The Obvious End Result

If you've never heard of 7xsunday, it's a website that makes Rapture Ready look mainstream. It's message boards are populated primarily by people raised in the Quiverfull lifestyle, people who were homeschooled, attended home churches, whose every waking moment was controlled by their parents. People who accept as being perfectly normal extreme notions of modesty, courtship rather than dating and marrying a person without ever having held their hand. Yeah.

It's a busy site, because there are lots of them. Oh, and the abstinence only crowd is only a half step removed from them, so don't think this isn't relevant.

We talk a lot about modesty here in Hell, so I thought I'd show you the natural result of being raised with such beliefs:

Its got to do with love making. I hope i dont offend anyone by being blunt but id rather get to the point rather than not stating properly what i have on my mind. Ill start at the beginning. During my teen years i started to develop strong attractions for the opposite sex and my mom told me thats normal and taught me on saving myself for the man God had for me.

I am not going to mock her use of English. It's painful to me, but she was homeschooled for the purposes of pushing out as many babies as she can while keeping the house clean and her husband fed, nothing more. It's not her fault.

I found this very hard as i felt myself getting 'turned on' easily if i saw a handsome man that i fancied or got very aroused if a boy i liked touched my hand - eek i said it- However i kept pure and trained my thoughts with the Holy Spirits help to be pure and not think those things even though i struggled many times. Fast forward a few years, i got married young but by that point my struggle to not think impure thoughts about men had vanished. I thought oh when i get married i can finally think of my husband in that way.

You know where this is going, right?

Well, the strange thing is, i feel nothing. I mean i am very much attracted to and in love with my husband but -embrassed to say this- i feel NOTHING physically during love making. This was a shock to me because i was so easily turned on before. I no my hormones were crazy then because of puberty but still. I read a book 'The act of marriage' before getting married which explained how women get aroused etc but i dont no whats wrong with me. Im not on any medication, pills, my diet is good, no health problem because i checked that out already. I have only been married for a year but i can tell things are not looking good for us. I am extremely sad because we have such an amazing relationship and im trying to be the best helpmeet i can for my dear husband except for this one vital area. When it comes to love making i dont feel any pleasure, its not painful or anything and i can do the act just feel no pleasure. Its frustrating me so much because i cant O.... and my DH because he feels its one sided. Is this normal or what? Everyone told me once im allowed to have sex, it will be amazing and id be doing it non stop but to be honest i feel that i can easily live without sex since i feel nothing. Urgh i am so sad

Oh, honey. You trained yourself, no doubt with great effort and difficulty, to never think a sexual thing about another person and now you're surprised that you can't? *sigh* Of course you can't think sexual thoughts. The mind gets very good at whatever it practices. If you practiced adding large numbers in your head, you'd get good at that, too. Unfortunately, you practiced turning your brain into a Ken doll.

See, you can't turn off your sexy thoughts and then assume you can just turn them back on when you want to. And, there's the fact that the only reason you would turn off your sexy thoughts is because you were led to believe they were bad. It's ridiculous that people told her that as soon as she was married, she'd just love sex and be thinking sexy thoughts nonstop and having neighbor-scaring, bed-shattering fuckfests 24/7.

I think there is another issue at work here, as well. There is such a thing as chemistry. See, I never restrained my sexy thoughts. I also wore miniskirts and dated and had- gasp- premarital sex. It didn't take me long to learn that my body likes some people and doesn't like others, and it's not always related to how my brain feels about those people. I can like a man, find him intelligent and funny, find being around him an absolute joy and feel not an iota of sexual interest in him. I can also find a man to be an arrogant prick and my body is raring to go. If your relationship is going to include sex (I'm not saying relationships have to, asexual people need love, too), you need to be in a relationship with someone you are physically attracted to.

Unfortunately, this poor woman turned off her sexual attraction, so she would have no way of knowing whether or not she was attracted to her husband. Maybe she isn't. If she's not, not matter how hard she tries, she's never going to be into sex with him.

This is, btw, why I'm terribly leery of expecting teenagers to simply turn off their sexual urges instead of teaching them about safer sex. Evidence says that most of them can't turn off their sexual urges, and now we can see the price of actually doing so. Poor woman.

My Empire Will More Shocking for Some than Others

When I am Empress of the Entire Freakin' World, not only will you find yourself wearing purple and berets, and possibly purple berets (if you are lucky), I will extend comprehensive sex education to everyone. Five-year-olds, fifty-year-olds, nuns, dogs, absolutely everyone will be getting comprehensive sex education. We'll be shutting down all work in the entire freakin' world to have a week long discussion about consent. We'll spend at least one week on the clitoris, one week on fetishes, and at least a few days on appropriate lubricants. No one, in the entire freakin' world, will get to take a lunch break until everyone can say aloud, without blushing, "penis" and "vagina" (or whatever it is in their native language. we don't discriminate in the Empire.)

