views and thoughts on topics, especially ones pertaining to christianity – with an emphasis on how most christians either ignore or discriminate against unmarried christians – and how christians have turned marriage and parenting into IDOLS and how there is no true support for sexual purity, virginity, or celibacy among christians – this is a blog for me to vent; I seldom permit dissenting views. I don't debate dissenters ————-
Death, Grief, Marriage, Single Again, Soul Sleep, Christianity, Obnoxious Male Fixation on Female Looks
I have several topics I’d like to address here. I’m going to discuss death, grief, dating, how men are too fixated on women’s looks, etc, and so on, all in the same post.
I learned from watching the Christian program “It is Written” today (Feb 2017) that the wife of Christian TV host Mike Tucker, Gayle, died. I’m not sure when the episode was first filmed or first aired.
You can read a transcript of that episode, “From Grief To Hope” (Link, off site): here.
You might be able to watch that very episode or one like it here: (Link, off site): Coping with Grief.
I see from an online obit that Gayle Tucker passed away in April 2016.
To the human eye, Jeremy doesn’t look that different from most snails, but to other snails he is rather unique.
Due to a genetic mutation, Jeremy’s shell swirls counterclockwise and his sex organs are located on the left side of his head, the opposite arrangement of most snails. According to (Link): NPR, this rare “lefty” look has made it nearly impossible for Jeremy to find a mate, because his sex organs don’t align with those of other snails.
Luckily, Jeremy found a friend in Angus Davison of the University of Nottingham, who is working with a team to find out what gene creates this one in 100,000 anomaly. One of the best ways to do this is to study Jeremy’s offspring. But first the snail has to have offspring, which requires another counterclockwise snail.
To find a mate for the lovelorn snail, Davison asked the public for help on Twitter, attaching the hashtag #snaillove to his plea.
WHO: Single People Who Struggle to Find A Partner To Be Considered “Infertile”
I’m taken aback by some of the cranky comments by people who disagree with this decision. Take for example this (source):
Josephine Quintavalle, from Comment on Reproductive Ethics added: “This absurd nonsense is not simply re-defining infertility but completely side-lining the biological process and significance of natural intercourse between a man and a woman.
Well, excuse the hell out of me, Ms. Quintavalle, but some of us find ourselves single by circumstance – we had hoped to be married in our 20s or 30s but just could not find the right guy. I cannot get pregnant now because I have no husband to have sex with to get pregnant, by, HELLO.
You’re saying women like me shouldn’t be able to get help we need or want in having a kid of our own, if that is what we want (I never cared if I had one myself or not, but some women really want one). There is just no sympathy from some people for the circumstances other people find themselves in in life. I didn’t plan on turning out single well into my 40s, lady.
I don’t think that adult singleness should be thought of in a derogatory fashion as a “disability” (God knows we get enough of that condescending attitude from churches as it is), but I don’t see anything wrong with it pertaining to allowing singles who want to have kid.
I’m also seeing one or two commentators who assume that single adults are more “selfish” than married couples, which is untrue and is (Link): the reverse!
For the WHO’s Dr. David Adamson, one of the authors of the new standards, this move is about creating medical equality. He says, “(Link): The definition of infertility is now written in such a way that it includes the rights of all individuals to have a family, and that includes single men, single women, gay men, gay women.”
Preacher Mark Driscoll Disparages Virgins and Virginity (Again)
If you have found this blog post by way of another source, please note that the person sharing it likely does not necessarily agree with all opinions expressed below.
I do not personally agree with ALL of Purity Culture teaching (or with how it is taught), but I still believe that Bible does prohibit sex except for married couples (married being ‘one man to one woman’).
Unfortunately, many of the anti-Purity Culture proponents I see online seem to think the Bible does not teach sexual ethics at all, or, they seem to feel that everyone should just ignore what the Bible says about sexual morality and do whatever they want.
This is the sort of post I would rather not make. It’s the sort of post I sit around hoping another blogger will address, but it looks like it falls to me.
Preacher Mark Driscoll has disparaged virgins and virginity before (see (Link): this post on my blog)- his views on adult singleness are also narrow and un-biblical.
As I’ve noted in a much older post (please see (Link): this post), about the only people I see defending fornication (pre-marital sex) are those who are either on an “Anti Purity Culture Crusade,” or are they themselves self-admitting fornicators.
How convenient that adults who have not lived up to the Bible’s standard of no- nooky- prior- to- marriage are the very same ones who shame adult virgins for being virgins, for wanting to marry a fellow virgin, and/or for being upset that their intended spouse is not a virgin.
