Introduction
The trick is to write a headline that gets people to read just the first couple paragraphs. After that, the overall quality of the writing has to hold them. So wish me luck.
So taking the occasion of the Roy Moore story, last weekend The LA Times published an op-ed piece by Kathryn Brightbill that lamented an evangelical predilection for nubile young women. So far so good. But in the course of this drive-by editorial, there was a short segment in there that was dedicated to having a bullet whizz by my ear. So far not so good.
An Exchange of Letters
Thereupon I decided to write the opinion editor of the Times, and I typed on this wise:
Greetings. I am writing you to ask about your policy on allowing people to respond if they are named in one of your editorials. If possible, I want to object to a gross misrepresentation in the piece by Kathryn Brightbill. She said:
“Prominent conservative Reformed theologian Doug Wilson has a documented history of mishandling sexual abuse cases within his congregation. Nevertheless, he continues to be promoted by evangelical leaders such as John Piper, whose Desiring God site still publishes Wilson’s work. When a 13-year-old girl in Wilson’s congregation was sexually abused, Wilson argued that she and her abuser were in a parent-sanctioned courtship, and that this was a mitigating factor.”
Given the context of her piece, this is almost a photo negative of the reality. I look forward to receiving your guidelines.
Cordially,
Douglas Wilson
So that you may see for yourself how far I first thought politeness gets you these days, I received this prompt reply:
Dear Douglas,
Although we don’t run response op-eds, we can and do run letters to the editor in these situations. The address for that is letters@latimes.com and you can let the letters editor know I sent you.
Best,
So then I wrote the letters editor, and here is the beginning of the reply I got.
Thank you for your submission to the letters page of the Los Angeles Times. We have received your e-mail and will review it within seven days.
A reminder about our guidelines:
Submissions should be no longer than 150 words and must respond to stories that have appeared in The Times; please include the title of the article, preferably in the subject line . . .
The email continued on with more boilerplate, but I have by this point learned that I have the opportunity to respond to a false allegation about a controversy that spans a decade or more, and that I have 150 words to do it with. That many words is what we writing professionals call the Tweet Premium.
And so I thought to myself, nah. I’ll just blog about it. Way more people will read my response that way, and I can use 200 Tweet Premiums in a row, and more than that if I feel like it and get to going good.
But then, after I had written much of this response, I got another letter from The Times, explaining that I could use 250 words in a print edition letter, or 700 words for an online response. Extra words are an irresistible temptation for me, and so I chose the latter and sent that off last night. I will notify all of you guys somehow when it runs.
But my thanks to The Times for chance to respond.
A Brief Aside
There is one other thing before we get to the good stuff. I do want to say that it is nice to have my ragamuffin theological outlook being dismissed on larger and larger platforms. At this rate I will soon be a nobody on the international stage. My irrelevance as a spokesman for conservative Reformed Christianity is, as they say, burgeoning.
The Central Difficulty
So what was wrong with Brightbill’s lame attempt to work me into her thesis? Well, the main problem is that I am on her side on this one. I hope you see that this presents something of a difficulty for her. What she did was kind of like Robert E. Lee shooting Jeb Stuart.
There are sectors of the conservative homeschooling world that have a big problem with regard to the issue she raises. Now saying that, I want to be careful not to generalize too quickly, or too broadly. Homeschooling is a big city by now, with lots of nice areas. But there are some sketchy neighborhoods still. I know this because I have been in conflict with them, on this issue, for several decades now.
I have fought with those who had an impulse to leave their daughters uneducated or undereducated. I have labored to box out those who taught that homemaking was a low-skills calling. I have two daughters and a son, and my (college-educated) wife and I sacrificed a great deal to ensure that our daughters were educated the same way our son was. Their education was aimed at different ends, but it was every bit as rigorous. I have countered those who had low expectations for their girls by telling them that the level of education they provided for their daughters was going to roughly predict the level of education that their grandsons would receive.
And when it comes to older guys courting younger girls, I have taught that because all men are hungry for respect, some of the lazier ones are tempted to garner this respect on the cheap. They do this by vying for girls who could only compare them to all the fifteen-year-old boys they knew. In fact, I made some fun of this pattern in my novel Evangellyfish.
In sum, when a 25-year-old guy sets his sights on a 15-year-old girl, I think it is safe to say that I hate it with the heat of a thousand suns, more or less, give or take.
And yet, instead of trumpeting my loyalty to this most reasonable cause, Brightbill drags me into the fray, pretending that I think that a parent-approved courtship in a situation like the one in the case she mentions mitigates anything. It mitigates nothing. “Mitigates” would mean that Crime X becomes, as a result of this mitigation, crime x. Rather, my hostility to this kind of thinking meant that I thought that Crime X was actually Crime Y. It means “statutory rape” instead of “lewd and lascivious.”
For the case she mentions was a prime example of the kind of thinking she critiques throughout her article. It was a prime example of it, and it did happen in our church community. But my opposition to that kind of thing is one of the reasons why the courtship was kept a secret—because the climate of our church community was and is decidedly against that kind of thing.
And so here is my lament, too long to be published (in all its fullness) in The LA Times. Why does Kathryn Brightbill complain about evangelical creepiness on this score, and then sideswipe an evangelical leader who takes what amounts to that same stand?
Actually, Here’s Why
That was a rhetorical question. I’ll tell you why. It is because I am willing to say that young women are nubile.
By the way, if my periodic use of that perfectly acceptable word has had you fuming since you read the headline, this is because somewhere down in your secret heart of hearts you have turned over all questions of moral authority concerning gender to the feminists. But here at this blog we don’t care what they think. We care what God thinks, and specifically, we care what God says.
Men and women are different. Foolish men and foolish women are different. Wise men and wise women are different. And both classes of men and women are different from each other, with all of them different in different ways.
Starting with the foolish, they value different things. A certain kind of man values certain traits that are at their peak when a woman is young (I would use the word nubile here again, but I don’t want to tax your patience). A certain kind of woman values certain traits that are at their peak later when a man is older (e.g. wealthy, successful, putting off a most-interesting-man-in-the-world vibe). These two types will often meet at parties (or, in Brightbill’s story, at worldview conferences). It will not be long before they hook up to make a deal.
It is a human thing, not an evangelical thing. Whenever the population of any subculture gets large enough to have successful fools with distinguished-looking beards, and a substantial cohort of nubile young hotties, you will see the carnal coalitions start to form.
This is what has happened in some of the corners of evangelicalism described by Brightbill, and this is also what has been happening in that skanky-fest called Hollywood. Welcome to earth, kid.
And this is where you see the difference between biblical prudence and feminist resentments. Feminists hate the fact that there even are hot bodies. They want socialism applied to sex, surgically-imposed on the one percent if necessary. Wise Christians know to look past the look, but they don’t resent the existence of it at all. They know its place. Sexual attractiveness is a factor, but by no means the most important one.
“Charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain, but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised” (Prov. 31:30, ESV).
So please note that the idea is not that charm is nonexistent, but rather that it is a liar. And, in particular cases, it is pretty good at lying.
“For the lips of a forbidden woman drip honey, and her speech is smoother than oil, but in the end she is bitter as wormwood, sharp as a two-edged sword. Her feet go down to death; her steps follow the path to Sheol” (Prov. 5:3–5, ESV).
But in the strange new world of feminism, when godly mothers warn their sons about the painted ladies, this is taken as some form of conservative misogyny, an attack on any women anywhere who were working on their own empowerment. This is why our ruling overlords are trying to transform our language. They want to turn hoochie mamas into unionized “sex workers.”
Got it? By rejecting those believers who say that certain women are sexual fools (and that the men who pursue them are another kind of sexual fool), our new establishment wants to create a new rule, one that says a critique of any woman is an attack on all. And by this clever means, they are trying to remove the hope of the gospel from the earth.
“A certain kind of man values certain traits that are at their peak when a woman is young…A certain kind of woman values certain traits that are at their peak later when a man is older (e.g. wealthy, successful, putting off a most-interesting-man-in-the-world vibe). These two types will often meet at parties…It will not be long before they hook up to make a deal.”
And this is hardly new. Aristotle said men peak around 35-37, while women do at age 18. Whether this is good, bad or neither, there’s some strong biology and sociology at work.
Aristotle also believed that women were a “deformed”, “mutilated”, “incomplete”, “monstrosity” of a man. That women had less body heat than men and that’s what makes them weaker. He thought it was the semen that gave spirit to the offspring, while the woman only provided matter. And that only light-skinned women orgasmed. Yes, there’s some biology and sociology at work that lead to men getting into power and ten using it for anti-women views, but it isn’t justifiable within our faith. Wouldn’t it be fair to say that if you kept women away from any meaningful education or occupation and… Read more »
The “anti-women views” kind of comes out of nowhere in your comment. I don’t see where that was the subject under discussion.
Someone with a very distorted view of women is not likely to have a very accurate or meaningful opinion on women.
It is not at all surprising to me that a person with a very low view of women thinks they peak early.
