Properly posted here. Sorry for any confusion.
I have kept my lips pure. I have never kissed another guy – besides my dad and brothers (and those are only on the cheek :) – and I don’t plan to, either…until that special moment at the altar. After we say ‘I do’…after the pastor says ‘You may kiss your bride’…and after my husband raises my veil. Then, and only then, am I going to give that man one of the greatest gifts I have.
I would encourage you to remember – and I guarantee this! – that your husband will delight in your kiss even more, knowing that no other man has touched your lips. That he is the only one who has known the delight of your kiss. And that he is the only one who will ever have that privilege.
If I was part of the ‘dating scene’ – always having a new boyfriend, not having my parents involved in my relationship(s) and letting my boyfriend have too much freedom in touching me – what would happen to the sweetness of keeping myself for my husband? It would be…hurtful…sad…and could even lead to marriage problems. The same goes for him. If he and his girlfriend took too much freedom in expressing their ‘like’ for each other, how would that make me feel? Put yourself in that story…
Thanks to some generous donations, I am now the owner of my very own website. With a url. That doesn’t include “.blogger”:
How fucking cool is that? (EDIT: foreverinhell.com now works. You may notice that foreverinhell.com by itself doesn't actually do anything. Yeah, I need to figure that out.)
I am insanely busy at work right now, but I am hoping to do another Elsie Dinsmore Deconstruction post tomorrow or Saturday. (I’m thinking of doing ED posts on Tuesdays and Saturdays. Too much? Too little? Comment and let’s see if that’s working!)
I need to figure out a way to either migrate my archives or link to them. I’d like my own banner thing, across the top, you know, something that really says “forever” and “hell”. I think I can have a separate “About Me” page, which may also mean I can move my book (looking like a trilogy at this point) onto a page within this site, which would be much more convenient- for me, anyway. Any suggestions and help would be much appreciated.
So, anyway, please change your links. I don’t want to lose anyone in the move. I have no idea how to do a blogroll on WordPress, but I will have one. If you’d like to be on it, let me know. I will continue to to at least put up a link to each post at the old site, so no pressure.
Um, you know, I am a dreamer. I do believe, underneath the cynicism and sarcasm I protect myself with, that there are better possibilities and that I might just be one of those people lucky and talented enough to achieve them.
This website, my very own url, it probably sounds stupid to you, but it’s a big deal to me. Thank you. Without you, I’m just a cranky atheist talking to myself.
"I never saw an eye so bright,
And yet so soft as hers;
It sometimes swam in liquid light,
And sometimes swam in tears;
It seemed a beauty set apart
For softness and for sighs."
That's how the book begins. Already, we know Elsie is theThe story proper begins with the children of Roselands being taught by
urMary Sue. Over 110 years before a Star Trek fanfic writer
ever introduced us to the world's most perfectist
character, Ms. Finley created Elsie, she of the incomparable
beauty and the world's kindest soul. She is so amazing, random
characters write bad poetry about her eyes.
Within this pleasant apartment sat Miss Day with her pupils,
six in number. She was giving a lesson to Enna, the youngest,
the spoiled darling of the family, the pet and plaything of
both father and mother. It was always a trying task to both
teacher and scholar, for Enna was very wilful, and her
teacher's patience by no means inexhaustible.
"There!" exclaimed Miss Day, shutting the book and giving it
an impatient toss on to the desk; "go, for I might as well
try to teach old Bruno. I presume he would learn about as fast."
Fuck you, Enna, I may as well go teach the dog. Enna threatens to
tell her mother, and that is treated as more proof of Enna's wicked
ways, but she ought to. Enna's willful, but she's not developmentally
disabled. If I were her mother, I'd be righteously pissed that I
was paying a teacher to give up on teaching.
Then, Miss Day decides that she doesn't want to teach any of them,
she'd rather take them riding. So she announces that everyone who
is done with their work at the end of the hour gets to go riding
with her. She leaves 6 children in a room by themselves
for an hour, expecting them to do schoolwork. Either
Miss Day is an idiot or she's a sadist. (More on that later.)
Now we are introduced to Elsie, and right away we know she's the Sue.
