Friday, May 22, 2009

Sex, marriage, humanity and hat tricks

Since I appear to currently be unable to produce an entire post on one subject that makes sense, and in imitation of Elusive Wapiti and Terri at Breathing Grace, I present to you, a potpourri of topics.


Sex and Marriage


In the comments to my post Um....yeah (brilliant title, isn't it?) Elusive Wapiti and I had a brief exchange about the role of sex in the marrying of a man and a woman. Briefly, I said that in the old testament sex = marriage, so to God, sex = marriage, and EW said nuh uh (okay, there was more to it than that...go read the comments and the post EW linked to). I'm still not sure what I think about this because of questions that I have about some scriptures. In a comment I made that was buried in the other comments, I said the following:


"I remember reading that post about Bristol and Levi last year. To be honest I am not certain what I think about this issue and perhaps it is a matter of semantics. Does "marriage" occur during the sexual act? I'm not sure, but it kinda sounds like it if you read about Isaac and Rebekah. Even so, if it is not the joining of the two into one flesh that "marries" the man and woman, in both Deut 22 and Lev 22 God commands that if a man has sex with an un-betrothed virgin that he MUST marry her. If he does not marry her and goes on to have sex with another he is having sex with someone other than the woman God commanded that he must marry. It may not be adultery by strict definition but I don't understand how the functional impact is any different.So, I guess what I would say in response is to ask what you would say about the following:- What about Isaac and Rebekah? It appears that their marriage did occur when he "took" her. -What about Deut 22 and Lev 22 that says if a man sleeps with a virgin he must marry her?"


So, what do y'all think?


Humanity

I get annoyed with many "politically correct" ideas. For example, what was the point of changing the tag line "To boldly go where no man has gone before" to "To boldly go where no one has gone before" in the new Star Trek movie (which was a great flick)? However I do insist that my students use what is called "person first language" when referring to our patients/clients. This means we do not call someone a "stroke" or a "nerve injury", we call them a person who has had a stroke, or a person who has had a nerve injury. I insist on this because it is important to see someone as a person, not a diagnosis, and because calling someone a "head injury" is dehumanizing. Other examples of dehumanization include when the Nazis transported the Jews in cattle cars and called them "dogs", and those who are pro-abortion insisting that a baby be called a "fetus" before birth. It's tough to kill people when you think of them as human beings.

Lesser ill will than murder is associated with dehumanization as well. Some feminists call men "animals" to make them easier to distrust and despise. Recently a commenter at MarkyMark's referred to women as "sweaty bags of cellulite". Well.... I'm not quite sure what to say about that other than ask the following. Do you really need to dehumanize women to make the decision for yourself that you don't want to marry or associate with women? If the answer to that question is no, why do it? If it is yes, maybe you should ask yourself why.


Hat tricks


Woo Hoo!!! Geno Malkin had a hat trick last night as the Penguins beat the Hurricanes 7-4 in game 2 of the NHL eastern conference finals. First playoff hat trick for the Pens since who knows when. Stanley Cup predictions anyone? I say it will be the Pens and Red Wings again, but this time my Pens will win (Why, yes, I was born and raised in the Pittsburgh area. Yes, I am a homer. Whatever made you ask those questions? ;) ).

45 comments:

Ame said...

to be honest, i have never thought or heard of the isaac and rebekah thing before you mentioned it ... probably b/c i married so young and was married so long? i dunno. but that is very intruiging to me (especially in light of other things leaned while in therapy which i'd be happy to share w/ you in email).

***

HUGE kudos to you for making your students make people humans. i HATE when people dehumanize others in any way on any level.

***

wow! the new star trek is good?! i'll have to find time to check that out! (probably be out on dvd by the time i do get around to it ;). ex and i were big time into star trek :) ... i loved the next generation and the one with katherine janeway ... thought the last episode of that one was fantastic

Novaseeker said...

On the sex and marriage point I tend to agree. I think Deut 22: 28-30 could be interpreted to mean that because the man places the woman in a compromised position -- she is not available to marry anyone else at that point, after all -- it is only just that the man who placed her in that status marry her. It isn't necessarily the case that the conjugal act made them married, but it required them to become married, so in essence that distinction is probably not very important.

