Minister too tired for seven days of sex.

(yes, that was CNN's headline, deal)



I wonder what he would think of the early Christian practice of celibate marriage. And I'm bothered (but not hot) from the emphasis on wives realizing they needed to be more available to their husbands, and not so much the other way around. Seriously though, this is about the third evangelical minister I've heard of running something like this in the past year or so.

Let's Talk About Sex

The following theoretical was written as a response to a question about how to determine correct sexual ethics on a rather nicely varied discussion board of the Christian persuasion. I'm debating whether or not to post it, and probably sign it -- the celibate libertine.

I’m very wary of declarations of the “Biblical” code of sexuality. I think to a very large extent concepts don’t translate well between 1st and 2nd centuries C.E. and today.

The Biblical view of sexuality is complicated, to say the very least. For instance, if I said that rape (in the modern sex-without-consent understanding) is immoral, I would hope that I wouldn’t get much argument. But if you consider the way marriage has worked for the vast majority of human history, an awful lot of sex-without-consent has taken place while being dubbed marriage. (Ladies, close your eyes and think of England!) The idea of consent is constructed in a very different way – for instance, modern ethics would insist (and rightly so) on the consent of both parties involved; whereas, historically, the consent of the fathers involved was considered to be more important to forming a legitimate marriage or sexual union. Examples off the top of my head: Lot offering his daughters to be raped and the rule in Deuteronomy 22: 28-29, where if a man “rapes” a unbetrothed girl he’s to pay off the father and marry her. (I recognize that the law at least ensures financial security for the woman involved, or perhaps just relives her father of needing to provide for her – but I think it still illustrates the vastly different understanding of “moral” behavior in different times.)

The Bible is also an extremely androcentric book, which is another point to consider. There was a thread on another board about whether or not masturbation was moral. Well, the directly applicable Bible verses relate only to male masturbation. If we limit the scope to the Old Testament, this also applies to homosexuality. Male homosexuality is condemned, but there’s no mention of female homosexuality. Much of the Bible also assumes a male audience – one illustrative quip I’ve heard is that if a group of lesbian women were instructed that they were not to lie with a man as with a woman, the response would be something along the lines of “well, of course!”

My point is not that the Bible, Church tradition, community standards, what have you, should be ignored -- a egotistic standard of sexuality that is not in conversation with these and other sources is certainly not going to be moral. My point, which I think, a number of us here would agree on to varying degrees, is that reasonable people could disagree of the exact parameters of "moral" sexuality in good faith.

Working from Jesus’s command to love your neighbor as yourself, and the recognition of the basic personhood of women, I think the most fundamental rule for any Christian of any gender would be that exploitative sex and nonconsensual sex are absolutely wrong. The description of marriage in Ephesians 5 is one of the relatively few positive descriptions of human sexuality in the Bible. Frequently, the headship of the husband is emphasized as the defining feature, but it really is more proper to emphasize the idea that the husband is to love his wife as his own flesh. The trust, love, and loss of egotism in the relationship between the two partners is the defining element.* In fact, my feminist addition, is that the androcentric nature of the text should lead one to emphasize the action of the husband as the defining factor. (Now if we harmonize this with Galatians 3:16, treat husband and wife as arbitary constructs of human society, things get interesting.)

Depending on one’s understanding of the Bible, Church tradition, which Church tradition, I also believe that there can be a number of good faith understandings of how that principle should be put into practice. Additionally, while I firmly disagree, I don’t take issue with the belief, based on a literal reading of the Bible or logical paths, that homosexual activity is a sin provided that the person holding said belief treats all people with basic human respect. And now, I'll piss people off and say that treating all people with basic human respect means NOT forcing your opinions on what constitutes sin onto someone else's life via the secular government.

‘Tis complicated. To not even bring up the issue of exactly how the categories of immoral, unethical, and sinful should be broken up. Cheerios!