We know, because not only does she get the most description, but
she's the only one who gets a mention of eye color, and it's an unusual
color. (That trope is much older than I thought.)
"Yes, ma'am," said the child meekly, raising a pair of large soft
eyes of the darkest hazel for an instant to her teacher's face,
and then dropping them again upon her slate.
Yup, that's the Sue.
It's now page 2 of this fine, 28 volume set, and already we see a
pattern. Every person who is not a Real True Christian is a complete
and utter jerk. The governess is impatient and can't be bothered
to do her job. Enna is uncontrollable. Arthur- a mischief loving boy
of ten- is a bully. Meanwhile, Elsie of the darkest hazel eyes is a
whiney pushover. Well, I'm sure Finley meant for Elsie to be the best
sort of meek-will-inherit-the-earth, turn-the-other-cheek
Christian, but really, she's whiney.
Arthur stole on tiptoe across the room, and coming up behind
Elsie, tickled the back of her neck with a feather.
She started, saying in a pleading tone, "Please, Arthur, don't."
"It pleases me to do," he said, repeating the experiment.
Elsie changed her position, saying in the same gentle,
persuasive tone, "O Arthur! _please_ let me alone, or
I never shall be able to do this example."
"What! all this time on one example! you ought to be ashamed. Why,
I could have done it half a dozen times over."
So, Arthur, left to his own devices, decides to tease Elsie. Is anyone
surprised? This sort of behavior is totally normal between 8 and
10-year-old siblings*. I can't believe this is the first time Arthur
has done this to Elsie. I have two older siblings myself. I'm fairly
certain they spent two years actively trying to kill me, and they admit
to regularly taking delight in scaring me senseless. My
sister and brother aren't bad people. That's just what siblings do.
What Arthur is doing is mild. He's tickling Elsie. Her response is
bizarre. One could argue that girls were probably expected to be docile
in the time period, but the 12 and 14-year-old girls' behavior is
completely different from Elsie's, so that's not it. Elsie is the Sue.
Elsie is perfect. Clearly, this is what Finley is promoting as perfect,
Christian behavior: complete docility, even to the point of not
defending oneself from attackers.
Remember why I started this deconstruction? Elsie Dinsmore is the
favorite of fundymommys everywhere. These books are the gold
standard of Christian entertainment for little girls. Often,
these are the only books other than the Bible fundymommys
will allow their girls to read. Elsie is held up as the only
heroine acceptable for little girls to model themselves after.
Elsie Dinsmore is perfect. Perfectly docile. Perfectly
uncomplaining. The perfect victim.
It's even more disturbing when you consider how nonChristians
are presented in this book: evil, cruel, sadistic, monstrous
ravening wolves. That's not an exaggeration of how fundy
Christians see the rest of us. If that's how you saw the world,
would you arm your children with strength and knowledge,
or make your children too docile and beaten down to fight?
Assuming you like your children, of course.
Page 3 of book 1 and shit's already gotten seriously creepy.
*The other five children, including Arthur and Enna, are siblings.
Elsie is their cousin. However, Elsie has always been raised in
this family. You'll get the backstory later, but effectively Elsie
is the sixth sibling.
the Law states we are not to eat pork. God will not punsih us if we do. BUT do you know that science has backed up God? pigs are the only animal that doesn't sweat, releasing it's toxins. so when you eat pork you are eating toxins! same goes for the catfish that God warned us against eating. they are the trash eaters of the water. why would you want to eat trash?
My brain: So, the nose is all clogged up. Can't breathe out of that. Hmmm . . . is there some other way of getting oxygen to the lungs? Something else I can breathe through? Nope, guess we'll just have to suffocate.
Me: The mouth! I went to sleep breathing through my mouth! Just go with that!
My brain: I have no knowledge of this "mouth" of which you speak.
Me: Look! I'm breathing through it right now!
My brain: I can't heeeeaaaar you.
Me: Fuck you.
My brain: Try going to sleep again. I dare you.
