I wrote about that recently as well, and while I don’t think his brand of Christianity is the future of the Bible-beating movement, it does show that a hipster Godbag is still a Godbag.

I thought Jesus was the patient mommy and God was the ass-kicking daddy.  Don’t the Christians say that every child of God needs a mommy and a daddy?  If both Jesus and God are ass-kickers, then won’t we, like, all grow up to be gay?

Ah, the return of “muscular christianity.” Pam, are you really surprised by all this? Iron John, men’s drumming circles, the lost father of Susan Faludi’s anxious Promise Keepers (in Stiffed), Teddy Roosevelt.  The history of modern american post civil war religion has been a struggle of men for manhood against what they perceived (not incorrectly) as the competitive power of the feminized jesus and the feminized church where the pews were filled with domineering mothers, seated vagina dentatas, against whom the only response is to “light out for the territories” to civilize the heathen before the women back east civilize you and cut off your balls.

aimai

Pam, are you really surprised by all this?

Not surprised, amused. This turkey thinks that dressing and acting like some kind of thuggish hipster is the answer to men leaving the church. It’s insane.

Wow, that last bit is scary. I try not to throw around the term “cult” to much, but when you’re ordering people to shun members and threatening (as a joke! haha! Not funny.) physical violence then, yeah, you’re a cult in my book.

Is Calvinism really going to make a comeback? I can’t think of a religious creed better designed to drive people away than one that says your fate is predetermined and nothing you can do will change it. Of course I find all religious creeds foolish, but this one has an extra helping of dumb.

Sounds like a cult leader in the making.

Damn, Essie beat me to it.

Wow.  So he’s more or less the love child of Jerry Falwell and Fred Durst?

Just what American evangelical Christianity needed to establish some real legitimacy!

I can’t think of a religious creed better designed to drive people away than one that says your fate is predetermined and nothing you can do will change it. Of course I find all religious creeds foolish, but this one has an extra helping of dumb.

The only way it works is with the wind and the nod to the notion that if you wound up in that church, then of course you’re one of the elect, and it’s all the rest of the bastards who are going to burn in hell. Of course, it takes a particular breed of douchebag to revel in that notion, but there are lots of them in the world.

You mean the trinity isn’t the original ménage à trois?

“Of course, it takes a particular breed of douchebag to revel in that notion, but there are lots of them in the world.”

And apparently, a lot of them flock to this “church”.

Is it just me, or does this chest-pounding testosterone baloney come off as desperation?  I mean, desperate is what I would call the incredibly pathetic need of some men to deify themselves in order to justify oppression.

I predict a gay bathroom stall incident within the next five years.

Anyone seen Jesus Camp? That movie...was like a docudrama of my childhood. *shivers*

I wondered about the cult leader thing as well. We recently watched that new(ish) documentary about Jonestown, and we were struck by how Jim Jones’ church had so many appealing aspects to it, but with this undercurrent of intense control, long before things developed toward their tragic end. The control thing with Driscoll really struck me, as well.

Essie, my husband actually couldn’t sit through Jesus Camp for basically the same reasons. It was too upsetting to him, brought up too many memories.

For what it’s worth, thinking Christians find Mark Driscoll pretty disturbing too.  Click here for a relatively recent takedown (the comments are interesting as well).

When one of the renegade elders refused to repent, the church leadership ordered members to shun him. One member complained on an online message board and instantly found his membership privileges suspended. “They are sinning through questioning,” Driscoll preached. John Calvin couldn’t have said it better himself.

So this is the future of the bible-beating movement? Folks are just plain terrifying.

There is no future here.  Driscoll isn’t building a church, he’s building a cult - or maybe a gang.  His reign will be short and violent, and he’ll go down like all the mafiosos before him, religious or otherwise.

The Catholics figured out a few decades ago that they were slowly strangling off their own congregations through hyper-exclusivity.  So they started opening up, accepting divorce and infidelity and pre-marital sex and all the other dirty social sins.  They dropped the “purity” mantra and embraced “forgiveness”, and their numbers swelled.

Driscoll is taking the opposite tact and its going to kill him in the long run.  You can’t run a church that tells dissenters to fuck off.  It won’t survive you.  Young people have been told to fuck off by various elder-oriented churches for years and years.  The most successful youth congregations are those that preached the “embrace your neighbor” mentality.  This one won’t last.

And good riddance.

Anyone seen Jesus Camp? That movie...was like a docudrama of my childhood. *shivers*

I was raised a Jehovah’s Witness--we ate kids like those at Jesus Camp for lunch.

Chingona, a Jonestown documentary? Do you remember the name? I’m a documentary addict.

Incertus, you know, I went into Jesus Camp expecting it to be REALLY intense, like a Christian Terrorist Training Camp thing or something. The fact that it was so “normal” (and so closely matched some of my own memories) was what disturbed me so very, very much.

The way the manipulate those poor children to tears and fear...in order to justify their own dry, twisted existence...it’s child abuse. I feel that VERY strongly.

I can’t even imagine what the JW kids go through. *weeps*

I can tell you all that calvinism is alive and well in some corners of the american religious scene. Despite the negativity and anger of the sects beliefs it manages to hold onto its followers the same way lots of cults do--by telling them that they *probably* will be saved but that everyone else is surely going to hell.  People are willing to bet on the come.  I was thinking about doing a blog standard post called “my pet christianists” exploring this theme through a christian woman’s blog I used to read but when she blogged about how hard it was to teach her children to love and share with each other as Jesus would have wished without tipping over and forcing them into a kind of intra family socialism which jesus would have hated I gave up. Parody had outstripped itself.

aimai

“The way the manipulate those poor children to tears and fear...in order to justify their own dry, twisted existence...it’s child abuse. I feel that VERY strongly.”

It is absolutely child abuse.  I remember reading recently about a christian woman who posted about (not her words) her constant verbal and emotional abuse of her very young daughter, which apparently resulted in investigation by a CPS-type entity.  The comments from her supporters used that as “proof” that they were oppressed and discriminated against.  How is it possible that they think NOT being allowed to abuse their children is a sign that THEY are discriminated against?

He clearly stole the gig from the Rude Pundit.  We all attend daily synagogue with RP and this Jewish girl knows she is not the only one who consider a lifetime of being a Rabbi if it meant she could marry RP.

I think it’s just called Jonestown. It was released last year or two years ago, on the 30th anniversary of the massacre, but I recently saw it on PBS’ American Experience (probably my favorite show on television - yes, I’m a huge nerd.) I’m pretty sure you could get it from Netflix, as well.

Best line, from one of the survivors: “No one joins a cult. No one joins something they think will hurt them.”

My husband was pretty moved by it in different ways than I was. Growing up evangelical Christian, and then going through a period when he was politically left but still very religious, he could easily imagine being drawn to People’s Temple if he had been around at that time.

“Is Calvinism really going to make a comeback? “

It.  Never.  Left.  The world has never lacked for Calvins, Knoxes and their ilk.

I read this article in the New York Times Magazine on Sunday and all I could think was, why are these folks so obsessed with sex? Good grief. It would be hilarious if it weren’t so offensive. The Bible says a helluva lot more about what we do with our money than what we do with our bodies.

“I predict a gay bathroom stall incident within the next five years.”

I couldn’t agree more, Essie. This guy has WAY too many issues. That’s not even taking into account the outlandish wierdness of his whole “preacher” schtick.

aimai, speaking of the civil war, have you ever run across the connection between weirdo
Calvinists who think men are entitled to have all fun all the time while their wives and daughters serve their every whim?  It’s really kind of a great love for hierarchies, where there should be a class of people (women, blacks, etc.) who serve the white men who are risking their SOULS by heading their households and raping their wives.

I prefer Calvin and Hobbesism myself.

Un.  Real.  This guy has given up on even pretending to care what’s in the Bible.

If there was ever a real Jesus, and he was even remotely like the character in the Gospels, then he was undoubtedly a rough-looking fellow, what with the manual labor and the constant travel and all.  That’s why I, personally, enjoy portrayals where Jesus looks like - if not like the ethnic, Middle-Eastern Jew that he would have been - a weathered roughneck instead of the King of Kings. 

The thing is, the character of Jesus, as portrayed in the Gospels, is pretty much everything they hate.  He does take a beating, and says that you should, to.  He loves kids ("Suffer the children to come unto me"), treats women pretty much the same way he treats men (that is, not so much as equals as students, but still...), washes his disciples’ feet...his whole schtick is nonviolence, mercy, forgiveness and service to others.  True, he does get into that one brawl in the Temple, which is no doubt the precedent for these fools and their manly-man mandate, but they always seem to miss the part where what he’s so angry about is corrupt religious figures fleecing the poor. 

They’ve tossed out the contents of their own bood, made up a figurehead out of their own anxious masculinity and named it Jesus.  Doesn’t that count as idolatry?

Great, another MANister. 

Townhall-dot-com’s Doug Giles is going to be pissed that someone rode his overcompensatory macho-preacher shtick all the way to the pages of the NYT Mag.

Their own book, of course.  Dammit.

Seraph, they always forget the “turn the other cheek” bits. And giving the cloak off your back.

Mark, especially that whole ‘preaching with your hand down your pants’ thing. That’s just...kink.

Why don’t these guys just give up on the whole Christianity thing and revert to Greco-Roman Pantheon paganism?  That’s completely in line with their beliefs.  And they’re already on freaking Mars Hill.  Just Change “Mars Hill Church” to “Hillside Church of Mars”

I predict a gay bathroom stall incident within the next five years.

Not me. I’m expecting a more spectacular Jeff Gannon gay-sex website type of explosion that will feature pictures of him pulling up the skirt of his catholic school uniform to expose himself and begging his audience to call him Tiffany.