*There's varied several texts I'm drawing this idea from: First, a podcast from Ancient Faith Radio, you can find at: http://audio.ancientfaith.com/paradosis/par_2008-06-18_pc.mp3
For an extremely different and yet similar understanding see Vladimir Soloviev's essay, "The Meaning of Love" (which was actually written to defend a long-running affair). It's published in the collection The Heart of Reality, trans. Vladimir Wozniuk.

Do Conservatives Need Safe Spaces?

Yes, it's a joke. (Has momentary daydream of a guerrilla movement, then simultaneously reminds herself that she's ideologically a pacifist and looks forward to the arrival of Les Guerilleres.)

Angry id -- back in the closet! Angry not-id -- front and center!

Wait! What? Would someone please tell me when the last time a conservative was assaulted or murdered for being a conservative? When was the last time someone was harassed to the point of committing suicide because he was a conservative?

However, the anti V-day campaign doesn't seem to be a joke. I'm not the biggest proponent of the Vagina Monologues that you'll ever meet. I'm too inclined to wanting to completely dissolve the coherence of the categories of man and woman. There are several monologues in the play that I don't personally identify with, and at least one that actually makes me feel queasy. If someone asked me what my vagina would wear, I would likely look at them askance, explain the difficulties of designing clothing for vaginas, and finish up with murmuring something about how weirded out I am by female condoms (note: I'm no more opposed to female condoms than I am to tampons, but both weird me out for reasons unknown to my conscious mind). And I'm not head over heels in love with the treatment of gender in the play. I'm extremely sad that this year's performance at Rhodes was not inclusive of transwomen (it has been at least once in the past.)

However, I heartily support the main idea -- THERE IS NOTHING SHAMEFUL ABOUT BEING EMBODIED WITH A VAGINA. Oh, and you get to decide upon the meaning and value of that vagina and the rest of your body for yourself.

Madness, ain't it? It could even be hysterical! But least I be told that I am missing something -- here's a closer analysis of the brochure, The Vagina Monologues: Exposed!

Violence against Cupid?

In their effort to redefine a day meant to celebrate love and romance, Ensler and her “Vagina Warriors” proclaimed Valentine’s Day as “V-Day” until the violence against women stops, and then it will become “Victory Day” (Ensler 173). So long, Cupid. (page 13)

OMG! They killed Cupid! Because it's so terribly empowering to have bad chocolates (or maybe good chocolates) showered upon one. Terribly empowering to have a day dedicated to social pressure to mate and then reproduce. Actually, I'm detecting a capitalist/consumerist concern here. We have to have this excuse to consume, consume, consume -- and yes, it's just a subtext but I do believe that it's here.

Do the Vagina Monologues Objectify Women?

It perpetuates the very attitude that often leads to sexual violence: treating women as objects. (page 24)

Dear person writing this brochure -- are you familiar with the use of subject and object? Defining myself, defining the meaning of my own body rather than letting society dictate that meaning to me is being a subject. Do the Monologues threaten at times to create a new hegemonic "we" of women's experience? In some ways -- yes -- but the format of the play -- a diverse collection of voices, offering a multiplicity of ways of relating to vaginas -- is itself in tension with that possibility. The Vagina Monologues are about allowing women to be the subjects of their own sexuality. It's when the meaning of vagina possession is imposed from without that we have objectification.

But in reality, that's the problem that this organization has with the Monologues -- it's a bunch of women defining their own sexuality, and god knows, god's agin' that! Really, while the difference in age between the participants in "The Little Coochie Snoocher that Could" is waved a banner for why the Monologues are evil -- the real problem seems to be with the idea that women can be sexually fulfilled without men. Separate from the more legitimate critique of the age difference we get this gem:

The girl also reveals her seducer’s ultimate lesson. “She tells me to always know how to give myself pleasure so I’ll never need to rely on a man” (Ensler 82).
(page 11)

Given that this is used as punctuation for that segment, it seems that the composer of this brochure is more concerned that women might not be relying on men more of a problem than a possibly exploitative situation. The professed concern for the sixteen year old girl is just a smokescreen. Of course, conservatives do tend to let their anxieties about maintaining the normalcy of man-on-top-woman-on-bottom sexuality override any concern for the exploitation of women's bodies (please, see anti-gay interpretations of Sodom and Gomorrah).

