christian ones) now expect or demand sex prior to marriage, because a lot of other women, women such as yourself, have been too happy to have sex before marriage, which gives the men little incentive to respect my wishes (i.e., no sex before marriage, and I’d like to marry).

A lot of people – the ones who scoff at virginity and sexual purity – have this weird-ass view that you should “test drive” your partner prior to marriage to make sure the two of you are “sexually compatible,” see this post,

(Link): Weak Argument Against Celibacy / Virginity / Sexual Purity by the Anti Sexual Purity Gestapo – Sexual Compatibility or Incompatibility – (ie, Taking Human Beings For Test Spins – Humans As Sexual Commodities) (Part 2)

And yes, views such as that make it very difficult for people who believe in staying a virgin until marriage to get many marital prospects.

Continue reading “The Sex Economy – Why Buy The Cow When The Milk is Free – Or, When Sex is Free and Easy Why Should Men Bother to Commit to Marriage”

Links About Sex Week / Male Modesty & Male Shaming / Online Dating Scammers / Female Sexuality / Rampant Pre Marital Sex Among Christians / Single Christian Women Feel Pressured to Fornicate In Dating / other topics (Link Dump)

Reports About Sex Week / Male Modesty / Online Dating Scammers / Rampant Pre Marital Sex Among Christians / Single Christian Women Feel Pressured to Fornicate In Dating / other topics (Link Dump)

I do not have the patience to make separate posts out of each link / story / topic below, so here is another link dump, with links to lots of different sex, infertility, marriage, online dating, purity, and whatever, editorials and stories.

I’m not necessarily in agreement with any or all of the views expressed in any of these pages. I post them only because they touch on topics I regularly discuss on this blog.

Some of these links from The Christian Post I present below are from the last two to three weeks, but they cover topics I already discussed here on this blog weeks before (CP authors are sometimes weeks or a couple of months behind material I post to this blog first).

Sometimes, The Christian Post quotes people I don’t agree with about everything, such as Mark Regnerus – see this link and this link for more about that.

Regnerus pushes for early marriage and seems to engage in a bit of singles-shaming (blaming singles who want marriage for being single, for not being able to find a partner), which is wrong. You can see the links above for more about that.

About me covering stories before The Christian Post does.

Take this first link of their below as an example – not only did I cover this story first (on Jan 28, 2014 here, this link, but also on Feb 8, 2014, see this link), but also some of the web sites the author references in his series (which makes me wonder if he’s been to my blog and is copying my material):

(Link): Christian Dating Culture (Part 1): Majority of Christian Singles Reject Idea of Waiting Until Marriage to Have Sex



February 12, 2014

Survey Reveals That 61% of Christian Singles Are Willing to Have Casual Sex

A majority of single Christians are rejecting biblical doctrine by choosing to have sex before they are married. Sixty-one percent of self-identified Christian singles who answered a recent ChristianMingle survey said they are willing to have casual sex without being in love, while only 11 percent said they are waiting to have sex until they are married.

…But despite this realization, after Lindsey moved to New York, she did not abide by this new sexual ethic. Instead, she entered and exited relationships frequently, often sleeping with the men she was dating.

“Even though I knew it was wrong, I continued to have sex outside of marriage,” Lindsey told The Christian Post. “Why? Because when you’re single you don’t want to be lonely.”

“I was the girl that broke up with one boyfriend and had another one on speed-dial—that afternoon I’d already be going out with somebody else. I kept a boyfriend because I liked the attention,” she continued.

For Lindsey, her behavior was not simply a result of her conforming to the sexual values of her non-Christian peers. Instead, she had friends from church with similar sexual ethics and even dated and became sexually involved with a man who was serving at the same church that she was.

“We all went to the church. We were hypocrites. We said we loved the Lord but we ignored the scriptures that said that fornication is a sin,” said Lindsey.

Lindsey eventually cut off all people that had been a part of that lifestyle. Several years ago she got married and moved to Atlanta, where, now 31, she is the founder and CEO of Pinky Promise, an organization that encourages single and married women to “rise above cultural pressures and to “stay determined to live for Christ regardless of their circumstances.”

