A ‘Joke’ from Rick Warren

On Sunday, pastor Rick Warren tweeted this (Yesterday, he deleted it… thanks, screenshots!):

Before we get into how bad of an idea tweeting this joke is, let’s be clear here. Rick Warren isn’t some nobody. This man is a pastor of Saddleback Church, a mega-church with ten locations and weekly attendance around 20,000 parishioners. He delivered the inaguration prayer for President Obama. As of this tweet, he had 623,000 followers on Twitter, where his bio says that he mentors young leaders.

In light of all that, let me present what I think isn’t a particularly radical idea: sexual harassment is wrong, full stop. It’s not that sexual harassment is wrong in some circumstances, or only when done by certain people. It’s always unacceptable. This “joke” plays off the old idea that if the perpetrator is attractive, the victim should want their attention. If the harasser is considered ugly? Then they should know their attentions are unwanted and it’s harassment.

That’s not how it works. Sexual harassment is sexual harassment, be it done by men or women, “cute” or “ugly.”

Rick Warren missed a prime opportunity to talk about the very real problems of sexual assault and sexual harassment. Instead, he told his more-than-half-a-million followers that he found this “joke” funny. As a pastor, he professes to lead and mentor a flock of tens of thousands, to be an authority on respect and honor and morality. Then he says things like this, and his followers retweet him and agree with him, and bad ideas get perpetuated.

***Update***: The same message was posted on Rick Warren’s Facebook page around the exact same time as his Tweet. Late last night, Warren claimed that his Facebook account (and, presumably, his Twitter account) was hacked and that he’d never post something like this.

You have to be skeptical, though. If someone went through all the trouble of hacking into Warren’s Facebook/Twitter accounts, is this really the sort of thing one would post? Why not write, say, “I support gay marriage”? That would cause much more chaos for Warren.

About Kate Donovan

Kate is a junior studying psychology and human development at Northwestern University. She is the president of Northwestern's Secular Student Alliance and a writer at Teen Skepchick, Heresy Club, and various other places around the internet. Sometimes she sleeps.

  • http://twitter.com/gingerjet gingerjet

    ” is this really the sort of thing one would post?”

    No … and you just have to look at other accounts that have been hacked or taken control of as an example – National Organization of Marriage being the most recent example.  Its clear he posted this so called ‘joke’.

  • george.w

    Well at least “I was hacked!” is a break from “Hey, can’t you people take a joke?” 
    You know, break up the disingenuous evasions once in a while. Variety is the spice of strife and all that.

  • Duane

    Are you suggesting that the pastor is bearing false witness?

    • http://CoffeeShopAtheist.com/blog Patrick

      I was 3 seconds away from saying he wasn’t being deliberately disengenuous.  Then I saw this on his facebook page:


      Even the Declaration of Independence admits that human “unalienable rights” are “endowed BY OUR CREATOR” not by government!”
      No, Rick… Just No…

    • Baby_Raptor

      All the time. Pretty much all he does is lie and distort things. 

      • The Other Weirdo

         He is probably wrong, but is he lying if he truly believes what he says.

  • http://twitter.com/nicoleintrovert Nicole Introvert

    WTF!?  Is Rick Warren attending skeptic/atheist conferences now?  Sounds like some of the drivel in our neck of the woods recently.

    • Patterrssonn

      Perhaps he’s just trying to find common ground with atheists.

      • http://pgarayt.blogspot.ca/ peter g

         What!?
        peter g

        • Patterrssonn

          What what?

      • usclat

        Or with your maternal unit. Maybe? (Schmuck)

        • Patterrssonn

          You might want to try that again, looks like google translate didn’t work too well.

  • http://www.facebook.com/cburschka Christoph Burschka

    No … and you just have to look at other accounts that have been hacked or taken control of as an example – National Organization of Marriage being the most recent example.

    What… they’re not actually homophobic assholes, and that whole “we hate gays” thing was just some hacker trolling?

    • Coyotenose

      Well, God is a pretty serious troll.

      “Kill your son! No, not really. But you were gonna do it, weren’t ya?”

      “Gays must be murdered! No, not really. Well maybe. Or not. Try to guess!”

      “Pi equals 3! LOL, try to draw a circle now, fucktards!”