I’m pretty tired and worn out by self-professing fornicators lecturing me (or people like me), a 40-something actual, honest- to- God virgin, about sexual sin, sexual standards, and grace.
Here is a link to the piece I am discussing in this post:
I’m a 32-Year-Old Virgin, and I’m Living the Feminist Dream by K. Bryan
Parts of Bryan’s essay resonated with me. There are different reasons I decided to abstain from sex, but avoiding things such as sexually transmitted diseases, having to spend money on birth control, and men using you for sex just to dump you the next day were a few of my own reasons, and she cited one or more of these reasons in her essay.
My name is Kate. I’m 32 years old. I’ve never had sex.
When I was young, I always imagined I would be married by 25 and have a brood of kids. Jesus said in the Gospel of Matthew to “make disciples,” and I thought it would be cool to take that verse literally and have 12 kids. I wanted enough kids to fill a baseball team, a hockey bench and a big house full of love.
That obviously didn’t happen. Or it hasn’t happened yet. But I love my life. …
Do I feel a void because I’m not married and I don’t have children yet? Sure. Do I wish I were having sex? Of course.
But I believe that I’m living a fuller, better life because of my commitment to sexual integrity. I spend all day, every day doing the things that I want to do, because I’m not wasting my time worrying about waking up next to a stranger, contracting a sexually transmitted infection or missing a period.
In places where men outnumber women, it might seem like science would suggest that more testosterone and fewer available females might lead to less stability in relationships. But a new study shows that’s not the case.
The research showed that counties in the U.S. with more men than women generally had higher (Link): rates of marriage, fewer births outside marriage and fewer single female heads of household — all of which are generally signs of greater family stability, according to the researchers.
…. In other words, the new research does not support the assumption that if there are (Link): more men in an area, there will be more unmarried men.
Schacht said these results can be explained through the so-called mating market theory, which applies the principles of supply and demand to partnering.
“If you’re the rarer sex, you have more bargaining power; you have greater leverage in terms of what you demand out of a partner,” Schacht said. So in places with more men, the men are more responsive to women’s desires, in order to find a partner, he said.
When Jerome, the Catholic priest and scholar, arrived in Rome in the middle of the fourth century, he discovered a circle of noblewomen living in elaborate homes on the Aventine Hill who were nothing like their neighbors.
They’d given up their silk clothes and pearl earrings, the hairstyles and rouge and musk, even bathing, as signs of vanity, and were now wearing coarse robes made of goat’s hair. They stayed almost entirely in their houses, fasting and praying, discussing Scripture; in secret, they might visit a nearby basilica or martyr’s tomb.
They never allowed themselves to rest on couches or cushions of any kind, and at night they slept on thin mats on the floor— though they hardly slept, spending those hours, instead, crying and praying.
Most importantly, these women—some of them widows, some only recently of marrying age, all converts to Christianity—had each taken a vow of chastity.
…Many of the female leaders of Christianity—in the Catholic Church in particular, with its 1.25 billion followers around the world—are barred from being fully ordained and are closely overseen by men. But this was not always the case. Scores of early Christian women—like Marcella, the desert-dwelling Susan, or the scholars Melania and Paula— embraced radical lives, helping the young religion fan out across the Roman Empire and beyond.
Did Hell Freeze Over?: Liberal Rag Promotes Idea that Celibacy is Acceptable, and a Valid Life Choice / Re: 2016 Study Says Millennials Aren’t Having Much Sex
The following editorial comes from left wing site Salon, known for publishing pieces by left wing feminist Marcotte, who likes to insist everyone respect women’s sexual choices except for virginity and celibacy – she thinks it’s okay to mock those (see this link and this link for more on that).
Most of the time, liberals are loathe to admit that it’s okay for adults (or kids) to be virgins or celibates. They often portray the state of being abstinent as being sexually repressed or weird. They get all judgey-judgemental about it, but at the same time ask us not to “slut shame” the people, especially women, who boink around like dogs in heat.
So, I was quite surprised to see this liberal editorial defending the idea that it’s okay for people to be chaste, and that people need to stop pressuring everyone to have sex. This sort of editorial from a left wing site is very, very rare.
Everyone calm down and stop judging young adults for “missing out on a good time”
….While the study’s findings are of cultural interest about changing sexual practices, an unfortunate side effect is the concurrent media sex panic. To wit: a Washington Post headline asked if this means “(Link): the end of sex?” while (Link): The Cuttouted “Millennials Confirm That Sex Is No Longer Cool.”
Our Priorities Are Off When Family Is More Important Than Church – Jesus’ focus was on the family of God, not the biological family. by J. Hellerman
I’ve been saying the same thing on this blog the last few years: American Christians have turned the Nuclear Family, and all that goes with it – Marriage and Children and Parenthood – into idols.