Apparently, some people are going to have more trouble with this than others, as evidenced by what some people consider, andiquote, disturbing.

Here are some of the more disturbing pieces of the [proposed Montana curriculum].

• Introduce basic reproductive body parts (penis, vagina, breast, nipples, testicles, scrotum, uterus) -- Kindergarten and Grades 1-3

What is disturbing about kindergarteners correctly identifying parts of the body by their proper names? Does this person have an issue with children saying "spleen"? It's a body part, get the fuck over it.

• Acknowledge that individuals & families have a variety of values as it pertains to sexual behaviors -- Grade 2

Reality, here it is. Acknowledging that something exists in reality is disturbing? Is it also disturbing to introduce children to the idea that some people speak a different language than they do?

• Recognize that there are a variety of reasons why people may end a committed relationship -- Grade 3

50% of marriages end in divorce. We may want to talk to children about it. Just a thought.

• Acknowledge that gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and heterosexuals can establish lifelong
  committed relationships -- Grade 8

Again, acnowledging reality. Plus, eighth graders are 13-14 years old. I think they can handle the idea. About things that exist in reality. Really real reality.

• Understand that marriage is considered a commitment by two people to love, help,
  and support one another -- Grade 6

What definition of marriage is this guy using that the above sentence is "disturbing"? Do we know if his wife's been seen recently?

• Emphasize that no one has the right to impose their values
  on others -- Grade 6

Amen!

• Understand human beings can love people of the same gender & people of another gender -- Grade 1

Again, actual things that happen in actual really real reality. Is there some other way I can say this that would make it more clear? Do I need more adverbs? I like adverbs.

• Understand making fun of people by calling them gay (e.g., “homo,” “fag,” “queer”) is
  disrespectful & hurtful -- Grade 2

BECAUSE IT IS. why is that disturbing? seriously, it's disturbing to suggest that yelling "fag!" at someone might hurt their feelings?

• Understand that sexual intercourse includes but is not limited to vaginal, oral, or anal
  penetration -- Grade 5

Considering that someone told me once it wasn't sex if they didn't cum, I'm voting on the side of necessary for this one. (Don't ask.)

• Understand sexual orientation refers to a person’s physical and/or romantic attraction to an individual of the same and/or different gender, and is one
  part of ones’ personality -- Grades 5 and 6

What else does sexual orientation refer to?

• Understand that sexual intercourse ncludes but is not imited to vaginal, oral, or anal penetration; using the penis, fingers, tongue or objects -- Grades 6-12

Apparently, he was really disturbed by this one. it's listed twice. oh, wait, i see, "objects" are added in the later years. Meh.

• Understand teenagers who decide to engage in sexual behavior must also decide about
  pregnancy & STI/HIV prevention -- Grade 6

DUH.

• Understand barrier methods of contraception (e.g. male and female condoms, dental dams can greatly reduce but not prevent STIs) -- Grades 5-12

Is the teen birth rate under abstinence only not enough for you?

Apparently, being asked to experience actually actual really real reality is just too much for some people. And they want to educate your children.

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
Definition

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.

Distinctives

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?

Oh, For Crying Out Loud

atheism, atheist, agnostic, barna, morality, abortion, drug, drunkenness, homosexual, bisexual, pornography, gambling, sex, sexuality, cohabitation, religion, christian, christianity, makarios
First of all, I need to say that if you are going to reference a study, an article, etc. in a post, you need give a link. Stop making me do your research.

Secondly, can we please give the "atheists are immoral and dangerous" meme a rest? Please? Atheists act just like everyone else. To be fair, we're better at marriage (the more fundy you are, the more likely you are to get divorced), but there appears to be little real life relationship between believing a thing is wrong and actually not doing it. (See: The Only Moral Abortion Is My Abortion.)

Makarios pulls out and dusts off this meme, yet again, in his post Atheist Richard Dawkins. (I don't know why he feels a need to put the word "atheist" in front of "Richard Dawkins". It's sort of like saying "Catholic Pope".)

Preaches the atheistic anti-life dogma i can't decide if he means that atheists tend to be prochoice, or that we're just against life in general. either way, stoopid. that works AGAINST natural selection natural selection has nothing to do with birth control. i don't know much about the subject, but i would think that birth control and fertility medicine are skewing our results a bit. by causing in atheists an aversion to reproducing their genes atheists are in no way averse to reproducing. most atheists i know, like most people i know, have children. what a strange world Makarios lives in. (out of three marriages Dawkins could only stomach the creation of one child that's just rude. first of all, his wives would have had the final say in whether or not they got pregnant. secondly, we don't know if his wives were infertile, or if dawkins has fertility issues. makarios could well be mocking some poor woman who desperately wants to have children and can't. lastly, in the end, whether or not to have children is a personal choice. i choose no, you choose yes. good for both of us.), and/or killing their offspring by the millions every year. wft?! anyone seen those news reports? seriously, what. the. fuck.