  • dangeroustalk

    Maybe it’s me, but I didn’t take Warren’s “joke” that way at all. To me, he (I mean his “hacker”) seemed to be saying something similar to a point I tried to explore with my Braveheart Question (http://www.dangeroustalk.net/?p=2100). 

    • Coyotenose

       You asked a question about a specific situation and why we treat it differently from other scenarios. Warren made a statement that, while intended as a joke, at the very least showed obliviousness and arrogance towards women on the issue.

      The fact he’s now lying about having written it tells us all we need to know about his motives. Even he thinks it was indefensible.

      • dangeroustalk

         I don’t know his intentions, but I didn’t take his comment that way. I took it to say that if someone hits on you and they are cute, then you would consider it flirting, but if they are unattractive to you, you would probably consider it harassment. There maybe context here that I am not aware of. But one of the implications of my Braveheart question is that because Mel Gibson was considered attractive, his actions were seen as flirting, but if he was a creepy looking person, those same actions could reasonably be considered creepy. It seems to me that it is all in the eye of the person being hit on. But I could be wrong. 

        • Onamission5

          Trust me, I’ve been hit on by plenty of creepy attractive people and I knew they were skeeves from the get-go. Creepiness bleeds through, no matter the facade.

          Some people may be willing to briefly over look creepiness if someone is attractive, or they have been taught not to trust their instincts, but it rarely lasts very long.

          • dangeroustalk

            I think you missed my point. My point isn’t about physical attractiveness. If you are not attractive to someone because they are creepy to you, then you are not attractive to them. If someone is not creepy to you and you feel an attraction toward them and they do the same behavior, you are going to react differently. That’s all I’m saying and it is the most obvious thing in the world.

            • Onamission5

              Obviously it’s not obvious, or I’d probably understand what you’re trying to say here. Still don’t.

              • The Other Weirdo

                 It means people react differently to the same behaviour by people whom they find attractive versus those they don’t.

        • Coyotenose

           Oh definitely! Social skill and appearance can make up for the vilest behavior. Just look at Hollywood and Washington, eh? It’s often not what we do as how we go about doing it.

          When I say that the joke shows obliviousness and arrogance, I mean that he is (probably without realizing it) telling women what their true motivations are; that they don’t really mean what they say, and he knows what they’re REALLY feeling.

          That said, yeah, it’s a correct assessment that people change their opinions of actions based on looks. I don’t expect everyone on the street to police their jokes; as those go, this is extremely mild. It’s more a problem that Warren has a lot of influence, and blithely used it here to push the idea that it’s okay to not take womens’ feeling seriously.

          I shouldn’t have said “his motives”. His motive was probably just to make a passing joke. But covering it up shows that he either realized he has too much responsibility to be doing that, or that he just knows that the quip is going to become a PR problem. The latter is much more likely.

          • dangeroustalk

            I don’t know what Warren was thinking when he made that tweet, so I will give him the benefit of the doubt even though I dislike Warren’s positions on… pretty much everything. I don’t see him as an evil sinner from the start, so I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and think that he probably had the best of intentions. I could be wrong and if he says something else which more clearly shows his intent here, I will certainly change my mind. But right now, I’ll give him a pass.

        • jdm8

          I don’t see how hitting on someone once is harassment.  Part of the meaning of harass is to annoy persistently, and to do it once isn’t persistent.

          • dangeroustalk

             I agree.

  • David McNerney

    Hang on a second:  I wouldn’t defend sexual harassment, in general, and certainly not what happened to Elyse Anders – that was sick.  (I know – “I’m not racist,but…”)

    But are you seriously suggesting that in social situations, like a night club or a bar (not speaking from experience, because it was a long time ago) that a [person] (because it works both ways) would treat the attentions of a really attractive [person] and a less than attractive [person] with equal value.

    Bollocks they would – and if you think they would, may I be first to welcome you to our planet.

    I’m not saying it’s right or wrong – but it’s is a cold reality of human interactions.

    The tweet is still inappropriate, though.

    • Coyotenose

      That isn’t what Kate Donovan said. The point is that if one is harassment, so is the other. That’s true regardless of the people involved. Warren’s joke is designed to demean women who object to inappropriate flirting and propositions.

      Trying to use night clubs and bars as examples of social situations makes for a very poor argument. Whether or not a particular person’s attention is desired, everyone is those places *expects* such behavior.