“I can’t even imagine what the JW kids go through. *weeps*”

Michael Jackson was a JW.

I eat poo. ‘s tasty.

“So, who’s surprised that pamspaulding would rail on a preacher? Kinda boring”

DodgeRam, you’re in no position to be calling anybody else “boring”.

And wishing all Christians are a unified force to eliminate civil rights for LGBT people doesn’t make it so, even if you wish really, really hard…

I just posted about this on my own blog. I find it completely disturbing, and I’m a christian with a calvinist background (and feminist commitments). 
But I guess it’s not terribly surprising - old-school christian theology works great for people with masculinity problems and a big desire to be authoritative, in spite of the good points Seraph makes about Driscoll having little to do with the Jesus that appears in the bible.  I sincerely believe that religion works well for giant dicks, but it does not require them.

“I predict a gay bathroom stall incident within the next five years.”
I couldn’t agree more, Essie. This guy has WAY too many issues. That’s not even taking into account the outlandish wierdness of his whole “preacher” schtick.

Did what Driscoll say about Ted Haggard wind up on Pandagon?  In case it didn’t, or to refresh people’s memories, Driscoll claimed that Ted Haggard’s wife had let herself go and that’s what led Ted Haggard to snort meth and solicit a male prostitute.  I might as well point out that Mrs. Haggard is a pretty foxy lady, relatively speaking.

Much is explained by Driscoll really believing that his wife’s letting herself go will lead him to gay sex.

You’re no RuggedInMontana DodgeRam.

Why don’t these guys just give up on the whole Christianity thing and revert to Greco-Roman Pantheon paganism?  That’s completely in line with their beliefs.

Except for all the gayness.

husky-voiced preacher in a black skateboarder’s jacket and skull T-shirt

skateboarder’s jacket?! skateboarder’s jacket!? skateboarder’s jacket!?

But let’s be real, here.

I thought we were talking about religion.

If he turned out to be gay, would that really make everyone feel better? I mean, he’s a homophobe, and we hate him for being a homophobe, and wouldn’t it be awesome if her were totally ghey and we could make fun of him for that? But HE’S the homophobe, right?

That and the jokes about Ann Coulter being a transsexual… check your hate, people.

Much is explained by Driscoll really believing that his wife’s letting herself go will lead him to gay sex.

Did you ever see the study, done a few years back, where they interviewed university students about their sexual preferences and attitudes, gauging their level of homophobia and the like (as well as the study would allow), and then testing their physiological responses when shown porn?  No points for guessing which male self-declared heterosexuals had a greater response to gay porn.

This leads to the theory that many of the people absolutely obsessed with the “Homosexual Agenda”, especially the bit that it’s trivial to “recruit” someone to be gay, believe that because they know it’s true about themselves.  They think that because they have these feelings, but can’t possibly be gay, that it must be Teh Gay mind control, so if you hide it back in the closet, then they’ve saved themselves (and a society full of people they think are like them).

They do have a bit of a point: if homosexual culture is more open and more accepted, they don’t have that psychological excuse to deny their own situation, and there’s more obvious temptation.

That has got to be a really screwed up way to live.

Salon had piece about them a few years ago, which was the first I’d ever heard of it and the portrayl of the wives in this community made me extremely sad. Some snippets:

Following Driscoll’s biblical reading of prescribed gender roles, women quit their jobs and try to have as many babies as possible. And these are no mere women who fear independence, who are looking to live by the simple tenets of fundamentalist credo, enforced by a commanding husband: many of the women of Mars Hill reluctantly abandon successful lives lived on their own terms to serve their husbands and their Lord.

Sarah is clearly exhausted from caring all day for two children, cleaning the house, setting the table, and preparing a nice meal complete with thoughtful touches like organic strawberries in the salad and fresh mint in the iced tea. As Dietz carries on about church affairs and lectures about the importance of children’s obedience, Sarah serves the meal, cuts the children’s food, minds their behavior and eating, and clears the table.

Like every woman I’ve gotten to know at Mars Hill, Sarah talks about her appointed role within the church not in terms of subjugation but in the language of difference feminism. She tells me a sisterhood forms between women who celebrate their domestic roles and talents as offered from God, delivered unto their children, marriages, and community as part of his “perfect plan.”

And this is what truly broke my heart:

For Judy Abolafya, a young mother in her early thirties, it was harder to come around to the Driscolls’ version of what a woman should be. As she sets out coffee cake on the kitchen table in her Seattle apartment, straining to be heard over her infant daughter’s cries, Abolafya tells me without apology that she never wanted to have children. She shudders as her daughter wails, shaking her auburn ponytail. “Listening to her like that just grates on me.” She grimaces. In a high chair at the table, her toddler, Asher, glumly pokes at blocks of cheese with grubby fingers, periodically mashing them into a paste he rubs into his black Metallica T-shirt. “Let’s face it. Asher is whiny and clingy and talks back. It’s dull and tedious here—there are myriad things I don’t enjoy about being at home, but it’s a responsibility.”

This life of homebound wifely submission is the opposite of what Abolafya thought she wanted, and the opposite of what she had. Before she met her husband, Ari, Abolafya toured all over the world with bands like Bush and Candlebox, staying at four-star hotels, living life on her own terms. She made a great income heading up merchandising on tours, managed it well, enjoyed her freedom, and was confident and outspoken. Now she defines that behavior as prideful, even if she misses it. “Everything was great when my conversion happened. I was making money, I was about to take a trip to Mexico, I was totally in control of my life,” she tells me. “My life is much harder, not easier, now that I’m a Christian,” she says, clenching her teeth against Asher’s droning whine. “We had originally planned not to have kids, but now we have to do our best to repopulate our city with Christians.” [...]

Abolafya no longer reads secular books or speaks to her old friends, She is now a deacon at Mars Hill and is responsible for planning the weddings held there, which always include a biblical explanation of marriage and gender roles; each year Mars Hill averages about one hundred marriages between couples within the congregation, all of whom must agree with this doctrine. Between her marriage ministry, the women’s Bible study she runs, her two small children, and taking care of her husband and her home, Abolafya says she doesn’t have time for many relationships anyway, and when she starts to home-school her kids soon, her time will be even tighter. “It’s not what I ever imagined,” she tells me, “or even what I ever wanted, but it’s my duty now, and I have to learn to live with that.”

These are just snippets, you can read the whole thing here:

“It’s not what I ever imagined,” she tells me, “or even what I ever wanted, but it’s my duty now, and I
have to learn to live with that.”

No you fucking DON’T.  This sums up everything wrong with these kinds of religions.  That broke my heart.

I remember that Ms. Abolafya got angry at the way Salon represented her and wrote a response that included the phrase “my husband treats me like gold.” (as if that was a positive).

Someone responded with “gold is a possession”. I wonder if that sunk in.

What’s scary is that Mars Hill shows up ALL over Seattle now. I’ve lived here 10 years and watched the spread of the cancer with equal parts fascination and horror.
There’s even a “bible college” of theirs down on Western…

It’s scary how these kinda of cults are like termites they prey on the weak, vunerable members of the population and before you know it they are everywhere.

Sometimes I think that only way that society will ever be rid of these pests is to get rid of the concept of religion as being a key for any decent human behaviour. Of course, that’s probably never going to happen but still. Things like the Atheist bus campaign going on right now in the UK brings me hope.
The ads and tube cards say “There is probably no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”

If only these kinds of choads like Driscoll could take that advice to heart.

Is this the same guy who gets people up on stage when he visits high school and threatens their testicles with cinder blocks to represent STDs?

And if Christ was so macho and masculine, why didn’t he go all Bruce Willis on the Romans and Schwarzenneger all the pharisees?

Uck.  Poor woman.

Mighty Ponygirl:  I heart gay people.  I do not heart closeted, self-hating gay people.  There’s a big difference, and yeah it’s cruel to mock them when they’re obviously struggling like hell against themselves and deeply unhappy, but cmon.  They’re total jerks, and we’re only human.

It doesn’t matter if you love gay people or not—you shouldn’t foist some dude you don’t like, even if you think he’s totally closeted and self-hating—onto the gay community with pools on how soon he’s going to be outted. I know about the reaction formation study, and it wouldn’t really surprise me if this dude were attempting to bury his own desires, but I’m sick to death of these choruses of “all homophobes are really just closet cases.” At some point the straight community just has to deal with the fact that we have homophobic monsters all on our own, and they’re not just camping in our identity until someone kicks them out.

At some point the straight community just has to deal with the fact that we have homophobic monsters all on our own, and they’re not just camping in our identity until someone kicks them out.

Well I don’t disagree with you there.  But I think you’re attributing more malice aforethought than is really there.  Mostly I think people just accuse homophobes of being closeted because nothing pisses them off more.

I remember that Ms. Abolafya got angry at the way Salon represented her and wrote a response that included the phrase “my husband treats me like gold.” (as if that was a positive).

Someone responded with “gold is a possession”. I wonder if that sunk in.

I remembered that as well, Gypsy, but I can’t find her response. She was pretty upset at the writer and the way *she* came off. But honestly, she sat there and said she wasn’t happy!

Yeah, and when you piss them off and make them feel uncomfortable about their sexual identity, that never leads to violence against gay people by some uptight dude out to prove something.

Awesome!

The Christian Dominionists are only a step or two behind the Mullahs and clerics of Wahhabists. In a few years, I expect we’ll start to see Christian martyrs blowing themselves up for Jesus.

“but I can’t find her response.”