American Christians have done so to such a degree that anyone who is not part of such as family, anyone who is single or childless, is marginalized.
By the way, Facebook group SCCL posted a link to this same editorial (link to SCCL discussion thread). Unfortunately, many of the participants in the thread have chosen to take the editorial the wrong way – they think it’s rude, inappropriate, or weird to ask or expect Christians to make spiritual family (other believers) a priority to them, over their biological family, or in addition to.
The posters at SCCL clearly do not understand – you have people (such as me), with little to no biological family, and people such as myself (older singles with no kids) are side-lined, minimized, all by a church culture that hypes and deifies “the nuclear family,” children, and marriage.
I do not think a Christian should so prioritize his church that he ignores his biological family, but we have the opposite problem in many churches today – people who are widowed, never married, divorced, or childless are treated like trash, and their needs go unmet, because too many churches cater to the traditional family unit, something Jesus expressly forbid them from doing.
… American adults, according to (Link): a recent Barna study, are “most likely to point to their family as making up a significant part their personal identity.” Country and God come next. Christians are no exception; natural family has usurped God and his family as the primary identity marker for most church-goers.
Most of us prioritize our commitment to family above our commitment to the church. This is unfortunate, because the Bible offers us a different set of relational priorities.
Yep. This is why I beg you, women of the world: stop going to Pat Robertson with dating, singleness, divorce, or marriage questions! You are not going to get valuable advice or empathy for your problems, but a lot of victim-blaming and shaming.
So, yesterday (August 2, 2016), on the TV show “The 700 Club,” Christian host Pat Robertson fielded a question from some woman who wrote in saying she had been divorced four times (I placed two videos of that segment in this post, towards the end).
If I understand the woman’s letter correctly, she says she accepted Christ as her savior, or turned to God, after her fourth divorce.
She said her first four husbands were abusive. She wants to know, now that she has rededicated her life to God, will God send her a loving husband?
Look, I knew before Pat ever opened his mouth how he would answer this woman. And I cringed in anticipation. And I was right about his reply.
I’ve watched The 700 Club every single day since the year 2005, and off and on prior to that. My mother used to watch his show when I was a kid, so I was exposed to it back then. I suppose I still watch it out of habit.
I have seen so many episodes of this show, I already can tell you how Robertson is going to answer before he opens his mouth, and I am correct about 90% of the time (regarding relationship questions he receives).
More often than not, if you are a woman and you write Pat Robertson for relationship advice, especially if you have been divorced, he will most likely blame you. He will tell you that you have a “failed relationship picker” and you should stay single. He figures that since you have failed at marriage once or twice before, there is little sense in trying again, because you will only fail again.
Robertson will shame and blame you for having married abusers, duds, and losers.
Robertson is also not kind to single women over 40 who have never married but who would like to marry.
“My boyfriend was intimidated by my sexual history. So I dumped him.” by T. Hornung
I’m not going to take the usual, secular, left wing feminist standard here (for one thing, I’m right wing and don’t always agree with secular feminists), where I’m supposed to say a woman’s sexual history is not a boyfriend’s business, or the boyfriend should not be upset by his girlfriend’s sexual past, and say, “Rah rah, women’s sexual freedom.”
I am forever amazed that “sex positive” feminists, whether they are men or women, assume that their previous sexual choices should not, or will not, have any consequences upon them or the people around them.
Some of us are more “serious” about sex than other people – sex actually means something to us, so yes, we find it troubling, and I suppose this is doubly so, if we are virgins over 35 years of age, and have to grapple with the fact that our current partner has had sex with other people in the past.
“‘I Kissed Dating Goodbye’ [Book] Told Me to Stay Pure Until Marriage. I Still Have a Stain on My Heart” – Regarding: Dating Book by Author Josh Harris (with other related links about the IKDG book) and Criticizing “Purity Culture”
August 24, 2016 update: I added a new link at the bottom of this post: people continue to attack the idea of sexual purity by publicizing backlash against the Harris IKDG book.
I myself have never read the IKDB book, which was written by Harris. I have read about the book on other sites in the past, and it is my understanding the book discussed how to date, and other such topics, and is not strictly about sex or virginity.
The author uses this review of the IKDG book to bash “purity culture,” and in so doing, touches on the topic or staying chaste until marriage.
I am in the middle of this debate. I cannot completely agree with all the critics of “purity culture,” depending on what they are criticizing about it and why.
I believe that the Bible teaches both male and females are to sexually abstain until marriage, so I don’t believe in tossing out this teaching all because some young women feel they have been hurt or oppressed by it.