Oh, and in case anyone was wondering -- it appears that any expression of sexuality other than penis in vagina is perverted. Including Bob's love of looking at vaginas.

(Found the actual organization via Feministing. Encountered the logic in a editorial in the student paper at my college last year, was hoping against hope that it was an independent operative.)

Dangerous Question...

At least for someone whose head has been and is infested with a rather Gnostic sense of reality. (And Gnostics and Manicheans are difficult to kick out of your head, which is why Western Christianity is infested with everything dysfunctional about Manicheanism, with none of the more interesting insights -- thank you, Augustine!)

"Are bodies and sexuality essential parts of being human--or are we, perhaps, merely souls inhabiting bodies?"

So that's this week's topic for the reading response journal thing we have for Feminist Theology. It's also one of my personal, philosophical hang-ups. The issue of embodiment. What does it mean to be embodied? Why am I embodied in the body I'm in? Why do people confuse the body I'm in with me? (Yes, I'm still mad that I'm barred from many monasteries.)

Incidentally, the accompanying reading is Dawne Moon's God, Sex, and Politics -- which is a fascinating and though-provoking study of two United Methodist Churches and their responses to gays and lesbians.

In related news -- sky burial is more awesome than I had previously thought.

There's no such thing as a bad decision...

...there's only research.

I make bad decisions. I tend to make them most often when I'm sleep-deprived, and so far, I've avoided making any bad decisions that have had truly tragic, irreversible outcomes.

So, is it the government's job to protect people from making decisions that they will later regret? Specifically, protect people by restricting their right to make that decision.

I hadn't realized how much that question was a part of anti-abortion advocacy -- at least, not the legal part. I had seen reports of post-abortion depression, trauma, etc., on anti-abortion sites -- particularly those geared toward dissuading individual women from choosing to go through with an abortion. I had not realized that claims that women might regret having an abortion would actually effect judicial rulings on the legality of abortion. (Why, yes. I suppose I am naive like that.) Flashback to Roman Empire much -- all women are perpetual children in need of a guardian to prevent them from hurting their sweet little heads?

Yeah. Sorry, if this is your reason for opposing legalized abortion, you are sexist and anti-woman. No ifs, ands, or buts, about it. Prohibiting an individual from making a choice because she might potentially regret it -- that demeans that individuals personhood and agency and is throughly despicable. Bringing that into legal advocacy designed to overturn previous court rulings and restrict the ability of women to choose whether or not they have an abortion simply reveals the sexist presumptions of the majority (if not all) of anti-abortion groups.

And, of course, women need better options than abortion, but those must to begin a hell of a long time before whenever human life may or may not begin. We need comprehensive sex education in our school systems. We need unrestricted access to birth control, both the traditional and emergency versions there of. A legal system that does a bit better at holding fathers responsible could be nice. Maybe even public school systems that actually educate EVERYONE and not just the little darlings in rich suburbs. Oh, this is a crazy idea -- a living wage! So that women have the option to feed the kid once it's been birthed. Madness.

And I'm not claiming that there aren't people who are opposed to legalized abortion and also recognize that there needs to be far greater changes to the structures of society and a simple ban just won't cut it. I don't find people who oppose abortion because they genuinely believe human life starts at conception despicable, or even necessarily sexist.

But all the organizations really seem to be more concerned with maintaining that women are inferior beings who can't be allowed to make choices, because they might regret it. Or worse, because the male involved might regret it.

Wake Up! Time for the sex talk!