I remember it being lost in the sea of comments, no small percentage of which are likely gross, so I don’t recommend trying to find it.  ;:

___

Mighty Ponygirl - you’ve made a light bulb go on in my head.  thank you.

Yeah, and when you piss them off and make them feel uncomfortable about their sexual identity, that never leads to violence against gay people by some uptight dude out to prove something.

Huh.  Point taken.

This is the dipshit who trashed Ted Haggard’s wife for “letting herself go”? I was just thinking about that Pandagon post yesterday and couldn’t remember his named.
It’s depressing, though not surprising, that he has so many followers.

Atrios points this out but it is still so very stupid.........
http://mediamatters.org/countyfair/200901130011?show=1

I just saw that on Savage Love, Nix and like… whoa. Somebody has issues…

“In a few years, I expect we’ll start to see Christian martyrs blowing themselves up for Jesus.”

I doubt that, because these asshats don’t have any ethic of self-sacrifice; they’re followers of the prosperity gospel.

What you will see is more and more and more psycho-Christians forcing their women to “dress modestly” which, if they got their way, would be forced on the general populus.

Yeah, and when you piss them off and make them feel uncomfortable about their sexual identity, that never leads to violence against gay people by some uptight dude out to prove something.

Awesome!

Yes clearly it’s my fault if the tweaked out bigot assaults someone, because some word of mine on the internet hurt his precious ickle feelings.

Maybe it is. It’s not like gay bashing is something that is so incredibly rare in this country.

But ultimately it’s up to you. Either you can choose to knee-jerk Other the bigot by pushing him out of your identity group into the identity group that he hates, or you can check your hate and accept that your identity group ain’t perfect.

This comment:

Driscoll told the congregation that he asked advice on how to handle stubborn subordinates from a “mixed martial artist and Ultimate Fighter, good guy” who attends Mars Hill. “His answer was brilliant,” Driscoll reported. “He said, ‘I break their nose.’ ”

...says more about his inner character than any number of run-of-the-mill homophobic comments might. If anything destroys his ministry, it’ll be because he got jailed for assault and battery, not because he pulled a Haggard.

What Essie said about the bathroom stall in a few years.

When I hear “other churches have made Christ feminine or even gay” I hear “I want to fuck Jesus so bad and I need an explanation that isn’t about me.”

Other the bigot by pushing him out of your identity group into the identity group that he hates, or you can check your hate and accept that your identity group ain’t perfect.

Boldface mine. So is it only promoting hate crimes if *straight* people speculate on his gayness? Because if so, I think many pandagonians are well in the clear to bet away.

It’s horrifying how completely wrong headed this all is, even from a believer’s standpoint. To finger compassion as a weakness when in truth, there’s nothing harder to do than live a life of compassion and gentleness while still holding true to your principles? That’s Karl Rovian in its twistedness. 

This seems very much the bad-manipulative-boyfriend approach to love; if you’re unhappy, you’re just not trying hard enough! And whatisface has the bristling, snarling, cruel-joking demeanor of Those Guys, the ones who seldom actually hit their girlfriends, but tear them to little shreds while claiming it’s for their good.

>I remember reading recently about a christian woman who posted about (not her words) her constant >verbal and emotional abuse of her very young daughter, which apparently resulted in investigation by >a CPS-type entity.  The comments from her supporters used that as “proof” that they were oppressed >and discriminated against.

Gypsy Lee, was that the woman who claimed she was physically abused so didn’t “abuse” her daughter, but her do ridiculous lengthy tasks like re-fold towels for hours on end (like sitting there, watching her daughter fold towels, then unfold them and make her daughter do it again, for hours) and such? If so, I’m glad it resulted in a CPS visit, she was pretty damn loony.

Other the bigot by pushing him out of your identity group into the identity group that he hates, or you can check your hate and accept that your identity group ain’t perfect.

I really don’t think this is the reason for those sorts of comments, at all.

Again, this need to make every homophobe a secret gay is in itself homophobic. If you can’t accept the fact that straight people are so imperfect that we have homophobes too, then there’s a hatred of the gay community going on there.

Laughing at someone because they hoist themselves on their own petard is funny. Pre-emptively pushing all homophobes into the gay community “because it’s just a matter of time” is deeply fucked up.

My spouse just needs a skeezy looking guy and some children to replication this bigoted ad… Replace the girl with a boy, and the skeezy guy with a skeezy priest…

“and then testing their physiological responses when shown porn?”

Basically by measuring the length/girth, strength, duration, frequancy of their erections while viewing straight with heterosexual couples or a woman being solo or with another woman then measure it during gay porn.. I think the study has been done a number of times with the same results. The so called heterosexuals who had issues with gay people had the longest, strongest, erections when viewing the gay porn rather then the straight porn varieties. Basically any woman caused the erections to not be as long or not as frequant or not to occur with the gay hating men.

Heterosexual males who didn’t have a problem with gay men either had no erections at all while being exposed to the gay porn or had very few.

If he turned out to be gay, would that really make everyone feel better? I mean, he’s a homophobe, and we hate him for being a homophobe, and wouldn’t it be awesome if her were totally ghey and we could make fun of him for that? But HE’S the homophobe, right?

That and the jokes about Ann Coulter being a transsexual… check your hate, people.

MP, I like you, but you’re always yelling at me. Seriously.

I was not suggesting that Driscoll is gay or a closeted gay. I *am* suggesting that he’s so obsessed with “teh gay” that I think it’s just a matter of time before he cracks and starts soliciting gay men in an attempt to find out what’s so wonderful and sinful and forbidden about “teh gay”. He’s obsessed with sex and with what HE has defined as satanic kink (gay anal sex) and it’s just a matter of time before he cracks.

I’m not hating on gays. I’m not suggesting that people who DO hate on gays ARE gay and are therefore not the “fault” of the straight community.

Seriously, calm down and stop yelling at me. Please.

Yeah, and when you piss them off and make them feel uncomfortable about their sexual identity, that never leads to violence against gay people by some uptight dude out to prove something.

Awesome!

Would that be like the homophobe version of “why do you make me hit you?” I mean, I understand your point about not using the existence of queer people as some sort of bludgeon against bigots (queer people are people not weapons, obviously ), but I disagree that jokes about how this guy is secretly *self*-hating are responsible for hate crimes against gay people.

The homophobes seem to freak out enough just knowing that gay people *exist*… attributing their possibly violent actions entirely to a little online teasing is putting *waaay* too much of the blame for douchebag actions on (generally) non-douchebags.

(Totally on-board with the Ann Coulter thing--that trans-bashing stuff is bullshit. But I do think this is somewhat different, and doesn’t cross that line.)

“Yeah, and when you piss them off and make them feel uncomfortable about their sexual identity, that never leads to violence against gay people by some uptight dude out to prove something.”

Why should violent men who are embarrassed about their sexual identity get such a heckler’s veto?

Essie, if you think that’s yelling, you should try pissing me off.

The so called heterosexuals who had issues with gay people had the longest, strongest, erections when viewing the gay porn rather then the straight porn varieties. Basically any woman caused the erections to not be as long or not as frequant or not to occur with the gay hating men.

Heterosexual males who didn’t have a problem with gay men either had no erections at all while being exposed to the gay porn or had very few.

That is somewhat suggestive, but I wonder if that is attributable somewhat to the “forbiddenness” of it… like, more homophobic => gay porn is more forbidden therefore more arousing? As a scientist, I would like to see “naughtiness” controlled for, in case it’s not the sex of the participants that’s really turning the homophobes on, but the “dirty dirty boy!” factor. Maybe use bestiality as a control? ^^

Why should violent men who are embarrassed about their sexual identity get such a heckler’s veto?

Ummm… because there’s a pretty common factor of them turning around and beating the shit out of someone ... not necessarily the heckler?

Do you even know anyone who’s been gaybashed? The people who have bottles thrown at them, or who get jumped walking down the street aren’t typically the heckling type.

There’s an important point buried in the rape thread--getting “revenge” on dudes who rape or abuse might feel really good for a few minutes, until they decide to go out and re-assert their manliness through violence. They go after people that they know they can dominate, and it’s ugly.

This shit just isn’t funny when you have people you care about who could potentially be the targets of the backlash.

If he turned out to be gay, would that really make everyone feel better? I mean, he’s a homophobe, and we hate him for being a homophobe, and wouldn’t it be awesome if her were totally ghey and we could make fun of him for that? But HE’S the homophobe, right?

That and the jokes about Ann Coulter being a transsexual… check your hate, people.

I hear ya, mighty ponygirl.  This meme that most homophobes are closet gays needs to die.  Yes, a few are but far, far, more of them are garden variety straight misogynists.

“They are sinning through questioning,” Driscoll preached.

Wow.

Even the Catholic Church doesn’t go there.  Wow.  I was taught that God respects a questioning faith more than someone who is simply blindly obedient.

This?  Fucked up.

I was wondering when you were going to write about this one.  There’s just so many things… wrong with this guy, that it’s really hard to know where to begin.  But you’ve hit it.

My first impression was more of, “you’re making a mockery of the church, dumbass, priests are supposed to be there to serve the people not the other way around.”

You mean the trinity isn’t the original ménage à trois?
MarkusR on 01/13 at 01:26 PM

No, no, no man, the triune God is the Swiss Army Knife of gods.

The so called heterosexuals who had issues with gay people had the longest, strongest, erections when viewing the gay porn rather then the straight porn varieties. Basically any woman caused the erections to not be as long or not as frequant or not to occur with the gay hating men.

Heterosexual males who didn’t have a problem with gay men either had no erections at all while being exposed to the gay porn or had very few.

