Have we made an idol of families? (copy)

Have we made an idol of families?, by Andy Stirrup [Book Reviews] | published June 6, 2011

Source:

growingfaith.com.au/entertainment/have-we-made-an-idol-of-families

    by Andy Stirrup
    Published: June 6, 2011

    ‘How can we idealise marriage and the nuclear family while clinging to a saviour who was unmarried and without issue?’

    In Sex and the Single Savior, Dale Martin asks an important question: have we made an idol of families? Our knee-jerk reaction is to say, ‘‘Of course not’. But Martin reminds us that sometimes we cling to theologically-phrased excuses for what we do, rather than examine what the Bible actually says. When it comes to the importance we attribute to the family (in conversation at least, even though our practice may undermine our ‘theology’), Martin asks how can we idealise marriage and the nuclear family while clinging to a saviour who was unmarried and without issue?

    The book brings together a number of Martin’s previously published articles to get to grips with a number of issues that have to do with gender and sexuality. He examines what classical and early Christian writers would have understood by the Galatians passage which referes to there being no male and female in Christ. He discusses how odd Jesus’ celibacy would have appeared to his contemporaries. But the most provocative chapter, as far as the family is concerned, is the eighth chapter, ‘Familiar Idolatry and the Christian Case against Marriage’.

    Martin begins the chapter with a bold announcement that mainstream Western Christianity (Catholic and Protestant, liberal and conservative) has made an idol of marriage and the family. It is a strong claim but we would have to agree with him that those who do not fit the nuclear family ‘ideal’ usually find themselves on the fringes of church life. Martin supports his claim by turning both to the New Testament and to the writings of the early Church. He suggests that the early Church was culturally much closer to the New Testament period and so they are better placed to understand the intention of the Biblical texts than modern theologians.

    Continue reading “Have we made an idol of families? (copy)”

Valentine’s Day – this is for all the Unmarried People / Never Married / Singles

❤ ❤ ❤ Happy Valentine’s Day to all the Unmarried People out there! ❤ ❤ ❤

Happy Valentine's Day from Forever Alone Meme Guy!
Happy Valentine’s Day from Forever Alone Meme Guy!

Valentine’s Day

(Link): Valentine’s Day / Singles Appreciation Day For Never Married People and Other Singles -2014-

I used to dread Valentine’s Day, as it was a reminder that I was still unmarried. As the years go by, the holiday doesn’t bother me as much. At times, I find it amusing.

Here are some links or funny photos to cheer you up if you’re down about being alone on Valentine’s Day…

(Link): Eleven of the Worst Valentine Day’s Ads

(Link): 30 Valentine’s Day Gift Fails

(Link): The Top 100 Most Strange, Odd, Perplexing and Unintentionally Funny Vintage Valentine Cards EVER!

Single and Free
Single and Free
"My life is like a romantic comedy except..."
“My life is like a romantic comedy except…”
Forever Alone With 72 Cats
Forever Alone With 72 Cats
Grumpy Cat says Bah Hum Bug to Valentine's Day! / Grumpy Cat Valentine's Day cookies
Grumpy Cat says Bah Hum Bug to Valentine’s Day! / Grumpy Cat Valentine’s Day cookies

If you are feeling bad today because you are single and it’s Valentine’s Day, well don’t! You’re fine the way you are!

❤ ❤ ❤ Happy Valentine’s Day! ❤ ❤ ❤
———————————–
Related links on this blog:

(Link):  A Valentine for the Single Christian by K L Bishop

❤ (Link): Valentine’s Day: The Unromantic Origins of the Holiday by S. Barr

(Link):  Meet the Most Vitriolic Valentine’s Day Haters Around the World

(Link): Some Lady Tells Singles Not To Feel Sad on Valentine’s Day

(Link): Insensitive Valentine Meme – you can’t feel sad about being single if your parents are still living

(Link): Chinese Singles Buy Movie Tickets So Couples Can’t Sit Together on Valentine’s Day

Bay-Bees – Have Lots of Them (Addendum)

(Addendum to previous post):
“Bay-Bees – Have them, have lots of them and NOW, no matter what!, say some Christians”

I meant to include this in my previous post on this topic but forgot to (someone left me a response in that thread disagreeing with me, and I left her a response). Anyway….

A woman wrote in to Pat Robertson’s show the other day, The 700 Club, to ask if she should permit her daughter to stay in the same bed as her boyfriend when they come over for a visit.

Robertson then got into this tangent where he said, “Marriage is for making babies.”
(Or, he might have said, “Marriage is for pro-creation.” I forget the exact wording of his remark, whether he used the term “babies” or “pro creation,” but he did say, “that [babies / pro creation] is the purpose of marriage.”

I don’t recall any biblical passages stating that the sole reason for marriage is to have babies. (I don’t even remember any verses saying it’s the primary reason – but perhaps it’s in there, and I just forgot.)

I think a lot of conservative Christians – the ones who have made idols out of marriage and having children, and the more extreme patriarchy- type lunatic “Quiverfull” groups – tend to stretch verses such as “be fruitful and multiply” to apply in situations where they do not, or are not, for all Christians for all times in all situations.

I would dare say since God presented Eve to Adam after having said, “it is not good for man to be alone” that one primary reason for the existence of marriage is for companionship. Not baby-making, but for companionship.

Sure, baby-making might be ONE reason for the creation of marriage by God, but it’s not the ONLY reason, as Robertson implied in his response.

This bizarre obsession with marriage and cranking out babies is one reason why so many people, Christian and Non, feel so unwelcomed or alienated from churches, or why they stop going.

People, including Christian people, who are childless, child-free, never-married, or widowed are frequently over-looked by most American Christianity.

The never-married (over the age of 30), the child free, the childless, and the widowers – their needs are dismissed or never acknowledged to start with. They are not usually mentioned from the pulpit, or on mainstream Christian blogs, in magazines, or in most Christian books about relationships.

Most attention by conservative Christians is spent hand-wringing over and worrying about the decline of marriage, the decline of the U.S. birth rate, complaining about the Democrats, or complaining about the legalization of homosexual marriage.

As for the hand wringing about the decline of marriage by conservative Christians, it is highly hypocritical of them to do this.

When older, never-married Christians ask for help from their Christian communities to get married (“please help me get a spouse! Introduce me to some great singles, or create more singles functions where we can meet and mingle”), they are scolded and lectured and get comments such as… THEY, the singles who desire marriage, are

  • “making an idol of marriage”
  • “be content in your singleness, it’s a gift!”

