Things I learned from feminism I wish I'd learned from Christianity

[Xantippe]

I**t’s a two step thing:

Can this person consent?

Do they?**

Affirmative consent has nothing to do with the first, but tries to redefine the second in a very impractical way. I’m open to discussing the benefits of these policies on college campuses, but to expect people to actually live them out as adults is silly.

It makes a lot more sense as a two step process, with “can they consent?” being the first step.

I don’t think the lay person would be aware of that, though, and if they hear “consent is the absence of no,” they are going to take away a totally wrong impression.

SST, for example, was advocating at some point for escalation to no, which potentially ignores the question of whether or not the person is capable of a “no.”

How would you deal with the situation DarkLight mentioned, where the woman is frightened into non-resistance, without any explicit threats having been made? When I’ve mentioned “accidental” rape, that’s the sort of situation I had in mind–where there’s no explicit consent, the woman believes she is in danger/her “no” is not going to be listened to, and the man might (at least somewhat plausibly) argue that he’s just following SST’s policy of escalation to no.

Moving away from the legal issues, given the potential consequences of intercourse (sexually transmitted diseases, PTSD, pregnancy, disability, medical expenses, physical trauma from delivery, loss of ability to work while recovering from childbirth, death (child and/or mother), a child who needs to be raised to adulthood, loss of virginity, loss of status in one’s religious community and abortion), I’m very uncomfortable with the idea of assuming consent in the absence of a “no.” (I realize I’m counting pregnancy multiple times there, but these are fairly distinct issues.)

Practically speaking, if one isn’t getting a “yes,” one also probably isn’t making detailed inquiries as to her health insurance coverage, eligibility for postpartum leave, other aspects of work situation (would she be able to perform her job pregnant?), family planning arrangements, pro-life/pro-choice beliefs, family situation (would her parents kick her out?), past medical history, savings, religious beliefs about sex, etc. The problem is that intercourse is the act that causes babies, and choosing to engage in that act with a person where this stuff is unknown with only “absence of no” type consent is deeply uncharitable, both to the woman, and to the child hypothetically being conceived.

I realize that within a long-standing relationship (even a non-marital one) a lot of these issues will be fairly clear, but where it isn’t crystal clear, I would argue that consent (in the non-legal sense) needs to require a much higher bar. For example, one of my old friends is a Type 1 diabetic in Russia (which is pretty scary on a good day). She did eventually have a baby and they both survived, but it was a very near thing. There are plenty of situations where pregnancy is life-threatening, and a casual acquaintance simply won’t know enough to know if those life-threatening conditions are possible. Given the possibility of that type of situation, I think “absence of no” type consent is very careless.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

It makes a lot more sense as a two step process, with “can they consent?” being the first step.

I don’t think the lay person would be aware of that, though, and if they hear “consent is the absence of no,” they are going to take away a totally wrong impression.

SST, for example, was advocating at some point for escalation to no, which potentially ignores the question of whether or not the person is capable of a “no.”

How would you deal with the situation DarkLight mentioned, where the woman is frightened into non-resistance, without any explicit threats having been made? When I’ve mentioned “accidental” rape, that’s the sort of situation I had in mind–where there’s no explicit consent, the woman believes she is in danger/her “no” is not going to be listened to, and the man might (at least somewhat plausibly) argue that he’s just following SST’s policy of escalation to no.

Moving away from the legal issues, given the potential consequences of intercourse (sexually transmitted diseases, PTSD, pregnancy, disability, medical expenses, physical trauma from delivery, loss of ability to work while recovering from childbirth, death (child and/or mother), a child who needs to be raised to adulthood, loss of virginity, loss of status in one’s religious community and abortion), I’m very uncomfortable with the idea of assuming consent in the absence of a “no.” (I realize I’m counting pregnancy multiple times there, but these are fairly distinct issues.)