I’m not surprised this study was brought up to justify the belief that violent homophobes are secretly gay.  And yes, while I’m sure some of them probably are, the results could also be attributable to the fact that emotional agitation can cause erections in some men.  The authors of the study acknowledged this and admitted they had no way of objectively evaluating this factor.  (Interesting aside:  An ex of mine used to get hard when he cried.  Some men report getting erections when they see their partners cry.)

It also seems like you’d have self-selection bias flaw in a study of this nature.  I wouldn’t expect there to be many closeted gay men among the non-homophobic hetero males.  Because if they were gay they’d probably be out.  Among the homophobes, you’re going to have a larger subset of closeted gays, but that doesn’t mean one should conclude most homophobes are closeted gays.  Furthermore, the researchers disclosed that they actually found it very difficult to find straight men who scored low enough on the homophobia index that they used for the study to classify as “non-homophobic”.  That also causes me to take the study with a generous pinch of salt.

That is somewhat suggestive, but I wonder if that is attributable somewhat to the “forbiddenness” of it… like, more homophobic => gay porn is more forbidden therefore more arousing? As a scientist, I would like to see “naughtiness” controlled for, in case it’s not the sex of the participants that’s really turning the homophobes on, but the “dirty dirty boy!” factor.  Maybe use bestiality as a control? ^^

I’m no scientist by a long shot but even I can see the difficulties inherent in attempting to objectively evaluate something as complex and idiosyncratic as human sexuality.  I don’t even see how you could come up with a reliable control for a study.  Even with bestiality I’ll wager there are people who, though they would never in their lives even contemplate engaging in it, might get aroused by depictions of it. 

And while the study on homophobic vs. non-homophobic men may provide some compelling data and insight about male homophobia, what about women?  Would a similar study done on women yield similar results?  I do know that studies have shown that straight women often get aroused by sexually graphic images of women.  This should come as no surprise to anyone, considering how women are the universal sex objects.  But it would make it difficult to do a study purporting to determine if there were a connection between homophobia and latent homosexual tendencies in women.

Somehow, I think this will all end in this guy getting caught coming to grips with his manhood in the throes of glory(hole) ... or coming to grips with another’s manhood ...

Donna, it could also be that the guys who were cool with variety in their own impulses were better masters of them, while those who could not control themselves and hated themselves for that failed to master their own impulses (and thus demand a world where they are not expected to??).

“They are sinning through questioning,” Driscoll preached.

And when Driscoll finally goes off the deep end, requiring that his closest aides do something truly despicable, they can duck criticism by claiming they just followed orders.

No matter what the institution - government, business, a non-profit service agency, a church - this attitude among the leadership is a big red flag; a warning to either stay the fuck away, if you can, or actively resist its noxious influence.

Keith, Ashley:

The current crop of musclebound christians’ idea of martyrdom is blowing someone else up for their beliefs, and then having to go on the lam or even go to jail. See Eric Rudolph.

I think one of the problems many of us have with discussing the twisted sexuality of someone like Driscoll is that the whole idea of sex being all about the phallus—no, not politically or symbolically, but actually—is just hard to comprehend. So some people resort to imagingin that he must be closeted, and others insist that it’s important to recognize him as straight, but really that’s not the axis that (given his comment on Haggard and a bunch of other stuff) he falls on. It seems much more likely that he’s simply discovered being a patriarchal godbag is a great way to do scenes without a safeword, and that the nominally-heterosexual orientation of him and his adherents follows directly from that.

Yeah, and even that construction isn’t fair, because the BDSM axis almost universally involves explicit acknowledgement that there’s a scene going on, and negotiation and so forth. Whereas the whole point of the godbaggery is to remove those elements and pretend that this twisted way of living is just the way things have to be without reference to either/any of the partners’ desires.

Well, I have no doubt that he’s going to get caught with a prostitute of one sex or the other, anyway.  Possibly both.  Maybe some farm animals and a wetsuit.  Some drugs thrown in for spice.  Guys like this are firm believers in “Rules are things I hand down to you, not things I worry about myself”, and they’re always into something freaky.  I’m not sure if it’s the repression, the power trip, or simply “I’ve gone off my diet, I might as well pig out” syndrome.

Or rather, I hope he gets caught with a prostitute.  He’s going to get caught with someone - not a doubt in my mind - and I’d rather it was someone who at least got money out of the deal, rather than some poor parishioner he coerced into sex with his dubious authority.

“ I do know that studies have shown that straight women often get aroused by sexually graphic images of women. “

Strange I seem to recall the opposite but I may be mistaken. Women don’t seem as visually orientated as men are in regards to pornography from what I vaguely recall reading. How did they determine the arousal state in women? If some biometeric was used say heart rate was other activities compared such as bicyling and being exposed to a loud noise?

“though they would never in their lives even contemplate engaging in it”

It does come up hypotheticaly in the stranded on a deserted island for several years scenarios and then most people say yeah I would probably do it after being stir crazy from loneliness.

“An ex of mine used to get hard when he cried.  Some men report getting erections when they see their partners cry.)
“

Could that be tied into sexual masochism and sadism?

tootired, if women are *less visually oriented* than men - a point that is highly debatable as numerous very good Pandagon posts on evo-psych will attest - that is not the same as *not visually oriented at all*.  As to the studies that have demonstrated that straight women are aroused by sexual images of women, there are numerous articles about them.  Google it.

<< “They are sinning through questioning,” Driscoll preached.

Wow.

Even the Catholic Church doesn’t go there.  Wow.  I was taught that God respects a questioning faith more than someone who is simply blindly obedient.

This?  Fucked up. >>

Caren, this is how I can tell you were raised Catholic rather than (right-wing bible-thumping) Protestant. We Protestants (at least of the bible-thumping Baptist flavor) are taught that we are NOT allowed to question ANYTHING EVER.  To question would be to not have faith.

This is the reason I was tossed out of my church at age 15 and told I was, yes, a “heretic” - for questioning some of the basic ideas (for instance how our church was the only “right” one and how God could send so many others to hell for not having the exact “right” kind of Christianity). I was not even aware that the Baptists used that term until then.  I thought it was reserved for the Catholic church, and then only for those who were seriously at odds with the Church. Apparently, I was wrong.

“that have demonstrated that straight women are aroused by sexual images of women, there are numerous articles about them.  Google it.
“

To be honest I do wonder how many of the straight women were actually bisexual or lesbian. Closeting is common among women due to the old societal pressures.

Donna, it could also be that the guys who were cool with variety in their own impulses were better masters of them, while those who could not control themselves and hated themselves for that failed to master their own impulses (and thus demand a world where they are not expected to??).

Possibly, Ms. Kate, but then again why would guys who were cool with the variety in their impulses necessarily want to master them?

To be honest I do wonder how many of the straight women were actually bisexual or lesbian. Closeting is common among women due to the old societal pressures.

It’s probable that some of them are.

“The Catholics figured out a few decades ago that they were slowly strangling off their own congregations through hyper-exclusivity.  So they started opening up, accepting divorce and infidelity and pre-marital sex and all the other dirty social sins.  They dropped the “purity” mantra and embraced “forgiveness”, and their numbers swelled.”

Wow thats strange. I take it you dont read Pandagon much do you? I’ll let you do some reading and let them make my case too you. The Catholic Church is not so much worred about “numbers” as to holding on to the truth we beleave Jesus gave to His Church.

I have to throw this out there:

Could self-identified heterosexual women’s reported arousal from pornographic images of women be due in part to the fact that, by and large, women are the class of people who are used to portray sex? Everywhere they look (well, almost everywhere) both men and women see images of women that are highly sexualized. It stands to reason that both men and women would learn to associate nude women with thoughts that produce sexual arousal.

“How is it possible that they think NOT being allowed to abuse their children is a sign that THEY are discriminated against?”
I’ve heard the “we can’t preach hate about gays/etc, so we’re being oppressed!” line quite a bit, too. The persecution complexes on some of these people…

“Well, I have no doubt that he’s going to get caught with a prostitute of one sex or the other, anyway.  Possibly both.  Maybe some farm animals and a wetsuit.  Some drugs thrown in for spice.”
Or a potato…

Sounds like a cult leader in the making.

cyrano on 01/13 at 01:13 PM

Wrong, dear Cyrano.  Just another criminal.

uhm, Caren, what enlightened version of RCC were you in.? Every recovering Catholic I know sure was indoctrinated with the “priests are never wrong,” (I mean that whole “Father” title in an era of “Father Knows Best” come’on, thinking/questioning them (and the nun) or church dogma was wrong.... yadadaydada.

Wow thats strange. I take it you dont read Pandagon much do you? I’ll let you do some reading and let them make my case too you. The Catholic Church is not so much worred about “numbers” as to holding on to the truth we beleave Jesus gave to His Church.

Michael Mcgreevy on 01/13 at 10:14 PM

History didn’t begin the day you were born, infant.  The Catholic CHurhch certainly did go through Vatican II which focused more on inclusion. They still lost numbers frm both ends.  Now, there’s some reactionary sniveling - (gee does this sound parallel to the political losers?) that they weren’t hairdhirt enough.  The controllers of the pope stage managed JPII into this harder line towards the end as he grew more and more frail.  Now they have their Hero Rat in place. HOwever, the RCC is slitting it’s own throat as they’re still bleeding donating and obedient parishioners - push too hard, and all those cafeteria Catholics will realize that the Automats got a better selection.

neutered and limp-wristed popular Sky Fairy

I resent how he has co-opted a perfectly good term of derision and turned it into something ugly!

uhm, Caren, what enlightened version of RCC were you in.?