So……….tell us what you think of motherhood J’. ????
FYI, my wife is older that I am, has a master’s degree, and…
Two kids!????
motherhood is great, and really hard, and I think every woman should have the chance to grow into readiness for the role and enter it of her own full understanding and volition before it is thrust upon her.
Even most congregation leaders hold — some threshold of synapse connection occurs on the 18th birthday, right?
(Unless you’re pregnant, of course. There are always plenty of synapses in place to maturely choose what to do then.)
“… In the strange new world of feminism, when godly mothers warn their sons about the painted ladies, this is taken as some form of conservative misogyny …”
And in this strange new world, when ungodly mothers allow their sons to pursue, capture, and vanquish the painted ladies, this is taken as some form of sexual predatorialism.
Hmmmm. I appreciate Pastor Wilson’s openness in discussing these things. It kind of throws a wrench in that whole, closed off, cultian vibe that evil overlords are supposed to have. I assure people like Kathryn Brightbill that these issues exist in the secular world too, perhaps in an even darker and uglier way. Where I live some 90% of teen pregnancies are caused from what is legally stat rape. Than it gets uglier, many emotionally damaged older men preying on young girls by introducing drugs and alcohol. Nothing keeps you coming back for more like a proper addiction. What makes… Read more »
This would normally be where I jump on MeMe for having made various sweeping statements that are completely untrue. Here though, she’s absolutely 100% correct. At least insofar as it pertains to secular problems in the area we both live. I can give testimony both broad and specific to the commonality of older men praying on younger women specifically by making them chemically dependent.
While I don’t doubt that happens, I have to question the 90% figure. I can say honestly that 95%+ of the teen pregnancies I’ve known about were consensual and between young men/women within 2-3 years of the same age.
She said “legally stat”. I took that to mean “consensual, but between a 19 year old and a 16 year old” or something similar.
California has very aggressive prosecution of statutory rape violations. I was interested to read that 40% of those charged and convicted are 18 and 19 year olds. Unlike many states, California doesn’t have a Romeo and Juliet statute which takes into account relationships between young people who are close in age. Being 19 with a 17 year old girlfriend will get a misdemeanor conviction rather than a felony but it still results in a year in the county jail. The law is gender neutral but prosecutions of 18+ girls with younger boyfriends are rare. Interestingly, the crackdown came as a… Read more »
Except that 18 is just ridiculous. The schools preach experimental sex from a young age then hit the older person on their 18th birthday.
Just a big sting operation, though a fraudulent one.
Some schools, probably, Bethyada. That wasn’t my daughter’s experience in public school. The boys were taught date rape equals jail, and the girls were taught that an early pregnancy is likely the end of a career in the performing arts. They were explicitly encouraged to postpone sex until after their training.
I think there should be some discretion in prosecution. But if you are brought up knowing the rules, what is the problem of expecting 18 year olds to not have sex with people under 18?
Well one is that school-kids could be having lots of sex from 13 up and then the first of the cohort gets slammed when he turns 18 even though his behaviour is no different than the previous 5 years.
But I was more pointing to the stupidity of the law and the hypocrisy of secular morality.
If you think this is problematic, you haven’t read California’s famous “Yes Means Yes” affirmative consent law (which requires colleges receiving state funding to enact policies of explicit consent).
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967
They have been watching too much Cherry 2000!
Maybe someone will propose this kind of thing as a solution. Sick, but it wouldn’t surprise me:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/11/15/police-photos-show-teens-getting-lap-dances-from-women-at-16-year-old-ny-boy.html?fb_action_ids=517272381616524&fb_action_types=og.likes
Justin, I am interested in the statement “ALL outside of the church.” With all of MeMe’s sweeping statements about the abuse and sexual evil within the church, this description of significant dysfunction is specifically said to be “ALL outside of the church.” Perhaps the church is not really a cesspit of evil. “Just the same, we need hold some of them accountable and we need to cultivate a sense of male responsibility.” I disagree that MeMe is 100% correct here. Although MeMe says she is “not a feminist”, she, as usual, returns to her usual position where the men need… Read more »
I️ guess King David was a fool when he spotted Bathsheba on the roof and she was a fool to go to him… but in that Union Christ came through…
As Pastor Wilson is wont to say, God draws straight with crooked lines. And that liaison was as crooked as they come.
Bathsheba gets a bad rap. King David’s men showed up at a young woman’s door while her husband was away and said, ‘We are here to bring you to the King.’ How much choice do you think she really had?
That’s how I understand the interaction too. I would “want” Bathsheba to be able to say no, but I’m not certain it was really even a known option for her. Not in the sense of “the king’s men will kill me if I don’t do it”, but as in not even truly understanding that the king could be disobeyed at all. Of course, that’s only a possibility, a guess. I get it from seeing women in communities where arraigned marriage is the norm, or where work is mostly divided by cast. A lot of people grow up not even believing… Read more »
Bathsheba “gets a bad rap” because she deserves it — it was her *intent* to attract the king’s attention.
Hi llion, I have heard that interpretation. I don’t know enough about the bathing rituals of the time to judge whether it was extraordinary to bathe on the roof of one’s house. But in either case, I am not confident that the text gives us her intention. What the bible does tell us about is David’s position of power, his existing wife-collection, his lolling about in the palace while his armies were at war, his conspiring to murder one of his best and bravest warriors. These all contribute to a grievous weight of sin, against which Bathsheba’s culpability (if she… Read more »
Indighost- I appreciate this very insightful reply. Thought provoking.
Yeah, I look who paid the price! Uriah the Hittite and the baby.
Clay,
What’s your point about who paid the price?
The writing was entertaining enough to keep me here to the end, at which point you totally lost me. Maybe this is one of those deals where you do all the algebra steps in your head, leaving the slow kids to wonder what just happened.
I was thinking there were some extra dots to connect, although I heartily concur with Wilson’s conclusion. I don’t know precisely where you got lost, so I wouldn’t know how to begin explaining.
Abraham had ten years on Sarah, so the regulative principle teaches that men should be ten years older than their wives, eh? Adam was older than Eve. (Ugandan saying: women are three years wiser than men.) (1) Fornication {all sex outside holy marriage] is sin, (2) indulging lust [except for one’s spouse, I presume] is sin, (3) charity “doth not behave itself unseemly,” (4) a woman who fears [triune] Jehovah is to be praised, tho charm and beauty are things (I’ve said it’d be spiritually unwise to marry a woman so ugly the sight of one’s wife tempted one to… Read more »
“Ugandan saying: women are three years wiser than men.”
I like that saying. I’m 2 years and 9 months older than my wife, and once noticed that pattern so clearly that I made a list. Of all my siblings, my parents and their siblings, and my grandparents, something like 60% had a husband-wife gap between 2 years 6 months and 3 years 1 month.
*blows dog whistle* “Hey ‘Wise Christians’! !” (We are all wise right? Er… you agree with me ahead of time no?) Actually here’s why: Because you Wilson are willing to blame/hold young women- female children as complicit in the crimes of their adult perpetrators based on your fringe theological interpretation. And gamble other young women in your game to prove your point to the world. We are not talking about ‘men and women’. We are talking about men and CHILDREN. Children sexualized by men like you who think it is okay to define them in terms of adult sexuality. Recap:… Read more »
Randall, great job in demolishing your imaginary foe.
I do have some sympathy. He’s clearly yet to find his Dulcinea.
Hit a nerve?
What?
“Hitting a nerve” is how you describe who someone responds extremely offended and defensively. That did not happen.
Rand, the problem being, when we speak of “children,” we have to take into account the huge range of ages and various levels of “consent.” 16 is pretty standard as a legal age where we begin to grant the ability to consent, but even that can be convoluted by power differentials, like teachers and students. Just the same, a 17 yr old is not a 13 yr old. Huge developmental difference there. Really weird, where I live you can’t consent to sex until you’re 16, but you can access birth control and abortion services when you’re 14, without parental consent.… Read more »
Funny, I call any institution where there is strict adherence to authority, access to children and lack of either willingness or effort to believe and protect them if they come forward pedophile paradise.
” strict adherence to authority”
You keep saying this. It doesn’t match very many modern churches.
” lack of either willingness or effort to believe and protect them”
The rate of pedophilia amongst churches, even within the much maligned catholic church is lower than the rate of pedophilia in the general population. So this seems more a description of secular society.
Yes it does match modern evangelical churches. Adherence to authority is not a bug. It is a feature. And I did not limit my comment to churches at all. If you think so you misread. And so you can’t claim secular bias, this from Boz Tchividjian and Religion News Service. A christian advocate for child victims of sexual abuse. A true christian good guy. Not the final word but food for thought. “It is critical to note that this abuse is no less prevalent within the faith community. In fact, there are studies that demonstrate that the faith community is… Read more »
Randman said: Funny, I call any institution where there is strict adherence to authority, access to children and lack of either willingness or effort to believe and protect them if they come forward pedophile paradise. … Yes it does match modern evangelical churches. Adherence to authority is not a bug. It is a feature. And I did not limit my comment to churches at all. If you think so you misread. Randman @ comment #211113: Most of that is while an interesting sideline to me, irrelevant to my actual point that christianity [sic] is authoritarianism in practice with all that… Read more »
While the specifics of christian authoritarianism are worth their own conversation, for the purposes of this discussion, I wrote above ‘any institution where there is strict adherence to authority.’ However, it seems like going though old posts to cobble together some spit and napkin ‘gotcha is a really good way to play fetch. Let me throw another stick.