Practically speaking, if one isn’t getting a “yes,” one also probably isn’t making detailed inquiries as to her health insurance coverage, eligibility for postpartum leave, other aspects of work situation (would she be able to perform her job pregnant?), family planning arrangements, pro-life/pro-choice beliefs, family situation (would her parents kick her out?), past medical history, savings, religious beliefs about sex, etc. The problem is that intercourse is the act that causes babies, and choosing to engage in that act with a person where this stuff is unknown with only “absence of no” type consent is deeply uncharitable, both to the woman, and to the child hypothetically being conceived.

I realize that within a long-standing relationship (even a non-marital one) a lot of these issues will be fairly clear, but where it isn’t crystal clear, I would argue that consent (in the non-legal sense) needs to require a much higher bar. For example, one of my old friends is a Type 1 diabetic in Russia (which is pretty scary on a good day). She did eventually have a baby and they both survived, but it was a very near thing. There are plenty of situations where pregnancy is life-threatening, and a casual acquaintance simply won’t know enough to know if those life-threatening conditions are possible. Given the possibility of that type of situation, I think “absence of no” type consent is very careless.

You cannot be responsible for someone else’s feelings, or for interpreting all sorts of nonverbal ambiguous cues. But you are responsible for violating someone.

“She didn’t say no and I never even threatened her, much less hurt her” cannot be construed to mean the activity was nonconsensual, much less rape. You have to say ‘no’, or ‘stop’; it is your responsibility to make your boundaries known. It is the other person’s responsibility to listen and respect that.

Abdicating that responsibility in favor of expecting people to interpret ambiguous body language to figure out what their partner “really means” could effectively criminalize most one night stands or sex with exes.

In reality, many if not most, people will at some point engage in a sexual encounter they were unsure of. In the heat of the moment, moves are being made and you told yourself you wouldn’t go there but your heart is racing and it feels good and you just don’t have a moment to think and decide for sure that you don’t want to so you give in (thanks hormones) and the next day wonder what the heck you were thinking. It could be a one night stand, a hookup with an ex you were trying to get over, or an incident with a friend you were sure was completely platonic.

That is not on the other person, that’s on you. If you were so unsure of what you wanted, how could your partner know? It’s your job to be ready to enforce your own standards, and it’s on everyone to teach their kids how sex often unfolds so they can anticipate these moments and be ready to put the brakes on. No one tells you how fuzzy your mind goes and how confusing everything seems all at once. It’s like an involuntary rush if hard drugs - but it happens and it’s not a criminal matter. If you are really opposed to the possibility of being in this sort of situation that gets out of control, then maybe some of the old-school dating safeguards (not being alone in a house, not passionately kissing, discussing chastity upfront, etc.) should be used.

Now, I don’t believe that women en masse experience the above and report rape, for a number of reasons. Nor do I believe any of the other standard RP stuff about “rationalization” or being a damaged slut or whatever. I believe in dusting yourself off and being more prepared in the future, and I think that’s what most people do.

But no, this is not a matter for authorities, nor is it in any way comparable to Turner or Cosby.

 

[Xantippe]

I haven’t read BEL’s latest, but I have an addendum to my previous post.

I feel like communication about sex is going to come a lot more naturally to the practicing married Catholic, particularly the practicing married Catholic who does NFP.

Speaking for myself, there’s always at least one day of the cycle that is pretty talky, as we figure out if it’s an infertile day yet and if we are going to have sex. (Husband is just about always the more cautious party.) The background on this is that I am 42 years old, have a plethora of issues at this point, and my last two pregnancies in my late 30s were problematic (late miscarriage and lingering complications with the first, and some bleeding from a subchorionic hematoma, some bedrest and physical restrictions, and then gestational diabetes with the second). The last time I was pregnant, my husband had to do 90% of our household and kid tasks during the last two trimesters.

Hence, I just do not relate to the idea of jumping into bed (even with somebody I know** really **well) without talk and without a lot of clarity and making sure that both parties understand what’s going on and what the likely outcomes are and making sure we can live with them.