Perhaps she went to a Jesuit school. The Jesuits turned my evangelical Christian husband into an atheist. They’ve turned a lot of people into atheists. But they keep doing what their Jesuit thing, convinced that an unexamined faith isn’t much of a faith. I have to give them credit for that. (And find it interesting, because I think this order arose to defend the faith from the ills of Protestantism and the Reformation.)

Wow thats strange. I take it you dont read Pandagon much do you? I’ll let you do some reading and let them make my case too you. The Catholic Church is not so much worred about “numbers” as to holding on to the truth we beleave Jesus gave to His Church.

*lol* When fictional Jesus said “Suffer the little children unto me” I don’t think he meant it the way the catholic church understands the phrase.

To be honest I do wonder how many of the straight women were actually bisexual or lesbian. Closeting is common among women due to the old societal pressures.

I expect it has more to do with the male gaze and women being *by default* sexual tools for men, and internalizing that message.

For example, the way you assumed many women are bi/gay, when you don’t assume the same about men. I wonder why....

How did they determine the arousal state in women?

Dilation of the pupils, which was how the Chinese who negotiated with the British during the 19th Century could tell when what was under discussion was of extreme interest to their Anglo counterparts.

I suspect many people are aroused by images of sex, gay or straight, simply because it’s sex. Our society just frowns upon being aroused by people of the same sex so many will not take ownership of it, even if it isn’t an attraction to the same sex but just a reaction to said sex and arousal in general.

Not sure if that makes sense to anyone else. I’m about 98% straight, yet I’m aroused by images of women together, and men together, and straight sex. I guess I just like sex and am unapologetic about it. If more people could accept and get over that (and forget about our stupid puritanical ideas surrounding the issue) I think the world would be a much better, more easy-going place.

I expect it has more to do with the male gaze and women being *by default* sexual tools for men, and internalizing that message.

That’s what I think, too.  Lacking any kind of officially sanctioned sexual outlet of their own, women latch onto the sexual symbols they see all around them.

Is Calvinism really going to make a comeback? I can’t think of a religious creed better designed to drive people away than one that says your fate is predetermined and nothing you can do will change it. Of course I find all religious creeds foolish, but this one has an extra helping of dumb.

But this is the essence of the Prosperity Gospel of hucksters like Rick Warren.  The idea is that if you are a member of his church, and have done pretty well for yourself financially, Jesus must really like you.  And if you aren’t doing so well, just pray harder and buy more of Rick’s books and seminars.  See?  You think it drives people away, but it really makes them inclined to work THAT MUCH HARDER to be among the elect.

I’ve actually been to this church.  Back before she moved to New York, my sister was an enthusiastic member.  She was a mid-20’s, newlywed hipster with a deep Christian faith she had held through her life but always struggled finding expression for.  Basically, their perfect target audience.  Myself being her blossoming-hipster little sister who had similar struggles with faith, I also seemed like a good target for conversion, and she put in a good effort. I myself attended my parent’s small, tight-knit, traditional church when I bothered going to church at all.  One day after a service there my sister turned to me and said, “Hey, want to go to a cool church?” I was game, but ended up unimpressed.  The theology and ideology were the same old retrograde, fundamentalist crap that had been slowly driving me away from Christianity for years (though I didn’t get the Calvinist angle during my visit).  I don’t think Driscoll was preaching the sermon we heard, but I may be wrong.  Anyway, in my view they had taken the one thing I still really enjoyed about church - the unaffected warmth and sincerity of the atmosphere and people there - and replaced it with hipster posturing.  Who needs an indie band playing their worship songs?!?!  Also, people were unfriendly (because they were hipsters) and they had no refreshments and charged like two dollars for coffee.  Bullshit!

Obviously dodged a bullet with my good sense there… though I don’t think it was ever a place aimed for someone like me, with serious ideological issues with Christianity.  Rather, it seemed more of a place for people with a deep seated hunger for the authoritarianism and security of traditional Christianity, but who couldn’t reconcile it with their indie-rock lifestyle.  Which is to say, I think that it is not an issue for the people who attend this church that their theology is the same old regressive, oppressive shtick wrapped up in a slick, tattooed package.  I actually think that’s exactly what they want, and it’s pretty shallow, really.

I expect it has more to do with the male gaze and women being *by default* sexual tools for men, and internalizing that message.

I think that’s exactly it - how much erotica or sex toys aimed at heteros portray women ONLY on ads and cover photos. Most of them. And that’s in part because of the supression of images of hot men by hetero men - who still mostly run everything on this planet - out of fear of having any of their own homo desires. And also the fear of having to put up with idealized Photoshopped images of males the way women have to put up with being compared to idealized, Photoshopped images of females.

And there is no convincing proof that females are less visually oriented than men. But consider - any time a male is portrayed as sexually desirable it’s labeled “homoerotic” as if a hot male could not possibly be of erotic interest to a straight female.

“ no convincing proof that females are less visually oriented than men”

Yet pornography is largely a male consumed venture. Playgirl’s readership is largely gay men.

There have been numerous scientific studies using brain scans that show men when exposed to visual stimulus became sexually excited yet women weren’t at all turned on. Numerous scientific studies show that woman are not visually orientated instead being rationally sexually excited.

Numerous scientific studies show that woman are not visually orientated instead being rationally sexually excited.

Gosh, I guess the women I know who download porn aren’t real women.

“Gosh, I guess the women I know who download porn aren’t real women. “

Are they lesbian or bisexual? Remember examinations of lesbian and bisexual women reveal certain parts of the brain resemble straight males brains then heterosexual women.

I’m really curious how Mr. Driscoll would interpret “Love thy neighbor”, since he seems to think love is totally gay.

On the closet case debate because the right-wing troll is boring:

I think that noting the high level of closet cases in the anti-gay-rights side is important because it underlines the hypocrisy and stupidity that drives the non-debate and helps recruit more people to the side of upholding basic human rights. Backlashes are driven by the statements of homophobes and their lies from positions of authority. Outting them removes them from authority positions and weakens the other side’s opinions. As a rhetorical tool alone it decreases support for hate crimes and other violence against gays.

That being said, I personally, call a homophobe a closet case not out of a way to get a rise out of them or its rhetorical power, but because I believe it. There are a frightening number of homophobe whose speech reveals an obsession, or whose arguments against homosexuality are almost illiterate cries of it can’t be. People who take gay legitimacy as personal, who use phrases that beg whether they see it as a genuine threat to their own personal wealth and benefits that right wing nuttery provides.

Yes, as a queer-identified and queer-allied person, I’d rather we didn’t have people like Ted Haggard in the ranks of gay or bisexual people, but that’s what happens when you have a orientation that can arrive in anyone. And these people demonstrate that. That it isn’t a demon possession or some liberal choice, but rather something that can occur both in amazing people like Pam and Harvey Milk, but also complete assholes. It’s everywhere and that message is crucial to public support.

It’s also important, because these closet cases that are among the homophobe ranks are deeply sad. They are obsessed with that which they think they can’t have openly. As Harvey Milk noted, that life is killer, is a horrible painful way to live. I don’t hate them personally, I pity them as Harvey Milk pitied what he saw as the closeted Dan White. I want them to live open out lives without thinking they’ll lose their masculinity or femininity. Without caring if they did because happiness is more important than roles.

I hate seeing miserable people trapped in stupid roles, because they’re restrained by culture of expressing who they really are. The closet cases of all types are deep in our enemies, because no one is perfectly “normal”. And the few that are, don’t care enough to hate everyone else with all their energies.

There are homophobic straights, they are the ones who thought nothing of voting directly against another group of human being’s rights. But among the leaders, that obsession, that single-minded focus I think often comes from something deeper. Admitting this doesn’t dismiss the casual evil with which people will jump on those who can’t fight back.

Anyways, sorry for the long post. Love your post Amanda and also love your site Ponygirl.

Sorry, I meant Pam.

*lol* When fictional Jesus said “Suffer the little children unto me” I don’t think he meant it the way the catholic church understands the phrase.

This is how the Catholic Church understands the phrase…

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

Now at too the point you were trying to mean.  We Catholics dont think the sexual abuse of children and young people by some priests and bishops, and the ways in which the bishops addressed these crimes and sins is not funny. I dont think you would joke about rape so why should you think this is funny? For all of us the scandell has caused enormous pain, anger, and confusion. Innocent victims and their families have suffered terribly. The whole thing is just not something you should joke about.

any time a male is portrayed as sexually desirable it’s labeled “homoerotic”
Really?

The whole thing is just not something you should joke about.

Indeed. Sadly, there are worse things than joking. For example:

* Rewarding perpetrators of child abuse, by, say, covering up their crimes for decades, moving them around and actually allowing them to rise in authority.

* Allowing someone who orchestrated the cover-up to flee civil justice under cover of night and providing them safe and luxurious haven abroad.

* “Addressing” the problem by setting up a travelling team of damage-control spin-meisters who deny and downplay the suffering of victims and families.

* Not even considering that the nature of the priesthood (mandatory celibacy, men only, a “ticket to heaven” mentality) might make the vocation an attractive career for paedophiles.

Don’t you agree, McGreevy? Tell us, o Jesuit reject, how does the Catholic Church view those things?

[and yes, I and others will continue to bring up these points every single time you make your self-righteous statements as long as Bernie “The Shuffler” Law remains on the lam and as long as the Church sticks to its medieval policies of omerta and denial]

On “masculine” Christianity as applied to the Roman Catholic Church:

This past weekend the local Catholic diocese (Reno) held a conference and my mother was enthused by one Jesse Romero:

http://www.jesseromero.com/

She made sure to sign up for all the sessions he offered.