This is just another strange event...I am constantly in awe by the pure reluctant acceptance of the general populace to the signs around us. I have discussed the earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, pestilences, turmoil in the Middle East and the state of Israel to just about anyone who will talk to me about it and it seems they always come back with the same answer.... It has always been like this! We just didn't have the technology to realize it. It makes me sad that people are just so blind to what is happening. I want people to get right with God to turn back to him. However, it seems that the ME society has finally taken over and they have no room for our Creator! I wish I knew the magic words to open their eyes.....Come Lord Jesus Come!
I wish I knew the magic words too
I found a correlation to these times at work the other day. My coworker Leslie spoke over the loudspeakers to warn customers that the store would be closing in 10 minutes, and people kept on shopping, some came to the front. She then warned that the store would be closing in five minutes. People started coming to the front then.
I realized that on a much wider and less petty scale, this is what the Lord has been doing since 1948. The store is closing, but people are still doing their shopping while those who are listening have gone to the checkout. Soon the store will close and people who didn't listen will be trapped overnight.
Great Analogy! I could not agree more! It just saddens me to see the blind walking everywhere!
Remember hurricane Katrina. Weren't the people being warned four or five days ahead of expected landfall. Many didn't heed the warning and the landfall and the breaking of the levee caused a lot more damage and loss of life than anyone anticipated or could have imagined.
I'll end with the most disturbing thing I've ever read (and I've read the Bible):
With fish and game comissions trying to rid the US of invasive-destructive species,
starlings have always been a scourge, and remember the snake head fish infestation, should we be surprised when this kind of thing happens?
With toxic spills and weather system changes, fish will suffer very quickly.
All we need is some massive land animal die-offs.
Certianly these events need investigation, cause identification, as there may be a serious health threat to humans.
But This isn't God's handiwork. God would kill every starling on the face of the earth. God's signs leave no doubt.
satan on the other hand, loves to play games, and if these occurances get lots of christians proclaiming "signs of the times"
Well, that will be fuel for scoffers wouldn't it. "So where is your long expected Jesus?"
But then that is real Prophecy coming to fruition, isn't it?
No one knows the day, but act like the time is short - be busy until He sounds the Quitting Time Whistle.
So why do I want a clean home?
Well like I said above to be able to practice hospitality, and also so that I am able to show appreciation to my husband for providing me with a roof above my head. I want to show him how much I appreciate him by taking care of my home so that he doesn't have to dread walking through the door and seeing clutter, and dust everywhere! I want a clean home for our children, and a safe environment for them to grow up in. I want to be able to practice what I preach, and glorify the Lord with the home that He has provided for us using it to serve Him.
my girls are being taught to EXPECT the boy to open the door ( and likewise my boys are being taught to open the door).
To think that for all of history women wore long dresses until about the 1920s. They didn't shave. I've met women who have had problems due to shaving. One women told me she needed surgery due to shaving the underarms(ingrown hairs) and a doctor told me he had a patient who died due to a cyst infection from shaving(his nurse said an old razor was probably used). I was watching an old silent movie on tv(if it was up to me we wouldn't have one-I should have listened to Mary Pride and David Wilkerson years ago). Anyway,in the silent movie the older women wore dresses that covered the ankles and the younger women wore dresses that were just above the ankles. Then I did a study a few years ago, on the fashion industry and when women started wearing pants(Hollywood was involved again). All I know is the law says I have to register my sons 30 days after their 18th birthday for the Selective Service(the Post Office has the paperwork)-women are now taxpayers,I hope they won't have to register in the future. I tell my daughters-in-law and daughter to please let my granddaughters have long hair,as well.
God knows exactly how much I can handle, but oftentimes He chooses to display His glory by placing me in situations far above my ability to handle them so that He can come in and show Himself. Sometimes, He has to bring me to a point where I realize that I just can't do it on my own. It is when I confess, "I need you, Lord!" that He is glorified and freely pours out His grace.
"Hey, I had some time waiting for the sauce to reduce, so I loaded the dishwasher."
"I noticed you had laundry left in the dryer, so I folded it and brought it upstairs."
"I spilled salt all over the kitchen floor, so I figured I might as well sweep the entire downstairs while I was at it."