  • “we can’t turn the singles group into a meat market, it’s for Bible study ONLY”
  • “God may have called you to life long singleness”

-and older unmarried Christians get other such un-helpful comments like those.

Note to churches and preachers:
If you want the marriage rate among Christians to sky rocket, get off your asses and start helping Christian singles, who are ages 30+, to meet other Christian singles so that they can date and then marry. Provide practical assistance in this area.

Anyway, I don’t see any biblical grounds for thinking that making a baby is the sole, or primary, purpose of marriage.

Conflicting Message to Christian Women by Christians About Physical Appearance

Conflicting Message to Christian Women by Christians About Physical Appearance

I plan on making a longer post later about how Christian dating and marriage advice often emphasizes the supposed necessity of the importance of a woman’s physical appearance – and how annoying this emphasis is – but this post, I wanted to keep this post a little short.

On the one hand, going back decades now, conservative American churches and other Christian entities have instructed unmarried women that if they want dates or a husband, they have to stay thin and attractive at all times.

This is the type of advice I would expect to see in secular sources pertaining to dating, and it is in fact often mentioned in secular sources, but it’s disappointing to see it on Christian sites, magazines, and so forth, but it is.

We Christian women get told repeatedly in Christian publications, blogs, radio shows, TV shows, and sermons, that Christian men -(really? This sounds more like it would be more true of secular men)- prefer sexy hotty totty sexy sexy women. Ergo, we Christian women must be clones of sex pot movie star Megan Fox or Jayne Mansfield at all times, until we die. We are not allowed to age, get wrinkles, or facial lines.

(By the way, this extreme, sexist, and unfair fixation on a woman’s looks has earned this topic the tag of “Lookism” on this blog, so if you want to see other posts, past or future, where I discuss this, please see the “Lookism” tag off to the side bar of this blog.)

Some pastors or Christian spokespersons, such as Mark Driscoll and Pat Robertson (see this post at this blog for more on that), have said that if a married man cheats on his wife (or is an alcoholic), it is totally understandable, reasonable, or expected, if the wife has “let herself go.” Married men have a right to cheat on their wife if their wife has gained weight or gotten wrinkles, is the implied message from these so-called Christian speakers.

Please, someone, point me to the Bible passage that says, “Thou shall not commit adultery, unless thy wife has gotten overweight, wrinkles, sags, or grey hair, in which case, I, your most Holy God, am all like, ‘Bro, I totally understand-eth! Thou art excused from the whole adultery thing.'”

So anyway, we women are told -indoctrinated and brainwashed constantly- since our youth, that our value as Christian women resides not in God, but in being quiet, submissive, and PRETTY (and as we get older, the characteristics of “being a wife and a mommy” are added), but BEING PRETTY is always on the list.

That message is obnoxious in and of itself, but what gets my goat is that it’s also frequently brandished along side this next sexist chestnut which conflicts with it; here it is:

Christian ladies, don’t be sexy because it might cause your “brothers in Christ” to “stumble.”

On the one hand, we Christian ladies are pressured to remain sexy, thin, and attractive, lest we turn off our husbands (if we have one), or, for those of us desiring marriage, lest we repel the single men out there, but, we should not look sexy because it might cause a man to have naughty, lustful thoughts.

So, according to a lot of conservative Christian authors, television hosts, and bloggers, I’m supposed to look sexy but not look sexy.
(Please click the “read more” link to read the rest of this post. Thanks)

Continue reading “Conflicting Message to Christian Women by Christians About Physical Appearance”

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

Bay-Bees – Have them, have lots of them and NOW, no matter what!, say some Christians Please see Part 2 of This Post

I was watching Pat Robertson today – by the way, I don’t always mean to single this guy out. A lot of his views about marriage, gender roles, babies, and other issues are similar to those of other male preachers and Christian talking heads.

Sooo. On a previous broadcast, Pat Robertson advised his Christian viewers to “out breed” their “opponents” (by which he meant Muslims, but I also suspect he was thinking of atheists, liberals, and other groups). You can read this post here at this blog for more about that.

Based on figures I have seen in books and blogs, currently about 50% of the American population is unmarried – this is also true of conservative Christians, 50% are unmarried. This includes never married, divorced, widowed.

It seems strange to me that Robertson and other Christian spokespersons and preachers keep insisting that Christians have more kids. About 20% of married couples do not have children, and who knows why that is. Maybe they have infertility issues, don’t want any, or can’t afford one.

When about 50% of American Christians are single, you’re asking the other 50% to crank out a lot of kids, and some of those 50% might be people over 40, 50, or 60 and don’t have the physical ability, energy, or health to keep up with a kid.

Your 50% of unmarried people technically are not supposed to be having sex. I know it’s popular to question this in some quarters – some Christians on other blogs actually argue that the Bible, and God, are fine and hunky-dory with fornication (sexual activity outside of marriage).

But no, God is not hunky-dory and okay with fornication- that fact is alluded to in many verses. In the Old Testament days, if a woman was not a virgin on her wedding night, she was to be stoned to death, if I recall correctly. She had to bring proof to the priests, via stained bridal sheets (sorry to be a bit crass, but it’s in the Scriptures), that she was a virgin on her wedding night, should her new husband claim she was not.

Obviously, since Christ, God has dropped the “stone her to death” routine, or whatever the penalty was at the time, but the fact that God called for a severe penalty at some point in history for fornication should be a huge CLUE that He is not “okay” with sex outside of marriage – HELLO.

I just find it really insulting, stupid, or unrealistic that some conservative Christians are bemoaning and fretting the decline of child birth among Christians. I can’t quite articulate it.

Maybe it’s because I’m over 40 years old and have never been married but wanted to be married that I find this annoying – that, and I also don’t think it’s anyone’s place to tell married couples when or how to have a baby. The Bible does not COMMAND all married couples to breed like rabbits, the “be fruitful” comment aside – I have never understood that “be fruitful” comment to be an iron-clad COMMANDMENT to all married couples forever, that they MUST follow or be damned by God.

These weenie TV preachers are asking Christian women to pop out more babies. I couldn’t pop out more kids if I wanted to, unless I went against biblical teachings about fornication and had a kid out of wedlock. Is that what the Pat Robertsons of the nation really want?
Continue reading “Bay-Bees – Have them, have lots of them and NOW, no matter what say some Christians”

Unmarried / Single People Are Supposedly Bitter & Have Too Much Baggage – and that’s why you’re still single they say

Old accusation and stereotypes tossed at unmarried people, even if and when it’s not true: “You’re Bitter!” and “You Have Baggage!” (“And that’s why you’re still single!”)

