Saturday, April 25, 2009

Christianity Gets a Little More Disturbing To Me

misogyny, feminism, feminist, religion, christian, christianity, atheism, atheist, courtship, asshat, stupid, sex, sexism, sexuality, orgasm, clitoris
I have to thank the Slacktivist for giving me this link, though I'm sure this isn't what he had in mind. Yeah, well, I gotta be me.

The Courtship Path . . . to the Love of Your Life

by Alex S. Leung

[this post is from a book, 5 Paths to the Love of Your Life (ed. Alex Chediak. Th1nk Books, 2005.)]

The Courtship Path

Courtship is the active, involved authority of the young woman’s father (or head of the household) in the formation of her romantic attachments leading to marriage. in other words, daddy chooses whom you will marry. your sole involvement is basically to show up at the church on time and submit for the rest of your life.


Courtship is not egalitarian because it believes in a female submission to a male head of the home. well, duh.

If there is an absence of headship, either because of neglect or a literal absence, young couples should seek out advice from their church on how to continue their courtship. This will probably result in an assignment of surrogate parents. because we can't possibly let people just pick whom they will marry by themselves- that might result in, oh, i dunno, happiness or something.

Physical involvement when courting should be completely avoided. you wouldn't want to find out if you were sexually compatible or anything. wait, what am i thinking, women aren't supposed to have fun with their vaginas. if they were, they would have clitorises and be able to achieve orga-- wait, i'm confused. After the couple is engaged, it should be limited to holding hands, brief kisses, and hugs. tongue, or no tongue? and is that special kind of hug that homophobic guys practice wherein you lean forward and only touch at the shoulders, keeping the genitals as far away as possible?

The will of God is rarely an acceptable excuse to conduct courtship in a self-defined way, such as a man pursuing a woman who has repeatedly rejected his interest in her.
rarely? the fact that "the will of god" is ever an acceptable excuse to continue to pursue a woman who is not interested in you is appalling. really, how is this different from arranged marriage?

Platonic relationships are a myth apparently, i should be looking for unicorns over here, because i'm living in a myth! and are not an excuse to spend one-on-one time with a member of the opposite sex outside of courtship. we wouldn't want the poor girl to actually get to know a man, now would we?

Key Verses

Numbers 30:3-5
When a young woman still living in her father's house makes a vow to the LORD or obligates herself by a pledge 4 and her father hears about her vow or pledge but says nothing to her, then all her vows and every pledge by which she obligated herself will stand. 5 But if her father forbids her when he hears about it, none of her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand; the LORD will release her because her father has forbidden her.

Genesis 2:18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."

Psalm 37:4 Delight yourself in the LORD and he will give you the desires of your heart.

Okay, the Numbers quote sort of has something to do with matter at hand, but wtf do the Genesis quote and the Psalm quote have to do with courtship? Do they think we won't look these up? And, if we're following the mating rituals of bronze age desert nomads, why aren't we following any of the other customs of bronze age desert nomads? Why are we eating shrimp and wearing clothes made of more than one fabric?

Key Benefits now that's an odd use of that word

Love develops within a supportive, protective, and encouraging environment. but not an environment that would actually allow one to get to know a person that well. well enough to say, decide if you want to spend the rest of your life with them.

Sexual purity is more realistic and attainable. please stop obsessing over other people's vaginas. it's weird.

Trust in the relationship results because intentions are more obvious from the get-go. yes, desperation is the most honest policy, isn't it?

Baggage occurs less often because all aspects of the relationship are more intentional. how could you possibly get to know someone well enough to incur any baggage in this situation? also, baggage isn't necessarily a bad thing, if you learn from your mistakes.

Courtship creates an environment for obeying God by honoring one’s parents. well that's my biggest concern when picking the person i will spend the rest of my life with.

Potential Problems

Courtshippers may become overzealous to the point of forcing their method on others. um, how?

Parents may become domineering and manipulative, using the authority of courtship to make unwise, ungodly decisions in all areas of their children’s lives. what about using the authority of courtship to make unwise decisions in the area of the courtship? hello?

Couples may claim they are courting to appear Christian but may ignore the real principles and make up their own unhealthy rules.
like touching one another?

funny how the fact that you couldn't possibly get to know someone well enough to decide whether or not to spend the rest of your life them isn't a potential problem. the inherent misogyny of a father choosing his daughter's husband isn't a problem, either.

The above is not the blogger's opinion, this is all from a book he is reviewing. What follows is the blogger's opinion, and it is scary.

In my humble opinion, this path so far seems to be the most biblically complementarian. And thus, for those of us who are not egalitarian and rather proclaim ourselves to be complementarian, it would be rightly appropriate for us to “court”. To say that we believe in the male headship in the family and the church, and yet do not exercise this in the way we are involved in our children’s romantic life is hypocritical; to not seek the lady’s father’s authoritative validation for a relationship would be Pharisaical. not being a misogynist is a one way ticket to hell!