There’s a book you should read, “The Christian Lover,” by Michael Haykin. It’s all about Martin Luther and his wife whom he sometimes called “My Lord Katie.” She escaped a nunnery in a herring barrel and he of course was a bit of a” heretic” himself. Christianity is filled with such tales of anti-authoritarianism, free thinking, and assorted rebels.
Hit a nerve, Randman?
You know fp. I don’t mind a good tangle or a funny troll, but an uncreative one is such a sticky bore; it’s like the comment section version of flypaper. You are no Katecho my friend.
Look at you, Randman! Test driving a zinger. Careful, they can get pretty squirrelly.
With some practice, you just might give Triumph the Insult Comic Dog a run for his money.
Thank you for identifying our government school system and planned parenthood so well.
randallmanntoo
Funny, I call any institution where there is strict adherence to authority, access to children and lack of either willingness or effort to believe and protect them if they come forward pedophile paradise.
That’s Hollywood.????
Hi MeMe — on the issue of consent, could you opine a bit on why that might be important?
Philosophically speaking.
What’s happening when, say, a girl, say 15, get’s with a dude two or three years older?
Well, I think a 15 yr old’s brain hasn’t finished growing, her frontal lobe is not well developed, she’s unfamiliar with her hormones and her sexuality because she hasn’t experienced them enough, she has very little awareness of cause and effect, and she probably cannot even separate feelings from physical desire. We don’t let 15 yr olds drink, drive a motor vehicle, vote, or own property, because they are at a serious disadvantage. Just a few years down the road and her competency levels rise dramatically. Myself, I think it’s a double whammy, because young girls desiring older guys are… Read more »
I gave you a thumbs-up for a comment above, so please don’t think this any sort of attack against you.
I would have been incredibly offended if at 15 years old someone accused me of having little awareness of cause and effect. It still sounds mind-boggling to me. I’d say that concept should be well formed by 2 or so. Maybe there’s a semantic difference?
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that although there is intellectual awareness of cause and effect, the emotions produced by the cause blind the young person from stopping to think about the probable effect. Add to that the sense of invincibility in some, not all, young people, and there can be trouble. On the other hand, I am always a little suspicious of the research into teenaged brains. We were all teenagers once, which means we all had the teenaged brain as it is currently described. Yet when I look back, I don’t see in myself an incapacity… Read more »
“I would have been incredibly offended if at 15 years old someone accused me of having little awareness of cause and effect…”
Me too. The thing is, that doesn’t make it untrue. Kids simply lack the ability and the wisdom to make good choices. Some kids are worse than others. They are easy to exploit and deceive, and they tend to trust people.
Boys typically reach puberty about 2 years later than girls. If their emotional development is also 2 years later, then the difference between the girl of 15 and the guy of 17 (per Eric’s question) is likely small.
MeMe,
“I’d kind of would like to blame the church and Christianity in general myself, because that would make these problems more easily contained, more easily solved. Unfortunately it’s culture wide, thriving in the secular world, too.”
You’re getting closer to the truth. That is, the church and Christianity in general is not responsible for most of the evil in the world. The problems are indeed culture-wide. The church is not immune, but has allowed the world to influence it, rather than the other way around as God intended.
it always amuses me that Christians never address the women who rape young boys
we have had so many in the last few months, yet no christian defends the young boys…
we all no why
Women do not sin and Pastors are scared of women and feminists.
like to thump their chests to accuse men with no evidence.
If men were raping underage girls and were in the news almost weekly we would have infinite sermons about a male problem
Finally, someone with the courage to speak up about the female rapist epidemic.
It might help the discussion if we had different words for forcible rape as opposed to, say, a teacher seducing a teen boy. While both are crimes, and both may be rape (one of them being statutory), they’re not really the same thing.
“Statutory rape” is an unhelpful misnomer. We are jailing people for what the ancients would have sorted out a marriage for. The idea of statutory rape is that a person is below the age of consent, with the assumption that they are not old enough to understand consent. Though they can “consent” if the other is under the age as well, or if they need to have an abortion.
I think a better term is: sex with a minor.
Bethyada, two minors can’t legally consent to have sex with each other in California. Prosecutions are rare, but it is technically illegal for anyone under 18 to have sex with anyone period. I know of a 17 year old boy who nearly went to youth prison for having oral sex with a 14 year old. It was videotaped (allegedly without his knowledge) which also resulted in child porn charges. He was extremely lucky to get probation, therapy, and community service. And not to be on the sex offenders register for the rest of his life.
That case exemplifies the inane state of society today. I will suppose the 14-year-old consented to oral sex. If so, considering the 16-year-old a sex offender is outrageous. In comparison, it appears that less than 5% of rapists are incarcerated for that crime.
It was a very difficult case, especially for the boy’s parents who disapproved of what he had done but did not see him as a predatory sex criminal. If he had been a year older, he would have been facing years in prison. If I had been raising a son, I would have made sure he heard about my state’s consent laws all day and every day!
No, but I wouldn’t understate the wickedness, even when there is no force or deception. I was once a young English teacher working with tenth to twelfth graders, and boys do get crushes on their teachers (as, of course, girls do as well). It’s part of the teacher’s job to protect that boy from his own feelings by enforcing boundaries. If the teacher gets flattered or develops feelings herself, she can’t do a good job of keeping him out of harm’s way. When a teacher handles a crush wisely and sensitively, the young man may go through life fondly remembering… Read more »
In recent years, there have been quite a few incidents of female teachers having flings with high school and junior high boys. Of course, they don’t usually get prosecuted as harshly as male teachers in the same situation. It’s bizarre, though. Some of the teachers were quite attractive. What do the see in some boy with no money (of his own), no status and is years away from being husband material?
JP, I will truly never understand how any adult woman could be attracted to a junior high school boy. Their personal hygiene is often imperfect, their conversation is painful to listen to, and their idea of humor is, shall we say, unrefined. Some teenaged girls comport themselves like grown women, but it is a rare 14 year old boy who resembles a 24 year old man. And until the magic summer between tenth and eleventh grades, they often look like little boys. I started teaching 17 and 18 year olds when I was just turned 20. Of course I thought… Read more »
I think “thrill” and “insecurity” are the main answers to your question. Also, “get wrapped up in the status culture of their own students.” I taught 14-18 years olds at 20 as well, so it does still happen. I dressed older and kept my age a secret until the end of the next year, and really never found it difficult to turn down overtures. Though when I did let them know my age late in my first full teaching year (21) when I thought I had earned enough respect to keep it from being a problem, one young lady almost… Read more »
I might have found my age easier to deal with if I hadn’t looked quite so much like Pippi Longstocking. Until I was nearly 30, adults would come into my classroom and say, “Where’s the teacher?”
hahahaha – I got that once my first year too!
It was especially ridiculous because I was wearing a shirt and tie with nice slacks and standing in front of the class facing them at the moment.
But it did only happen that once, and never again after that, though plenty of other people did express surprise.
Suppose Brightbill had written, “Prominent conservative Reformed theologian Doug Wilson has [on several occasions been alleged to have mishandled] sexual abuse cases within his congregation. Nevertheless…” That statement would be unquestionably factual. The evidence available (via the internet) to those not directly involved in those situations makes the question very much one of he-said-she-said. (As far as I know, there have been no legal proceedings against you which might provide actual documentation, though I could be wrong.) But I see no reason Brightbill should not have made the more cautious claim in my hypothetical scenario. If she had been more… Read more »
“Prominent conservative Reformed theologian Doug Wilson has [on several occasions been alleged to have mishandled] sexual abuse cases…”
Well, I think it was only two cases. So to say on “several occasions” is not really accurate. Also, honestly, I can find nothing that even resembles mishandling on the part of that church or Pastor Wilson. His obligation was to report to the authorities, which was done promptly. That is really all any of us can do. Even I can not find any malevolent intentions to assign.
“And when it comes to older guys courting younger girls, I have taught that because all men are hungry for respect, some of the lazier ones are tempted to garner this respect on the cheap. They do this by vying for girls who could only compare them to all the fifteen-year-old boys they knew. In fact, I made some fun of this pattern in my novel Evangellyfish. In sum, when a 25-year-old guy sets his sights on a 15-year-old girl, I think it is safe to say that I hate it with the heat of a thousand suns, more or… Read more »
I’m not sure why you keep spamming this, but a brief look at some social media accounts is telling. Alabama is a very conservative place, but these folks are way to the Left. I picked one political post out of many they made: Greg Legat https://www.facebook.com/stephen.g.legat/posts/10154443481342542 (now removed) Blake Usry https://www.facebook.com/blake.usry/posts/504540442904739 I also found a “Sheryl Porter” in a different part of the country. I won’t post the link, because I’m not as certain if it’s the same person, but the age looks about right and her politics are straight from moveon.org. A real investigative journalist would at least look… Read more »
That’s two out of 14.