Before I get to the purpose of the post, a couple of points:

1. Wooo! I am on a roll today! This must be my fourth post in a row today. I need to go jogging pretty soon, though, so I will have to leave the computer for that. But your married Christian bloggers can’t complain, since they say my one magical key in getting a husband is jogging regularly (men don’t want ugly fatties, I’m told).

2. As for the blog post’s heading.

I think Google weighs post titles more heavily than post tags, which is why some of my post headings are insanely long or appear strange.

I normally would not put both terms, “unmarried” and “single” in a post subject heading together, but I don’t know if a person out there will be doing a search using “unmarried” or “single.” Now for the post:

— Hey, since you are unmarried, you simply MUST be BITTER and have TOO MUCH BAGGAGE! —

I really intended on making this post after doing one about how Christians approach the issue of physical appearance, especially as it pertains to dating and marriage, before making this one, but I think that one will take longer to write than this one, and I’m not in the mood to write another long post today.

I’ve seen some Christian bloggers – usually married, male ones – who, when they write a blog post about dating and marriage aimed at unmarried people, if they engage with dissenters in their comment area, will invariably throw the word “bitter” at commentators who hold opposing views.

While it certainly may be true that some unmarried people are bitter – because they want to get married but remain single – I don’t think it’s true of all unmarried people.

I will address the topic of “bitterness” farther below, but I wanted to turn attention to the “I bet you have baggage!” stereotype first.

— BAGGAGE —

I think telling unmarried people they have “baggage,” as in, “the reason you are still single past the age of 35 is that potential suitors perceive someone of that age as having too much baggage” is an idea (and insult, really) that is over-used on blogs, in books, and in TV segments on Christian programs about dating and relationships. I have seen this term used on Christian sites and secular ones about dating and relationships on a somewhat recurring basis.

Continue reading “Unmarried / Single People Are Supposedly Bitter & Have Too Much Baggage – and that’s why you’re still single they say”

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

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

I’m right in the middle of writing a post on another topic for this blog when the hosts of the Christian program “The 700 Club” announced they will be interviewing a male author, Jonathan V. Last, of a book called “What to Expect When No One’s Is Expecting: America’s Coming Demographic Disaster.”

This was preceded by a journalist on the show doing a brief news segment high-lighting that birth rates for 20-something American women have declined, while births for ages 35 – 44 American women have increased.

I never cared strongly if I had children or not. I wanted marriage, but kids? I didn’t care strongly about having children. That’s my personal position on the kid issue.

I am watching the interview now, as it’s airing.

The author at least concedes that it’s okay if people choose not to have kids. Host Pat Robertson isn’t fully on board with that view.

Now Last, the author, is going on to say what disasters will befall America if women don’t pop out two point five kids each – not enough tax payers to support medicare, it becomes difficult to sustain defense (not enough 18 year olds to join the military), and so forth.

Robertson is now asking the author, Last, about declining population in Japan (and later, he asks about Germany).

Continue reading “Conservatives and Christians Fretting About U.S. Population Decline – We Must “Out-breed” Opponents Christian Host Says”

What Christians Can Learn from The Walking Dead Re: Family, Singleness, and Marriage

When secular sources get it right – The Walking Dead

(I can see disgruntled “Caryl” fans wanting to leave me argumentative comments about this post. If so, please see the “Policy on Dissent on this blog” before being tempted to leave me a nasty gram. Thank you.)

On the cable channel AMC’s hit show about the zombie apocalypse, The Walking Dead, the topic of ‘what is family’ is explored every so often, as it was most recently in last night’s episode, “The Suicide King.” The show centers on sheriff Rick Grimes, who leads a group of survivors, some related by flesh and blood (or marriage), but most not.

The character Rick Grimes has a wife named Lori and son named Carl, and a newborn daughter named Judith (the wife, Lori, got killed a few episode ago).

Other characters under Rick’s charge include (but are not limited to) Hershel Greene, who has two daughters, Maggie and Beth. All the other members of Rick’s group are unrelated through birth or marriage (some previous members were killed in older episodes). They have banded together to survive.

One of Rick’s group includes the redneck survivalist character, Daryl Dixon. Daryl has become the show’s most popular character.

Daryl and his older, racist, sexist, violent brother Merle get separated early on in the show. Daryl grew up in his abusive older brother’s shadow. When Daryl was not being ignored as a child, he was being physically and verbally abused by his brother and possibly by his father, when they bothered to pay any attention to him.

In the episode ‘The Suicide King’ (first aired February 10, 2013), Merle re-enters Daryl’s life. Daryl decides to leave Rick’s group to go off alone with his brother again, because Rick refuses to allow Merle to join the group.

Rick tries to talk Daryl into staying (without his brother Merle), but Daryl is still stuck in the idea that flesh and blood ties is what constitutes “family,” or that flesh- and- blood ties should take priority to other sorts of bonds.

The character Glenn, who doesn’t want Daryl to leave the group, tells Daryl that Merle may be “your blood, but not mine.” Glenn explains that the group of survivors, headed by Rick, is his family now, even though Glenn is not related to any of these people through blood ties – and Rick tells Daryl, “you are part of this family.” Daryl still decides to leave with his brother Merle, however.

You can view a video clip of a few moments of that scene, and the actors from the show discussing the concept of “family” in this video clip:

(Link:) (SPOILERS) Inside Episode 309 The Walking Dead: The Suicide King (Video on You Tube)

Rick’s group of survivors have been more of a family to and for Daryl than Daryl’s own flesh and blood relations – despite a few arguments with one or two other group members (such as the late Shane Walsh), the group has treated Daryl with kindness and respect, and they have come to rely on him for protection and defense.

In one of the last few episodes, when Rick falls apart after his wife Lori dies from childbirth, Daryl willingly risks his life to go out in search of baby formula for the newborn.

In yet earlier episodes, Daryl took it upon himself, and puts himself in danger, to go searching alone in a zombie-infested forest for the twelve- year- old daughter of Carol, Sophia, who went missing at one point.

Daryl, despite his racist family of origins, freely and glady, with no prompting from any one, gives up some of his big brother’s antibiotic and painkiller medication to a black group member, “T-Dog,” who was gravely injured.

Remember, none of these people – Carol, the new born child, T-Dog, Rick, Sophia – are Daryl’s flesh and blood family, but he still acts on their behalf anyway.

In another episode, Rick, Glenn, Oscar and Maggie – all of no relation to Daryl – go to the town of Woodbury to rescue Daryl from one of the show’s bad guys, the Governor.