First comment, Whithorne Middle School has real DJs at their dances?! Us kids at the unloved stepchild of the Maury County School system had to make do with having the Student Council and friends haul in what CDs we had, and dragging Cousin Eric's speakers and player down the hill to the school. A real DJ? At 300 dollars a pop? That's . . . there have to be better uses for that money -- get creative!

Yes, I know that I'm overlooking the fact that Hampshire has somewhat older kids, somewhat better equipped to collectively disc jockey a school dance than a middle school does. But I'm all for unit schools anyway.

Okay, so, what's the occasion? Apparently, some parents were offended by lyrics they overheard while waiting to pick their kids up from the dance and with the normal wisdom shown by the powers that be in Maury County, the director of schools is contemplating suspending dances at middle schools.

Yeah, so, I might be wrong, but I think the song in question "Get Low" is kinda passe. I believe I remember it from my high school days . . . and four years does seem to make all the difference as to what's cool in the musical tastes of pre-adolescents. Seriously, you hadn't already heard this song enough to be offended by it? I'm not questioning whether the song is offensive or in bad taste -- the lyrics make my feminist skin crawl. And, actually, I'm not the most sensitive flower in the field. There would literally be no way to edit these lyrics. Of course, you also can hardly understand them -- with the exception of "My BALLS" being yelled at points, which is probably where the offense was taken.

But, no one remains innocent forever, and while the school should have guidelines for the music played at school-sponsored dances, you can't escape "Get Low" -- believe me, I tried for most of my junior and senior years of high school.

But then what offends me about the song was probably not the parental objections. The Herald article doesn't mention people being offended by misogyny and the abject objectification of the female body. Just offense at mention of genitalia and explicitives. So, they'd probably also object to The Dresden Dolls, without distinguishes between the two. (No, I wouldn't play most of the Dresden Dolls' catalog at a middle school dance, in part because they wouldn't get it.)

The sad thing is that songs like this, Cosmogirl, television shows, and misinformation on the school bus is roughly all the sex education the kids of Maury County are getting. So, not only are they not innocent -- they have nothing with which to balance the pop culture. And the solution, dear parents and school board of Maury County -- is not to suspend school dances because of an inappropriate song, the solution is to get some real sex education. Something to counter the prevalent mythology. To teach respect in sexual situations, both for your own self and for whoever else is involved. Maybe some basic knowledge of how things work -- because I, being known as the smart kid, was once asked on the bus if you could get pregnant if you were taking birth control pills and using a condom. I was in middle school at the time! The girl asking me was, I think, a junior! Something isn't quite right with this scenario. And, this scenario is far more harmful (and objectionable) than an inappropriate song being played at a school dance.

But why would anyone think of doing a silly thing like that. Nope, no, let's bury our heads in the sand.

Sex, Lust, Sin, and Holy Matrimony

From the "trying to figure out how fundamentalist minds function and failing" file.

This one actually surpasses the whole "women as non-sexual beings who don't experience lust themselves, but only cause it in the poor men and are must therefore be kept control" on the "buh? how'd ya figure that?" scale.

From some of the articles/sermon outlines/board discussions I've read, I get the sense that many in the evangelical community are convinced that the slightest hint of sexuality prior to marriage is going to land one in the firey pit of hell for eternity. I mean, I get the whole "he who looks at a woman with lust in his heart..." verse. My snarky response is to come back when they're ready to talk about being a eunuch for the Kingdom of God, and we'll chat about what's up with the hard sayings of Jesus.

But here's what I'm seeing as the evangelical Christian ideal: Christian boy and Christian girl meet, decide to marry with neither one entertaining any sexual or lustful thoughts about the other, marry and magically at you may now kiss the bride, they find the other sexually attractive, but not before that point. And then they produce babies, because, really it's all about the babies.

How does that work? Seriously. I can't wrap my mind around it. And I'm not talking about premarital sex -- I comprehend that. If an individual or a couple what's to wait to have sex, it's their decision, nothing wrong with it. It's not a lack of experience that I think would not work, it's the sheer amount of repression going on that strikes me as dysfunctional.