So, I guess this would be a point of intersection between the married practicing Catholic and the more talky consent-loving type of modern feminist. Not a bad thing, I think.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I haven’t read BEL’s latest, but I have an addendum to my previous post.

I feel like communication about sex is going to come a lot more naturally to the practicing married Catholic, particularly the practicing married Catholic who does NFP.

Speaking for myself, there’s always at least one day of the cycle that is pretty talky, as we figure out if it’s an infertile day yet and if we are going to have sex. (Husband is just about always the more cautious party.) The background on this is that I am 42 years old, have a plethora of issues at this point, and my last two pregnancies in my late 30s were problematic (late miscarriage and lingering complications with the first, and some bleeding from a subchorionic hematoma, some bedrest and physical restrictions, and then gestational diabetes with the second). The last time I was pregnant, my husband had to do 90% of our household and kid tasks during the last two trimesters.

Hence, I just do not relate to the idea of jumping into bed (even with somebody I know** really **well) without talk and without a lot of clarity and making sure that both parties understand what’s going on and what the likely outcomes are and making sure we can live with them.

So, I guess this would be a point of intersection between the married practicing Catholic and the more talky consent-loving type of modern feminist. Not a bad thing, I think.

Then you’re fine. But that standard of wanting or needing to talk in depth about every potential encounter just can’t be expected outside of a real agreement to do so, and it certainly can’t be enforced by a third party.

And if you were 25 and dating, that’s an expectation you would need to make clear upfront. Again, that’s not on your brand new potential partner.

 

[Xantippe]

You cannot be responsible for someone else’s feelings, or for interpreting all sorts of nonverbal ambiguous cues. But you are responsible for violating someone.
**
“She didn’t say no and I never even threatened her, much less hurt her” cannot be construed to mean the activity was nonconsensual, much less rape. You have to say ‘no’, or ‘stop’; it is your responsibility to make your boundaries known. It is the other person’s responsibility to listen and respect that. **

Abdicating that responsibility in favor of expecting people to interpret ambiguous body language to figure out what their partner “really means” could effectively criminalize most one night stands or sex with exes.

In reality, many if not most, people will at some point engage in a sexual encounter they were unsure of. In the heat of the moment, moves are being made and you told yourself you wouldn’t go there but your heart is racing and it feels good and you just don’t have a moment to think and decide for sure that you don’t want to so you give in (thanks hormones) and the next day wonder what the heck you were thinking. It could be a one night stand, a hookup with an ex you were trying to get over, or an incident with a friend you were sure was completely platonic.

That is not on the other person, that’s on you. If you were so unsure of what you wanted, how could your partner know? It’s your job to be ready to enforce your own standards, and it’s on everyone to teach their kids how sex often unfolds so they can anticipate these moments and be ready to put the brakes on. No one tells you how fuzzy your mind goes and how confusing everything seems all at once. It’s like an involuntary rush if hard drugs - but it happens and it’s not a criminal matter. If you are really opposed to the possibility of being in this sort of situation that gets out of control, then maybe some of the old-school dating safeguards (not being alone in a house, not passionately kissing, discussing chastity upfront, etc.) should be used.

Now, I don’t believe that women en masse experience the above and report rape, for a number of reasons. Nor do I believe any of the other standard RP stuff about “rationalization” or being a damaged slut or whatever. I believe in dusting yourself off and being more prepared in the future, and I think that’s what most people do.

But no, this is not a matter for authorities, nor is it in any way comparable to Turner or Cosby.

There’s a problem, in that along with the well known fight or flight response, one of the typical physical responses to danger is freezing up.

psychologytoday.com/blog/evolution-the-self/201507/trauma-and-the-freeze-response-good-bad-or-both

“Almost everyone is familiar with the fight-flight response—your reaction to a stimulus perceived as an imminent threat to your survival. However, less well-known is the fight-flight-freeze response, which adds a crucial dimension to how you’re likely to react when the situation confronting you overwhelms your coping capacities and leaves you paralyzed in fear.”