Throughout the series, Daryl has shown himself not to be a racist, sexist jerk like his older brother Merle. He has a difficult time emotionally connecting with other people, but he is, at his core, a decent guy who tries to help other people.

~~~~~~ ASIDE ~~~~~~~~

Before I return to the main theme of this post (which is, ‘who is family’), I wanted to address another issue about this show:

It may resonate with this blog’s particular audience to know that the actor who plays Daryl has said in interviews that in his mind, the character Daryl, who is also in his 40s, is a virgin. The show’s writers have, so far, never given Daryl a love interest or a sex scene – and remember, Daryl is hugely, hugely popular with the show’s viewers.

(Please click on the “read more” link below to read the rest of this post. Thank you.)
Continue reading “What Christians Can Learn from The Walking Dead Re: Family, Singleness, and Marriage”

Ask Amy Advice Column – on using the word “Family”

When secular sources get it wrong – Ask Amy advice column

In a response to a woman who is planning on getting married, advice columnist Ask Amy replies in part:

If you are brave enough to leap into your future by getting married and forming a new family, then you and your fiance should be brave enough to assert yourselves now.

Maybe I’m being too sensitive, but I get tired of seeing the word “family” defined as only “married couple” or “married couple with children, or married couple who we will all assume will have children some day.”

Ask Amy is apparently falling into this habit – referring to this bride-to-be and her husband as “forming a new family.” Maybe there’s a case to be made that unmarried people are a “family of one.”

Want To But Can’t – The One Christian Demographic Being Continually Ignored by Christians Re: Marriage

Want To But Can’t – The One Christian Demographic Being Continually Ignored by Christians | Re: Marriage Not Happening for Hetero-sexual Christians Over the Age of 30

While conservative Christians keep on despairing that today’s American culture no longer resembles 1950s “Leave It To Beaver” families, the majority of them keep right on ignoring one significant group: unmarried Christians over the age of 30 who want to get married but who cannot find a Christian partner.

About the only Christians who have taken note of this plight are those who are in the group themselves, such as myself.

There are many Christians over the age of 30 who want to get married, but they cannot find a suitable partner at church, through friends, or on dating sites. And their petitions to God on this matter are not working. God remains silent and does not move.

Meanwhile, we unmarried Christians [* please see March 2016 update at the bottom of this post], who want marriage but for whom it remains out of reach…

Stand by and see the never-ending avalanche of blog pages, magazine articles, and booklets printed, or radio shows broadcast, by mainstream evangelical groups bemoaning the fact that 20-somethings are putting off marriage until their late 20s…

Or that they are dropping out of church altogether, with a smaller amount of attention paid to topics such as divorce and how to keep a marriage together.

But there is nothing from the Christian community, no attention, prayers, concern, or material, for those who cannot even get to the altar to begin with (with the exception of a small amount of Christian material which insults us and puts us down).

I was reminded of all this again when skimming over parts of a book online. The book is “Church in an Age of Crisis,” by James Emery White.

In a chapter about marriage (I don’t see any chapters on prolonged singleness among Christians – which is typical), he writes in a sidebar:

— Begin Quote from Book —
The Crumbling State of Marriage

-[1] For the first time since the US began tallying marriages, more Americans of prime marrying age have stayed single rather than tied the knot

-[2] Proportion of married adults of all ages was 52 percent in 2009, down from 72.2 percent in 1960 – the lowest percentage since the US began tracking in 1880

-[3] Cohabitation in the US has nearly doubled since 1990
— End Quote from Book —

As for point 1, (“more Americans of prime marrying age have stayed single rather than tied the knot”), how many of those singles want to stay single? How many of them have intentionally chosen to stay single into their 30s and older? Why is this distinction almost never made?

How many of those singles are like me, who always desired and expected to marry, but it just never happened?

Why do these worried and pearl-clutching conservative Christians always seem to assume that those of us Christians who have remained single past the age of 30 or 40 have deliberately chosen to remain so?

Continue reading “Want To But Can’t – The One Christian Demographic Being Continually Ignored by Christians Re: Marriage”

Entertainment Staple: You’ve Gone HOW LONG Without Sex – Meant to Produce Yuks

Entertainment Staple: ‘You’ve Gone HOW LONG Without Sex?’ – Meant to Produce Yuks (or sometimes, pity)

I don’t like most Rom Coms (romantic comedies), so I hardly ever watch them.

If one is shown on cable, though, I may tune in.

Last night, I watched “The Proposal.”

In the film, there’s a scene where Sandra Bullock’s character, Margaret, is talking to Ryan Reynolds’ character, Andrew. They’re staying at Andrew’s parents’ home and pretending to be engaged.

Margaret is laying in the bed, and Andrew is on the floor. In a conversation they’re having, Margaret admits to Andrew that it’s been over a year and a half since she’s had sex with a man.

Andrew looks a little surprised by this.

Seeing this scene in the movie reminded me of how often this is used as a staple in movies or television shows: a character admits to not having had sex in X number of weeks, months, or years, and the audience is either meant to feel sympathy, or pity, for the character – or else the audience is meant to find humor in the situation.

I don’t have anything profound to say about this situation, I’m only making note of how often it’s used in dialogue in movies and television shows.

It’s just another example to me of how people have wrong attitudes about sex – as though it’s unheard of for anyone to actually last longer than three days without having sex, or it’s thought of as weird or something to feel pity over.

I hope Hollywood and TV show writers stop using the “I haven’t had sex in three weeks, how awful / amazing / weird/ pitiful is that” shtick any longer.

I would like respect from Christian culture for being celibate, and I would like for older celibates to at least be acknowledged by American Chrisianity (hello, we exist!), but I find the whole pity / shock / revulsion / treating us as though we are side show freaks / disbelief (“OMG, no one is a virgin past the age of 25!”), and other such attitudes from both Christian and Non Christian culture, to be insulting and patronizing.

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

Every so often, the “Ask Amy” advice column can be instructive, or it reflects themes I’ve mentioned on this blog before.

A letter I saw today was one of those times; this is a letter from a married person to “Amy,” who answers letters mailed to the “Ask Amy” column:

DEAR AMY:

  • “Worried Husband” asked if it was OK to have a “secret friendship” with another woman.
  • Friendships help us get through life. One problem with our understanding of marriage is that it should be the “be-all and end-all” relationship. That is simply impossible. It’s this wrong-headed belief that drives us to feel as if we must have “secret” relationships.