What I don't understand is this odd expectation that there will be no thoughts of sex before the actual moment of marriage. None. Nada. Nehchevo. At least, nothing specific, as having "the conversation too soon . . . only create opportunities for temptation." Being a pretty well repressed little thing, myself, I understand how it could be done, but I can't see how it works. That much repression seems to be a disaster in the making, not to mention the effects of guilt over thinking the so vaguely erotic thought. I mean, if you're repressing every erotic thought, how on earth are you supposed to know if you're actually sexually attracted to the person you're planning to marry? And given that celibate marriages aren't in style amongst evangelicals -- despite being quite popular among early Christians -- sexual attraction is a bit of an element in the arrangement. Further, how in God's name do these folks expect to people to just click repression on and off? To go from associating any erotic thoughts with dirty to pure in the time it takes a preacher to run through a ritual?

As far as I know, brains don't quite work like that. Perhaps, young evangelicals have specially wired brains that do work like that? Byt mozhet? Maybe? For their own sakes.

And I just got distracted by an article claiming that the Left has a "moral monopoly." Again, wait -- what?

Sigh. I'm now returning to my regularly scheduled contemplation of eunuchs in Early Christianity. They make so much more sense.

Birth Control, Abortion, Conscience, Those Sticky Subjects...

News article via Butterfly Cauldron. And her post on it is highly recommended reading.

I'm no longer surprised when I hear of women being denied access to birth control, particularly emergency contraception, because a doctor or pharmacist is morally opposed to it. The lack of surprise hasn't stopped me from experiencing a renewed surge of moral outrage with each new case.

First and foremost, my rage is directed at the nutters who have equated EC with the abortion pill. These are not the same drugs and do not affect women's bodies (or potential/established pregnancies) in the same way. EC works in the same way as the Pill, the hormones prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall. It will not cause an already implanted embryo to abort. But some talking head somewhere, it's probably Bill O'Reilly and Concerned Women for America has decided that EC is the equivalent of a medical abortion. Frankly, as sources of information, I think both of these are the pits, but apparently many people don't.

Second, I do have something of a problem with the way conscience clauses work out. Why would you knowingly go into a field where you know that you're opposed to standard practices? It would be quite similar to a confirmed small picture pacifist such as myself entering the military. And, while we're on the subject of the military, why in the name of all that is good and holy should doctors and pharmacists -- maybe ones who changed their "worldview" (that's the current catchphrase is evangelical land isn't it?) mid-through med school -- have a better conscientious objector system than folks in the military? The conscientious objector laws the United States currently has is rotten to core and allows little to no freedom of conscience. Or let's try something else, I could also decide to be a missionary on, oh let's say, the Southern Baptist ticket (when pig's fly, my pretties), would it be in anyway logical for me to go into the mission field knowing that I morally and ethically opposed to a huge, huge number of SBC teachings and practices? Or if, I made it to India and realized that I was really more called to Shiva or Kali that I continue working in the SBC mission field? No, it wouldn't. So, why would someone who is morally opposed to any kind of contraception go into gynecology where prescribing contraception is a standard practice?

Or at the very least, physicians should be required, as Butterfly Cauldron suggests, to inform potential patients upfront that they are morally opposed to contraception.

And to be frank, I don't fully understand the equivocation of potential life with an existing life. Further, I don't buy into claims that the Bible clearly states that anywhere. Last time I was reading, the penalty in the Levitical Code for causing a woman to miscarry was not the same as the penalty for murdering a person. This will get me into trouble, but God also never seemed to be above engaging in infanticide himself when he wanted to make a point. And, I don't think that there's anything in the New Testament regarding abortion and birth control at all. So, while people may indeed be convinced that contraception and abortion are morally wrong, that belief is based in something other than the Bible alone. You can believe in good faith that life begins when sperm meets egg just as much as you can believe anything else in good faith. But unfortunately, belief does not equal fact. The exact point at which life/personhood begins is unknown, unknowable, and we can't go around making laws that hurt women -- definitely established persons, right? right? maybe? -- based on a hunch that doesn't have much in the way of objective backing. Unless, of course, women aren't really persons which is indeed a belief espoused by some within this country.