I should point out for those who may not recall my explaining this before, my mother is just about as reactionary as one can get, so be warned. (She thinks the Russian Orthodox Church was wise to canonize the last Tsar, Nicholas II aka “Bloody Nicholas,” a saint. In defending this move she also asserts that the Tsarina Alexandra was “even more saintly,” so you see where she is coming from...)

The night before the Saturday sessions, Mom invited Mr. Romero over for dinner, and he and I wound up debating his stance for conservative Catholicism and against “moral relativism” at some length and volume. (According to my sister-in-law who was also visiting at the time, he supplied most of the volume and he certainly also supplied most of the length. I was making some effort to be polite and restrained--after all he was my parents’ guest, and my mother at least has been increasingly pointed about me having only a qualified and limited welcome here myself, so...)

She obtained extra tickets for Romero’s afternoon sessions the next day and at some urging from both my parents I attended these last two.

The first was a continuation of the theme of “God is Love” as defined by the current Pope in his opening encyclical of that title, and frankly it left me a bit bemused and off-balance, having, by this point, had a chance to glance at the titles of books and videotapes produced by Romero, which were much focused on “purity” and other MachoChrisitianist themes.

But the second, final session, which was against “moral relativism,” pretty well put me and all dissenters in their place. It was a lot of emotional blackmail, devoted to the “Biblical worldview” and the proposition that everyone who dissented from the Church as Romero (and my mother) conceive it is pretty much of the devil. He handed out notes based largely, like his prior sessions on “God is Love” on the Book of John, and one passage which I read and underlined before the talk began told me where I stood in his view--something about not only not listening to dissenters, but refusing to greet them or speak to them (let alone allow them to live in one’s home--hint, hint...) lest one be entangled in their sin. So I knew upfront I would have no chance to argue.

Then he started doing a thing I associate more with Protestant fundies--getting us to affirm his declarations of “truth” to our seatmates. This is what I mean by emotional blackmail--I could either play along (and either be lying or be “converted” by sheer brainwashing), leave in a huff (and thus not take the dare of listening) or do what I did--sit in silent, grim dissent.

“Moral relativism,” as he defines it, is a strawman of course.

Anyway, there is a lot of this nonsense in the Catholic Church today (and I gather always has been). In certain circles--which define themselves as the “only real Catholics.”

I’m told that if I had gone to the Mass held afterward the Bishop contradicted Mr. Romero.

And yesterday another guest came by, a woman who sings in the choir, and discussing her and others’ relationship with various priests, I heard plenty of contradiction of the views and judgements of clergy from my allegedly obedient parents. In particular they were critical of priests who were too harsh in forbidding marriages on the grounds of prior marriage--my mother arguing that if these were secular and not in a church they didn’t count and get an automatic “Petrine/Pauline” annullment. Or something like that.

In principle the rules of the Church are supposed to be forthright and unbendable; in practice apparently they are a contradictory bureaucratic thicket which can be negotiated, by the discretion of clergy (under suitable pressure from laity) into just about anything. They seemed to be circling Robin Hood’s Barn in order to arrive at the principle that marriages can in fact be terminated and supplanted by new ones at discretion, without admitting this is what they were doing.

It seems to me that right-wing Catholics are if anything more “relativistic” than Romero’s (false) concept of the Satanically guided secular humanist conspiracy…

Certainly if it is vital to have the fiction of unbendable, eternal rules, it is better to have a vast and contradictory array of legacy legislation that can be selectively enforced or ignored to arrive at flexiblity. But the main thing all this seems to “sanctify” to me is hypocrisy--which I suspect is the real point.

Tell us, o Jesuit reject, how does the Catholic Church view those things?

Unquestionably bishops made mistakes. Nevertheless, media reports frequently painted the bishops’ actions and motives in the worst possible light. That some priests were assigned to new parishes was widely reported as the deliberate, systematic enabling of continued abuse. In fact, in many such cases psychological “experts” had assured bishops-in keeping with the thinking of the time-that the priests in question had been treated successfully, and they presented no further danger. Subsequent wisdom is that such sexual disorders are far too deep-seated to be cured by a month’s stay at a treatment facility. The Christian call to forgiveness and to giving someone a second chance following conversion from even grave sin also played a role.

I hope that helps.

“Yet pornography is largely a male consumed venture. Playgirl’s readership is largely gay men.”

I did sell a Playgirl to a woman one time when I worked at a gas station. I think that was actually the only Playgirl I ever sold, as I assume in my tiny northern Michigan town the closeted or very private gay people would have gone somewhere everybody didn’t know them for their porn.

Unquestionably bishops made mistakes.

“A few bad apples”—kindly ignore the rotten barrel.

Nevertheless, media reports frequently painted the bishops’ actions and motives in the worst possible light.

Bad ol’ librul media! The same old, lame old line the PR flacks hired by the Church trotted out.

That some priests were assigned to new parishes was widely reported as the deliberate, systematic enabling of continued abuse.

The re-assignments done by Church authorities were indeed deliberate and systematic (to duck scandals and evade consequences), and in many cases did result in deliberate abuse. I doubt anyone, even an eeeevil journalist, believed the Church was explicitly incorporating paedophilia into its doctrine.

In fact, in many such cases psychological “experts” had assured bishops-in keeping with the thinking of the time-that the priests in question had been treated successfully, and they presented no further danger.

Likely the same Catholic “experts” who believe homosexuality is also a disorder can be “cured” and who believe blastocysts have souls. See what happens when you mix science with superstition? The Catholic Church learns that lesson, again and again, in the short term, but it consistently misses it in the long term.

Subsequent wisdom is that such sexual disorders are far too deep-seated to be cured by a month’s stay at a treatment facility.

The next baby step for this 2000-year-old institution: acknowledging that homosexuality is not a disorder.

The Christian call to forgiveness and to giving someone a second chance following conversion from even grave sin also played a role.

Yes, we see that “call to forgiveness” played out every day with GLBT people, people who dare use condoms, people who have children out of wedlock, women controlling their own bodies, etc. Please, stop blowing the sickly-sweet smoke from your censer up our collective arses.

I hope that helps.

No, it doesn’t, because I asked you specifically how the Catholic Church you venerate so unquestioningly views those matters. I’ll make it easy for you. You also conveniently ignored the questions about promotions of re-assigned paedophile priests, about Bernie The Shuffler, about the flying PR snow job squads, about endemic flaws in the system—all matters that can be assigned, to one degree or another, to something other than “a few bad apples.”

A Jesuit would at least attempt to address the issues I raised in my earlier comment instead of engaging in flimsy dodges.

Do you think maybe the fact that it’s mostly men who are said to consume pornography or gay men who buy Playgirl is because we keep being told… wait for it… that straight women aren’t visual, with the idea that we’re supposed to be “deeper” than that being the implied message? I mean, really. Maybe there’s some social conditioning here? Maybe a self-fulfilling prophecy? Women being shamed or told they’re abnormal or slutty for wanting to look at attractive men? Whereas with gay men, it’s understood, because well, men are “visual,” gay or not.

tootiredoftheright, are you a straight female?

(Boy, this is getting a bit off topic, lol.)

And for the record, I wouldn’t buy Playgirl (I did when I turned 18, but that was more on a dare) because I don’t want to look at flaccid penises. Now, that doesn’t make sense! If I’m visual, I must be bisexual or a lesbian.

Women don’t seem as visually orientated as men are in regards to pornography from what I vaguely recall reading.

I remember reading about a study where women were asked how they felt about porn, then were shown porn while wearing some sort of internal arousal detector. The women tended to say that porn didn’t turn them on, but most of them experienced physical signs of arousal while watching the porn. Women seem to separate physically turned-on from mentally turned-on.

And why do people always bring up the fact that women tend to view less porn than men (though we are catching up--the gap isn’t that big any more) when discussing visual turn-ons, as if there are no other options? I don’t like porn because it’s other peoples’ fantasies. I’d rather watch a non-porn movie or TV show with actors I find attractive and come up with my own fantasies.

any time a male is portrayed as sexually desirable it’s labeled “homoerotic” as if a hot male could not possibly be of erotic interest to a straight female.

Yes, that irritates the heck out of me. It just enforces the male gaze--"Lady, this ain’t for you!”

Donna;

Calvinism and the Prosperity Gospel are completely different things; even if there were a Calvinist who thought exactly the way Max Weber guessed Calvinists think (I’ve never met one, and I’ve met a lot of Calvinists, in addition to being one), that would still bear no resemblance to the Prosperity Gospel. And Rick Warren isn’t part of either movement.

I read that story. Not-so-neo-Calvinists? Wow. But I also thought that if we were to fall into some post-civilization Mad Max world, this guy would be burning folks at the stake. Only the restrictions of our democratic society stops him from doing that now.

“ remember reading about a study where women were asked how they felt about porn, then were shown porn while wearing some sort of internal arousal detector. The women tended to say that porn didn’t turn them on, but most of them experienced physical signs of arousal while watching the porn.”

Yet other studies that involved brain scans showed no such arousal signs. As for the claim of physical signs keep in mind depending upon what is being considered as an indicator of arousal is often quite ludicrous. It’s similar to the studies claiming video games made people aggresive when they had the test subjects honk air horns or measured their pulse rate. Said tests in subjects that were doing taxes also gave the same readings that the video game study proclaimed was a sign of aggression.

]]]any time a male is portrayed as sexually desirable it’s labeled “homoerotic” as if a hot male could not possibly be of erotic interest to a straight female.[[[

Yes, that irritates the heck out of me. It just enforces the male gaze--"Lady, this ain’t for you!”

Can you give an example of this? Surely you are not just talking about MADtv sketch about the A&B;boys.

A Jesuit would at least attempt to address the issues I raised in my earlier comment instead of engaging in flimsy dodges.