  • If we can learn to develop honest and mature relationships with our spouses (and our friends), we avoid the destructive baggage that comes with keeping secrets. Your spouse doesn’t need to know every single thing that you do or say or feel, but she/he does have the right to not be lied to.
  • Secrets, in the sense of this situation, are lies. — Sally

DEAR SALLY:

  • I agree. Thank you.

I happen to agree with the letter writer too.

There is a web site which is about friendship, and if I could recall its URL, I’d give the link, but I don’t recall it at the moment. At any rate, one of the site’s guest writers, or maybe the guy who runs the site, laments how everything in our culture, and all relationships are sexualized to the point people just assume that males and females cannot be, or remain, platonic friends.

If and when every encounter or relationship is assumed to have romantic or sexual undertones, or that it will result in that, it makes many people hesitant to reach out to other people. It makes females hesitant to befriend males, males females, and marrieds reluctant to befriend unmarried people.

I’m not saying this is not a possibility, by the way. Many, many times over the years, I’ve had men mistake my platonic conversations with them as flirting. A lot of men assume if you are talking to them, even about mundane topics such as the weather, they assume you are hot for them and want to sleep with them or at least date them, when those are nowhere near your mind at all.

But then, I take it that this is due to the fact that males have been conditioned by churches and secular culture to view all women as temptresses who want them sexually. (I discuss this farther below.)

The church is not immune from this sort of thinking, either. Even Christians assume a man and a woman cannot be friends, or cannot remain friends for long, without the relationship turning sexual and/or romantic.

What this does is isolate unmarried people even further than they already are. (I’m not the first to pick up on this, of course. If you’ve read other blogs or books by and for unmarried Christian adults, you will see they’ve noticed this as well.)

It’s often assumed by Christian and secular culture that all men are wolves with huge libidos who will prey on a woman sexually if given even the smallest of opportunities. That may be true of some men, or even 80 – 90% of them, but not all.

And I have to wonder, even if the figure is as high as say, 90%, how much is that due to the male gender’s intrinsic biological make-up, or how much of that is due to the fall (sin entering the world via Adam and Eve) and/or how much is due to socialization.

I have to wonder, if you keep repeatedly telling a young male from the time he’s age ten or 12 or 15 on up, that he’s an absolute horn dog who cannot resist sex, and he’s supposed to want sex all the time, if he will then begin to think and feel that way precisely because he’s being conditioned to believe it by his teachers, blogs, parents, churches, etc., and how much is truly innate?

And there again, the disturbing, sick, troubling, ironic thing (in my view) is it is not just secular culture via movies, TV shows, movies, and rap and rock songs telling young males they’re horn dogs who have an insatiable thirst for sex, it’s also the typical preacher, Christian dating advice blogs, and Christian relationship books that do so as well.

So maybe it’s more of a self-fulling prophecy. Maybe a lot of young guys with otherwise average- to- low- sex drives would not have sex outside of marriage, or at least not before a certain age, if they were not hearing the implication all the time from pastors, Christian dating blogs, secular sources, etc, that there is something wrong or weird about them for either not acting on the urges they have, or for not having a huge sex drive to start with.

Anyway, the socialization aspect especially intrigues me because I was just listening to an online interview a while ago by a Christian guy who visits high schools to talk about sexuality with students, and he said there are teen males who don’t want to have sex yet, who don’t feel ready to have sex, who approach him in private after his lectures, to say they feel tremendous pressure to start having sex, but they’d rather not. They are looking to him to give them responses they can give to people to get them to back off with the pressure.

These teen males say to this Christian guest speaker that males in particular are ridiculed or harassed for remaining virgins past a certain age – which I do not doubt.

(By the way, if I were them – it’s nobody’s business as to your sexual status. If you are a 15 year old guy and your friends ask you if you’re still a virgin, and you would rather not answer for whatever reason, then tell them, “that is private and none of your business.” You’re under no obligation to tell people about your sex life, or lack of one.)

As a female, I can say this pressure and ridicule is also true for females, and it has been true over the last 20 or 30 years. Maybe it used to be true up until the 1950s or mid 1960s, that remaining a virgin until marriage was a huge virtue for females, or that it was more expected of females than males, but about the time I was a teen (in the 1980s) that was no longer true.

Girls get picked on and thought of as “nerdy,” unhip, weird, or a loser if they’re still a virgin at age 18, 20, etc. Girls get bombarded constantly with these idiotic messages from secular feminists that having casual sex and viewing porn is “empowering” for them, so they feel expected to have sex.)

The teen males aren’t alone in being made to feel like freaks or kill joys if they’re not sexually active – teen girls and women in their 20s and beyond also get subjected to this pressure, ridicule, disbelief, etc.

These male teens I was discussing a moment ago would prefer to remain virgins, at least for awhile longer, but they don’t know how to fight the taunts and pressure from their peers to cave in and have sex.

From a female vantage point, I get sick and tired of married women, or chicks with BFs (boyfriends), assuming I want to steal their man. I’ve been a “goody two shoes” my whole life – I’d never break apart another couple. I’m actually the last woman you have to worry about trying to steal your sweetie. For a woman to behave as though I’m a potential “home wrekcer” has always been deeply insulting to me. (I probably have better morals than they do – which I say not to brag, but only to point out how hypocritical some people can be.)

Secondly, on the part of the man or the woman (for I’ve had married men assume I can’t wait to bed them, so they must keep their distance from me), I almost never find these men attractive….
(please click the “read more” link to read the rest of this post, thanks.)

Continue reading “Topics: Friendship is Possible / Sexualization By Culture Of All Relationships”

Those Times When You’re Glad to be a Celibate, Single Christian – 2 [Herpes Dating Site]

Those Times When You’re Glad to be a Celibate, Single Christian – Part 2

Eeeee!

I did a google to see if one of my recent posts here had already been indexed by google (it has), and the link below turned up on the front page (and no, none of my posts have had anything to do about herpes – well, aside from the one where I pasted a quote by someone who had herpes asking an advice columnist for help, which I mentioned (Link): here).