Of course, the double standard here becomes clear when lesbians and single women are denied fertility treatments or even a routine physical exam prior to adopting a child. No, no, all potential lives are not precious and equal -- not when the persons who want to create a new life don't meet some arbitrary standard of who should be raising a potential life.

Hey and I'm even someone who's relatively disgusted by the number of abortions in this country. Of course, I'm disgusted because if we got some decent sex-ed for young persons some that they really knew what their options were and how to obtain and use said options, the increased ability to get ahold of those options, and the self-confidence to insist on what's right for them, there would be a heck of a lot less abortions. And yeah, abstinence is one of those options and young persons should feel empowered to insist on their right to remain abstinent if they so desire. Just like I feel empowered to insist on contraception should I ever need it (Why, yes. This post is being written by one person virgin enough to make St. Jerome shed happy tears and write creepy letters!) So let's abolish that absolute crap known as abstinence only sex ed, and maybe do something really radical like make regular old birth control available over the counter. (I can do a lot more damage to my body with Ibuprofen and actually probably have already.) And, further, the ability to prevent a pregnancy if I choose to have sex with a guy and the condom breaks or under any other circumstances gives me a heck of a lot more choice and autonomy over my body than an abortion does.

After all, I am a control freak.

An Unfortunately Visible Monster

I'm feeling pretty guilty about the amount of driving that I'm doing this summer, but their isn't much to be done about it. At least until the summer classes I'm taking are over, then I'll work on walking to the grocery. Right now, I just don't have time for round trips of at least an hour a half there and back -- according to Google maps it's about a 2 mile walk -- very doable and not an unpleasant walk thanks to tree growth in Midtown, but you need more time than I have between class and work.

My pathetic attempt at relieving guilt is this. I have forsworn the AC in my car, and I am driving around Memphis with the windows down. Yes, I will get every last mile out of that bleeding expensive gasoline.

However, I have found that driving through the city of Memphis with the windows down as an unaccompanied female is apparently an open invitation for the dregs of the Memphis populace to shout lewd comments of a sexually based nature at one. This behavior leaves me bumfuzzled and quite annoyed. It's such a nice addition to my day, to be referred to as some bit of meat, or I think the term I used in a prior post was woman-matter. And, yeah, I've been honked at and yelled at before on walks in city, but for some reason today's just was too much.

And you know, what makes me the maddest is there is very little I can do to stop random people from looking at me as some sort of object intended for their pleasure. I'm boyish already, I don't wear particularly risque clothing anyway and today I was in a regular t-shirt (not that skimpier clothing would be an excuse for street harassers), what is this? (Mind you, I shouldn't be surprised, I've also been hit on when I swear on the Bible I might as well have been in drag.) More "modest" -- in the conservative religion sense of the word -- clothing wouldn't do any good either and in fact might make the situation worse as long, full skirts and feminine tops would just more obviously mark me as someone crammed into the category of female and therefore intended, by some cosmic power, to gratify the male gaze. Perhaps, I could buy some wide Ace Bandages and tape down what little chest I have to begin with, have my hair cut into something that's traditionally masculine, continue wearing the same clothes I do now and see what happens? I could, but I won't, and I should not have to in order to drive or walk around in peace. I also just finished up Chuck Palahniuk's Invisible Monsters -- but that idea is even madder. Yet, somewhere in the back of my mind it makes sense, a radical break from categorization is what I need.

But What About the Men?! Modesty Issues

Warning the following is riddled with holes from sarcasm bullets and may contain instances of TMI. Reader discretion is advised. :) (I feel like this should be a sound clip in that sexy voice Fox now uses for the viewer discretion is advised message.)