Gracchus
Gracchus I am sorry it dos not help. I also did not wish to give you the idea that I was a Jesuit. I am simply a Catholic who love my mother The Church. Perhaps my friends at the Catholic Answers forms at http://forums.catholic.com/ would be able to help.

Gracchus I am sorry it dos not help. I also did not wish to give you the idea that I was a Jesuit.

Not to worry, there was never any danger of that happening.

I am simply a Catholic who love my mother The Church.

“Simply” being the operative word.

Checked out the Catholic Answers site just to see what would come up on a search on “Bernard Law”, but unfortunately the site requires registration.

Can you give an example of this? Surely you are not just talking about MADtv sketch about the A&B;boys.

I run across it all the time in magazines and blogs and etc. The examples are too numerous too list--it’s common enough that no one mention sticks in my head. It’s sorta background noise.

The MadTV sketch just kinda confirms it--in our culture, sexy men are for men to look at.

s for the claim of physical signs keep in mind depending upon what is being considered as an indicator of arousal is often quite ludicrous.

Vaginal moisture is a pretty clear indication of arousal.

I’m a very visually-oriented straight woman, myself.

Crap, messed up my last post.

As for the claim of physical signs keep in mind depending upon what is being considered as an indicator of arousal is often quite ludicrous.

In this study, vaginal moisture was being measured--that’s a pretty clear sign of female arousal.

I’m a visually-oriented straight woman myself, so I question the brain-scan study you cite.

“An intellectual is a man who takes more words than necessary to tell more than he knows. “
Dwight D. Eisenhower

“An intellectual is a man who takes more words than necessary to tell more than he knows.”

That’s not the kind of “simply” to which I was referring, McGreevy. Think “simple Simon” or “simpleton.” As you can see, I’m A-Ok with simple words.

Gracchus if it makes you happy. Than pls by all means think of me as a simpleton. I have been a fool in love. It makes sense that some would find me foolish to be Catholic. For I love Her too.

Gracchus if it makes you happy. Than pls by all means think of me as a simpleton. I have been a fool in love. It makes sense that some would find me foolish to be Catholic. For I love Her too.

I’m all for love, but blind, unquestioning love of authority? That is for simpletons and fools. Especially when (as with the Church’s paedophilia scandals) that love was betrayed and you go back for more.

Can anyone explain why men would evolve to be more visually-oriented when it comes to the sexy? Throughout much of the animal kingdom, the female is plain and the male has to impress her with his beauty and dance skills. Seems to me the female sex should be the more visually oriented one.

Of course, straight manly-men are only supposed to be visual when it comes to the ladies. Looking at clothes and ballet and paintings is supposed to be for women and gay men.

“” Throughout much of the animal kingdom, the female is plain and the male has to impress her with his beauty and dance skills. “

You are aware that in a number of species in which that occurs the female can fight off untoward male advances while in the human species for most of human history that isn’t the case at all. Also since the animal species are monotomous for life and have biological measures to insure this it’s far more important for the female to pick the mate for life.

. Also those species have more indicators as to when the female is in heat such indicators don’t occur in humans. Most species don’t have any sexual activity without a mating season.

LynstHolin, no, because it’s bullshit. Apparently straight guys who think that have never, ever, been told by any woman anywhere that they look sexy.

You are aware that in a number of species in which that occurs the female can fight off untoward male advances while in the human species for most of human history that isn’t the case at all.

I promised myself I wasn’t going to engage this dude, but seriously..... can’t fight off male advances? Go engage in your rape fantasies somewhere else.

Insisting Science proves all women aren’t visually stimulated, when you have several women right here who’re telling you otherwise is douchebaggery. You are denying actual women their own goddamn experiences, and implying that they have no sexuality of their own. I am thoroughly tired of this shit after the last 500+ comment thread. Fuck you and your “men are animals, and women are porcelain dolls” opinion. It is dishonest and disingenuous to constantly retreat to hypotheticals when there is plain evidence in front of you that you are wrong.

uhm, Caren, what enlightened version of RCC were you in.? Every recovering Catholic I know sure was indoctrinated with the “priests are never wrong,” (I mean that whole “Father” title in an era of “Father Knows Best” come’on, thinking/questioning them (and the nun) or church dogma was wrong.... yadadaydada.

Well, I was lucky enough to be raised post Vatican II by people who actually believed in the reforms of Vatican II.  I had an uncle who was a Benedictine monk (who may very well be canonized someday) and my memories of him were of crazy grownups running through the house screaming and laughing.  Much singing at the piano.  Being told that even *he* questioned at times, and was known to have said “This just BETTER be true.”

Actually knowing priests, being related to them, having them come to dinner--you realize that they are humans and that means as full of faults as any other, even if they rise above them more often than not. (In my case)

chingona also wins, as I am a product of a Jesuit high school--which was not only co-ed and but also only 90% Catholic to boot.  We even had a set of Muslim twins in my class.

I’m not Catholic anymore.  Sometimes it’s hard, b/c I miss the good of the Church and the society and traditions.  It’s kinda nice to think that there’s something else than just this life.  But it’s simply not possible living in the Archdiocese of Chicago with Cardinal Francis George, pedophile hider, as my Bishop.  Chicago in general always seems odd b/c so many parishes here seem to have rejected much of the Vatican II reforms, if they ever accepted any of them at all.

But because of my upbringing, I know the rules and the difference between what the faith is supposed to be, and what many Catholics come out thinking.  Too many are told “say this prayer now and get confirmed or don’t graduate from 8th grade” b/c for some reason the parochial system does a shit job of teaching the faith.

Michael Mcgreevey, I cannot figure you out at all.  You really seem to be reading right out of the Baltimore Catechism, which makes you a pre-Vatican II Catholic, and therefore heretical.  What gets me is that Vatican II happened in 1967, the year I was born.  Anyone who grew up in RCC pre-Vatican II is a senior citizen.

Catholics who reject the Vatican II reforms are worse ‘cafeteria Catholics’ than Catholics who use birth control.  But somehow the phrase “cafeteria Catholics” is only used to disparage liberal Catholics.  As Mark Foxwell put it: It seems to me that right-wing Catholics are if anything more “relativistic” than Romero’s (false) concept of the Satanically guided secular humanist conspiracy…

Catholics have always picked and chosen what to follow.  They are as divided as Jews with their own Conservative, Reformed and Orthodox factions. The faith is, however, that your conscience is primary--not the pope’s, not your bishop’s, not your priest.  Those men may denounce you, but your relationship with God is primary.  Plus, should the Church goal of converting the world occur, there’s no more need for the hierarchy.  We won’t need them.

Which is one reason it will never happen.  Francis George and his ilk giving up power?  It is to laugh.

Nevertheless, media reports frequently painted the bishops’ actions and motives in the worst possible light.  That some priests were assigned to new parishes was widely reported as the deliberate, systematic enabling of continued abuse.

Probably b/c they have a notations from a Pope instructing bishops to do just that.

But please, Mr. Catholic from pre-1967, please explain to me how, if the Bishops are so sorry for the abuse and so determined to prevent further abuse, if this is indeed true...why do we have Francis Cardinal George?

They had their Big Meeting acknowledging there was a problem.  They even let the laity talk.  They made rules.

Rules George threw out the window when he was faced with a nun reporting abusive behavior from a young(ish) priest.  George did NOT follow the rules to prevent further abuse when informed of Daniel McCormack’s behavior around his alter boys.  He allowed him to remain in place, where McCormack then abused at least two other boys.

Those boys are lost to the Church.  How can they ever be expected to believe or to trust a priest or a bishop again?

This isn’t a case from long ago.  This is Post Big Bishop Meeting.  This is post The Rules Forbidding Any Accused Priest Contact with Children.  This is post Zero Tolerance.

It’s bullshit b/c George just knew better and went ahead a left a pervert in place.  Not surprising at all, if you know the kind of priests the man is friends with, but that again is my point: Francis George is President of the US Bishops Conference and a very powerful man.

And he gives JACK SHIT about children.

Been here with Dana, Michael.  Don’t even try to claim that the RCC was ignorant in the past and that it’s all cleaned up now.  It’s not.

There are still good priests out there.  I still know several (even more if I can count the ones who left and got married).  But there are a hell of a lot of Correctors out there who are all about being worshipped and obeyed.  They would fit in just fine back in the days of Indulgences.

Mr. Mcgreevey, if you really are a Catholic, it is your JOB to question your faith and even moreso to question the men leading it.  They are MEN, and men are fallible.  You are not allowed--as a Catholic--to blindly follow them and ignore their failings, especially when those failing are causing irreparable harm to children.

It’s amazing how well these priests behavior dovetails with the other thread:  Abusive priests take advantage of their victims--they pick the most devout families, so that they can bully them into silence for the benefit of “Mother Church”.  They pick on altar boys, hoping that the double shame of premarital sex and homosexual sex will keep them silent.

It is fucked up, and you do NO ONE, not even the Church herself any favors by not calling them out for it.

And you do realize that the Church is the PEOPLE, not the hierarchy or the Vatican?  That those men are called to serve the Church, which is the people?  Deny that, and you might as well call yourself a fundigelical, b/c it’s not the Catholic faith you’re professing.

Maybe Mel Gibson’s funky offshoot sect started by an excommunicated priest would be a better fix.  The media even likes to call them “Catholic”.

You are aware that in a number of species in which that occurs the female can fight off untoward male advances while in the human species for most of human history that isn’t the case at all.

Um, no.  I can’t think offhand of ANY animal species in which the females are more visually ornate than the males.  Looking pretty is always the male’s job.  Even if the males are larger, stronger, and/or capable of ganging up on females (ever seen a flock of male mallards chase down a female in spring?), they’re still the ones with the pretty plumage and/or elaborate mating dances.