On PC -- The PCing of Trek language started with "The Next Generation" series, where they changed it to "where no one has gone before". That was late 80s early 90s time frame, which was pretty much when PC was getting in full swing. I do think that when people use dehumanizing comments about others it makes it easier for them to say bad things or think badly about others. As you point out, we see this among some of the more rabid feminists as well as among some MRAs, unfortunately. The internet magnifies this, no doubt -- I would guess that many of the MRAs who throw around dehumanizing references to women would not say such things to a woman's face in real life, but its bad enough to throw them around on the internet.

Mrs. Amy @ Clothesline Alley said...

The use of such dehumanizing language is among the issues that leaves me baffled about some MRAs. They would be absolutely besides themselves if feminists used such language against men--as they should be--yet have no compunction against doing so themselves. I've even seen many MRAs use the 'crotchfruit' and other childfree-esque names towards children, along with their words about women in general.

Ultimately, I don't think this language only dehumanizes the ones at whom the words are aimed, but the speaker as well. If you can allow that much hatred and bitterness to burn in your heart, this will eventually eat you alive. It seems to me, if people allow this to happen to themselves, they are allowing their "enemy" to win. Surely carrying that much hate around has to steal much joy from a person's life...

With the particular commenter in particular, what you objected to from him is quite mild, as you likely know. ;o) Some of the things he thinks women should be left behind for are mind boggling. If a man should dump his wife for aging and getting a bit of cellulite in the process, would that make it okay for a woman to ditch her soldier husband who has come home from the Middle East as an amputee? I say a big loud NO to both, especially as both are a hazard of life (in the second case, only if you married a service member, of course) and when you married, you knew aging was inevitable and sickness and injury could very well be a part of life, a risk of being human. Despite this fact, there do seem to be some MRAs who would only object to the husband being left....

Learner said...

Hi Ame :)

Thanks, and please do email me on the subject.

Yes, The new Star Trek is good :) Definately see if when you have the chance.

Learner said...

Hi Nova,

"It isn't necessarily the case that the conjugal act made them married, but it required them to become married, so in essence that distinction is probably not very important."

Yes, this is what I am thinking though it is not quite clear for me yet. Thank you for putting in your two cents on this.

You know, I didn't even notice they changed it in TNG. Perhaps why it stood out so much for me in this movie was because it was based on the original....or maybe my 20-something year old self was oblivious to such things.

I doubt most MRAs would say such a thing to a woman's face too, but I do believe that thinking about about any person in a dehumanizing way does zero good and only causes harm to all involved. I know a lot of MRAs feel like if feminists treated men a certain way them it is good for men to do the same to women, but I think it lowers a whole lot of rational points and sound ideas to the level of feminism. I think that is unfortunate, because there is no need for the men's rights movement to lower itself in such a manner and doing so alienates others who may be more likely to listen otherwise.

Learner said...

Hi Mrs Amy,

Thank you for the comment :)

"Ultimately, I don't think this language only dehumanizes the ones at whom the words are aimed, but the speaker as well. If you can allow that much hatred and bitterness to burn in your heart, this will eventually eat you alive. It seems to me, if people allow this to happen to themselves, they are allowing their "enemy" to win. Surely carrying that much hate around has to steal much joy from a person's life..."

I agree heartily. I have heard worse from Christopher in Oregon and usually have taken to not reading his comments because they are often crass and do little to help me understand the issues. Referring to anyone as a "bag" of anything is dehumanizing. The fact that he chose to combine sweating (referring to menopause I assume) and cellulite with it just makes it ridiculous for the very reason you site, aging = cellulite and hot flashes, welcome to reality! Actually most women have cellulite after puberty (it is associated with estrogen production) so many young and otherwise thin women have cellulite. If a man wants someone free from cellulite he would likely need to find another man.

Novaseeker said...

"I doubt most MRAs would say such a thing to a woman's face too, but I do believe that thinking about about any person in a dehumanizing way does zero good and only causes harm to all involved. I know a lot of MRAs feel like if feminists treated men a certain way them it is good for men to do the same to women, but I think it lowers a whole lot of rational points and sound ideas to the level of feminism. I think that is unfortunate, because there is no need for the men's rights movement to lower itself in such a manner and doing so alienates others who may be more likely to listen otherwise."

Indeed, Learner. I made this point in my own blog a few weeks ago. MRAs cannot behave like the radical feminists did and become a kind of radical feminism in reverse -- that is not going to get us anywhere, and also does not coincide with our goals in the least. Many MRAs are bitter due to the experiences with women and the courts and so on, and I get that, but as a *movement*, the face of men's rights can never be that anger that individual men harbor. It must always be about men's rights -- nothing more and nothing less.