Whereas others are hardcore Republicans.
Tony Hathcock
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10159351314560574&set=a.10152182629090574.917580.724045573&type=3&theater
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10159425017335574&set=a.176447985573.250743.724045573&type=3&theater
I think it would be a ridiculous turn if news agencies began printing your political affiliations in every story, as if we want people to start running on the assumption now that every person who doesn’t share our affiliation is likely as not to just be out there lying to hurt us.
I didn’t check them all, but we’ll call it 3-to-1 since one of these is likely to be the “Sheryl Porter.” One is even commenting on the case:
https://www.facebook.com/sherylporter24/posts/10156976210749569
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10209757403955875&set=a.3327358226823.125349.1354442014&type=3
Pretty odd for such a conservative area. Buy hey, when you declare someone guilty the second the news comes out, you don’t need math on your side…right?
First of all, a sample size of “3 to 1” means little for ANY area. 3 to 1 could easily come out of a 90% Republican pool without suggesting sketchy data. Anyone who actually has math on their side can tell you that. And we’re ignoring for now that at least five of the fourteen people listed say they voted for Trump last year. But beyond that, the fact that conservatives would be reluctant to volunteer dirt on Moore isn’t “odd” at all. Of course most conservatives wouldn’t jump to go to the newspaper with damaging dirt on a conservative… Read more »
“When Jackie came to, she was alone. It was after 3 a.m. She painfully rose from the floor and ran shoeless from the room. She emerged to discover the Phi Psi party still surreally under way, but if anyone noticed the barefoot, disheveled girl hurrying down a side staircase, face beaten, dress spattered with blood, they said nothing. Disoriented, Jackie burst out a side door, realized she was lost, and dialed a friend, screaming, “Something bad happened. I need you to come and find me!” Minutes later, her three best friends on campus – two boys and a girl (whose… Read more »
Adad, great example. The friends of the girl who are cited in that article did NOT support the accuser’s story in a meaningful sense. In fact, their accounts revealed multiple major discrepancies in the girl’s story. In fact, it was the Washington Post itself which exposed those discrepancies and condemned the poor reporting in the story. From a WaPo article just two weeks after the story broke: “In their first interviews about the events of that September 2012 night, the three friends separately told The Post that their recollections of the encounter diverge from how Rolling Stone portrayed the incident… Read more »
“The media attacked Rolling Stone left and right for it.” Really? I only saw attacks from certain conservative sites. “Bury and forget” seemed to be the mainstream strategy.
Perhaps you only read certain conservative sites? The attack on the Rolling Stone for improper journalism in the case started within weeks and was absolutely withering. It hadn’t even been published for three weeks yet when the Washington Post’s media critic called for every reporter involved in the story to resign. The commentary from the mainstream media was quite strong and negative. Type “sabrina erdely” into Google News and you can see follow-ups on the story continuing to be published in the mainstream media even this year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Rape_on_Campus
J’, I could be wrong, but I thought this guy, Robby Soave, did more than the Wapoo to brake (SP ; – ) the UVA story: https://reason.com/blog/2015/12/01/one-year-after-rolling-stones-uva-rape-d My overall point stands. At it’s initial release, Erdely’s UVA story was celebrated as “awesome”, and it was reported as the most read “investigative” story in the history of the Rolling Stone. The story was false. I never read the full UVA story. I have not read all of the Moore allegations that you list. I see many similarities between the UVA story and the allegations against Moore. For the evaluation of both… Read more »
adad, the 2015 link you give links back to his original Dec. 1, 2014 story…where he bases all of his doubts on issues that a WaPo journalist and another independent journalist had already raised a few days earlier. His words were much stronger than the more casual tone the WaPo reporter had used and he added the idea that it could all be a hoax, but the WaPo was in the process of attempting to confirm the suspicious details (as their Nov 28 story had already made clear), and published the first report clearly doubting the story on December 5th… Read more »
And the Rolling Stone article was in its December issue, which apparently came out around November 21st. The first Washington Post article criticizing aspects of the journalism in the story came out on November 28th, the first article disputing major elements of the story came out on December 5th, and the full article ripping the story to shreds came out on December 10th. Of course a few days were necessary because it takes that long to track down real, everyday people and confirm first-hand accounts, but overall the positive reaction to the Rolling Stone piece was very short-lived.
Well, lies do tend to get 1/2 way around the world before the truth gets its pants on. ????
The issue is one of older men targeting younger females?
Not the bare fact of an age difference?
Bethyada, you are driving the nail. Thank you.
Jonathan is a foolish young man who does not understand life or how to apply scripture.
Dave, I largely agree with you over Jonathan here, and often on other topics. But I do realise that there are differences in how we read Scripture and some difficulties with tricky parts. Not just on this topic but often on Mablog. Further there is a lot of rhetorical flourish and lack of clarity from both sides. Because of this, I am a little concerned about the accusations of “fool” and “liar” and other such identifiers. Although there is a place for them, I think they are overused by both sides against the other side. I think there should be… Read more »
Bethyada, I truly with that Jonathan would have a better Biblical understanding and application of scripture. However, that is not the case right now. I only point out his foolishness because he is wrong on too many issues and in his case giving gentle answers failed to entice him to reflect on his foolish typing.
I apologize for giving you any angst in this matter. Titus says that older women are to encourage younger women so that the Word of God is not dishonored. And so it is with Jonathan.
Wish not with.
No angst at all Dave. And this was something I have been thinking recently. I thought it would go down better in a comment to an ally :) though I see this on many sides here.
And I don’t mind using terms like “foolish” and “untrue”. I don’t even mind “fool” and “liar”. I just think we should be far more certain for the latter epithets with clear documentation of repeated behaviour, and it not be a result of exegetical differences.
This is a good place to highlight that Dave’s disagreement with me on this issue stems from his claim to follow an “equation for relationships” that decrees that a 20-year-old woman is too young for a 48-year-old man, but a 40-year-old man can date a 17-year-old girl, a 37-year-old man can date a 15-year-old girl, and a 30-year-old man can date a girl under 12. Dave also repeatedly brings up the fact that I believe the Civil War started primarily due to disagreements over slavery as his example that I am a non-Christian and a fool. And he has an… Read more »
Jonathan, I didn’t grow up here and don’t know enough U.S. history to have a qualified opinion. But Joel McDurmon over at American Vision certainly agrees with you. https://americanvision.org/14724/charles-hodge-on-southern-secession-and-slavery/
Jilly, the huge straw man from which the rest of the red herrings of your link follow is merely hinted at when the author says, “the great design and desire of the authors of the late rebellion [sic] were the perpetuation and extension of the system of African slavery.” Although the author exaggerates that point in ways that badly distort the history (as if, to cite just one clear example, the causes of secession in 1861 were wholly unrelated to the stirrings toward secession in response the Alien and Sedition Acts and the principles expressed in the Kentucky Resolution —… Read more »
“Answer a fool as his folly deserves, That he not be wise in his own eyes.” Proverbs 26:5 “. . .Dave’s disagreement with me on this issue stems from his claim . . .” Jonathan@211324 Jonathan, stop making things up. Just stop it. “The whole affair is political show for the masses to keep a Christian man out of Congress.” Dave@210525 “So in your world, . . .” Jonathan@210558 Jonathan’s response to political show. This was the root of the discussion not as he claims now. This is one example of how Jonathan fails to follow a discussion and makes… Read more »
On what our disagreements center on, I refer to our actual ongoing disagreement that anyone can look at that thread and clearly see, not something else you said which was not at the center of our ongoing disagreement. As far as Jamin Wright goes, you now want to start basing everything on the judge in the trial, when I have repeatedly demonstrated to you that Jamin’s pastor, Pastor Peter Leithart, has clearly and publicly said that he was deceived and manipulated by Jamin at the time of trial and thus was complicit in painting a false, twisted picture to the… Read more »
Jonathan, you miss the forrest entirely. This is about a political play on Moore that you and others fell for. Please stop making things up saying that it is about other subjects. That point is obvious to the most casual observer yet it escapes you entirely. You have a choice. You may either foolishly follow the current trend of social justice or you may change your ways and work to be a solid Christian man. You can’t do both. America has enough problems forced upon her by foolish Christians following social ideals instead of solid scripture based thought. Will you… Read more »
What is your actual evidence that this is a political play on Moore? Not, “because it’s bad for Moore to get this coming out at this time”, but actual evidence of the massive conspiracy that would be necessary to get all of these newspapers, local witnesses, etc. on the same page with so little counterevidence. As for social justice and my own Christian faith, despite my repeated requests you have failed to show what is lacking for me, and failed to show how I accept this vaguel “social justice” campaign in such a way that compromises my faith, rather than… Read more »
Jonathan, over the past year you contended with multiple learned individuals over various issues. You demand your SJW issues be solved in the manner you choose rather than scripturally. You strive mightly to bend the narrative to support your views. When caugbt with your hand in tbe cookie jar you respond that it isn’t your hand.