In some ways, I'm a prude. Please, please, please, my fellow young women, don't come to class with a light swimsuit cover-up on -- your metallic bronze bikini is distracting me! Save it for the appropriate context -- the pool. Of course, the last time I was wearing a dress, I think I managed to scandalize a handful of elders and a coterie of church ladies. It was a nice brown halter-top number. (Yes, there was a reason to be formal -- otherwise my frumpy self would have been in dress pants and a button-up shirt.) Of course, I also suspect that the church ladies thought my roomie was my girlfriend, as there's been a nice cloud of suspicion floating about me for some time. Buying that dress took overcoming six years of active programming to cover my shoulders and back. (I had the same battle with wearing sleeveless tops -- I nearly called someone to celebrate the first day I made it through a whole day wearing one.) Actually, I hate the term modesty. I like appropriate. Dress appropriately for the situation. (If the situation is a nudist colony, I don't care what you wear.)

Yep, so I found a link to a "modesty survey" conducted by one SBC-ish group, the Noble Institute, and endorsed by none other than Albert Mohler of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary -- yah! Having a fascination with such things, I wandered through the survey.

First, I would like to award some fellow, age 26, an award for the best misuse of "feminine mystique."

The way a woman can move, the looks she can make with her eyes, gestures she can make with her hands and poses she can adopt, all of these can add to the 'feminine mystique' that thing which can make a woman very alluring and even seductive.

The feminine mystique does not refer to some aura of mystery about a woman designed to entice the boys, but to myths about a particular version feminine fulfillment, especially those linking female fulfillment to husband, children, and occupation: housewife. Thank you, try again.

Second, pray tell, why should I pick my undergarments based on what guy's want? I don't choose the undergarments based trying to be sexy or trying to be modest. I like comfortable for me. So yeah, if I feel like wearing a halter top bra (unlikely) or if I need to remind my bra strap that its supposed to be on my shoulder not my arm -- get over it. (65.4 percent of the males interviewed agreed that a girl adjusting a bra strap was a "stumbling block.")

Third, the lovely text responses on how skirts are more modest than pants because they are more feminine I shall sigh at, shake my head, think how western-centric it is to associate pants with manliness, and be happy that guys agreeing with that are in the minority. No, brain, no, stop it, you can't go on a rant about the catch-22 of if, as a chick, you pay absolutely no attention to trying to dress attractively you're accused on frumpiness and wanting to be a man.

Fourth, why did they even need to ask if bouncing bosoms when a woman is running or jogging is a "stumbling block"? Furthermore, no, there is not nessecarily a lot that can be done about that and kudos to the fellows who commented that they recognized that. Sports bras help, but any lady with larger breasts is going to have to wear two sports bras at once (yes, many, many girls do this). And to the lovely specimen of humanity who decided to use that question as an opportunity to comment, "General tip: Uncomfortable bras probably weren't designed to be uncomfortable, but rather to attract guys," when was the last time you went bra shopping? I wanna know. Obviously you've never tried on a push-up bra, otherwise you would know the things, while obviously intended to mimic the large bust society holds in such high regard, actually aren't uncomfortable. The really tight sports bras that you need to get everything anchored down for no bouncing -- those suckers aren't comfortable, trust me. Push-up bras, not so much. Anyway, the only males I'm taking bra shopping tips from are drag queens, please fax a copy of your creditentials.

It's not even that everything in here is unreasonable. (It's just way more fun for me to mock those that are.) See through clothing that isn't layered is not high on my list of appropriate garments for most occasions. Same goes for showing your underwear (and that goes for both sexes, thank you very much). And if I could do cartwheels, I might do a couple, because I'm delighted that the vast majority of the respondents said that the ultimate responsibility for whether or not the sinned lay with them and not with women. Applause for the respondents!

But -- why do all of these organizations feel the need to focus only on the potentiality that a male somewhere might become arosed (or to break down some heteronormativity -- a female)? Why that phrasing? Wouldn't it make more sense to focus on young women as individual people and frame the idea of appropriate/modest dress in terms of self-respect and self-determination.