So she’s a fornicator being used as an example of sexual purity now? LOL.

Why do Christians do this? You have actual, honest- to- God virgins who are over 30 and 40 years of age, but Christians rarely if ever seek them out for inspiration or interviews. Instead, they seek out people who engaged in fornication constantly, and ask them to serve as role models about sexual purity.

This odd situation is a topic I have addressed in older posts, including this link (“born again virgins”), this link, this link, or this link, How About Using Celibates as Role Models For Celibacy? (Oddity: Christians Holding Up Non-Virgins [Fornicators] As Being Experts or Positive Examples on Sexual Purity).

(Link): Christian Dating Culture (Part 2): Does Church Attendance Impact How Often You Have Sex?


    February 13, 2014

Christians who attend church and read the Bible at least three times a week are less likely to have sex outside of marriage than those who do not engage in those religious practices.

In a 2012 study of Millenial Christians by the National Association of Evangelicals and Grey Matter Research, only respondents who attended worship services at least once a month were considered. Of the 1,007 polled by NEA and GMR, only 44 percent of unmarried Evangelicals ages 18-29 had had sex.

In contrast, in a ChristianMingle study released in January, only 50 percent of female Christians and 39 percent of Christian males said that they went to church at least once a month. Of the 716 Christians surveyed, 90 percent of them said they would be comfortable with premarital sex and 61 percent without any strings attached.

… Mark Regenerus, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin, concurred with the findings of this research.

“When you see greater religiosity, you’re more apt to have measured at the same time a more pronounced awareness of the sexual norms of Orthodox Christian communities and a person’s willingness to abide by them,” he told The Christian Post in an email.

Regenerus also pointed to the lack of institutions also promoting the church’s ethic of abstinence as one reason for the high numbers.

“It’s certainly true that unmarried Christian adults are more ‘at risk’ on sexual matters (attitudes, behaviors), because there are now few (and maybe no other) institutions that reinforce Christian sexual ideals today. And there are more unmarried Christian adults too. So it’s a recipe for some cultural clash over sex, for sure,” he wrote.

Daniel Weiss, the founder and president of The Brushfires Foundation, whose organization exists to help “people discover and live out God”s design for sexuality and relationships,” said that the Church must wake up to the fact that it is not the primary influencer of many Christian young people’s sexual ethics.

(Link): Christian Dating Culture (Part 3): Women Struggle in Dating Scene That Expects Openness to Premarital Sex


    February 14, 2014

Evidence suggests that Christians are increasingly tolerant of casual sex, but what does the dating scene look like for those who are choosing not to engage in premarital sex?

A ChristianMingle poll released last month suggests that Christians are increasingly open to having sex outside of marriage. Sixty-one percent of the 716 Christians surveyed said they would be willing to have sex without any strings attached. Only 11 percent indicated they would be willing to wait until marriage.

To get a sense of what the dating landscape looks like for Christian women who are unwilling to treat sex casually, The Christian Post talked with three women who shared how they feel their moral convictions are treated by men and the culture at large.

Sexual ethics of Christian men

Several years ago Lisa Anderson signed up for online dating.

Anderson, 42, who heads Boundless, Focus on the Family’s ministry to singles and young adults, and is single herself (“I am the true 40-year-old virgin” she laughs,) decided to be upfront with potential boyfriends about where her sexual ethics lay.

“As I got to know these guys, I think they sensed pretty early on that I was not going to go there, so I think that that probably ended it. It was never a situation where we’re together and that’s going to go too far so I stopped it,” Anderson told CP.

Yet she was surprised that many of the Christian men on online dating sites openly admitted that they expected sex in a relationship.