Did it ever ocxur to you that all those who attempted to belp you see the errors you made this year — might, just might be right and that you are incorrect?
Choose Jonathan. Social Justice fool or solid Christian man.
I have remained extremely focused on scripture in the source of debating what I believe you call “social justice” views, which have mostly focused around our use of money and condoning of violence. In most of those discussions I have centered my arguments more strongly on Scripture than any of the other participants. You could claim that I was using scripture incorrectly because you don’t like my interpretation, but you certainly cannot claim that I “demand” my issues be solved in a manner other than scripturally. And before I became a Christian, I wanted to be rich and I had… Read more »
lol focused on scripture
Mangina’s are not biblical
Did it ever ocxur to you that all those who attempted to belp you see the errors you made this year — might, just might be right and that you are incorrect?
uh
most Christians are like Jonathan, and most Christians are SJW;s
On the claims that the Civil War didn’t start because of slavery? Back when I was researching the topic in depth, of course. Now, not so much, as the original documents are abundantly clear as is the historical consensus on the issue. And you’ve given me no reason to think otherwise. When I’ve asked you to back up your claims (such as by listing the original documents in question that you claim to have memorized, or stating exactly which original documents related to those who started the war are actually in support of your claim), you have gone silent. If… Read more »
Jonathan, please.answer one question.
Did it ever occur to you that all those who attempted to belp you see the errors you made this year — might, just might be right and that you are incorrect?
That’s an unanswerable question for “all those” and the vague “errors you made this year.”
On the question of the Civil War, the answer is no, of course not.
And once again I have to reply that if you are speaking on any other topic, you will have to be more precise and I will give you an answer.
Jonathan, your arrogance and ignorance pour from your keyboard like Niagara Falls.
Jonathan, I don’t think I saw the original discussion about the War — maybe you can point me to it? — but what’s the significance to any discussion you had (or even to any discussion you conceivably might have had that you didn’t actually even have) of the War starting “due to disagreements about slavery”? Presumably you’d agree that there were other disagreements, too, and that the War wouldn’t have started apart from those other disagreements, like, for example, the doctrine that states don’t have a right to secede and the President has the authority to use military force to… Read more »
Eric, my quick answer is that the discussion isn’t actually significant. In the comments to Pastor Wilson’s first post on this subject (Fried Brown on Both Sides), I complained about Christians who rushed to defend Moore and said they would stick with him even if he was guilty of the accusations. Dave called me a fool and repeated the lie about people being offered money to accuse Moore, along with other unsubstantiated rumors from Twitter. I said that the comment was ridiculous but that arguing with him would be useless, so I just wanted to focus on repeating that my… Read more »
Jonathan you are an arrogant fool and need to seek wisdom, knowledge and discretion. “That’s an unanswerable question . . . (Jonathan@211924) solidifies your foolishness in one easy answer. Wait till the other shoe falls before slinging out the liar tag. Remember you “lied” about me calling you a non-Christian and you maligned others who called you on other points. The Moore play is strictly political and as the accusers stories unravel it shows more and more of its true political colors. So, sit back, get the popcorn out and watch the show. Also step away from your keyboard and… Read more »
“Remember you “lied” about me calling you a non-Christian”
False, you have said repeatedly that I am not a Christian, such as when you claim that I am a Social Justice Warrior and then say that a Social Justice Warrior cannot be a Christian.
To the readers who are seeing this after the fact, Jonathan is an arrogant, foolish young man who does not understand scripture or how to apply it. Jonathan plays foot loose and free with comments others make amd molds them to fit his narrative rather than the truth.
Jonathan, thanks for the reply. I was traveling out of state when you replied, and I only had limited internet access while I was gone. I didn’t mean to dig into or get involved in any of the personal accusations or any of the background to the Civil War question; I only meant to ask why you think, all that other stuff aside, there’s significance to the Civil War starting “due to disagreements about slavery”, and whether your comment wasn’t, as such comments typically are, just a distortion of what was really and properly significant to the question of why… Read more »
It seems to me that much of the outrage in the Roy Moore situation is based on individuals considering a relationship between a 32-year-old man and a 16-year-old girl to be inappropriate (often stated as weird, creepy, and, occasionally, icky). Apparently, many of these individuals also believe the allegations are true, and have now moved to believing that Moore was targeting teenage girls with the intention of “preying” upon them.
So you disagree with Pastor Wilson’s statement: “And when it comes to older guys courting younger girls, I have taught that because all men are hungry for respect, some of the lazier ones are tempted to garner this respect on the cheap. They do this by vying for girls who could only compare them to all the fifteen-year-old boys they knew. In fact, I made some fun of this pattern in my novel Evangellyfish. In sum, when a 25-year-old guy sets his sights on a 15-year-old girl, I think it is safe to say that I hate it with the… Read more »
Jonathan, I dislike Wilson’s statement about a 25-year-old guy setting his sights on a 15-year-old girl. In my opinion, that is inconsistent with his claim that he wants to evaluate both sides before making a decision. It appears that he is making his evaluation on the ages, and presumption of sinful intent. There is no desire to find out the true character and motive of the man, or the maturity and thinking of the girl. As to your last paragraph, I find it tiresome to see you repeat your position on the Moore case. I would be surprised if any… Read more »
OK, I do tend to see a difference between happening to fall for a girl who is much younger than you with a view to courtship, and dating exclusively underaged girls for any other purpose. I’m not saying it has been proven that is what Moore did. But I would find the first understandable, and the second weird and creepy.
Not completely sure what you’re asking, but I do find the case of a man who has a pattern of seeking out high school girls to be more problematic than the issue of a man who just happens to fall in love with a particular high school girl that he had a long-standing relationship with. Isn’t that implied in Pastor Wilson’s statement: “I have taught that because all men are hungry for respect, some of the lazier ones are tempted to garner this respect on the cheap. They do this by vying for girls who could only compare them to… Read more »
Yes, I agree. And I have watched enough “To Catch a Predator” to know that some men are simply very much sexually attracted to young teens. There has to be a reason for the existence of “Barely Legal” type pornography.
This from the previous thread If a person has agreed to only protected sex, tricking that person into unprotected sex counts as rape, since the person didnt consent to that kind of sex. Sex in the morning is also separate from sex the evening before, so consent have to be given for each occasion. And this kind of abject nonsense is why you cannot assess these situations just by looking at the law. The Christian must have a thorough understanding of how God views morality and stop appealing to just what happens to be legal and illegal. Much of the… Read more »
I think you need both, because no one raising a son here can afford to ignore the law. My daughter’s first BF’s parents were frantic when they began dating, as they visualized their son in a blue prison jumpsuit. And it is a very real worry. The most common way for a young man to be prosecuted for stat rape is when he breaks up with the girl, and her angry parents file charges with the district attorney. Or, when she gets pregnant and tells her doctor that the father is over 18. Or, if she applies for welfare and… Read more »
Knowing the law is prudent, getting your morality from it is foolish.
Satanic streak more like. Fornication is a much more minor sin than adultery. The latter meant death in ancient Israel, the former meant an early marriage. How many men and women who voted to put 18 year old men behind bars for consensual forncation have slept with a married person not their own?
I doubt that many cases go to a jury; probably they get pleaded out for time served or probation. The problem is that there is no real defense when the offense is established with the younger person’s birth certificate. Not knowing her age is not a defense, so your only option is claiming false identification–which isn’t likely to succeed. This is indeed a weird state. You can smoke medical marijuana at 18 but you have to wait until 21 to smoke cigarettes! It is illegal to buy a pot plant but okay to accept one as a gift. You can… Read more »
It’s funny to picture the parent of a pregnant 16-year old heaving a sigh of relief upon hearing that the father is not 18 or older. “At least he won’t be able to support the child for several years.”
It seems simple to me. Marriage is consent. Non marriage is non consent. So many of these problems are arising because of people trying to define “moral” as “consensual.” The idea, the goal being, to proclaim it is somehow okay to engage in sexual relations outside of marriage, as long as you are both agreeable.
Agree with the former, disagree with the latter. Non-marriage may be consensual; but it noting consent doesn’t remove the fact it still as sin.
I agree that society is preoccupied with consent over the more important issue, marriage.
“It seems simple to me. Marriage is consent. Non marriage is non consent. ”
Sounds good in theory. In reality, many men (including Christian ones) are trapped in no-sex (or very low-sex) marriages. While involuntary celibacy and marriage don’t seem to go together, they often do, unfortunately.
https://www.strengtheningmarriage.com/involuntary-celibacy/
http://www.experienceproject.com/stories/Live-In-A-Sexless-Marriage/733334
Refusal of sex was grounds for divorce (from either party) in Ancient Israel. Though in practice the dowry was slowly decreased or he was fined, until the spouse opted in again.