"Here, in brief, is how the survival-oriented acute stress response operates. Accurately or not, if you assess the immediately menacing force as something you potentially have the power to defeat, you go into fight mode. In such instances, the hormones released by your sympathetic nervous system—especially adrenaline—prime you to do battle and, hopefully, triumph over the hostile entity. Conversely, if you view the antagonistic force as too powerful to overcome, your impulse is to outrun it (and the faster the better). And this, of course, is the flight response, also linked to the instantaneous ramping up of your emergency biochemical supplies—so that, ideally, you can escape from this adversarial power (whether it be human, animal, or some calamity of nature).

“So where, in what you perceive as a dire threat, is the totally disabling freeze response? By default, this reaction refers to a situation in which you’ve concluded (in a matter of seconds—if not milliseconds) that you can neither defeat the frighteningly dangerous opponent confronting you nor safely bolt from it. And ironically, this self-paralyzing response can in the moment be just as adaptive as either valiantly fighting the enemy or, more cautiously, fleeing from it.”

“Though it’s almost always entirely unconscious, some circumstance in the here-and-now can remind you of a trauma suffered years (sometimes, many, many years) ago. Never fully “discharged,” the original fear or panic linked to that memory compels you to react to the current-day trigger as though what happened in the past is—right now—happening all over again. And so your original reaction of self-paralysis—however mystifying it may be to you, and to those around you—can’t help but repeat itself. Your mind goes completely blank, your rational faculties missing in action.”

Hence, the “just speak up” response isn’t quite adequate–the person may be literally paralyzed with terror. (Sexual assault is mentioned in that piece as a situation that may trigger the freeze response.)

However, the good news is that there’s going to be quite a noticeable difference between the demeanor of a prospective partner who is paralyzed with terror, versus somebody expressing enthusiastic consent.

Anybody who can’t tell the difference ought to read up until they can.

 

[Xantippe]

Then you’re fine. But that standard of wanting or needing to talk in depth about every potential encounter just can’t be expected outside of a real agreement to do so, and it certainly can’t be enforced by a third party.

And if you were 25 and dating, that’s an expectation you would need to make clear upfront. Again, that’s not on your brand new potential partner.

That’s where I would disagree–I disagree with assuming consent as the default.

I agree that an established couple might come to an an agreement where there might be a lot of spontaneity and not much talky talky-but that to automatically assume the existence of an agreement from the beginning of dating somebody is a really bad idea.

That’s like thinking that if I’m dating somebody, that means that I automatically get to handcuff them and drip hot wax on them without asking before I start the process. You’ve gotta get buy-in before doing anything serious, painful or life-altering to another person.

Here’s a non-sexual example: if I want to borrow somebody’s car, it would be a good idea to ASK to borrow the car and for them to tell me that it’s ok, rather than me saying, “I’mgoingtoborrowyourcar–bye!” as I’m walking out the door with their car keys, without waiting to hear a response. If there were to be any problem with the car after that, I might wind up in very hot water.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

That’s where I would disagree–I disagree with assuming consent as the default.

I agree that an established couple might come to an an agreement where there might be a lot of spontaneity and not much talky talky-but that to automatically assume the existence of an agreement from the beginning of dating somebody is a really bad idea.

That’s like thinking that if I’m dating somebody, that means that I automatically get to handcuff them and drip hot wax on them without asking before I start the process. You’ve gotta get buy-in before doing anything serious, painful or life-altering to another person.

Here’s a non-sexual example: if I want to borrow somebody’s car, it would be a good idea to ASK to borrow the car and for them to tell me that it’s ok, rather than me saying, “I’mgoingtoborrowyourcar–bye!” as I’m walking out the door with their car keys, without waiting to hear a response. If there were to be any problem with the car after that, I might wind up in very hot water.