On the nightstand of a woman you know, there’s a Christian romance novel and a Bible. Does that matter?
A new book by Boston University researchers Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam, A Billion Wicked Thoughts, offers a disturbing look at how Internet search engines reveal much about the sexual and emotional desires of men and women, and how they differ. The research confirms in some ways what almost everyone knows: men are visually engaged, attracted to youth and sexual novelty, and are thus vulnerable to visual pornography.
The research explores further what the commercialized romance industry tells us about what it means to be a woman (at least in a fallen world). Women are much less likely to be drawn to visual pornography (although more do so than one might think), but are quite likely to be involved in such media as Internet romantic fiction or the old-fashioned romance novel.
The romance novel follows, the researchers argue, a typical pattern. The hero is almost never, they say, a blue collar worker, a bureaucrat, or someone in the traditionally feminine occupations (hairdresser, kindergarten teacher, etc.). He is competent, confident and usually wealthy. He is, in short, an alpha male.
But, they argue, this alpha male is typically a rough character who learns to be tamed into kindness—kindness to her. Thus, you wind up with not only the strong silent cowboys with the soft interior life, but also vampires and werewolves and Vikings.
And all of this is moving toward the climax of the romance story: the “happily-ever-after.”
Okay . . . so romance novels are female porn because women consume, or admit to consuming, more romance novels than porn. I . . . what?
Let me try again. Romance novels tell you the true psyche of a woman because the protagonists are wealthy Greek shipping magnates (this actually does come up a lot in Harlequins. you'd think Greece is entirely populated by wealthy shipping magnates. sexy wealthy shipping magnates. with secret hearts of gold!) and vampires instead of guys you meet in line at Walmart.
Here, let me tell you a little secret about writing: nobody wants to read boring shit. There's a reason writers don't include every detail of opening every door or a description of every breath the protagonists take: because it's boring. If I want boring shit, I'll just live my life. I'm not going to pay to read it.
Heroes are sexy, powerful and wealthy because that's exciting. Following construction worker Joe throughout his day as he runs errands and cares for his lawn, not so much. I've got a demon assisting a nephalim in stopping the apocalypse in my book, fighting archangels and the Horsemen of the Apocalypse and the Messiah! That's exciting right there! (pro tip: if you run out of plot, blow some shit up. that's what i'll be doing.)
Look, the Romance Novel Panic(tm) is not new. My mother tells people about her writing with a note of defiance because she's gotten so much shit* for writing romance novels. The argument is basically this: women who read romance novels will develop a skewed vision of love that will cause problems in their marriages because real relationships are nothing like what is portrayed in romance novels.
Because women are so fucking stupid they can't tell the difference between fiction and reality. Our pretty little heads just don't contain the necessary grey matter to make the distinction. We need to be protected from our own childlike naivete.
Wait, holy fuck, those researchers are relating romance novels to evo psych. Apparently, sexy Greek shipping magnates with secret hearts of gold represent Darwinian [mumblemumblesputter]. Wow.
Fuck off on that, too.
*apparently, that's my word for today.
Rowdy has a theory that this "it's normal and funny to despise all exes" attitude comes from a particularly limited view of monogamy, in which it isn't enough to only love one person--you have to only love one person ever. In order to maintain retroactive monogamy, you must declare that all previous relationships were false loves, and thus despicable.
My own theory is different. My theory is that a breakup hurts, so (if you're a little perspective-deficient) you see the person who broke up with you as an attacker causing you pain. Never mind that the only way to avoid this pain is to date one person your entire life--they're still a jerkface for making you unhappy, and concepts of "painful for him too" or "painful but necessary" don't enter into it.
Remember that a neg-hit is a remark, sometimes humorous, used to point out a woman’s flaws.
a) A neg-hit IS used to penetrate a woman’s bitch shield.
b) A neg-hit IS used to bring a woman down off her self-imposed pedestal.
c) A neg-hit is SINCERE. Women can spot phony a mile away.
d) And most importantly, a neg-hit IS used to bring a woman’s self perception more into line with reality.
a) the "bitch shield".
by Personal Failure is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at foreverinhell.blogspot.com.