I hear little on this, but preachers should be telling spouses that they have no grounds to refuse sex and it is sinful to refuse.
I have a good friend who gained an annulment from the church to her 18-month-old marriage due to her husband’s failure to consummate (from all appearances it was counselling he needed, not a strictly physical issue, but he refused).
It one didn’t already need evidence that a $40,000 engagement ring and $12,000 dress were a waste of money….
bethyada,
I believe the Bible teaches that consistent refusal of sex is sin. However, as you point out, there is little willingness by preachers to teach this publicly.
I also believe that a caveat is in order. The Bible also teaches love, so there are times where the desiring spouse should show their love and understand that refusal is appropriate for the moment. For example, would it be loving for a husband to insist on sex if his wife is intensely ill with the flu?
No,and the fluctuating hormonal levels of menopause can be a problem. As can treatment for cancer.
But wives can be creative, and it’s important that they also be understanding. And both spouses should be willing to consider medical treatment.
HRT.
Sounds like Jill was not only very kind to her husband, but that she should also be running the women’s keeping-your-spouse-sexually-content study at her church.
:)
Jill,
“But wives can be creative, and it’s important that they also be understanding. “
Yes, and YES. However, it seems women are generally discouraged from being “understanding”.
As to my own experience (and it seems many others), creativity was unusual, and understanding almost nonexistent.
Right. And I’m not talking about the flu. I’m talking about limiting it to twice a year, or maybe none at all for 10 years. Personally and online, I know of many cases like that, and the it’s usually the woman refusing. And you’re right…you almost never hear this preached, though you’ll get plenty of sermons on men not being good servant leaders, not “manning up,” not being sensitive to their wives’ needs, etc.
Agree.
Having been an unfortunate witness to marital rape, I do not believe “marriage is consent”.
If a woman was being raped by her husband in the room next to you, what would you do?
Marriage is overall consent, but not consent for a specific act against the will of one of the spouses. Some people prefer not to call that rape but rather assault. Even our Victorian ancestors believed it is a very bad thing.
Can you explain more specifically what your problem with that statement is? It seems to me that your issue is really a vocabulary dispute over what “rape” means. I too have had these arguments, in that I don’t think someone who disguises their identity in order to get consent for sex has committed exactly the same kind of “rape” as someone who forces sex or gets it from someone who couldn’t consent. But in terms of right and wrong, isn’t it obviously wrong to trick someone into unprotected sex when they had only agreed to protected sex? Isn’t it obviously… Read more »
Jonathan, you might have read something I wrote a week ago about a man who had sex with a Canadian girl in the 1800s who believed she was with her boyfriend but, in the dead of night, was with someone else. That was held to be rape. So was tricking a girl into having sex by telling her it was a surgical procedure that would increase her vocal range. I think both of those would be charged as rape but without added charges such as battery. I don’t actually see tricking someone into unprotected sex as rape.; I see it… Read more »
The reason the question of tricking somebody into unprotected sex being rape, is that one of the accusations against Julian Assange in Sweden was exactly that. Swedish police wanted to question him because a rape accusation basen on just that. And of having morning surprise sex with somebody who only agreed in the evening.
He would likely have been aquitted in court.
Jonathan, I think Bethyada’s problem is quite clearly stated. I agree. Here is my version: I contend that a Christian stance on rape and sex is greatly different from the standard used by society generally today. So, from the Christian perspective, I am not really interested in the “right or wrong” questions you present because I believe that both options are wrong. I find the concept of getting consent for sex “even if you’ve had consent for sex before” amusing as I think it leads to a conundrum. If you extrapolate that concept, then every single action involved in every… Read more »
That is specifically what California’s affirmative consent law requires. “Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time.” When I was young, consent was implicit in not protesting when a gentleman tried to remove one small article of your clothing. “May I?” “Yes, yes, yes, yes, no, you creep, get out of here.” It is a brave new world out there.
Jill,
In the case of California (and likely almost all states), I’d think any rational male would not even take the risk of being alone with a girl, much less consider sex. But the desire is strong, and rationality is thrown out the window. I don’t consider that world to be brave, but it is new.
Are you married? I feel a bit weird speaking so personally on this website, but my wife absolutely prefers that I have clarified consent for any particular new time and day. Even if you believed that the “Biblical wife” was bound to submit to sex every time the husband asked for it (I don’t), I think its clear that the “Biblical husband” is bound to know that that’s what she really wants at that time as well. There is no conundrum – once you’ve stopped having sex and start doing something else, get consent before starting the next time. Any… Read more »
I was married for a long time. I would agree except that, when you’ve been married to someone for a long time, the consent (or refusal) is not necessarily verbal. My reluctance to put down my murder mystery might make words unnecessary. If I were a young man desirous of avoiding subsequent rape charges, I would ask for explicit verbal consent.
Yes, of course not necessarily verbal for everyone. My wife happens to prefer that though.
Correct, but still a very unhelpful way of saying no.
Not so much no as wait until I find out who did the murder. But I agree, that shouldn’t be usual!
I think that in general spouses should not be able to say no, and that if they say no (even if doing so sinfully), then the other spouse is not allowed to physically force. The command to not refuse one’s spouse is not a command to the other spouse to force compliance.
Except it is often more complex than this.
Jonathan,
I was married. I expect almost everyone, if they knew the truth, would consider our married sex life to be weird. Think dysfunctional, not kinky. I have few positive memories.
Consent was a significant issue. We never found a good answer. However, I don’t believe that California’s affirmative consent concept would have been the answer.
I’m sorry OKRickety. It sounds like you had some tough experiences behind those words.
jonathan, It is not clear who you are responding to. If me, then to agree to sex with a condom but not without is not about sexual consent. Clearly she is happy to have sex in general, but has caveats for whatever reason. If they have sex and her caveats are ignored it is not rape, because there was a consent to the sex act. This is problematic in part because society cares more for consent than marriage which is the appropriate outlet. As to rape in marriage, this is a very complicated topic. If you want my thoughts in… Read more »
“As to rape in marriage, this is a very complicated topic.”
Among other views, we have the “All sex is rape. I consented during the honeymoon and to have a few kids. Now it’s over.” Totally out of line with I Cor 7, but supported by some.
Like I said earlier bethyada, as far as our Christian faith goes it begins to get into semantics, because whether you want to call it “rape” or not, it is clearly immoral.
It is complicated when both parties are being immoral.
The quote is from me explaining swedish rape law against misrepresentation. I do not know if US law is as strict, but if it is, there is even less case for singling out Sweden as a country with extremely hard rape laws.
My point was not that this was some kind of Christian moral standard. Sex belongs within marriage, so morally nobody unmarried should attempt even consensual sex. Although I do think it is good if the laws protect people from unwanted sex.
Then there’s this from Challies:
http://babylonbee.com/news/another-actress-accuses-kirk-cameron-treating-respect/
{[:-)
What about women Pence has turned down for lunch? The inhumanity!
“Pence”…Who got massively ridiculed by the same media for employing the Billy Graham rule throughout his life, probably because they couldn’t dredge up any indiscretion dirt on him.
paulm01,
I presume you meant to say “could not dredge up”. If so, as a member, you should be able to edit that comment and correct it.
Saw that straight away…just took a while to stick for some reason.
Here’s a particularly snide and juvenile opinion piece on Pence from the Washington Post–a rag given nearly Biblical authority by some…
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2017/03/30/mike-pence-and-the-temptresses/?utm_term=.5d301d467deb
That’s a new angle…gotta give ’em props for creative snarky-ness.
While I was a strong supporter of Pence’s stance and put my two cents in to a number of liberal persons who made some pretty poor attacks, I have to not that you’re doing a poor job of distinguishing opinion pieces from news. I haven’t seen a single person claim any authority for opinion pieces beyond them being that person’s opinion. (Not that anyone has claimed special Bible-like authority for the news pages either, though it is obviously what you are referring to.)
“you’re doing a poor job of distinguishing opinion pieces from news. ”
First of all it was a general statement to make a point (that Pence, a good man by all accounts, was ridiculed by the left for a personal rule that is intended to avoid impropriety. My hats off to him.)
Second, I listen to and read a number of news/opinion sources then try to discern fact from fiction and news vs. opinion, albeit from a distance. But I am not blind nor deaf, altho I am predisposed to my own intellectual and moral biases…then again, who isn’t?
I completely agree with that particular point, but what I was critiqueing was the rest of JP’s comment, which suggested that there was some relation between poor behavior in an opinion piece written by a humor writer on a newspaper’s blog and the veracity of actual news pieces which that newspapers’ reporters write.
A story like that could be really funny if someone in it expressed outrage, but it would probably be too uncomfortable for the Bee.