On the other hand, how some Christians have taught about sexual purity has been lop-sided – males are typically not addressed, only females – and Christians could do a better, or more sensitive job, in how they present the concept of remaining a virgin until marriage.
With that introduction, here is the link, with some excerpts (and note, I am not in complete agreement with all views in this piece; however, I’m not a supporter of a lot of Christian dating advice. Christian dating advice tends to act as an obstacle to singles who want to someday marry):
In 1997, Joshua Harris published “I Kissed Dating Goodbye,” a book that was in part a warning about the harm that relationships before marriage could cause. Harris evoked images of men at the altar bringing all their past partners with them into the marriage to reinforce the point that love and sex before marriage took pieces of your heart and made you less.
At the time, Harris was just 21, but he was already a rising star.
…He [Harris] was what we, as young evangelicals, wanted to be. And so we strove passionately to attain the ideal of premarital purity he laid out for us. Now, almost 20 years later, even Harris appears to be questioning whether his advice did more harm than good.
…But Harris’s book was hugely influential.
…On the surface, I am a purity-culture success story: I am a heterosexual woman, a virgin until marriage, now with two small children and a husband I deeply love. We attend church. We believe in God. And yet, for me, the legacy of purity culture is not one of freedom but one of fear.
Purity culture taught me that I ought to be passed down from father to husband, more an inheritance than a human.
I was taught that men are my cover and my shield, when for the most part they have been the ones causing damage through molestation, rape and abuse.
I was taught that my holy calling was to open my legs for one and only one and bear him children. Barring that, I was to keep them closed and never express desire or lust or fear or longing.
So many women in my life cracked under the untenable pressure, often giving up on God all together. Others were forced into marriages with men who hit them and hid their abuse behind another message of the church borne from purity culture, that God hates divorce.
…So why did it take me years to address us in the plural because I felt allergic to the word “we”? Why did he have to practically blackmail me before I would put his name on the voice mail? And why have I repeatedly recoiled at the idea of mingling our finances?
My flip answer is that it’s out of habit. I spent my teens and 20s single. My husband is the only significant relationship I’ve had, and we didn’t start dating until I was 30. I enjoy listing off the achievements made easier given my single status: living overseas, entering graduate school, launching a freelance career.
I regard Mormonism as being a cult, not a form of legitimate Christianity (Mormons don’t believe in the Jesus of the Gospels, for one thing), but I think there are some parallels between Mormons and Christians, such as the over-emphasis upon marriage.
When your church makes an idol out of marriage, as Mormons and Christians do, it drives people away. Because sometimes people stay single by choice, or due to factors beyond their control.
And if you’re single in a religion that over-values marriage, there is a tendency to be ignored, set aside. Churches care more about marriage than singlehood. Churches care more about meeting the needs of married couples than they do adult singles.
There is no incentive for a single adult to remain in a church or denomination that marginalizes them constantly, or that behaves as though singleness is a disease or a second-rate life station.
We know, or can infer, some things about them from prior research. There is a correlation between certain life situations and leaving. This does not mean that being any one of these things will cause a person to leave, only that there is a relationship.
Being single. There’s been some tantalizing research over the last two years about singles in the LDS Church.
In both cases [in the study], cooperation was higher — the subjects shared their money more often, or settled the hypothetical strike more quickly — if both members of the pair had eaten the same thing first, a piece of knowledge that’s worth tucking away for your next awkward meal: “Consumers can be strategic in the food they consume,” the study authors wrote, “utilizing food as a social lubricant when eating dinner on a date or when out for lunch with a colleague.” Your date might not order exactly what you want, but sometimes, it’s better to ignore your cravings and take any help you can get.
WashPost Columnist: ‘Ghostbusters’ Haters Are ‘Virgin Losers’ – (via NewsBusters Site); Both the Right and Left Wing Get Some things Wrong About This
This story comes from NewsBusters, which is discussing a column written for Washington Post newspaper by columnist Kristen Page-Kirby about the new Ghostbusters movie.
The original Ghostbusters movie, released in the 1980s, contained four male leads. The reboot version of the movie, which was released July 15, 2016, contains four women leads instead.
Unfortunately, over a year or more ago, when news came out that there would be four women leads in the film, some of the sexist jerkwads who inhabit the internet started lambasting the movie all over You Tube, Twitter, and where ever else – not because the move was bad (it wasn’t even released yet), but because they were incensed that Hollywood was cramming some form of feminism down their throats.
Interestingly, I didn’t see as much backlash over the main character of the new Star Wars film, “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” being a woman – Rey.
At any rate, I will be discussing two or three different topics in this post that are related to this new film, or mentioned by the conservative essayist at the NewsBusters site.