I agree. I would add one caveat: I think going into intercourse with less than 100% commitment, i.e. with thoughts of “bailing out” in the middle are, at the least, extremely inconsiderate. I’ve never been in that situation, but I’m guessing for a man to “stop on a dime” in the middle is very difficult, maybe next to impossible. Yet I hear that scenario put forth as one in which any man who doesn’t/can’t “stop on a dime” is guilty of rape.

Also, maybe I’m an anomaly among men (I doubt it) but the idea of intercourse with a resisting or an unconscious, or even a conflicted partner does not attract me or excite me in the least.

 

[pensmama87]

I agree. I would add one caveat: I think going into intercourse with less than 100% commitment, i.e. with thoughts of “bailing out” in the middle are, at the least, extremely inconsiderate. I’ve never been in that situation, but I’m guessing for a man to “stop on a dime” in the middle is very difficult, maybe next to impossible. Yet I hear that scenario put forth as one in which any man who doesn’t/can’t “stop on a dime” is guilty of rape.

Also, maybe I’m an anomaly among men (I doubt it) but the idea of intercourse with a resisting or an unconscious, or even a conflicted partner does not attract me or excite me in the least.

Well, there can be other reasons for a sudden interruption, especially for parents: something hurts (this can happen unexpectedly), or a kid starts crying, or even walks right in. It has never been a problem for my husband to stop in those instances (though of course there’s disappointment, on both sides!) And the reason it hasn’t been difficult is described well by your second paragraph: it’s not sexy to know that your wife is hurting or that your kid needs you.

 

[Xantippe]

Well, there can be other reasons for a sudden interruption, especially for parents: **something hurts (this can happen unexpectedly), or a kid starts crying, or even walks right in. **It has never been a problem for my husband to stop in those instances (though of course there’s disappointment, on both sides!) And the reason it hasn’t been difficult is described well by your second paragraph: it’s not sexy to know that your wife is hurting or that your kid needs you.

Yeah, “stopping on a dime” when a kid is pounding on your bedroom door and/or screaming comes pretty naturally.

 

[NonTimendum]

Feminism taught me that the sin of Eve is a real thing.

Feminism taught me that the only earthly reward virtuous behavior earns a man is hatred and scorn.

Feminism taught me that having opinions is only acceptable if you have the right opinions and you are the right kind of person.

Feminism taught me to trust no one but God alone.

Feminism taught me to swallow my feelings, bottle them up, keep them hidden.

Feminism taught me to stay silent unless I have the benefit of anonymity.

Feminism taught me that I am worthless to the world, and the world is worthless to me.

Feminism taught me that I will always lose.

I am truly grateful for Feminism. Christianity told me all these things, but Feminism showed me the truth of it.

 

[DarkLight]

Feminism taught me that the sin of Eve is a real thing.

Feminism taught me that the only earthly reward virtuous behavior earns a man is hatred and scorn.

Feminism taught me that having opinions is only acceptable if you have the right opinions and you are the right kind of person.

Feminism taught me to trust no one but God alone.

Feminism taught me to swallow my feelings, bottle them up, keep them hidden.

Feminism taught me to stay silent unless I have the benefit of anonymity.

Feminism taught me that I am worthless to the world, and the world is worthless to me.

Feminism taught me that I will always lose.

I am truly grateful for Feminism. Christianity told me all these things, but Feminism showed me the truth of it.

See, the thing is, this was the experience many of us had within Christianity.

You may be an intelligent scholar, but you will not even be permitted to study theology, because you are a woman and that would be having authority over a man.

You should stay silent, because you are a woman, and if you speak up you are hormonal or hysterical or just a nag, and anyway your place is to submit.

Your job is to compromise for your husband and follow what he wants to do. Your husband does not have to compromise - it is your obligation to follow him wherever he wishes to go.