HAHAHA nice
but Kirk Cameron and challies ain’t christian
just Churchians
their support for feminized men and house husbands is astonishing
I just find the article funny because it shows how far down into the mud pit society has slipped when decent honorable respectful behavior by men is either ridiculed or seen as humorous. Heard a Billy Graham sermon where he stated, “Men, the first look you can’t help (i.e. God made woman attractive to visually oriented men), but the second is lust.” The first ain’t on us, the second is. “but Kirk Cameron and challies ain’t christian just Churchians” No need to be uncharitable…if those two aren’t Christian’s then many of the rest of us aren’t either. I see/read nothing… Read more »
Cameron continually praises is sister for being the “husband” in the relationship and her husband for being the homemaker… modern Godly manhood lol…
Jared Wilson and CHALLIES and the whole TGC etc lot do lots of stuff together. Jared Wilson openly tells men to be house husbands….
Challies endorses numerous authors that do the same and Christian women speakers whot ravel around while their house husbands look after the kids….
Any man that tells men to be basically a tranny is not worshiping the God of the bible
Oh I see, the small minority of men who stay home due to their marital work situation are by your definition “tranny’s”? Not only is this thinking offensively legalistic, it’s idiotic. That characterization leaves zero room for men who work from home, like Challies…it’s not the 50’s anymore.
Christian’s have bigger fish to fry than picking nits on peoples personal marital roles.
My wife’s sister is a hospital pharmacist, her husband is a scientist who became a college instructor for a university with an online program. It was much easier for him to be the one to work from home than her.
I have my own issues with the situation, but his masculinity is not one of them.
aww how cute, your wife’s sisters marriage is no different than a gay one..
bdash: You just showed your irrelevancy.
why?
you are the one advocating for Christian house husbands – aka men who act like women.
if so
there is nothing sinful about 2 men marrying each other- one of them can just act like a woman
Jonathan: My point as well.
Challies, wife does not work- he himself is not the primary homemaker… he endorses others who do so. yes according to you Jesus was a misogynist for asking his brothers to look after his mother… not a single man in the bible was praised or encourage to be a homemaker… bigger fish to fry? you teach your kids that male and female does not matter, you have no case against gay marriage or transexuals… your men are weak- Christianity should not make men weak wimps, historically it has always made men strong only primitive men send their wives to do… Read more »
“Challies, wife does not work- he himself is not the primary homemaker…” “he endorses others to do so” I hardly think Tim Challies “endorses” men to become wimpy Beta’s and homemakers, either by prescription or in his support of others who do not have your strict rules of household structure that if breached automatically makes the man a “tranny”. That is absurd logic. My mother, like Challies’ wife, worked in the home. She was not subordinate to my father in her role, they were complimentary partners with a labor division that played to their strengths. (Which intellectually honest people would… Read more »
it is more sinful to neuter men and expect them to act life women…. the harder work is in the home? cough lol the home is where the wife is protected- the harder work is dealing with the sinful world to make money- there is a reason God put the desire for men to work and provide and protect their wives- that is sacrificial. obviously feminism is your God the lie that homemaking is harder is a feminist lie to cause unhappiness and self pity Sitting int he protection for your home while making your wife deal with the vultures… Read more »
Your mother did not submit to your father? was not subordinate?
it explains your feminist Satanic theology
Opposes gay marriage but their own supposed hetero marriages look no different to a gay one
male and female inerchangeable
sometimes men should just sit back and let their wife provide for them
show me one example in the bible where God/Jesus expected that or praised a man for sitting at home while his wife plowed the fields
you seem to worship feminism more than God
Me, a feminist? hahah, that’s a first, never heard that about myself before (and my wife would laugh at the suggestion.) Thanks for making my day. I do not promote sending woman or my wife out into the world to slay the proverbial dragons – altho, come to think of it, now that you mention it, I could be a kept man. (Gotta think on that one…not!) However, I would swim through shark-infested waters – both ways – to get my wife a lemon aid. I think you are being a tad literal on biblical tenet (and offensive in the… Read more »
Enjoy being a tranny
and submitting to your wife!
re read Paul’s text?
I highly doubt Paul was a feminist wanting women to ACT LIKE MEN
yes being a kept man is easier as is being a kept womanhomemaker
thanks for finally agreeing that it is men who are called to do the harder work
anyone that thinks Sheryl Sandberg’s model for marriage- men stay at home is Godly is a feminist
you are shocked?!
I’m here because I’m a Christian and I read the disturbing article in the LA Times. Now, I’ve read your response and I’m more disturbed. I don’t believe you addressed the concerns raised at all. You complained at length about the LA Times response policy. You bragged about how this is getting you a bigger audience. You belittled your accuser for her “lame attempt” and for failing to notice how good you are. Rather than address the substance of the accusation, you said the real motivation of the accuser, was that they don’t like you using the word nubile. Really??… Read more »
Hi Ashley, if you’re new to this controversy, you might like to check out #5 on the Controversy Library link at the top.
“The LA Times published an op-ed piece by Kathryn Brightbill that lamented an evangelical predilection for nubile young women.”
Wow!? Is the LA times saying that Christian Women are “nubile” and “young”? AKA, prettier? ; – )
Has Rachel Miller been reached for comment? ; – )
A mitigating factor is any evidence or information given in connection with a prosecution, which could result in a reduced charge or a reduced sentence. In February, 2005, Jamin Wight was charged with two counts of Lewd Conduct with a Child under Sixteen and one count of Sexual Abuse of a Child under Sixteen. Penalties potentially included life in prison. On August 22, 2005, you wrote to Officer Green and indicated your belief that when a 24-year-old man sexually assaults a 13-year-old girl, a context of secret courtship “does help explain what kind of criminal behavior it was” and doesn’t… Read more »
Harvey Weinstein = X.
Anthony Weiner = x.
Bill Clinton, X.
Hillary Clinton, Y.
“Prominent Democrats have a documented history of mishandling sexual abuse cases within the Democratic party. Nevertheless, they continued to be promoted by Democrat leaders. When a 15-year-old girl was sexually texted, Democrats argued that her Democrat abuser was hacked.”
But somehow the “conservative Reformed” are worse?
X and x are sex crimes, the same crime, specified with greater or lesser degree of severity.
Y is perjury, a crime against justice. A “different” crime than a sex crime.
Anthony Weiner resigned from office within a month of his first allegations, had his campaign chair quit and was humiliatingly defeated (only got 4% of the vote) after the second allegation, and had his wife leave him after the third allegation. And as far as I know, none of those three allegations even involved actual contact other than texts, or anything illegal. Of course, he is now in jail after the fourth allegation. I’m pretty sure that Anthony Weiner has not held any position within the Democratic party since that first allegation, right? Nor has Harvey Weinstein? Nor has Bill… Read more »
“Or anything illegal”?
Sexting a minor is apparently illegal. After that, sexting is creepy.
Registered Democrats hold the position of “member” in the Democrat party.
Bill Clinton did not resign when he should have.
HRC did not resign when she should have.
Harvey Weinstein did not resign when he should have.
Jamin Wight did not resign when he should have.
None of the first three incidents involving sexting a minor, only the fourth did.
Yet he had lost his seat in Congress, had his bid for mayor destroyed, and lost his wife over those first three incidents. The incident with the minor came right on the heels of his wife leaving him, though of course I wouldn’t doubt that someone with that lack of self-control had already done it before.
The point being that Weiner was promptly and strongly dealt with for a sexual propriety that wasn’t even illegal and didn’t even involve physical contact. As he should have been.
impropriety, of course
No . Weiner was not strongly dealt with by his party.
Weiner resigned congress when he was cold busted by Breitbart.
Weiner did not resign his mayoral bid. After being busted again.
When Weiner was busted for sexting a minor, the government prosecuted him.
Yes adad, the FBI under Obama and the NYPD under Bill de Blasio are the ones who investigated and prosecuted Weiner from the moment the first leak of a crime occurred. No, the Democratic Party could not force Weiner to resign his mayoral bid any more than the Republican Party can force Roy Moore to resign his senatorial bid. But his campaign manager quit, people (including the NY Times) called on him to resign, and he finished a distant 5th in the Democratic primary with only 4% of the vote. And Weiner resigned his seat in the House just 3… Read more »
I also find the apology by Pastor Peter Leithart, Jamin Wright’s home pastor, to be relevant: “It is clear now that I made major errors of judgment. Fundamentally, I misjudged Jamin, badly. I thought he was a godly young man who had fallen into sin. That was wrong. In the course of trying to pastor Jamin through other crises in his life, I came to realize that he is deceptive and highly manipulative, and that I allowed him to manipulate me. A number of the things I said about Jamin to the congregation and court at the time his abuse… Read more »
I understand that Wight wrote a confession. The victim read it, asked for a fuller confession, and Wight wrote the fuller confession.
My understanding is that Wight pled guilty to the victim corroborated full confession.
Thus the perp. Cooperated.
The facts of the case are not so much in dispute , after the guilty plea, so much as what the crime actually was.
For instance, some may have wanted Anthony Weiner convicted of rape, but rape was not the sex crime Anthony Weiner committed, and was convicted of.