This is another story where I am in the middle. I can’t say as though I’m completely on one side or another in regards to some aspects of this story, depending on what is under discussion.
I am currently a moderate right-winger (I used to be more to the right than I am currently. In the last few years, I’ve been reconsidering if some of my former political and Christian beliefs are wrong.)
I’ve been more open the last few years to hearing the criticisms and views of liberals and Non-Christians – which is not to say I agree with everything I see left wingers and Non-Christians espousing or arguing in favor of.
I sometimes think secular, liberal feminists have good points on some topics, but I normally disagree with them.
As far as the Ghostbusters film reboot is concerned, I do think some of the backlash against the movie does in fact stem from sexism. But then, I do think some people may honestly feel that the movie is genuinely bad due to having a poor story line, or what have you.
I have not seen the movie yet. I don’t go to movie theaters that much anymore.
I usually wait until movies air on cable television; I’m willing to bet that this Ghostbusters reboot will probably be shown on F/X channel, or SyFy, or some other cable network in the next two years, and I have cable television, so I don’t know if I want to invest my time and cash into driving down to a theater to see this, since it will eventually be on television.
I saw the original Ghostbusters in a movie theater when it was in theaters in the 1980s. I was a kid at the time.
The original was okay, it was quite enjoyable and plenty of fun, but it was no movie masterpiece, so to all the men online who were griping about the reboot featuring all women leads: get the hell over it already.
And yes, you were, or are, being sexist douche bags about it. I don’t buy for a moment that ALL male griping about the film is based on non-sexist reasons, like shoddy trailers, or supposed poor CG work.
The vast majority of the professional reviews (and I have read a ton of them) for the new Ghostbusters film have deemed it “okay.” -Not terrible. Not great. But just “meh.” It’s so-so, most reviews have said.
What I don’t appreciate is that the columnist for WaPo who was discussing male backlash about the movie is using virginity as an insult.
Many churches coach married women in abusive marriage to stay with their abusive spouses: please remember that the next time you hear Christians spouting off dating advice.
Never take dating advice into consideration if it is being doled out by people who think a wife should “submit” to an abusive husband, which most (gender complementarian) Christians believe.
I am not saying that the woman who wrote this page I am linking to below feels that way – I’m not sure what her views are about gender complementarianism or domestic abuse – I am only speaking in general terms.
If you’ve dated in the Christian circle for any length of time, you, too, probably have humorous stories as well as scars. As there’s no book in the Bible with a dating how-to, the “biblical dating” we strive for actually doesn’t exist—we’ve been left to our own devices to figure it out. And churches haven’t always done the best job helping us get there.
Like many parts of faith, Christian dating culture is home to many double standards. We encourage women to keep high standards and desire only the godliest of men, yet we pity the “forever alone” single women who seemingly received a lifetime supply of the “gift” of singleness.
We encourage men to pursue women, to be forward with their intentions, yet when a guy has asked too many women to coffee in the same church circle, we label him “desperate.”
How to Date When You’re Almost Middle-Aged by A. Broadway
I skimmed this article over the other day (the link to it is much farther below; I wanted to say a few words first).
I’m over 40, the author was like 38 around the time of writing.
I don’t wish to re-read it, so I’m gong on memory. From what I remember, she seems to tilt to the belief that the older you get, the fewer decent men you have to choose from (I sometimes see this idea in regards to older women: that single women over the age of 35, 40 or 45 are somehow “flawed,” which is why they are still single, or single again).
The author therefore assumes if she does land a man at age 38 / 40, he is likely to be a loser or weirdo.
Look, I am not on board with that sort of negative, defeatist thinking. I’m over 40 and have never married (but yes, I was engaged to a guy for a few years. I have done the “serious relationship” thing).
Like all humans, yes, I have made mistakes in life and have a few odd-ball habits: but who does not. Still, for the most part, I am pretty normal. I’d make a great wife.
Therefore, any time I see married people or adult singles argue that singles over 35, 40, or older, are somehow losers or odd balls, I resent it – because, by default, you’re lumping me into that generalization. I am not a loser or a weirdo.
Over my time on the internet, especially since starting this blog, I’ve met other never-married or single again persons who are over the age of 35, and they’ve not been able to find a life partner. Not because they are losers, weirdos, or failures, but just for the simple fact that finding a compatible partner is not all that easy.
There are more never-married adults over 35 and 40 now (and “single again” adults) than at any time in our nation’s history, according to various news report I’ve seen the last 2 or 3 years. I find it hard to believe that all of the many thousands of over-40 singles are weirdos or too mal-adjusted to marry.