Here’s the site that turned up on the first page of the results:

Herpes Dating Sites – Happy with Herpes
happy-with-herpes.com/herpes-dating-sites.html
Here’s a list and review of some Herpes dating sites so you can find a partner … You have something in common (though it might be awkward telling people … In 2007, on a boring Thursday night, I received a wink on PositiveSingles, … I have decided after years of having herpes to stop hiding, and learn how to be honest.

Seriously, there’s a whole dating site for people with herpes? (Edit: and they’re “Happy” about it. All righty. Odd.)


Related:

(Link): ‘STD-Verified’ Dating App Is Startup Culture Via Nutshell: Frank, Unchecked, Inevitable  by J. Burns

Creepy, Creepy and Sexist Pat Robertson

In the future, I plan on doing a post where I will reference this one. For now, here is a collection of links about creepy and sexist things Robertson has said.

I made a post about Pat Roberton’s creepy behavior the other day (here: “Is Pat Robertson of The 700 Club Show some kind of secret perv? He’s Creepy”).

Links (click the “read more” link below to see the rest of the links, and some excerpts):

Awful-Looking Women to Blame For Marital Problems, Pat Robertson Feels

Pat Robertson ‘Shocked’ That Women Watch Porn, Enjoy Erotic Novels Like ‘Fifty Shades Of Grey’ (VIDEO)

Slatternly-looking wives ruining marriages, says Pat Robertson

Pat Robertson Talks Porn, Makes Everyone Uncomfortable [VIDEO]

Continue reading “Creepy, Creepy and Sexist Pat Robertson”

Stop Telling Your Single Friends to Try Dating Sites – Please.

Regarding my previous post, (Link:) Online Dating Vs Meeting in Real Life

I want to keep this post brief, if I can.

This is a notice to everyone, but particularly married people: please stop advising your unmarried friends who want a boyfriend (or girlfriend) or a husband (or a wife) to “join a dating site!”

And especially don’t tack on what now seems to be the obligatory explanation:
“Because I have a friend, Bertha, and she tried online dating sites, and it’s how she met her husband Fred, after only two tries (or after only three seconds online)!”

Online dating is not a magical elixir.

Joining a dating site, like being sexy, smokin’ hot, and wealthy, is not a guarantee of meeting the right person (for more on that see my previous post, (Link:) “Following the Usual Advice Won’t Get You Dates or Married – Even [Beautiful and Wealthy] Celebrities Have A Hard Time”).

Please, please, please stop advising and suggesting to your lonely single friends that they sign up for Yahoo Personals, Match, Plenty of Fish, Christian Mingle, eHarmony, etc and so on.

Unmarried people are no more likely of having success at meeting a mate using a dating site than they are in “real life.”

There are just as many losers, wackos, weirdos, and liars on dating sites as there are in the bar around the corner.

And besides that, when your unmarried friend cries on your shoulder that she’d like to be married but can’t meet the right guy, nine times of of ten, she is NOT LOOKING FOR ADVICE OR SUGGESTIONS but merely sympathy and to have her struggles and emotions validated.

How do you give sympathy and validate your friend’s feelings?

By telling her, “I know how hard it must be to be lonely. I am so sorry you can’t seem to meet the right guy.”

– Period. End it there.

And that’s it. Resist the temptation to tell her, “Have you thought of joining eHarmony???”

And, if she is open to being helped by you, why don’t you get off your ass and actually offer PRACTICAL help to your friend, instead of just telling her what to do; as in,
“Hey, I know an unmarried guy named Ralph. I think you two would hit it off. Would you like me to introduce you? Maybe I can invite you both over for dinner with me and my spouse next Friday.”

Unmarried people get the “Join e Harmony dating site!” line from people all. the. time.

Many of us have already tried dating sites, and it has not worked for us.

So please, stop telling unmarried people to try online dating.

Telling unmarried people who want to be in a relationship to try online dating has become another cliche’ and platitude. Nobody wants platitudes when they’re hurting, angry, or discouraged.
—————
Related post on this blog (mentions that a woman met her wanna-be serial killer husband on a dating site, that she didn’t know when they were dating that he was a kook):

(Link): Fatherhood Not Quite the Producer of Manly, Mature, Godly Men Some Conservative Christians Make It Out To Be
——————–
Related posts on this blog:

(Link):  Ask Amy: These Sex-Crazed Weirdos Turned Me Off Internet Dating

(Link): Online Dating Fatigue is a Real Thing and It’s Happening to Everyone by Madison Vanderberg

(Link):  Florida Man Murdered By Woman (and her friends) Whom He Met On a Dating Site

(Link):  Celibate Christian Woman Asks Christian Host (Pat Robertson) Why God Will Not Send Her a Husband

(Link): More 40-Something Single Women Falling Prey to Dishonest or Violent Men in Dating (says report)

(Link):  Why You Will Marry the Wrong Person by A. DeBotton

(Link): The itchy truth about Tinder [dating site / dating app]: 750,000 people on the dating app are infested with pubic lice, scientist warns

(Link): Beware of Rapists on Christian Dating Sites

(Link):  Necrophiliac Gets Prison For Killing Teacher on First Date Whom He Met Using Dating Site

(Link): Homosexual Satanist Kills Cop He Met Via Grindr Dating App, Eats Part of Body, Acid Burns the Remainder

(Link):   Risky Business: The Dangers of Online Dating and How to Protect Yourself

(Link): Men Posting Profiles on Dating Sites Could Use Some Tips (from Dear Abby column)

(Link): Police: Woman raped, stabbed by man she met on dating website / Separate news story: Man used dating sites to find rape victims

(Link): Various articles about online dating – Online dating leads to marriage / why men fail at online dating – other articles

(Link): Police urge caution when using dating websites / Murderers on Dating Sites

(Link): Woman Meets Man on Dating Site, He Steals Her Dog and TV on First Date

(Link): Is it a date? Or hanging out? [2014] Survey reflects confusion (article)

(Link): Why Online Dating Doesn’t Work

(Link): Internet dating firms entice lonely hearts with faked profiles based on real people (article)

(Link): Blogs by Single Women Who Discuss the Weirdos, Perverts and Losers Who Contact Them on Dating Sites

(Link): Creepizoids Weirdos and Perverts on Dating Sites

(Link): Weird Dating Sites, Toilet Dating, Dating Sites and Privacy

(Link): Online Dating: Women Want Younger Men (article)

(Link): Why Online Dating Doesn’t Work (article)

(Link): Facebook Uses Photo of Dead Girl (by suicide) in Dating Site Ad

(Link): Online Dating Vs Meeting in Real Life (copy)

Online Dating Vs Meeting in Real Life (copy)

An article about how couples meet – some are staying off dating sites and meeting others by chance encounters.

Love actually, not virtually: unlikely romance

——begin article—–

By LEANNE ITALIE

Nicole Buergers and Brenden Macaluso are both 32. They struck up a conversation about hipster eyewear over free beer and cheap eats at a Houston hangout one Sunday afternoon and Macaluso recalls the evening ending this way:

Nicole: “So how do we do this?”

Brenden: “You give me your number, I call you and we go out and have fun.”

Yep, random love is alive and well in Houston. In this age of online dating, virtual flirting and location-based hookup by app, these two are firm believers in three-dimensional serendipity nearly a year after their first encounter.