That is what happened before the trial. And the fact that he was only convicted of “injury to child”, and not any of the three charges involving sexual activity with a minor, appears a bit absurd as he clearly was engaged in sexual activity with a minor ten years his junior. But everyone testifying on Wright’s behalf in the trial thought he was so nice and just made a mistake and didn’t want him to be labeled as a sexual predator or anything. Both Wight’s pastor and the victim suggest that the “fuller confession” still stopped far short of what… Read more »
J’, you are capable of being thorough. Per below, I don’t think there was a “trial”.
“We were encouraged to go to mediation rather than to trial, and at the last minute the visiting judge decided the sentence/label of ‘sexual offender’ was too harsh“
NRG
I think the point of the “mediation” was so that Natalie would not have to testify, hence I don’t think there was open court “testimony” by anyone else either.
But the judge based the decision in part on the letter from Pastor Wilson and on something he had heard from Pastor Leithart that was repeated in court (a similar letter?). And they had both been deceived by Jamin Wright. It is possible that the judge was directly deceived by Jamin as well, which would also show the decision to be untrustworthy. But even if not, Pastor Leithart has already made clear that he felt that he was deceived, and that he was specifically deceived in such a way that worked to Jamin’s benefit in the case and created a… Read more »
Jonathan wrote: It is possible that the judge was directly deceived by Jamin as well, which would also show the decision to be untrustworthy. So now the judge was also deceived by Jamin (even after all the evidence and testimony had been presented, and Jamin had confessed to the crime), yet somehow internet warriors like Jonathan have finally gotten to the truth of the matter? Is it really such a shock that the judicial system would come to the same conclusion that Wilson and Christ Church came to, after hearing the facts for themselves? Jonathan wrote: And I don’t see… Read more »
Katecho, I did not get to the bottom of the issue, I am crediting Pastor Leithart for doing that. You need to reread Pastor Leithart’s statement, because he is clearly referring to Jamin’s ability to deceive AFTER the accusations and facts came out, up to and including the time of trial. I do not need to infer anything about how long the behavior was effective, I am speaking of the exact same thing that Pastor Leithart was speaking of. As far as Natalie’s accusations against Pastor Wilson and the church, I don’t know why you started talking about those at… Read more »
J’-bot, there is no dispute that everyone thought Wight was a scumbag re: his taking advantage of teenage NRG. The only question is, “how much of a scumbag? Or, what kind of scumbag? Like I said above, the ongoing, post confession, post conviction complaint is over which scumbag crime Wight committed. Wight is certainly guilty of the crime he confessed to, was convicted of and was incarcerated for. NRG, after the fact, might regret not testifying at trial, but it is easy to ignore that Wight could have been acquitted if romantic letters or diary entrys were on public record.… Read more »
adad, Natalie was under the age of consent, I don’t see why you think romantic letters would get Jamin off of the sexual charges. And the number of women who have remained in abusive relationships with boyfriends is enormous, so its hard to see how a romantic entry in a diary would get him off of the abusive charges either. Pastor Wilson’s letter paints Jamin not as a scumbag, but as a basically holy young man who made one mistake of entering into a consensual relationship with a girl who was just too young and then hiding it from everyone.… Read more »
J’-bot: 1. Why do you think jurys are reasonable, or predictable? Since a future marriage was considered at some point in the case, who is to say that some juror would not conflate or equate consensual events with “consent”, even under age? This was not hard to see by the Greenfield’s counsel, or the DA, which is why the family chose mediation at the time. 2. No, you are incorrect. Wilson was saying Wight was a scumbag. THERE WAS NO MENTION OF “HOLY” re: Wight by Wilson. More the opposite, in fact. The gist of Wilson’s position was and is:… Read more »
Jonathan wrote: Do you still believe Doug’s original story that Jamin Wright is in no way an abuser or predator, and just happened to make the mistake of getting into a consensual relationship with a girl who was too young and lied about it? This is false. Wilson never said Wight “is in no way an abuser”. Way back in 2015, Wilson publicly described Wight’s behavior as abuse: In real life, I found out what had transpired in the secretly-arranged courtship years after the fact in 2005, when the relationship and the attendant abuse became public. Wilson goes on to… Read more »
I will be more specific. Pastor Wilson, in his letter to the judge, made clear that he believed that Jamin was only guilty of the first action you state, “sexual-activity-with-a-teen”, but was in no way a sexual predator or “abusive” in the normal everyday usage of that word as partaking in physical/emotional abuse or any sexual abuse beyond normal consensual sexual activity. When Pastor Wilson refers to “abuse” or the “crime’ in those statements, he is referring to the fact that it was de facto abuse due to the fact that Natalie was under the age of consent, and by… Read more »
Right here J’-bot:
“In that letter I said:
“Jamin’s crime and sin in this was of a particularly egregious nature . . . and his behavior involved a great deal of calculated deception.” DW / Christ Church.
“Charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain, but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised” Prov. 31:30
What most attracts a man to a woman is beauty and charm, but they are nothing when compared to whether she fears the Lord.
Etymology of “nubile”:
From French nubile, from Latin nubilis (“marriageable”), from nūbō (“marry, to take as husband”), from Proto-Indo-European *snewbʰ- (“to marry, to wed”).
This would be one reason not to use the word, if it’s not just a conveniently evasive Latinism.
The words you may be searching for are “hot”, “turn-ons”, “attractive”.
Go for it, brave Doug.
Alex,
I suspect Wilson used his vocabulary and knowledge in deciding on “nubile”. In fact, your implication that he really meant “hot” or “attractive” is suspect when one sees that his post uses the phrase “nubile young hotties”. It’s highly unlikely that he would have written, effectively, “hot young hotties”.
Our Host: “… if my periodic use of that perfectly acceptable word has had you fuming since you read the headline, this is because somewhere down in your secret heart of hearts you have turned over all questions of moral authority concerning gender to the feminists.”
A-hem! The word is “sex”, not “gender”. That you used the leftist word indicates that you, too, have surrendered at least a portion of you mind to them.
Except that had he used “sex” he may have been interpreted to mean turning over questions about sexual intercourse, whereas he meant to refer to the nature of male and female. Sometimes a word is just specific.
Six more women have come forward. One accuses Moore of aggressively pursuing her when she was 17 and working at the mall, then taking her on a date behind her father’s back and forcibly tongue-kissing her against her will. She has a close friend who worked with her at the mall who has gone on the record by name to corroborate her account. Another woman accuses Moore of grabbing her buttocks as she left his legal office in 1991 when she was 28. Her story was confirmed by her sister. Four other women confirmed that Moore was regularly known to… Read more »
There was one more supporting witness in that case. Karen Lancaster, a friend of Gray’s from that time, confirmed that Ms. Gray had told her about Mr. Moore’s advances and added: “I’ve known for over 20 years that he was a predator, that he preyed upon girls in the mall. It’s common knowledge.” That brings to 21 people who have gone on the record by name stating that they knew of Mr. Moore’s activities in regularly targeting teenage girls. I have yet to hear one person familiar with Mr. Moore’s activities during that time period deny this aspect yet, other… Read more »
Can anyone name one Bible verse that condemns, or even casts in a negative light, an older man who attempts to marry a younger woman? No? So why are we presuming that the women who seek such a relationship do it out of a desire for wealth and success, or that the men do it out of a desire for “hot bodies”? Should we step beyond judging actions – even actions with no Biblical moral component – and into the realm of judging the motivations for those fundamentally innocent actions? I’ve known Christian men who went unmarried until later in… Read more »
I feel very sorry for the circles your friends move in where only men and not women can avoid sexual immorality in their adult life. I affirm that I move in very different circles. When I was looking for a girl to marry, I neither wanted a woman who was comfortable living in sexual immorality for the past decade, nor one who would have been comfortable with it for the next decade. Therefore age was relatively irrelevant to meet that particular criteria. My wife was honorable on that front until she married at 26 and would have remained so at… Read more »
no bible in Jonathan’s answer….
he wants men to marry career sluts who do no work in improving themselves to be great wives and mothers…
Jonathan,
Going back to those studies and statistics you seem to consider irrelevant, the fact is that women (and men) are being sexually active at a high rate, even when they claim Christian faith. I think that makes the pool of quality, potential spouses quite small.
In your social circles, are the never-married women ages 18-35 easily finding good, conservative, Christian men to date and marry? What is your best estimate of the age that these women actually want to get married?
My point is that the fact that men/women are being sexually active at a high rate is obviously a product of the problem, not a cause, and cannot be solved by simply targeting younger women. Someone who has chosen to be sexually active outside of marriage almost certainly has placed themselves for that time period outside the poor of desirable spouses for a conservative Christian man. Trying to grab them when they’re so young that they haven’t taken that step isn’t getting your hypothetical lonely 35-year-old bachelor a more Godly wife, it’s getting you a younger version of the same… Read more »
Jonathan,
Again, in your social circles, are the never-married women ages 18-35 easily finding good, conservative, Christian men to date and marry?
thank God most men are not interested in marriage….
a feminist death trap