Continue reading “Links About Sex Week / Male Modesty & Male Shaming / Online Dating Scammers / Female Sexuality / Rampant Pre Marital Sex Among Christians / Single Christian Women Feel Pressured to Fornicate In Dating / other topics (Link Dump)”

New Christian Sex Propaganda: Supposedly Traditional Gender Roles Equals More, Better Sex

New Christian Sex Propaganda: Supposedly Traditional Gender Roles Equals More, Better Sex

August 2015 update: please see this post after you’ve read this one:

(Link):  One key to a happier sex life: Share child care duties equally, new research finds


I give this newest Christian propaganda about sex the same weight as I do other forms of previous Christian sex propaganda, such as, “if you wait until marriage to have sex, the sex will be spectacular and regular.”

Well, that has turned out not to be true, based on all the Christian (and some Non Christian) people I’ve read about or seen on TV who say they were virgins until marriage, and then the sex was lousy or dwindled down to zero times a month (see this link for examples).

By the way, as you can see from my link that has many examples, Marriage Does Not Make People More Loving Mature Godly Ethical Caring or Responsible (One Stop Thread), married Christian sex does not keep married Christian men (and sometimes wives) from having affairs, raping people, using porn, or paying for prostitutes.

If being a married Christian – whether complementarian or egalitarian regarding gender roles – kept married couples immune from sexual sin, you would not see the sort of news stories I keep track of in that post, of married couples being porn addicts, having affairs, and using prostitutes.

At least a few Christians were quoted in this who did not agree.

Here we go:
(Link): Gender Roles in Marriage (Part1): Couples in Traditional Marriage Roles Have More Sex, Study Finds

    February 17, 2014|10:29 am

  • A recent study suggests that married couples will have more sex and be less likely to divorce if they assume more traditional gender roles where the husband does 40 percent of the housework and the wife earns 40 percent of the income. Some experts disagree, however, over whether or not the study supports these gender roles within a Christian a marriage.
  • “I don’t do theology by polling, but I’m glad to cite any study that shows God’s blessing of following His plan for men and women,” said Owen Strachan, vice president of The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. “This particular study gives evidence that there definitely are differences between men and women – that men are called to provide and there’s a certain mystery to manhood that draws women,” Strachan told The Christian Post in a recent interview.
  • … Mimi Haddad, president of (Link): Christians for Biblical Equality, vehemently disagrees. “Biology is not destiny; following Christ is destiny,” Haddad declared in an interview with CP on Wednesday.
  • Haddad asserts that “marriage today is more about self-satisfaction and self-gratification, whereas in earlier days it was about serving the world, serving God.” Rather than worrying about how much fun they will have in the bedroom, Christians should focus on maximizing their service to God and others.
  • …Mark Yarhouse, a Christian expert on sexual identity and author of Understanding Sexual Identity: A Resource for Youth Ministry, explains that “our culture is a little caught up on sexual activity.” He mentioned worldwide studies that reveal the value of sexual egalitarianism for intimacy.
  • Yarhouse cited Edward Laumann’s sexual survey involving 27,000 people across the world, investigating “nations where there are pretty rigid cultural norms verses more egalitarian social norms.” In such broad studies, Yarhouse reported, “you are seeing greater satisfaction in the countries that would be more likely to be egalitarian.” People in such societies tend to be interested in satisfying the desires of both partners, so the quality of intimacy is greater.
  • “When you’re in a culture where men are more traditional and those gaps are more significant, you may have practices and habits that are less fulfilling to the female,” Yarhouse explained.

Note that this article quotes Strachan, who is a sexist.

To read one rebuttal of some of his views, please see this link (from Rachel Held Evans – whom I disagree with on some topics, but I am totally with her on the gender complementarian topic):

(Link): If men got the Titus 2 Treatment… (on Rachel Held Evan’s blog, addressing a blog post by Owen Strachan)

Anyhoooooo. It’s fascinating that Christians feel the need to keep pouring on incentives to stop people from fooling around outside of marriage.

Christians can’t just quote the parts of the Bible that say fornication is a no-no, they have to quote studies that claim your married sex life will be rocking if only you do “X” or avoid “Z.”

Or, this may be serving to bolster sexist “biblical womanhood” and gender complementarian unbiblical nonsense.