Even better, Macaluso realized before pursuing Buergers further that the two attended the same large suburban high school and had been in a couple of English classes together.

“Like many young people in the 21st century I had taken a stab at Internet dating,” said Macaluso, an industrial designer who also restores vintage motorcycles. “For me this was a complete failure. My experiences had always resulted in awkward dates.”

That, he said, left a simple formula for finding love: meeting in person, and “when you least expect it, not when you’re trying to.”

Mechanized dating remains a huge business worth a billion or more worldwide, but several others like Macaluso in living-online generations said they, too, found their happiness the old-fashioned way. In other facets of life they remain avid users of digital tools and social networks, which is where the AP caught up with them, including 28-year-old Patrick Murphy in Medway, Mass., southwest of Boston.

Continue reading “Online Dating Vs Meeting in Real Life (copy)”

Unmarried Christian Women Ain’t Got Time Fo’ Dat!

Unmarried Christian Women Ain’t Got Time Fo’ Dat!

I think you can click this picture to enlarge it if it makes it easier to read (I know you got time fo dat):

Sweet Brown says Unmarried Christian Women Ain't Got the Time to follow all your dating advice
Unmarried Christian women ain’t got the time to follow all your dating advice!
.

Is Pat Robertson of The 700 Club Show some kind of secret perv? He’s Creepy

So I was watching Pat Robertson hosting the TV show “The 700 Club” show interview a woman (last name Flores) who was caught in a sex traffic ring years ago.  (You can watch/ read her interview online (Link:) here.)

I was not not paying close attention to this interview until one point, where Robertson happened to begin grilling the woman (who wrote a book about her experience called “A Slave Across The Street”), about specific details about her ordeals as a teen-aged sex slave.

Robertson actually asked her questions such as, ‘did the men use objects to penetrate you?’, and he felt the need to mention specifics, such as, “so the men had you bound hand and foot on a bed, spread eagle, where they raped you and then slapped you…”-  etc.

Really, I don’t think it’s necessary to go into extreme details on a so-called Christian show that airs at 9 AM, 2 PM, 10 PM during the day, to give us an idea of the hellish nature of her situation.

One reason I found Robertson’s prurient interest creepy is that he did find it so interesting.

He seemed to be titillated or entertained by her sexual attacks. (Please click the “read more” link below to read the rest of this post)

Continue reading “Is Pat Robertson of The 700 Club Show some kind of secret perv? He’s Creepy”

Reviewers of Dobson’s book about parenting girls confirms it – U.S. Christians fixated on 1950s culture

Hmm. Maybe I should stop listening to Christian radio host Mefferd (her show is online here). The show title was “Mefferd speaks to Dobson,” with no indication of what the topic would be.

I clicked and listened. The show I listened to online is (Link:) here.

Most of her show topics are pretty interesting, but occasionally, she veers off into views I don’t agree with, or she interviews guests whose views make me want to puke.

As it turned out, Mefferd was interviewing Christian author Dobson about a book he wrote a few years ago called “How To Raise Girls.”

I’ve addressed in previous posts how most American churches and Christians are stuck in a 1950s time warp, where they continue to judge all behavior and culture by TV shows from the 1950s.

These types of conservative Christians look upon such television shows or the 1950s itself too, too fondly. I agree that the culture today is vulgar and coarse, and probably more so than it was in the 1950s.

However, and alarmingly, some conservative Christians consider 1950s American culture an ideal one, one to be emulated at all cost – they don’t hold Jesus Christ as the prime example to be emulated, mind you, but 1950s American culture.

Among other topics, I mentioned in the post “American Women Serving in Combat,” that one possible reason Christianity is failing today in the United States and church membership is lagging, is that American Christians spend more time wagging their index fingers at liberals and liberalism, and talking about the evils of contemporary culture (such as the existence of abortion and so on), than in actually helping people – specifically helping other American Christians.

If American Christians spent more time actually meeting the emotional and practical needs of other American Christians, instead of ignoring them in favor of pontificating on abortion, the legalization of homosexual marriage, concern about feminism, or on raising funds (for the billionth time) for rice and beans for starving orphans in Africa, maybe more Americans would find being a Christian more rewarding, practical, beneficial, and want to attend church regularly.

I listened to Mefferd interview Dobson concerning his book “How To Raise Girls,” and was completely turned off.

Gender complementarians (such as Mefferd and Dobson) over-empahsize their view that males and females differ.

Biblical gender egalitarians, such as myself, agree there are differences between males and females.

However, the older I get, I no longer buy the view that males and females are polar opposites across the board.

I think the genders have a lot in common, and both genders are expected by God to imitate Jesus Christ.

There is no “pink” Jesus for girls and no “blue” Jesus for boys.

Anyway, Dobson spent some time telling Mefferd on this radio show that Christian parents ought to raise their little girls to be “lady like.”

That term is rather sketchy and vague, and I don’t recall him clarifying what he means by it. Maybe he was more clear what he means by that term in his book.

I am going to assume for the purposes of this post that I understand what he was getting at with the phrase “lady like.”

I was definitely raised by a “June Cleaver” (1950s fictional television character) type of mom myself – all the way.

I crossed my legs when I sat down, wore panty hose under dresses, did not use cuss words, never wore pants to church services, didn’t sleep around, was never blunt or confrontational – I was a sweet, helpful little doormat who repressed all anger.

I can’t even begin to describe how being raised to be so “lady like” did so much damage to me, how many problems it created.

I am now trying to un-do the years of beliefs and behaviors I was taught was proper, godly, or lady like for a Christian female.

And it’s that very “ladylike” behavior that was so crippling for me (and other Christian women) that Dobson wants other girls to strive for.

There’s this assumption by these Dobson types – the ones who think little girls should be taught to be “lady like” – that if a female is raised to be a gentle, soft spoken, coy, compliant little thing, that this will attract men to her as she ages, and she will be able to get a husband.

I can see how that sort of thinking was true when my mother was a teen ager, but it’s not true for women like me who grew up in the 1980s and 1990s.

Being coy, passive, meek, modest, mild, self-effacing, totally selfless, nurturing, and compliant (“ladylike”) does not guarantee a girl a spouse any more, and is actually a lure for abusive men, which gender complementarians don’t seem to realize – or care about.

Being “lady like” also stunts a girl’s ability to become an independent adult.