What more, is that in a postmodern what does that even mean? culture where much such? many? physical expressions of love are acceptable, the high standard of absolutely no physical involvement is very difficult to adhere to. The benefits for sexual purity to be more realistic and attainable is certainly a big plus, not having any idea what you're doing in bed, and all but assuring that your wife never has an orgasm are pluses? big pluses? but considering how scarce it is for any human being to be wired for no physical involvement, and why would you want to be married to that person? this is definitely the boundary that is hardest to stay within. I am humbled i'm am weirded out by Wilson’s call to zero physical involvement, for I know that it is an area I most struggle with. This is the area where disciplined holiness and self-control is most trying for men. that's right, kids. men are uncontrollable beasts and good girls don't ever want sex. if this asshat could read my thoughts right now, his head would explode. i'm surprised i'm not catching on fire. (If you give a mouse a cookie, he will soon ask for milk!) at least he didn't go for "if you can get the milk for free, why buy the cow?"

Lastly, I take heed of Wilson’s call for us to stop making excuses to spend one-on-one time with a member of the opposite sex outside of courtship. cause you wouldn't want to view members of the opposite sex as people, would you? (given my interests in sports and video games, and my general blunt . . . um . . . earthiness, i generally get along better with men than women. i don't, nor do i usually want to, fuck my friends. i know, it's just mind blowing.) This is a part of my life that I am currently re-evaluating to see what true intentions there are in my heart for those friendships in which I do spend significant amounts of one-on one time, in person, over the phone, or on the web. you're kidding. internet interactions, which carry no risk of sex at all, are out, too? wtf is wrong with these people? it's like they operate under the assumption that if you like it, you shouldn't be doing it. I do not think that Wilson is saying that they are completely unacceptable, but simply that we should not be hypocrites and nor be lying to ourselves that we are just friends when one or the other has wishes for more. according to what you posted above, he said they were completely unacceptable.

Heck, if this approach to relationships really brings less baggage to the table, I’d be all for it! because it's really annoying that the women i meet aren't still factory fresh in the original packaging. the fact that i have to deal with their emotions and personalities is just beyond annoying.

well, that was enough naked misogyny for one day, don't you think?


  1. Well, it CLEARLY works since no theists ever get divorced. Oh hold on...

    Well obviously if theists followed ALL the rules EXACTLY as it says in the bible without question, then perhaps that would work! Then they could really show us they were right. Ah, life was sooo much better in biblical times. ;-)

  2. That article is grossly indecent, ridiculous, and unacceptable. It sounds like something written by a Taliban militant.

    I'd like to paraphrase the following paragraph (my version follows).

    In my humble opinion, this path so far seems to be the most biblically complementarian. And thus, for those of us who are not egalitarian and rather proclaim ourselves to be complementarian, it would be rightly appropriate for us to “court”. To say that we believe in the male headship in the family and the church, and yet do not exercise this in the way we are involved in our children’s romantic life is hypocritical; to not seek the lady’s father’s authoritative validation for a relationship would be Pharisaical

    In my retarded opinion, this screwed-up way seems to be the most bronze-age and macho domineering. And thus, for those of us, males, who are into female domination to appease our feelings of inferiority and rather proclaim ourselves as control freaks, it would be rightly appropriate for us to RULE.

    Saying that we believe in a man’s complete control and in male domination in the family and in the church, and yet do not exercise this by performing 24x7 surveillance of our children’s romantic lives is hypocritical; to not seek to gang up with the lady’s father’s to decide whether we want them together or not would be effeminate and would display all the insecurities we work so hard at hiding.

  3. yeah, that was pretty much my reaction.

  4. I...
    i... look, i love my dad, he's great and wonderful and is literally the smartest person i have ever met.
    he tells me, often, that while he adores Pete, he never in a million years thought i would go for him; he doesn't understand what attracts me to any specific guy. when i, in the past, asked him for advice, it was always along the lines of "well, i would do X, but you aren't me. what do you WANT to do? what do YOU think would be best? bounce ideas off of me, but i can't tell you what to do"

    you know what, please don't let fundys see that post, because i am afraid they might try to kill my dad because he doesn't "control" me...

  5. The best thing about this, though, is something I realized when I started looking at Wild at Heart over in my tiny corner of the blogosphere. Yes, it's naked misogyny, which is bad. But it's also extremely anti-male in a far more subtle way.

    Yeah, the girl gets boned in this (but, y'know, not really...). But I'm not actually at all sure what the guy gets out of it, either. He's constantly told that he can't control his urges, for one. I'm also not sure if the courtship decisions are made by the courter or the courter's family. And it's not like he's lined up for a satisfying sex life, either.

    It's funny. On the surface it seems like plain, old misogyny. But when you think about it, they just don't like people. At all. I've run in to that a lot.

  6. Every time I read about courtship my mind is blown. These people are assuring that their children are forced into loveless marriages and miserable lives, and that is OK?
    I love my daughter, and because I love her I would never chose her husband. Nor will I let her father. In fact I'm not going to be really thrilled if they guy decides to ask permission of me rather than ask her, like she isn't her own person. It's insulting. Just like this whole thing. Frankly I'd rather that courtship just crawls into the corner and dies.

  7. Why buy the cow when you can get the sex for free. - Brody "Mall Rats"

    You have given me an idea for posting today.

  8. But here is the absolute funniest site about her:



Comments are for you guys, not for me. Say what you will. Don't feel compelled to stay on topic, I enjoy it when comments enter Tangentville or veer off into Non Sequitur Town. Just keep it polite, okay?

I am attempting to use blogger's new comment spam feature. If you don't immediately see your comment, it is being held in spam, I will get it out next time I check the filter. Unless you are Dennis Markuze, in which case you're never seeing your comment.

Creative Commons License
Forever in Hell by Personal Failure is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at