I am more optimistic that we can get there because other men are also trying to winnow some of these voices of bitterness. If I had my ideal set up for the MRM, it would involve a reception area for men who are coming in hurt and bitter and angry to vent and vent and detox a bit, and the graduate to the next level, to plow beyond the anger and bitterness and prevent it from hardening into misogyny, and instead direct the energy towards positive changes. We're still in the early stages now, and we don't have that infrastructure, but we need it ... and I think we can do it.

Anyway, thanks for the thought.

Learner said...

"I am more optimistic that we can get there because other men are also trying to winnow some of these voices of bitterness. If I had my ideal set up for the MRM, it would involve a reception area for men who are coming in hurt and bitter and angry to vent and vent and detox a bit, and the graduate to the next level, to plow beyond the anger and bitterness and prevent it from hardening into misogyny, and instead direct the energy towards positive changes. We're still in the early stages now, and we don't have that infrastructure, but we need it ... and I think we can do it."

Nova, this sounds like a good idea to me. I understand being angry when you are hurt, and some of you men have been hurt badly. But bitterness and hardness of heart is only hurting the person holding it.

I am glad that you are optimistic!

The Librarian said...

I just saw the new Star Trek movie tonight, and aside from my usual time-loop headache, thought it was great. I noticed the "no man" to "noone" difference with STNG (although I believe in season 1 the female crew, except for Tasha Yar, were still in miniskirts with full makeup... how very practical for space exploration...).

Nova, I've been introduced to the MRA blogosphere through friends of friends of friends... the usual process. I've been enlightened by a lot of what I've read, for which my fiance may at some point thank you all, and downright frightened and sickened by other things. I think I have to agree with Mrs. Amy - that much corrosive fluid damages both the container and the target at which it is aimed. That some guys just seem.. I don't know, stuck in that stage and not able to get to the point where you say, OK, there was one woman who was awful to me does not mean that all women are awful... kind of adolescent.

Kathy Farrelly said...

To be honest with you L, when I first read Chris from Oregon'comments I was shocked.
He seemed terribly bitter and resentful.
Now, I try not to pay too much mind to the explicit and derogatory language he often uses in regards to women.(sometimes it is hard to do!)

When Chris talks about his upbringing, and, in particular his mother, it makes me realize just who is responsible for his harsh feelings towards women.

His mother.

She turned him off women at a very young age. She has much to answer for, in my opinion.

I don't think Chris is such a bad guy. What hope did he have when he was inculcated at such a young age on the evils of women, from his very own mother.

That... is what I really find appalling!

Learner said...

TL,

Time loop headache? I am pretty sure they had men wearing miniskirts at the beginning of TNG too!

Learner said...

Kathy,

Yes, it is a terrible thing for a mother to influence her son in such a matter. Ultimately though, he is hurting himself far more than he is hurting anyone else. As Mrs Amy said, when you dehumanize another person you dehumanize yourself. I've carried bitterness from being badly wounded by someone else and it didn't hurt anyone but me.

Male Samizdat said...

Regarding the "bags of cellulite" comment:

When I was running my blog, I posted an article on why women (in general, O Dearest Learner) had become nothing but whores.

My thesis: women have become whores because those character traits which are associated classically with femininity (such as grace, charm, politeness, homemaking) had been discredited by the feminist movement as "being enslaved to men". Yet, women still want to attract men. Therefore, the only thing left to women was the use of raw, unrefined displays of sexuality.

Now that overt displays of sexuality are the default modus operandi of Western women, men have come to judge women only by their sexual appeal, since women (BIG DISCLAIMER: IN GENERAL) refuse to cultivate supportive character traits.

Therefore, when Christopher in Oregon uses the phrase "bag of cellulite", I don't like it, but I sure understand it.

Learner said...

MS,

Interesting thesis, and thank you for the disclaimers ;)

I wrote a post a few back where I referred to a post over at another women's blog about beauty and how women rarely get any positive reinforcement for anything but their external appearance. Your thesis sounds reasonable but I wonder if there is a bit of a "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" phenomena here.

Male Samizdat said...

There's no "chicken and egg" problem here.

(1) Physical beauty is a necessary but not sufficient condition for men to desire to become involved with a woman. Alternatively stated, it is a prerequisite. A woman who is unattractive won't, in the usual case, "get past the gate", no matter how good her non-physical attributes are.