      • Coyotenose

        To clarify the last sentence of my above post: people in bars and nightclubs expect to be hit on. That doesn’t make it okay to harass them, but hitting on someone in a bar isn’t harassment in itself. We’re talking more about things workplace and casual social scenarios.

        • David McNerney

          No, it’s ok – I get it.

          It wasn’t clear to me that we are strictly talking about workplace harassment.

          I was giving the benefit of the doubt to Rick Warren.

          Mea culpa.

          • Coyotenose

            My assumption – and it is an assumption, with all that implies – is that the issue is workplace and casual social flirting/harassment, because that’s usually where the problem lies.

            Looking at it again, I can see how Warren could be taken to be joking about settings where flirting is expected, but given who and what he is, it seems unlikely.

            • Patterrssonn

              I think it more likely that his joke is that attractiveness is the only real contex when it comes to sexual harrasement.

              • amycas

                I’ve known women to actually think a guy was attractive…until that guy started harassing her. So, yeah, she thought he was attractive, and then he started harassing her (hint: not the same as flirting) and then she was no longer interested. So no, it’s the behavior–not the attractiveness. I don’t care how cute somebody is, if they ignore the boundaries I set, then it’s harassment.

        • Charon

          Hitting on someone in the workplace isn’t necessarily harassment either. There’s a confusing ground between clearly harassment and clearly not (part of the reason companies and universities have detailed harassment policies). Politely asking someone on a date, one time, taking no for an answer if it’s given, when that person doesn’t report to you, is generally not considered harassment (nor should it be, in my opinion).

          My point is there’s a gray area, and I actually do believe the attractiveness of the proposer does move the line a little on what is considered harassment and what isn’t. This is very different from saying “harassment is okay if you’re hot” – I’m saying the very definition of harassment is a function of attractiveness at the margins of what may or may not be considered harassment.

    • Artor

      Context, context, context. Night clubs & bars are socially acceptable places to hit on people & get shot down or not. Harassment usually isn’t an issue there. When someone is talking about harassment, I assume they’re referring to the workplace, in which case it’s not appropriate to be seriously flirting, whether you or the subject are attractive or not.

      • ScorpyX

        I think that might depend on the workplace.  

        • Coyotenose

           I just can’t help but read that in a sultry voice. Stupid brain. *facepalms*

      • David McNerney

        The context of Rick Warren’s tweet wasn’t given here – which is the reason for my comment.

        But as I said in reply to Coytonose, I accept that the context that Kate Donovan is describing and in all likelihood Rick Warren was tweeting about is “workplace and casual social scenarios”.  In which case it is unacceptable – in any circumstances.

      • Charon

        Many workplaces don’t have a harassment policy nearly as strict as what you’re proposing. Indeed, many places really only rule out relationships between people where one reports to another. You can argue this should be otherwise, but it’s not correct to assume it is.

      • rjw

        More couples meet at work than anywhere else. Your standard is at odds with reality.

  • Pcranny

    I am a supervisor on a leading Q&A website.
    Whenever I warn someone about posting nonsense the most common response I get is “My brother did it.”

    • Coyotenose

       “If that’s true, then you know who to blame for your ban.” :P

      I was a member of a writing group on Yahoo with a specialized theme. One day, someone posted a link to a piece of dribble that a non-member had put up on another website, as an example of what not to do. That writer, despite being absolutely terrible, had a sycophantic following. One told him that his work was being criticized somewhere, and he joined the Yahoo group and immediately began posting screamy rants in defense of his work for about two weeks.

      Then he suddenly claimed that he’d been hacked and hadn’t been writing any of that. So he was saying that someone who meant him harm had been writing, in his style*, in defense of his work, every day for two weeks. AND THE GROUP BELIEVED HIM. He then collaborated with his snitch buddy for months to divide the group, got the “favored” people to join a different group and abandon the first one, wrecking it… and then he abandoned those dimwits who followed him. And they kept believing his story that it hadn’t even been him who joined the group in the first place.

      Why would anyone fall for that?

      *As I pointed out, if his phantom hacker could imitate his style that well, that meant said hacker was a better writer than he was and we should probably ask him to come back.

  • Misternu

    I know that this makes me look dumb, but could someone please explain the content of the tweet? I tried googling this topic, please, what is the tweet talking about? I know there is supposed to be sexism but somehow that context clue isn’t helping.

    • Misternu

      Oops, I reloaded the page and the correct screenshot loaded. That makes much more sense now

  • Glasofruix

    If he was hacked i suspect tha the messages posted on his accound would be about a closet and him getting out of it.

  • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

    Not only is this not the kind of thing a hacker would post, but it’s also not the frequency. You get Rick Warren’s password, and you send ONE tweet?  C’mon Rick- oh, I was just about to compare our intelligence to that of his congregation.  Bad logic Rich.  But really, what does he think, we’re five?

    • http://gloomcookie613.tumblr.com GloomCookie613

       Exactly!  If I had his password, oh the havoc I would cause!  I’d be promoting gay porn sites, supporting gay marriage as him, announcing that women are the superior authority on everything, announce that I have a micro penis (as him)… oh the endless shenanigans I could get up to!  If you’re going to claim hackery, be sure to add some really wild tweets and posts first THEN wait a few hours and say you were hacked.  Way more believable that way.

      • Kate Donovan

        At the point that I took the screenshot, he couldn’t even ‘wait a few hours’. The tweet was from Sunday, and I caught wind of it on Tuesday. There had been numerous tweets since, and no retraction, something I checked. I wanted to make sure I didn’t spend my time writing about something that was a hack or hoax.

  • Lee Miller

    I suspect he was drunk . . . you know how alcohol decreases inhibitions . . . and even though many evangelicals may shy away from drinking in public, private consumption of alcohol is rampant.  Even among pastors.  How else do they put up with all the crap they have to deal with?

    • Anon

      a little too much jesus blood, eh?

  • Artor

    “I wuz haxxord!!1!” Yeah right Rick. Thanks for letting us know you’re a liar as well as an ignorant hypocrite.

  • DavidFairbanks

    There’s one idea of Rick’s that I really like.  I’m going to photoshop my face on the cover of Time magazine and use it for my profile picture!

  • guest

    This from a blog that celebrates Bill Mather. Double standard anyone?

    • http://gloomcookie613.tumblr.com GloomCookie613

       I’m unfamiliar with Bill Mather’s work.  Could you cite some examples for me?

    • usclat

      Mather? I seem to recall Jerry Mathers, you know, “The Beaver”. What has he done now? I’ve been reading this blog for many months now and I don’t recall any mention of the Beave. But that doesn’t mean he hasn’t done something to offend some group out there. 

  • Thumbelindude

    “My account was hacked” is the new “My dog ate my homework”…

  • http://gloomcookie613.tumblr.com GloomCookie613

    Ok, here’s my issue:

    I read his tweet and I laughed.  Why?  Because I thought of all my shallow friends in high school and college.  I thought of the times we’d go out to a bar or club and some guy would hit on one of them.  If he was cute, they enjoyed it, but if he wasn’t attractive, he was a creep or a stalker or harassing them.

    I’m so glad that I had that vaginal sand removal done.

  • Charon

    Sexual harassment is a serious problem, and I can easily imagine attractive people being some of the worst offenders because they assume the other person should be flattered.

    That said, http://xkcd.com/642/

    There is a not insignificant population of people who rarely if ever can even bring themselves to flirt because of fears like this. If there were really clear guidelines about what is and is not harassment we’d all be a lot happier, but the thing is… there aren’t. And at the margins, the attractiveness of the flirter can change what is considered harassment.

    Still a stupid post by Warren, though.

    • Michael

      And yet nobody can ever come up with a distinction between flirting and harassment without using either word.

      • Patterrssonn

        I’m guessing the difference is context, which I believe is true of most societal norms.

        • Michael

          Sorry, I should have specified a clear distinction. The difference between anything and anything else can be summarised as context.

          • Patterrssonn

            Maybe your right but I can’s see how the difference between say a balloon and a knife can be summarized as context except perhaps if you were in some kind of po mo fugue state.

            And in the case of sexual harassment why wouldn’t context provide a “clear distinction”?

          • Onamission5

            It’s pretty clear. If you are making another person uncomfortable, back off and apologize, and don’t do it again.

            We humans understand this in every conceivable situation that is not flirting, so I refuse to believe we humans cannot understand it within the context of flirting.

            http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2012/05/27/flirting-is-easy/

  • Kalafarski

    C’mon people. This is a joke, meaning it is making fun of how humans act, not arguing how anyone ought to act. Yes, it oversimplifies the situation by arguing that sexual harassment is only flirting if the harasser is cute, but that’s the point of the joke: it overemphasizes beauty to make fun of how heavily it influences our perspectives.