Also, I'm not a guy -- surprise! -- but do guys ever get tired of being told that they are just completely out of control and are going to start thinking of sex at the smallest thing -- like the two seconds it takes a girl to slid a finger under her collar and return a bra strap to the proper place on her shoulder? I blame Augustine and his public baths passage from The Confessions. But then, I blame Augustine for a lot of things.

And why is it that apparently only males experience sexual desire? Seriously, I realize that it is correct generalization that males think about sex more than females, but it isn't like women never experience lust. Why don't the men have to work to make sure they don't become a stumbling block for the women in SBC philosophy land? I could totally come up with some rules. No longer, curly hair fellows. And definitely don't run your hand through it in public, because that just calls too much attention to your curly hair. Please, no nice suits -- I'm a hypocrite but, guys dressed to the nines -- hot. Of course, I find guys in grunge get up hot as well. And if you could, stop it with western style shirts. I don't know why I like them, but I do. So, it'd be a great help to me if you would quit with it. Or at least, you know, like test shirts out first to make sure that they don't bring out your eyes. Come on, if I'm supposed to work hard so fellows don't lust, shouldn't they put forth some effort so I'm not tempted to lust! (See, doesn't this sound ridiculous when reversed?)

Basically, I'm sorry that males have been programmed to see females as sex objects. I'm sorry that females have been programmed to adorn themselves as sex objects. I do understand that many girls dress in order to provoke a sexual response from males. But encouraging or even putting girls in "modest" clothing, does not even begin to get to the heart of the issue. And certainly not when the message is phrased in a way that focuses exclusively on the potential to cause a male to "sin."

And now for something completely different: French Press + Good Coffee = Happy Metra.

Another reason why Focus on the Family is not just annoying, but dangerous.

And to borrow from Twisty Faster. Men hate you.

The following quote is from the article "Six Lies about Six" which was published in Breakaway. This is a magazine Focus of the Family intends for teenage boys.

When she says “no” she means “yes.”

The danger of this lie is that it contains a big chunk of truth.

Just like you, girls are created to enjoy intimacy. They have sexual desires. Often they will express those desires by saying no, when they really want to say, “Keep it up, but don’t go too fast. I like to be turned on slowly.” That’s all true, inside of marriage or out. Girls like the buildup as much as guys like the finale.

The lie is exposed when we think of the Person living inside that girl – assuming she’s a believer in Jesus, like you. As believers, you both have Jesus residing within (Galatians 2:20). So while you’re sitting in that cozy room with the love seat, her “no” really means “no” because it reflects the whisperings of Jesus in her soul.

What does Jesus say on the subject of sex before marriage? “Flee!” (1 Corinthians 6:18). Regardless what your body tells you—or hers, for that matter—Jesus’ voice is the one you should be listening to. He’ll consistently say “no,” and his no never means yes.

His is the voice of reason, and Jesus always says what He means.

No. No. NO. When SHE say NO. She means NO. STOP. QUIT. She doesn't mean: Jesus, wants us to stop. She means: I want you to stop. NOW. Her no meaning no has nothing to do with Jesus. It has everything to do with her saying no.

What they are really saying here is that the words of women don't mean anything. Once again, we are told we have no right to speak. Boys don't have to listen to a girl telling them "NO" because she doesn't matter. They only have to listen to some balding, white male's version of Jesus that as best as I can tell bears no resemblence to any Jesus of the gospels, probably none to the historical Jesus, and I pray no resemblence at all the actual Christ. What the hell kind of magazine thinks that it's a good idea to tell teenage boys that when a girl says no, she really only wants more foreplay? I guess one that sees women as whores or madonnas. Liars and tricksters. Certainly not as human beings.

But now my morbid fascination is up and running. I must go find how many other creative ways Focus on the Family has to teach teenage boys that girls aren't people too.