(2) Men today expect little from women in terms traditional supportive behavior, and therefore do not look for it (and I would add there's vanishingly little to be found). Therefore, men won't even try to advert to a woman's non-physical attributes.

Learner said...

MS,

Okay, either my chicken/egg scenario was not as clear as I thought, or I am not understanding what you said (or just as likely a bit of both). I am unable to fall asleep tonight but that does not mean my brain is fully awake either. So, I think I had better come back to this tomorrow when I can hopefully address it more coherently.

Learner said...

MS,

I guess my question is, why do you think that today many women do not cultivate other qualities because they think they are "enslaving to men" instead of because other qualities are not reinforced in society?

Said another way, it appears from my observation that physically attractive women who lack character or internal qualities are much more likely to attract most men than a less attractive/unattractive woman with good character is. So much so that unless she has some other reason to develop her character there is not much motivation for a woman to do so when it comes to attracting men.

I am not saying your thesis is wrong. I am just wondering if what started with the devaluing of classically feminine character traits via feminism now is more about society receiving the kind of women they reinforce. I hope that makes sense.

Male Samizdat said...

Learner said:

I guess my question is, why do you think that today many women do not cultivate other qualities because they think they are "enslaving to men" instead of because other qualities are not reinforced in society?Maybe I'm in denial, but I refuse to believe you are this clueless.

Feminism has been feeding this garbage to women for 40 years, and women swallow it as fast as they can. Why? Because feminism plays on women's fears - specifically, the fear that every man is a cad and any woman who would become dependent on him will be left with nothing.

Therefore, in the feminist way of thinking, if a woman is being traditionally supportive (cooking, cleaning, raising children, taking care of her man), she is placing herself in a position of economic dependence on a man, and is not establishing her own economic independence.

Then Learner said:

[I]t appears from my observation that physically attractive women who lack character or internal qualities are much more likely to attract most men than a less attractive/unattractive woman with good character is.At minimum, these shallow but attractive women will always get a first glance from men, but if the man has a moral compass, he will eventually reject the woman.

To get a man's attention, a woman has to have some kind of physical attractiveness. Yes, the "10s" of the world will always get at least one look from every man, but a woman who isn't a "10" can still get looks from some men.

From my own experience: I knew a woman who was huge. Not fat (and not waif thin), but she had a 6' 4" frame, and my first thought she could play defensive end for the Chicago Bears. HOWEVER, she carried her weight in ALL the right places. I admit to disappointment when I learned she was married.

Then Learner said:

I am just wondering if what started with the devaluing of classically feminine character traits via feminism now is more about society receiving the kind of women they reinforce.Perhaps. I believe that many men do not look for better character traits in women because they believe they are largely not there to be found (I belief I share).

Learner said...

MS

"Maybe I'm in denial, but I refuse to believe you are this clueless"

Um....maybe I am "this clueless" because I don't understand what you think I am clueless about.

When I said:
"I guess my question is, why do you think that today many women do not cultivate other qualities because they think they are "enslaving to men" instead of because other qualities are not reinforced in society?"

it was another way of saying:
"I am not saying your thesis is wrong. I am just wondering if what started with the devaluing of classically feminine character traits via feminism now is more about society receiving the kind of women they reinforce."

To which you responded "Perhaps" So, I guess that is why I don't understand what I said that your percieve to be clueless.

And, actually I am left wondering what you mean when you say that you refuse to believe that I am this clueless. Do thou think I am feigning ignorance for some reason?

Ame said...

MS said:

"I guess my question is, why do you think that today many women do not cultivate other qualities because they think they are "enslaving to men" instead of because other qualities are not reinforced in society?Maybe I'm in denial, but I refuse to believe you are this clueless."

MS, with all due respect, to make the comment, "Maybe I'm in denial, but I refuse to believe you are this clueless." is offensive to me for it makes a negative implication about Learner on your part.

Learner would not ask a question to irritate you or anyone else. She asks questions because she desires to know the answers. She is also not trying to offend you, she is seeking to understand.

understanding the effects of feminism on males and society is not something all of us automatically know.

Ame said...

MS said:

"Therefore, in the feminist way of thinking, if a woman is being traditionally supportive (cooking, cleaning, raising children, taking care of her man), she is placing herself in a position of economic dependence on a man, and is not establishing her own economic independence."

This is a difficult one for me ... let me explain.