    I agree that sexism is a serious problem, but this tweet is uni-gender–it say’s “they’re,” not “she’s” or “he’s,” so there is no basis for arguing this is sexist against women.

    I agree that some jokes ought to be made only in the company of friends–or perhaps not at all–but I don’t see why this is a poor public joke.

    • Edmond

      Maybe because it comes from a pastor?  I would expect this kind of clowning from a plumber or a dry-waller (no offense to them).  But a pastor has a responsibility to his public image.  Like a politician, they MUST be careful abouthe their public speech, because so many people listen and take what they say to heart.

      And if it turns out that this was a hack job, then obviously SOMEONE out there agrees, because they knew that this was NOT the sort of thing that should go on a pastor’s public account.

  • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

    Here’s another clue: “I changed my password!”
    If someone learns your password, they usually change it.  Now I haven’t been through the twitter password change process, so perhaps it uses a 2nd channel (e.g email) to confirm the change.  But I doubt it.  So maybe he left himself logged on at an internet cafe. But the fact that he could change it without a big hassle lends further evidence that he wasn’t hacked.

    • Parse

      I gotta disagree with the idea that password-changing-without-hassle is evidence he isn’t hacked.  Good security design makes it incredibly easy to reset a password, and forces a log-out on  any existing logged-in connections.  

      My personal experience with this is that, if somebody gets your password, they WON’T change it.  (Girlfriend had a keylogger (unknown to her) on her PC, that I used to check email.  Good times.)  Changing the password will close out any other existing connections, so if you’ve got your phone or PC logged in, it’ll throw an alert saying that it can’t connect due to an incorrect password.  The longer the hack-ee isn’t aware, the more the hacker can use their account for nefarious purposes. 
      (For the record, I don’t think he was hacked either; I just don’t think this was good evidence of it.)

      • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

        ya you have a point.  I think it also depends on who gets your account, and if they want to prank you or use you to spam your followers.  I have had a few friends and relatives lose their gmail and FB account, and it took them some time and hurdles to get them back.  During which time I kept getting shoe ads etc from them.

  • popeyoni

    In real life an ugly person is more likely to get accused of harassment than an attractive one. 
    It shouldn’t be that way, but it is. 

  • Stuart Resnick

    > sexual harassment is wrong, full stop.

    Isn’t this a meaningless assertion? It would have some value only if we had a clear, objective definition of what you’re condemning.

    For instance, we have general agreement on what it means to dance the twist. So “dancing the twist is wrong, full stop” is a statement you may agree or disagree with, but the statement is at least coherent. On the other hand, “being a jerk is wrong, full stop” is gibberish, because everyone has different ideas about what it means to be a jerk.

    The exact same actions will be interpreted as harassment by some people in some situations, and as flirting by other people in other situations. It’s not at all helpful to pretend that we can apply absolutist, “fundamentalist” rules like “sexual harassment is wrong” without recognizing that the phrase itself is subjective.

    “Sexual harassment is wrong, full stop” falls into the error of pretending that there are absolute rules of behavior, of right and wrong, in this matter… when in fact there’s a huge diversity of different views by different people in different situations, regarding what constitutes “flirting” vs “harassment.”

    http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/

    • Onamission5

      Are you also opposed to meaningless assertions like assault is wrong, full stop?

      Sexual harassment is much more like assault than dancing.  But hey, thanks for being to flippant and dismissive of a real problem that actually fucks up people’s lives.

      • Stuart Resnick

        The vast majority of people (outside the Amish and certain Sikh sects) really believe that assault is never justified, even to prevent a greater harm. But at least someone who makes that claim is saying something coherent, since we have a consensus about what “assault” means. “Harassment” on the other hand is open to wide subjective interpretations.

        You’re being flippant in trying to dismiss a complex issue by refusing to examine the meaning of the words you’re using. You’re being flippant by relying on absolutist, fundamentalist slogans, rather using reason to communicate clearly.

        • amycas

          It’s actually not that subjective when it’s written into law or employee handbooks.  flirting turns into harassment when the victim defines xir boundaries and those boundaries are repeatedly ignored. Flirting does not turn into harassment merely because an unattractive person is trying to flirt.

  • http://twitter.com/TominousTone Thomas Lawson

    C’mon, it’s not like he has a history of being a misogynist!