Your job is to be modest, but if you are harassed or targeted, it is your fault for not being modest enough, no matter what you were wearing.

If you are not the “right” sort of woman - a virginal bride who wishes to be a stay-at-home mother and never question her husband - you are worthless.

Your feelings do not matter. Your job is to keep your husband happy and not bother him with your feelings.

If you are anxious, or suffer from depression, you are not trusting God and submitting.

And if you object to any of these things, you are rebellious and under the influence of the world and of the evils of feminism.

 

[NonTimendum]

See, the thing is, this was the experience many of us had within Christianity.

You may be an intelligent scholar, but you will not even be permitted to study theology, because you are a woman and that would be having authority over a man.

You should stay silent, because you are a woman, and if you speak up you are hormonal or hysterical or just a nag, and anyway your place is to submit.

Your job is to compromise for your husband and follow what he wants to do. Your husband does not have to compromise - it is your obligation to follow him wherever he wishes to go.

Your job is to be modest, but if you are harassed or targeted, it is your fault for not being modest enough, no matter what you were wearing.

If you are not the “right” sort of woman - a virginal bride who wishes to be a stay-at-home mother and never question her husband - you are worthless.

Your feelings do not matter. Your job is to keep your husband happy and not bother him with your feelings.

If you are anxious, or suffer from depression, you are not trusting God and submitting.

And if you object to any of these things, you are rebellious and under the influence of the world and of the evils of feminism.

No one is preventing women from walking down to the library and picking up Summa Theologica.

We all have to submit. It’s very difficult for men and women to submit to their positions, but it is a duty shared by all.

Women should sacrifice for their husbands. Husbands should sacrifice for their wives. Those sacrifices take a different form, but they are both necessary.

Women have a duty to be modest in dress and behavior, as do men. A woman’s modesty is more largely dependent upon the outward appearance for obvious reasons. Men’s fashion is generally modest even in the most degenerative societies, but women’s fashion is generally immodest even in relatively Christian societies. On the other hand, men are generally immodest in speech and thinking, even in relatively Christian societies.

Virginity should be celebrated. Women should not seek to supplant their husbands, nor should women demand luxuries which are beyond the income of their husbands. Husbands should provide for their wives, and should show appreciation for the home-making of their wives.

We should all keep our feelings to ourselves and work to make our partners and our neighbors happy, even at our own expense. This is our cross and we should all bear it with joyful, and silent, resignation.

Satan is a very easy master here on Earth. God is a very harsh master here on Earth. Satan is a very harsh master in the eternal ever-after. God is a very easy master in the eternal ever-after. We should all recognize this and choose to sacrifice ourselves accordingly.

 

[DarkLight]

No one is preventing women from walking down to the library and picking up Summa Theologica.

No, but you might very well be told that you’re being bad and sinful if you want to learn theology - and you’re definitely sinful if you want to speak of it in a mixed group. Plus, you’ll just be ignored, because men are talking and you can’t be saying anything that important.

We all have to submit. It’s very difficult for men and women to submit to their positions, but it is a duty shared by all.

As long as it is shared, and there is reasonable provision for someone who is genuinely being mistreated.

Women should sacrifice for their husbands. Husbands should sacrifice for their wives. Those sacrifices take a different form, but they are both necessary.

I have no disagreement with that if it’s actually practiced fairly. What I object to is, say, an environment where if the husband decides he wants a new job in Europe now, it’s his wife’s duty to uproot herself and follow along in submission no matter what, with no consideration of her needs.

Women have a duty to be modest in dress and behavior, as do men. A woman’s modesty is more largely dependent upon the outward appearance for obvious reasons. Men’s fashion is generally modest even in the most degenerative societies, but women’s fashion is generally immodest even in relatively Christian societies. On the other hand, men are generally immodest in speech and thinking, even in relatively Christian societies.