As women in our generations, it is drilled into our brains from extremely early on to be able to be economically independent, to NOT be economically dependent upon a man ... 'just in case' ... b/c you cannot trust a man.

from the time i was a very little girl, all i ever wanted was to be a wife and mommy. i met my husband when i was 19 and married him when i was 21. b/c of circumstances beyond my contol, i did not finish my degree. i worked for about nine years and then became a stay-at-home-wife. two years later we had our first daughter ... then two years after that our second daughter.

all along we planned for me to be at home. both of us desired that. a LOT of pressure was put on me from the outside world that this was unwise. i would ask my husband from time-to-time if he was certain this was okay with him. we worked so he could earn two degrees and become very successful in the corporate world. it was something we did together to fulfil his desires. i would mention the concern that i did not have the wage-earning potential that he did ... and did i need to create that ability 'just in case.' he would reinforce over and over that he would take care of me and our children, no matter what, period. there were even times he told me that IF we were to divorce for some reason, he would still take care of us, and i did not need to worry about 'just in case.'

so i delved into being a wife and mommy, actively seeking God and reading and learning and searching to be the best of both God desired me to be and become.

and then in 2003 my world fell apart. i learned that the reason my husband had become so abusive and evil and angry was that he had been deeply involved in porn and had begun screwing prostitutes when i was pregnant with our second.

i did have horrible pregnancies, but i never denied him. our second daughter was high-maintenance, later leaning she has special needs, but i never denied him (unless i was truly sick, which was very, very few times).

after several years of intense therapy and very hard work to try to save my marriage, he chose his own path and divorced us. he remained true to his word to support us, especially given that we have a special needs daughter who needs a stay-at-home-parent.

that lasted until a year ago when he lost his job. i do not fault him AT ALL for decreasing child support when he lost his job (even with a great severance pkg). however, he did many other very damaging things along the way, which would be inappropriate to state here, that, but for the grace of God, would have left my girls and me in a woman's shelter.

i am not angry with my life (though, admittedly, i am still working to forgive him for what he's done this past year. i will,as i have in the past, it will just take time.) though i hate what he's done, i do not hate him.

he is the father of my children. i do my best to teach them to honor him.

***

so, here is my dilima ... do i teach my girls to create a career to be economically independent b/c 'just in case' really can happen? or do i teach them to be content at home?

actually ... i think the answer is neither. i teach them and train them in the ways God created them to be ... to be and become the women God designed and created before the foundation of the world. and i trust them to God.

Learner said...

Ame,

Thanks for defending me (especially today my friend). Don't worry though, Male Samizdat likes to yank my chain a bit. But, it doesn't bother me usually because at least he has a sense of humor about it and most of the time he will answer me even though I am a woman and thus impervious to logic, heh ;) I appreciate his willingness to engage in discussions with me (I honestly do MS- thank you).

Male Samizdat said...

BTW, does "person-first language" mean that we can no longer speak of "feminists", but instead "women with feminism"?

Enquiring minds want to know....

Learner said...

MS,

oops, when I said "Do thou think I am feigning ignorance for some reason?" I meant to type "you" not "thou" (as my friend the Librarian would say, *snort*). I can't believe you didn't have something to say about me addressing you as "thou"....I am disappointed :(

Now, on to person first language and feminists. In my field we believe that our patients/clients are best served when their treatment is centered on them and who they are as an individual person. So, I suppose that if you view feminism as a pathology that afflicts women and you view yourself as one whose role is to address the pathology that under the treatment philosophy I referred to yes, you would refer to individuals with said affliction as "women with feminism" ;) But since you are not one of my students I have no grounds on which to insist you do so :) LOL

However, on further, more serious, thought, I notice that unless a woman calles herself a feminist I am more likely to refer to her as a woman who is influenced by feminist ideology. So perhaps the same philosophy that would lead me to treat you like an individual when you come to my clinic for treatment is what leaks over into my thoughts on feminism. (though that has limited application because I do think women are responsible for their own beliefs in ways that my patients are not responsible for their "affliction")

Ame said...

Learner and MS ... my apologies.

i tend to be very protective of my good friends ... sometimes to a fault :)

Learner said...

You get nothing but hugs from me Ame :)

Elusive Wapiti said...

Learner, sorry that I'm so late to the conversation.

"It isn't necessarily the case that the conjugal act made them married, but it required them to become married, so in essence that distinction is probably not very important."
I think I would disagree with my good friend Nova. This distinction becomes very important when people try to claim that because a couple had sex, they were then married in the eyes of God. To me, this apportions the deeds of humans as the Lord's intent. Quite dangerous ground to tread on.