The Barna Research Group found regarding atheism and the morality that those who hold to the world views of atheism or agnosticism in America were more likely, than theists in America, to look upon the following behaviours as morally acceptable: (as I said, there is a huge difference between finding something to be immoral and actually not doing it, but let's play along)

no, wait, let's not. I found the study Makarios helpfully didn't bother to provide a link to. It's from 2003 and it is not what Makarios represents it to be.

More than four out of five adults - 83% - contend that they are concerned about the moral condition of the nation. Given that 84% of all adults consider themselves to be Christian, they have good reason to worry about the moral state of the country: many of [Christians'] views conflict with the moral teachings of their professed faith.

wait, that's not atheists or agnostics. that's christians. i assume Makarios is engaging in a No True Scotsman here, but he's misrepresenting the study. the participants in the study were not atheists and agnostics- they were christians.

and this is how christians felt about a variety of issues in 2003:

illegal drug use; 17% of those interviewed felt that was acceptable. hardly a majority.

excessive drinking; holy ambiguous, batman. 35% were in favor of "drunkenness".

sexual relationships outside of marriage; 42% were okay with this, though with the caveat that the relationship is hetero.

abortion; 45% in favor of.

cohabiting with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage; 60% were fine with it

obscene language; 36%. more people were okay with abortion and adultery than with saying "fuck"? seriously?

gambling; 61% in favor of. I wonder if they reminded people that the lottery is a form of gambling. as is bingo.

pornography 38%. abortion and adultery yes, porn no? where did they find these people? and obscene sexual behaviour wtf is that?;

and engaging in homosexuality and bisexuality 30% weren't bothered by Teh Gai at all.

the rest of the post is some quotes from dead philosophers that I guarantee Makarios does not understand, but that was fun. It's nice to know what christians are really all about.

Comparing Fundamentalism and Abusive Relationships

fundamentalism, fundamentalist, religion, god, jesus, bible, sex, sexuality, abuse, women, misogyny,
I started thinking of this after reading a post by the Accidental Historian. For some reason, the post hit me hard, way harder than it should have. Then it struck me- I'd been triggered. I'd suddenly seen a connection between fundamentalism and abuse, and that got me thinking: What is the difference between religious fundamentalism and an abusive relationship? As far as I can tell, not much.

[trigger warning- abusive relationships]

Fundamentalism: Humans are depraved and hopeless without god.
If you've ever been in an abusive relationship, this will sound familiar, only you've probably heard it put this way: You're nothing without me. You're ugly, stupid and nobody but me would ever want to be with you. I don't even know why I stick around.

Fundamentalism: Do what I tell you, or you will spend forever in hell. God doesn't want people to burn for all eternity, but if you don't follow the rules, he has no choice.
Again, this should sound familiar. If you would just do what I tell you, I wouldn't have to punish you. You burned the toast, it's your fault. It's not like I like want to do this, but I have to- otherwise how would you learn?

Fundamentalism: Watch your every though, because god knows and judges all of them. And they're really, really bad.
An abuser doesn't just want to control your every move, they want to control your every thought, as well. You can never admit to liking a movie or TV show your abuser doesn't, and forget about having your own hobbies. Just say what will make your abuser happy- until one day you find that you really just can't think of anything they don't want you to.

Fundamentalism: Chastity and purity demand that you where these clothes- not those stylish clothes or those comfortable clothes you might actually want to wear.
Sound familiar? If you've ever been berated for wearing a pretty new blouse that shows, well, nothing much, or had someone cut into pieces the clothes they don't like, it should. What, do you want people to think you're a big slut? Or maybe you are a big slut . . .

Fundamentalism: A woman's sexuality is not her own. It first belongs to her father, and then she "gives" her virginity to her husband. She should please him on demand, but not really enjoy it all that much.
If you've ever been in an abusive relationship, you know exactly how demeaning all of this is. And that's exactly what it's supposed to be.

Fundamentalism: You can only associate with others who believe as you do. Nonbelievers are depraved sinners and you should have nothing to do with them.
This is the abuser's most potent weapon: making absolutely certain their victim has no one to turn to, nowhere to run, by isolating them from everyone who cares. If all you ever hear is the same opinion, the same commands, the same thoughts, it's hard to conceive of any other way to think.

I think this is why fundamentalism, and the willing embrace of fundamentalism, is so hard for me to take. It's like watching people march eagerly towards what I worked so hard to escape. And there's me, watching the parade, shouting, "Hey! You'll never entirely get out of this. It will scar you forever in places you didn't even know could be hurt. Stop!"