After listening to Dobson’s interview with Mefferd about his book about girls,  I went to a book review site and looked Dobson’s book up.

I read reviews by people who read Dobson’s book, and they interestingly echo some of the views I expressed in my post the other day, over conservative Christianity in general.

You will see some of those views here, ones that I’ve brought up before about the state of contemporary Christianity, that these reviewers repeat about Dobson in particular, like how these reviewers notice that….

  • Dobson idolizes 1950s American culture;
  • Dobson, like so many other biblical gender complementarians, portrays un-biblical codependency as being desirable in a female, or mistakes codependency for being some kind of biblical standard for femininity;
  • spends more time complaining and bitching about liberalism than he does in actually dispensing useful parenting advice, etc:

From reviews of Dobson’s book “How To Raise Girls”

Review by Aaron Thompson

(who gave the book a 2 star out of 5 star review):

This review is from: Bringing Up Girls: Practical Advice and Encouragement for Those Shaping the Next Generation of Women (Hardcover)

I’ll just say I’m not a fan of James Dobson, but I have a habit of reading books even if I don’t think I’ll like them. I got this for free, so I thought I’d give it a go.

True to what I expected, I thought the book was far too negative. The majority of the book is spent talking about how the world is terrible and getting worse by the second. He spends a lot of time recounting “the good ol’ days”, which I assume is when he was a young person. I think it’s safe to say the world was just as bad then, just in some different ways.

I also think he is far too old-fashioned. Call it what you will, but I don’t think it’s necessary for a man to walk on the street side of the sidewalk or order for his date. Those types of behaviors would drive me crazy. In general, I don’t agree with the 1950’s housewife idea he has for women. If a particular woman wants her relationship to work that way, fine. But many don’t.

And lots of men don’t want that, either.

And guess what? We are dedicated Christians. I do like a little romance to be sure, but if my husband acted the way Dobson advocates for, I would feel completely smothered.

Dobson also makes himself sound outdated by comparing piercings to self-harm, such as cutting, and saying that it means you hate yourself.

No, Dr. Dobson, I didn’t hate myself when I got my tongue, nose, lip, and whatever else pierced. I just liked the style at the time.

It had no bearing whatsoever on my relationship with God, and it did not mean I was sexually abused, drank alcohol/did drugs, or had promiscuous sex. In fact, none of those things were the case with me.

I also disliked his assessment on Disney Princesses. He’s a big fan. He says girls love them because they’re beautiful, have it all together, marry Prince Charming, have an unlimited wardrobe complete with fancy dresses, and everyone loves them.

They are the epitome of femininity and represent wanting to feel beautiful and loved as well as secure.

I don’t think those are very Christian attitudes, to be honest.

I would rather be focusing my life on whatever God calls me to, even if it’s hard. Even if it’s dirty. Even if it calls me to be lonely, ugly, poor, or unmarried.

I think the Princesses give the wrong idea that desiring security and beauty is more important than desiring God. Would I completely ban a daughter from playing with Princesses? Of course not. It’s fun to dress them up. But I do worry about her “looking up” to them.

Honestly, I don’t think Dobson includes enough scripture. When he does, the majority is from the Old Testament. That’s not bad, but I would like to hear the words of Jesus and his disciples. To me, the book (and Dobson, for that matter) is about Traditional America first, Jesus second.

There are a few things I found worthwhile in the book. Dobson had interesting information on warning signs to look for in teenagers with things like sexual abuse.

This is helpful, because my husband is a youth pastor. I also appreciated the ideas for daughters and fathers to strengthen their relationship. I know that a lot of girls don’t have fathers in their lives, or if they do, their fathers are distant, so I think this is a great thing for fathers to hear and possibly be convicted about.

All in all, I think there are far better parenting books, but in most books, you can find a few worthwhile things.

(Please click the “read more” link below to read the rest of this post)

Continue reading “Reviewers of Dobson’s book about parenting girls confirms it – U.S. Christians fixated on 1950s culture”

Following the Usual Advice Won’t Get You Dates or Married – Even Celebrities Have A Hard Time

I’ve noticed that in a lot of dating advice for Christian singles, we basically get blamed a lot for our singleness.

There are so many negative, insulting assumptions made about unmarried Christians in the process.

If you’re an unmarried Christian woman who desires marriage (assuming you don’t get the condescending, idiotic commentary that desiring marriage is tantamount to “idolizing” marriage which we sometimes do get from some Christian quarters), you will get all sorts of  other derogatory remarks.

Being Attractive, Thin, or Wealthy Does Not Mean You Are Guaranteed To Get Dates or a Spouse 

Many Christian blogs and books for singles (even for ones as young as 15, but even for adults past 30), whether written by males or females, assume if you’re a single woman who’s not married yet, it’s because you’re ugly or a “fatty” – or both.

You will be told you need to lose weight, wear make-up, and grow your hair out long if you want to get dates, and later, a spouse.

The “Just Grow Your Hair Long!” Cliche’

Supposedly, all men every where love, love, love and adore long hair, as in super long, past- the- shoulders- hair, a la Cher from the 1970s.

Such hair is impractical and a pain in the ass to care for.

(I’ve also seen Non-Christian single women complain about the “grow your hair long if you want to catch a man” advice from secular advice givers, so it’s not just Christian women who get this one.)

The world’s greatest sex symbol, who still tops lists and polls for “most sexy,” or “most beautiful,” even more than 40 years after her death, frequently wore her hair very short, even boyish at times – I am referring to American movie actress Marilyn Monroe.

Marilyn usually wore her hair short, or super short, and only wore it long for one movie role (in “River of No Return”), and maybe three, if you count two of her earliest films where she had bit parts.

Marilyn was married three times, twice when her hair was very short.

So obviously, men are not put off  by short hair, and advice-givers can drop that supposed requirement from the list of traits a woman must have if she wants marriage.

Christian Authors, Bloggers Rudely Assume: ‘If You Are Still Single, You Must Be Fat or Ugly or Weird’

One of the things I find offensive is that these blog writers and book writers, even the Christian ones, are assuming you are ugly or fat, even though they have no clue what you look like.

They seem to miss the point that you can be a completely attractive and thin person and still have a hard time meeting a mate.

This brings me to my next point… or two. (Please click the “read more” link below to read the rest of the post)

Continue reading “Following the Usual Advice Won’t Get You Dates or Married – Even Celebrities Have A Hard Time”