Re: "sweaty bags of cellulite"

Ouch. That's a terrible yet very creative visual, but as a debating device, I question its efficacy. Probably feels good in the short run to utter it, but in the long run such out-gassing is just more ad hominem. Besides, indulging in such nastiness lowers the utterer to the level of the fembots that he (presumably) opposes.

"Men today expect little from women in terms traditional supportive behavior, and therefore do not look for it"
I dunno. I expected a lot, and I eventually found it. Women that didn't have it, I wasn't going to bother with. And I advise other men who are evaluating a woman as wife material who doesn't display the traditional supportive behavior to look elsewhere. But MS has a point in that they are largely not there to be found.

"...physically attractive women who lack character or internal qualities are much more likely to attract most men than a less attractive/unattractive woman with good character is."
They may attract attention, but I'd like to think they don't keep it, unless they are being paid attention to by players.

This attention-attraction that comely women have may also lead, in chicken-egg fashion, to a lack of development of character or amiable personality, because they are used to attracting the attention of men for no reason other than breathing.

"it is drilled into our brains from extremely early on to be able to be economically independent, to NOT be economically dependent upon a man ... 'just in case' ... b/c you cannot trust a man."
A statement I find ironic because the odds are 3-1 to 9-1 that it will be the woman who torpedoes her own marriage.

Ame said...

EW - ""it is drilled into our brains from extremely early on to be able to be economically independent, to NOT be economically dependent upon a man ... 'just in case' ... b/c you cannot trust a man."
A statement I find ironic because the odds are 3-1 to 9-1 that it will be the woman who torpedoes her own marriage."

yeah ... VERY ironic ... but since when was any feministic idiology sound or logical?

actually, in more christian circles, it will sound more like, "you need to get a degree and have a career, because you never know what might happen . . ."

wow ... i didn't realize the odds were that great. it wasn't the case in my first marriage ... but it certainly was in both of my fiance's previous marriages. his first wife left him for another man ... his second told him to get out for so long that he finally did, and then she was shocked that he did.

Elusive Wapiti said...

"actually, in more christian circles, it will sound more like, "you need to get a degree and have a career, because you never know what might happen . . ."
Hi Ame. I still don't think this is sound advice. First, getting a degree loads up the degree-getter with debt. So unless it is a degree that pays, like law, medicine, or engineering, it's probably not worth the time, suffering, or the stress on the family from all that debt for a piece of paper of dubious worth.

Second, a career requires dedication and sacrifice which may be at odds with other priorities. If she wants a househusband to look after the kids, I suppose that's okay. But the children lose most in a two-career home.

Please note that I differentiate between "career" and "job". Women should have jobs and support the family in accordance with Proverbs 31, but only one career per family in my book.

I'm sorry about your personal experience wrt divorce. I can quote the general trends all day long...that women initiate around 70% of all divorces, and 90% when there are children involved (and the woman is college educated)...but those generalities break down at the individual level. As you experience shows, men can and do the wrong things in marriage too.

Ame said...

EW - thank you. sometimes life sucks.

i'm with you on the one-career-home thing ... and there being a difference btw career vs job. there is a LOT of subtle false teaching to women of all ages in the church.

hadn't thought of the woman/wife/mother being required to work a job outside the home as related to prov 31. i don't have a problem with women working outside the home in general, though i do believe there is a time where their place needs to be full-time inside the home. also, i see prov 31 more as an overview of a lifetime and less of a summary of what a woman should be doing all at the same time at any given time in her life.

for more of a perspective on how i view such ... i wrote this recently: http://www.singlemind.net/?p=3381

Ame said...

and truly didn't realize the stats were that high. wow.

i think feminism has a lot to do with that ... instilling into women that caring for their husbands and children and homes is not enough ... that they are more talented than that ... that they can do ANYthing they desire and work hard enough at.

we happen to live in a very affluent county with very high-end schools. they begin teaching our children that they must choose a career and go to college from preschool here (UGH!) i counter all of that at home. anyway ... there's this dissonance instilled into children if they don't follow what the gov't schools says they should ... and the gov't schools are run by feminists.

i've learned that God created us so complex that there are MANY things we can do and do well ... but we only have time to choose a few of those in one lifetime. training our children to choose well is imperative, i think.

also, another thought as i write this. the bible teaches that when we marry we are to 'forsake all others' as is often in marriage vows. perhaps that can be more broadly related to one's life. we have much to choose from in this day and time ... and when we choose, we need to 'forsake' all other choices and focus on what we have at hand. another way of phrasing ... is to be content.

i find it interesting that God designed and created us, purposefully, before the foundation of the world. He did not create us to be everything all the time ... for only HE is that. but perhaps, being created in His image, when we let our carnal nature take over, we strive for that which is not ours to strive for? hummm ... just thinking out loud ...