For example, there’s a MUCH bigger size and strength difference between male and female mandrills than there is between male and female humans (male mandrills average twice the size of females, whereas the average size difference between men and women is a few inches), but the males are the ones with those nifty noses and butts that flare up in mating season.

You seem to assume that rape is a common mating strategy in the animal kingdom, but actually it’s not.  Strictly from a genetic perspective, sex with an unwanted male is extremely undesirable for females, so they tend to evolve strong defenses to keep out unwanted sperm.  This is believed to be the impetus behind the constant one-upmanship going on in the evolution of duck penises, which is a whole ‘nother story.

Also since the animal species are monotomous for life and have biological measures to insure this it’s far more important for the female to pick the mate for life.

Again, no.  Even among animal species that are generally monogamous, which is what I’m going to charitably assume you meant, very few mate for life.  And whether a species has attractive males has, as far as I know, no connection to monogamy or mating for life.  Peacocks have spectacular plumage.  They don’t mate for life.  (There’s currently debate about whether peacocks are “naturally” polygamous or monogamous in the wild; it’s one of those situations where the males stake out territory and then the females hang out in the territory of whichever male they fancy, which can make it hard to determine how much sexy time is actually going on.  At any rate, they’re not exactly devoted couples.)

Actually, thinking over the handful of animal species that mate for life, very few have spectacular male plumage or mating displays.  I think hornbills tend to mate for life, and they’ve got those awesome beaks, but that’s about it.  Black vultures are possibly the most devotedly monogamous species on earth, and they’re not exactly known for their good looks.

Dear Caren-
I wish I had more time to talk to you. As it is I am stuck at work atm. You and I are about the same age. I was born in 1966. My Family made it here from ERIE and I am blessed to come from a long line of Catholics. My faith was always taught to me out of love.  As I grew I also grew in my love and my faith. There is so much more I could say but take the time to share with you.  Pls ck out http://www.catholic.com/. Thare are good folks there who could help you with any qwestions you may have.. I got to run. 

Yours in Christ
Michael.

“common mating strategy in the animal kingdom, but actually it’s not.”

It’s a common strategy among insects. One species of bedbug actually has a term for how they reproduce and that is homosexual stabbing rape.

Also why did it take until just a few years ago for a study to come out and compare out how many out of a 1000 confirmed women who were raped by a stranger got pregnant compared to how many out of 1000 women who had a unprotected one night stand got pregnant? The study authors were shocked to find out that women were more likely to get pregnant by rape then a one night stand. Rape likely has a genetic componet in other words it’s passed on to the offspring and these particular rapists target fertile women. How do they know they are fertile they base that on the visual apperance of the woman.

Or maybe women are just more likely to admit that they were raped by a stranger than that they had an unprotected one night stand.

Besides, most rape is acquaintance rape, so attempting to make any generalizations about rape as a whole based on stranger rape cases is useless.

It’s also crap to say you can tell if a woman is fertile by her visual appearance.

any time a male is portrayed as sexually desirable it’s labeled “homoerotic” as if a hot male could not possibly be of erotic interest to a straight female.

Truthfully, most sexual depictions of men do fit in to the stereotype of what gay men like.  Those men are typically pretty boys with no body hair and ridiculously chiseled muscles.  I’m sure there are some women who appreciate that, but, according to my own experience, most women don’t.

Also, one fundamental reason why I don’t like porn is that it’s geared towards men’s tastes.  The men in porn are fucking ugly and usually hairless, and that even seems to apply to “women friendly” porn.

I’m sooo confused.  Most male animals have better plumage or otherwise are prettier in order to attract the female’s attention.

But women aren’t turned on by visual-stimulation.

::rolleyes::

Shut up, too tired.  Women tend to get pregnant when sperm encounter an ova.

-------
Michael,
I don’t need to go to Catholics.com: I lived it.  I can probably tell you the fake PR answers to all the “questions” anyone asks.  Remember above?  Taught by Jesuits?  “Answers” to legitimate questions on an ‘official’ Catholic site are more likely to be PR bullshit than truly reasoned out responses.  The old method of redirecting a question toward the one that asked it, trying to make the question out to be wrong in the first place.

I don’t need to refresh my catechism.

I simply cannot follow the men who are in charge of my Archdiocese and my Church.  They are completely out of touch with the teachings of Christ and are too wrapped up in some warped view of what they think is proper and holy.

And as Princess Leia told Grand Moff Tarkin, “the more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.” You can’t order people to respect you; you have to earn it.  If they really want to increase the number of Catholics in the US, they need to listen to the people and serve them, not try to force them to obey for obedience’s sake.

Cause here’s the thing--until they return to serving the communities, they are irrelevant to most Catholic’s lives.  If they want people in the pews, they need to speak to them, not at them, and they need to listen.

“But consider - any time a male is portrayed as sexually desirable it’s labeled “homoerotic” as if a hot male could not possibly be of erotic interest to a straight female.”

Or it’s treated as gross/silly/ludicrous.  I remember reading some account of the female staffers in charge of a photo spread involving a shirtless George Clooney at some Cosmo-type magazine shop-talking about how he should button up and the whole thing was stupid and who really wants to see a guy running around half-undressed?  The really obvious answer--straight women, to whom the magazine was ostensibly pitched--seemed to completely elude them.  It was a throw-away bit, so there was no explanation of whether the detractors were lesbians or women who were straight but also somehow incapable of conceiving of the male form as aesthetically appealing or they were engaging in some weird group dynamic where nobody would cop to liking dudes lest they be accused of having cooties or what, but their conclusions were unchallenged in the descriptive piece.  I suppose if you figure it’s not for women to want sex or find any particular partner especially attractive, it’s unsurprising that they’re going to find such a task ridiculous or distasteful.

swans mate for life… and then “cheat” on their mates.
to my knowledge, from a paper i did a few years ago on this, there is not an actual species of anything that is totally monogomous (sp? i suck at spelling). even those that APPEAR to be monogomous are steppin’ ot for some on the side.
further, most life forms on earth that actual have sex (as opposed to mating stratagies that don’t require physical contact, like fish who lay eggs and the males come and fertalize after they are out) either have a percentage that are “naturally” homosexual, or many who partake of opportunisic gay behavior. being gay IS natural. i used to have a couple of lesbian dogs. they would spurn male dogs when in heat and mate with each other.

but his freudian slip with “monotonous” instead of “monogomous” is telling - there are MANY people who think sex can only be fun and exciting if they can have lots of partners - instead of switching up with their monogomous partner and experimenting with just one, they change partners…

“to my knowledge, from a paper i did a few years ago on this, there is not an actual species of anything that is totally monogomous (sp? i suck at spelling). even those that APPEAR to be monogomous are steppin’ ot for some on the side.”

There are also those which are pretty much monogamous--with cheating being a rare occurrence--but a breeding season that fails to result in viable offspring will result in a break-up or in them not seeking each other out next season.  “Mating for life” is contingent upon the relationship continuing to be a viable vehicle for reproduction.

“Or maybe women are just more likely to admit that they were raped by a stranger than that they had an unprotected one night stand.”

You completly ignored the confirmed by police bit. In other words confirmed rapes by strangers by not only court trials/convictions but forsenic evidence as well.

“It’s also crap to say you can tell if a woman is fertile by her visual appearance. “

Scientific research says otherwise.

“The men in porn are fucking ugly and usually hairless”

You obviously don’t watch much.

“It’s also crap to say you can tell if a woman is fertile by her visual appearance. “

Scientific research says otherwise.

Like the study that claims that when a woman is at the more fertile time of her cycle, she swings her hips more and has her knees farther apart when she walks?

That one cracked me up. You can have your knees farther apart OR swing your hips more. Doing both at the same time would just be awkward and not particularly sexy.

And when were humans ever naturally prone to mating for life? Life-long monogamy has to be enforced by religion and society, and, even then, folks find ways around it.

That aside, how would a woman in prehistoric times have selected her mate? Health would be a big factor, which is indicated by musculature, symmetry, skin, hair… You know, stuff you see. With your eyes.

who really wants to see a guy running around half-undressed? 

If it’s George Clooney?

MEMEMEMEMEMEME! 

Please?

I do find the female form more aesthetically pleasing when I’m drawing, but I’m not sure if that’s b/c male models tend to be douches with crap poses or simply being socialized in a culture where nude women or partially nude women are everywhere, but naked men are not.

Too tired, it’s time for you to start citing your “scientific studies”.  B/c you’re just bullshitting as far as I, and most of the other women who affirm their ability to be stimulated visually, can tell.  The “studies show” shit isn’t cutting it.

That aside, how would a woman in prehistoric times have selected her mate? Health would be a big factor, which is indicated by musculature, symmetry, skin, hair… You know, stuff you see. With your eyes.

Yes, most animals use visual cues to indicate mate-worthiness.  BUT NOT PEOPLE!  God made us special, and women must be chaste and afraid to look at the manly phallic area, while manly he-men posessors of the phallus not only want, but need to fuck any nubile young female that walks by.  Once fucked, the young nubile female will cleave to the Phallus Posessor for life, even though the Phallus Posessor will continue to be attracted by any and all nubile young females that walk by.  Since females aren’t visually stimulated and don’t really care for sex anyway, it all works out wonderfully.

It’s what separates us from the beasts!

Explain to me how a guy in his 30s who wears a skateboarder’s jacket and a skull T-shirt is cool. Maybe you can dress like that when you’re 14 and not look like a fool, but if you’re over 22 you’d better get some adult clothes.