That is true, but at the same time, there is a certain trend (I’ve discussed this upthread) that if a man is sexually attracted to a woman not his wife, or even worse if a man behaves inappropriately towards a woman, she must have been immodest somehow. That is simply an unsustainable burden.

Virginity should be celebrated. Women should not seek to supplant their husbands, nor should women demand luxuries which are beyond the income of their husbands. Husbands should provide for their wives, and should show appreciation for the home-making of their wives.

Virginity is worth celebrating, but it is shameful to treat a woman who is not a virgin as unworthy of marriage, even though her sin may be many years ago. It is even more shameful to treat a victim of rape as though she is unworthy of marriage, even though the sin was not hers.

Nor does Catholicism preach that every woman must be a stay at home mother (and really it’s not nearly as “traditional” as people like to make it out to be). Or for that matter that a man may not be a stay-at-home father if he wishes to be.

We should all keep our feelings to ourselves and work to make our partners and our neighbors happy, even at our own expense. This is our cross and we should all bear it with joyful, and silent, resignation.

I’ve never been a fan of this myself - I would both discuss my feelings with my husband and encourage him to come to me with his. I think we teach men to be far too closed up, and it does them no favors. But in any case, a system where a woman is expected to work around how tired or upset her husband is, but is not expected to get any acknowledgement of her own emotional needs, is not right.

Satan is a very easy master here on Earth. God is a very harsh master here on Earth. Satan is a very harsh master in the eternal ever-after. God is a very easy master in the eternal ever-after. We should all recognize this and choose to sacrifice ourselves accordingly.

I think there is a difference here between sacrificing to what someone else needs, and sacrificing to what someone else wants. One can get to the point of sacrificing everything to bow to a petty tyrant who only demands more (and both men and women can get there).

I would challenge you to read the first post, and tell me if there is any lesson in there that you disagree with.

 

[Xantippe]

No one is preventing women from walking down to the library and picking up Summa Theologica.

We all have to submit. It’s very difficult for men and women to submit to their positions, but it is a duty shared by all.

Women should sacrifice for their husbands. Husbands should sacrifice for their wives. Those sacrifices take a different form, but they are both necessary.

Women have a duty to be modest in dress and behavior, as do men. A woman’s modesty is more largely dependent upon the outward appearance for obvious reasons. Men’s fashion is generally modest even in the most degenerative societies, but women’s fashion is generally immodest even in relatively Christian societies. On the other hand, men are generally immodest in speech and thinking, even in relatively Christian societies.

Virginity should be celebrated. Women should not seek to supplant their husbands, nor should women demand luxuries which are beyond the income of their husbands. Husbands should provide for their wives, and should show appreciation for the home-making of their wives.

We should all keep our feelings to ourselves and work to make our partners and our neighbors happy, even at our own expense. This is our cross and we should all bear it with joyful, and silent, resignation.

Satan is a very easy master here on Earth. God is a very harsh master here on Earth. Satan is a very harsh master in the eternal ever-after. God is a very easy master in the eternal ever-after. We should all recognize this and choose to sacrifice ourselves accordingly.

DL is writing from her experience in the world of extreme (and pretty weird) conservative Protestantism.

I really have to take issue with your belief that, “We should all keep our feelings to ourselves and work to make our partners and our neighbors happy, even at our own expense. This is our cross and we should all bear it with joyful, and silent, resignation.”

While we shouldn’t let it all hang out by expressing every whine and foible, any significant problem needs to be shared with our spouse. After all, in what way are we “one” if our emotional life is a complete mystery to our spouse? Also, if everybody is following your advice and pretending to be happy, what hope do we have of actually understanding them and helping them to be happier and less burdened if nobody is sharing their actual troubles and everybody is walking around with fake smiles?

This is one of the less attractive features of certain corners of Protestantism–for me as a convert, it’s been a great relief to not have to do the fake happy Protestant thing.