Learner said...

EW,

"This distinction becomes very important when people try to claim that because a couple had sex, they were then married in the eyes of God. To me, this apportions the deeds of humans as the Lord's intent."

Maybe you and I are coming at this from different sides. I understand what you are saying in terms of assuming what God thinks on any subject. However I also think we can know what God thinks on some subjects because He has told us in His word. I am unaware of anything in the Bible that says how a wedding should be undertaken (but would be curious to find out there were) but I do see examples of marriages occurring after the sexual act (Isaac and Rebecca, Esther and Xeres). So, I understand that maybe sex does not equal marriage, because that is unclear, but I do not see any scriptural evidence for what does = marriage, if not sex. Perhaps it is not a linear relationship....

Elusive Wapiti said...

"...hadn't thought of the woman/wife/mother being required to work a job outside the home as related to prov 31."
Er, I messed up in writing my comment. What I should have wrote was something like this: wives are required to support the home just as much as the husband is. Proverbs 31 provides an example of a woman being paid for her labors. Thus I don't have the heartburn as some others do with women being employed outside the home. And I think that both sexes should be focused on hearth and home, not just the wife.

Sorry for being unclear.

"So, I understand that maybe sex does not equal marriage, because that is unclear, but I do not see any scriptural evidence for what does = marriage, if not sex."
Learner, thanks for your patience with me on this one. In my afore-linked post about Palin and Johnston, I came up with the following criteria from Scripture about what constitutes a marriage:
1) Man and woman cleave from their parents and cleave to each other (Matt 19:4-6)
2) They are sexually monogamous (Ex 20:14)
3) Their union is recognized and respected by others (Heb 13:4)
4) The man is to love his wife (Eph 5:25)
5) The woman is to follow her husband's lead (Eph 5:22)
6) The woman is to respect her husband (Eph 5:33)

Other than the reference from Exodus 20, I really can't find anything that sez if one has sex, they're automatically married.

Learner said...

EW,

Sorry, my last comment was done quickly because I was on my way out and I didn't get to finish it.

I am also sorry for not remembering you had that list in your post! I think your list definately describes how a marriage should be, but I am still unsure how the wedding/ initiation of the marriage is to occur from a biblical point of view. It is still kinda unclear and head-scratchy for me though I'm not sure there is a definitive answer.

"Re: "sweaty bags of cellulite"

I think what bothers me about this sort of thing is not that a man may say he does not want a woman with cellulite or who is sweaty or angry, because I think it is 100% the right of anyone to have whatever preferences they want (well, it is between them and God). So if someone said they didn't want to come home to a sweaty, angry women with cellulite I might think them unrealistic to a certain degree, but otherwise I would regard that as their preference and not bat an eye. The issue for me really comes with the "bag of" part, because it is dehumanizing and no good ever comes of that for either the one who holds the opinion or the one toward whom it is addressed.

"They may attract attention, but I'd like to think they don't keep it, unless they are being paid attention to by players."

I don't know for sure, but most of the externally beautiful women I know who lack internal beauty do not seem to be lacking attention from men I would not consider to be players either. This is not to say that every man is paying this kind of woman attention, but enough seem to. I can't think of a woman I know like this who is not married or in a relationship.

"This attention-attraction that comely women have may also lead, in chicken-egg fashion, to a lack of development of character or amiable personality, because they are used to attracting the attention of men for no reason other than breathing."

Exactly. I also have seen an opposite sort of effect in women who are not as attractive by current societal standards. These women see externally beautiful women getting a lot of attention whilst being internally ugly, and also women who are not particularly attractive externally, but are beautiful internally getting much less, if any, attention from men. They may logically think, outside of motivators other than attracting a man (being who God called you to be etc), why bother cultivating supportive characteristics since it won't matter? There is little societal reward for being beautiful on the inside, unless you are also beautiful on the outside. I'm not saying that people should be rewarded, but rather that people tend to engage in behaviors that they see others rewarded for. I'm not saying that means men "should" be attracted to women who they don't find attractive (if that makes sense!). I just think the current issues with poor behavior on the part of women has been influenced and perpetuated by many factors (including feminism).