    He has since taken that photo down. Why? People thought he meant the wife was being abused? Aw, you’re wrong. Except, this is the way other men took it…

    http://shortarmguy.blogspot.ca/2011/02/when-male-cant-stand-it-anymore.html

  • Stuart Resnick

    Charon wrote…
    >If there
    were really clear guidelines about what is and is not harassment > we’d
    all be a lot happier, but the thing is… there aren’t. There used to be, for instance, very clear guidelines about what is or isn’t acceptable sexually. There were commonly accepted morals about what was acceptable, and in many cases, it made a lot of people happier to be clear on what the boundaries were. At the same time, it caused great misery to those people whose individual morals differed from the strict societal code.Likewise with any clear guidelines that we try to impose top-down on everyone in society, whether it’s “sex outside of marriage is always wrong” or “telling an off-color joke in the workplace is always wrong.” There’s no simple answer, because making these absolutist rules does indeed make life simpler and clearer for many people, but it also can cause misery for those whose views or behavior fall outside the norm.http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/

  • Ostro

    Well, harrassment is a sticky issue and we’d need to know the particulars, e.g. touching, suggestive remarks, etc. But I do know from my own experience of girls & women who dressed and made themselves up in ways that they themselves described as hot or sexy, and then when some guy merely gave them the eye for a  bit (no touching, suggestive remarks, etc.) they’d either take offence or not, depending on whether the guy looked “cute” (hot, cool, or like a hunk, etc. ) or “ugly” (like a nerd, loser, greaseball, etc.). So there is some truth in the remark, though the hacking claim is of course bullshit.

  • http://twitter.com/TominousTone Thomas Lawson

    Little fun with Rick Warren’s original misogynist Tweet.

    https://twitter.com/TominousTone/status/208648749801684992

  • jose

    lol everybody says they were hacked when they fuck up. It gets old.

  • http://twitter.com/arensb arensb

    I’m amused that nearly the next item after this in my newsreader was this AmazingSuperPowers strip:
    http://www.amazingsuperpowers.com/2012/06/hacked/

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6OE7LEYELE4MZTVXGZUSVTBFUI julie

    A little clarification:
    Flirting is typically glances, smiles, asking out for drinks or coffee, giving compliments, possibly hugging, etc.
    Harassment is continuing this flirting after the person has turned you down or after they are visibly uncomfortable. Harassment is repetitive and excessive. If someone turns down an offer to go out, it is harassment for the other person to keep asking and not take no for an answer. If one person gives a compliment and the other looks uncomfortable, it is harassment if the person continues to compliment them in the same manner.
    Flirting becomes harassment when the flirting is no longer mutual. I’m flattered if someone finds me attractive and wants to pursue some sort of relationship, but I have every right to say no to them. If they don’t respect my right to decline a date, a compliment, or a hug, it’s doubtful they would respect my right to decline sex.

    As far as attractiveness goes, I’ve been flirted with and harassed by unattractive men. I can tell the difference. I’ve been flirted with and harassed by attractive men. I can tell the difference.
    When I turn down someone of any level of attractiveness who is flirting with me, I feel sympathy because I know that it takes guts and now they’re disappointed or embarrassed. When I turn down someone of any level of attractiveness who won’t take no for an answer and is harassing me, I feel scared and creeped out because of the complete lack of respect they have for me. I feel unsafe because I don’t know how far they are willing to take things.

    • The Other Weirdo

       Woa! I think you’ve got some creepy ideas of what flirting is. Seriously? Hugging? Who hugs at the flirting stage?

      • Lynch Gerard

        Hugging can be simply a way of greeting another. I think, TOW, that you are confusing hugging with long embracing.

        • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

          I don’t hug people I don’t know.  Shaking hands works for me.  I understand that’s cultural and in many cultures I’d be kissing cheeks.  But in the US I keep my arms to myself and I thank others to do the same until we know each other fairly well.