One great thing about getting off the Baptist and evangelical merry-go-round is not having to give a crap about these things so much. I don’t let them guide my life anymore. But I do feel sad and offended for people still sucked into these world views and lifestyles.
Related posts this blog:

(Link):  One key to a happier sex life: Share child care duties equally, new (2015) research finds

(Link): False Christian Hype About Waiting Until Marriage For Sex – We’ve Gone From “It’s Mindblowing” to Now: “It’s Magical” Re: Timothy Keller / Tim Keller Virginity Celibacy Singles PreMarital Sex

(Link): Problems Created by Conservative Christian Teachings About Virginity, Sex, and Marriage: Christian Couple Who Were Virgins At Marriage Are Experiencing Sexual Problems – Re: UnVeiled Wife (Marriage does not guarantee great sex)

(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): Do men really have higher sex drives than women? (article/study)

(Link): AARP post: How to Handle a Sexless Married Life – But Christians Promise You Great Hot Regular Married Sex

(Link): Gotta Maintain that Propaganda that Married Christian Sex is “Mind Blowing”

(Link): More Married Couples Admit to Sexless Marriages (various articles) / Christians promise you great frequent sex if you wait until marriage, but the propaganda is not true

Living Myths About Virginity – article from The Atlantic

Living Myths About Virginity

I notice that this page goes on quite a bit about people’s bodies and the physical act, but says nothing about emotional effects of sex or possible emotional ramifications of having sex.

It’s an interesting read, but I’m not sure I agree with all of its implications – there is some subtle virgin shaming going on here, suggesting that sex should be thought of as fun, so you should get right to it, and don’t worry about it.

I’m not saying people should fear sex or dread it or be legalistic about it, but, there are people who willfully choose to abstain from sexual activity, at least until they marry, due to personal or religious conviction, and I believe that should be respected.

(Link): Living Myths About Virginity


    Vacuums of reliable information and sexism in popular culture can have serious consequences for women’s health.

… Through interviews with historians, abstinence advocates, sex educators, and self-described virgins and non-virgins alike, Shechter learned she’s not the only one who had certain ideas about what sex is supposed to be like.

There are a number of pervasive and loaded myths about virginity: That having sex for the first time will be an irreversible transformation that changes your body and mind; that there’s a “right” way to lose your virginity, and how you lose it will affect the rest of your life; that it’s going to be the most pleasurable, magical feeling; that it’s going to be the most painful experience of their lives.

These myths persist in part because of a lack of information about what happens to the human body, specifically the hymen, during sex—information that’s often not taught in schools, that’s not always found online, and that’s not always available from medical providers.

“I’ve spoken to lots of women who are just terrified of having sex because they think it’s going to be this horrible pain and [they’ll] bleed gallons of blood,” says Shechter, whose documentary makes its broadcast premiere on February 8 on the Fusion Network and is airing in cities across the U.S. and internationally in coming months.

Abstinence-only education in U.S. schools isn’t to blame for creating these myths, but Shechter and Green say the programs, which have received more than $1.5 billion dollars and counting in federal funding since 1996 despite mounting research about their ineffectiveness, do create environments where this kind of misinformation thrives. (Even some schools with more comprehensive programs, Green notes, are guilty of getting the facts wrong, too.)

Abstinence-only education promotes marriage as the proper venue for sexual activity and the only prevention method for STDs and pregnancy—it doesn’t offer information about how, once someone becomes sexually active, to make sure sex isn’t painful or how to avoid the kind of bleeding Green talks about.

(Fewer than half of all women bleed during the first time they have sex; they can bleed a little or a lot, or not at all, and it can be painful or painless. There’s a range of experiences that vary from individual to individual and depend on factors like use of lubrication and levels of arousal.)

Reliable information is out there, but it doesn’t always find its way to young women (or men) who could benefit from it.

Kiki Zeldes, a senior editor of Our Bodies, Ourselves, the landmark book about women’s health and sexuality published by a Boston-based non-profit, says the Internet can often lead astray young women looking for answers.

Continue reading “Living Myths About Virginity – article from The Atlantic”