Ame said...

so is your question ...

*When does God define the beginning of a Marriage, according to the Bible ...

is it when a couple goes through a Rite of Passage, such as a wedding ceremony ...

or is it when they have sex ...

or is it a combination of both?*

***

is your question further:

*is it culture or the Bible/God that has created the Rite of Passage as the beginning of marriage?*

Learner said...

YES!!! Those are the questions.

Oh Ame!!! You are brilliant! Can you follow me around and interpret others for me and me for others, huh, would ya? :)

Ame said...

ahhh ... only b/c i have the same done for me ... often!

my very best friend in high school would ALWAYS say, "You need to know how to interpret Ame!"

Elusive Wapiti said...

To augment your point about plain-looking women not seeing the reason to become more beautiful on the inside, I think a complementary process is in effect for guys.

Can you imagine the effect on your average guy from repeatedly observing so many chicks throw themselves and/or give it up for the players, alphas, and thugs?

Amir Larijani said...

The marital act is the covenant act. That seals the deal.

Does sex=marriage? Yes and no. A woman, for example, can be "betrothed" and have the legal protections of a married woman.

(If a man rapes her, the Biblical penalty is death, whereas if she were not betrothed, the Biblical penalty is marriage without possibility of divorce.)

Still, the marital act seals the deal.

We typically say, "you may now kiss the bride."

In the Old Testament world, they went to bed, did the deed, and displayed the bloody sheets afterward.

There is much to be said for the law's protections afforded to women in the commission of "the act", but the fact remains: "The act" made the marriage official.

Learner said...

EW,

"...I think a complementary process is in effect for guys.

Can you imagine the effect on your average guy from repeatedly observing so many chicks throw themselves and/or give it up for the players, alphas, and thugs?"

I agree, slwerner made a similar point over at Novaseeker's yesterday. Unfortunately it appears that both genders are prone to not encouraging good qualities in the other. We can't count on other people to encourage good qualities in us because they are broken and fallen just like we are. This is part of why I sometimes think that the only way out of this whole mess is people turning in droves to God, not religion per se, with it's unbiblical positions on masculinity and feminity, but to God. Of course, that is not to say that believers shouldn't encourage godliness in eachother, we should.

Learner said...

Hi Amir,

I was thinking about coming over to Recon's Black Ops and asking you to comment on this (and Adam (PC)too) just because I am curious about it. So, thanks for commenting :)

Not to open a can of worms, but how do you think this applies to the current day?

Ame said...

Amir - so, biblically, sex seals the deal ... must there also be a 'deal' first? must there be a rite of passage AND sex to create a marriage? and must they be in that order (as Learner has pointed previously to biblical examples)

Ame said...

btw - SO. VERY. GLAD. we no longer perform the act and present the bloody sheets! ewwwwwww!!!!!!!

of course ... they were VERY accostomed to blood back then as there were blood sacrifices and people killed their own meat. i'm so very far from that thinking it must be packaged in a grocery in order to be consumed

Amir Larijani said...

Ame asks: Amir - so, biblically, sex seals the deal ... must there also be a 'deal' first? must there be a rite of passage AND sex to create a marriage? and must they be in that order (as Learner has pointed previously to biblical examples)Actually, in the OT, the sexual act implied the deal, whether it was expressed or not. If a man had sex with a virgin--whether or not he was engaged to her--they were pronounced man and wife.

This was actually both a protection and a punishment. It was a punishment because that would mean there would be no wedding feast. No celebration for the bride, no celebration by the families. In that sense, both sides were disgraced.

It was a protection in that it allowed the woman a marital union. if they were not pronounced as married, and let's say the relationship broke off, then she would be resigned to a lifetime of singleness, because no man is going to marry a woman who has been to bed with a man, and yet had not been married and formally divorced.

And in those days, the worst thing that could happen to her was to be in a position where she could never have children.

By pronouncing such a couple as married, she would have a relationship where childbearing was possible.

Back then, THAT was everything. Consider the cases in Scripture where women were disgraced over infertility.

Ame said...

Amir - could you imagine if people were held to the same standards ... and there was NO no-fault divorce! there'd be a LOT of couples marrying young again! woo hoo!