Satan is a hard master on earth, too. There’s a really good bit in C.S. Lewis’s The Screwtape Letters where the devil narrator talks about how much fun it is to get humans to do things that are neither their duties nor at all enjoyable.

As to whether God is a harsh master on earth, Jesus said in Matthew 11, “28 Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.””

 

[DarkLight]

DL is writing from her experience in the world of extreme (and pretty weird) conservative Protestantism.

That said, particularly the modesty stuff and some of the stuff about sexual assault I’ve had come from more mainstream Christians and from Catholics on a fairly regular basis.

 

[Xantippe]

That said, particularly the modesty stuff and some of the stuff about sexual assault I’ve had come from more mainstream Christians and from Catholics on a fairly regular basis.

Yeah, that is unfortunate.

I feel like you got the “complete set,” though, which is unusual.

 

[NonTimendum]

I would challenge you to read the first post, and tell me if there is any lesson in there that you disagree with.

I disagree with almost all of it. You won’t like my reasons though, so take a while to think about whether or not you actually want me to give them to you.

 

[DarkLight]

I disagree with almost all of it. You won’t like my reasons though, so take a while to think about whether or not you actually want me to give them to you.

Go for it.

I’ll be interested to see if there’s any actual disagreements with Catholic teaching, as well.

 

[NonTimendum]

Go for it.

I’ll be interested to see if there’s any actual disagreements with Catholic teaching, as well.

I don’t know what Catholic teaching has to say about it, but the gist of it is this:

Women want to have a feminist world of hyper-sexualized, no-boundaries, “free-love” and then they get mad when the wrong type of man plays that game. They like dangerous boys and then they expect men to save them when the dangerous boy does dangerous things. They complain about consent and pushy men, but then they drop a man like a rock because he’s not assertive. Women dress immodestly and act immodestly and then pretend like the way they are treated doesn’t have anything to do with it.

Women also want to be supported and respected, but they don’t do much to earn that support or respect. A man learns very early on that he stands on his own, falls on his own, and if he wants something he has to fight for it. A woman usually demands everyone carry her, but also treat her as if she’s standing on her own. When I challenge a man, I deal with that man. When I challenge a woman, I deal with her, every man in the area and every woman in the area. Women think it’s their God-given right and duty to cut me down, and men are worried if they don’t save women from every challenge then women won’t like them. And they’re right. Women won’t like them.

Honestly, I’ve learned one thing from feminism above all other things. Around women: keep your head down, smile and nod, never say anything they can take as a challenge, and stay as far away from all of them as you can unless you absolutely have to be around them. My mom and my sister-in-law are the only exceptions to that rule.

 

[Xantippe]

I don’t know what Catholic teaching has to say about it, but the gist of it is this:

Women want to have a feminist world of hyper-sexualized, no-boundaries, “free-love” and then they get mad when the wrong type of man plays that game. They like dangerous boys and then they expect men to save them when the dangerous boy does dangerous things. They complain about consent and pushy men, but then they drop a man like a rock because he’s not assertive. Women dress immodestly and act immodestly and then pretend like the way they are treated doesn’t have anything to do with it.

Women also want to be supported and respected, but they don’t do much to earn that support or respect. A man learns very early on that he stands on his own, falls on his own, and if he wants something he has to fight for it. A woman usually demands everyone carry her, but also treat her as if she’s standing on her own. When I challenge a man, I deal with that man. When I challenge a woman, I deal with her, every man in the area and every woman in the area. Women think it’s their God-given right and duty to cut me down, and men are worried if they don’t save women from every challenge then women won’t like them. And they’re right. Women won’t like them.

Honestly, I’ve learned one thing from feminism above all other things. Around women: keep your head down, smile and nod, never say anything they can take as a challenge, and stay as far away from all of them as you can unless you absolutely have to be around them. My mom and my sister-in-law are the only exceptions to that rule.

Would you like to talk about Dark Light’s OP?

The stuff you wrote did not have a lot of points of contact with her post.