  • dantresomi

    somehow Rick warren ends up on my TL all the time and he says crazy stuff all the time. So when i saw this, i believe it. Oftentimes he just sends random tweets. I am sure he doesn’t have the time to sit on  twitter and post an entire conversation like we do, but his tweets are usually random and are one liners. I can believe he tweeted this. His excuse is real pathetic

  • Hibernia86

    It is obviously true that an attractive person or an unattractive person can both harass someone, but I think the point that the person making the comment (whoever it was) was trying to make is that people are more likely to view what an unattractive person does as harassment than they would if an attractive person did the same thing. The fact is that a person’s attractiveness does have an effect on how people respond to them in all parts of life, including flirting.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6OE7LEYELE4MZTVXGZUSVTBFUI julie

      Well I would agree that an attractive person’s flirting will have a better chance of succeeding than if they were unattractive. But if the flirting is accepted, then it’s not harassment. An unattractive person may be more likely to be turned down, but it’s not harassment unless they keep going after the person. Actually, I find that attractive guys are more likely to harass because they’re not as used to being turned down. They think that because they are attractive, anyone should want to be with them. Most awkward or unattractive guys I know just get disappointed, but they don’t keep trying.

      • Hibernia86

        Yes, you are right. I incorrectly said “harassment” when I really meant “seen as creepy”. What I was trying to say was that if an attractive person and an unattractive person flirt in similar ways, the unattractive person is more likely to accused of being creepy.

  • http://northierthanthou.com/ northierthanthou

    Sounds like he stole a chapter from Wiener.

  • sam

    A “violation of God’s law”?  What a bizarre statement.

    Sex trafficking (DT 21:10-14, NU 31, JE 6:12), abortion (NU 5:11-28, HO 9:11-16, HO 13:14-16), abuse (1SA 15:3, 2SA 12:1, 2KI 2:23-24), & slavery (EX 21:20-21, LE 25:44-46, LK 12:47-48) are all positively encouraged by Rick’s god. 

    While pornography is never explicitly mentioned, the prohibition to make an image of _anything_ on the earth (EX 20:4-6) may qualify, so Rick might be correct here.

    I don’t know of any explicit mention, let alone prohibition, of ‘genercide’ in the bible, but certainly Rick’s god has no qualms over commanding more egalitarian genocide (DT 20:16, JS 10:40, EZ 9:4-6, GE 6&7).

    I don’t know of any explicit mention, let alone prohibition, of sex additions specifically, but given that David had 8 wives & 10 concubines with god’s approval (2Sam 12:8, 5:10-13, Acts 13:22, 1KI 14:8) & Solomon had 900 wives & 300 concubines, one can reasonably ask what, for these people, would constitute a sex addition?

    Goodness gracious, it’s almost as if Rick isn’t being completely open & honest about the god he worships…

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/P76OAMZWKTFY6SMOLNVKH7COLU TruthSayer

    I can’t quite get why this is worth writing about.  You’re willing to give more exposure to this?

  • Lynch, Gerard

    The popularity of Mr. Warren is due to the perfect worldliness of his message, which is only half the picture…and he offers no view or door to the Big Picture.

  • Jerym

      In my experience when some women say no they dont  always mean  no. Any  man who can`t see this does`nt really know much about   women and  any woman who denies it is being economical with the truth.
     

    • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

      Four possibilities:

      She says ‘no’ and means ‘no’ and you take it as ‘no’.  No sex, no harm.

      She says ‘no’ and means ‘no’ and you take it as ‘yes’.  Hey, you’re a rapist.

      She says ‘no’ and means ‘yes’ and you take it as ‘no’.  Maybe sex later if you get your signals worked out, maybe not.

      She says ‘no’ and means ‘yes’ and you take it as ‘yes’.  Hey, sex for you!

      You will notice that if you assume ‘no’, no harm is done other than that you maybe have no sex or delayed sex.  But if you assume ‘yes’, you run the very real risk of raping someone.  Even if you assume that ‘no’ sometimes means yes, I highly doubt it’s anything other than a very small minority, and if she really means yes, she’ll change it to ‘yes’ quickly.

      So the real question is, how much do you want to be a rapist?

  • Went Rogue
  • Truth-Matters

    Rick Warren’s latest effort to find common ground with Muslims and suggesting Christians and Muslims worship the same God. The man dubbed America’s Pastor by the secular media is getting very close to heresy – if not crossing the line. Rick Warren claims he is Jesus Christ. There herald of hope. Rick Warren agrees that Allah is God!

    Jerimiah 14:14 The prophets are lying in Jesus name.

    Crystal Catherdral’s Robert Schuller and Rick Warren claim that Allah is God! Jesus warned us about this, Jesus said; When I return will I find faith on this earth, obviously no! (Luke 18:8)

    There will be false Christ and prophets when he returns!


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X