America’s Sexual Ethic Creates Men Like Trump

America’s Sexual Ethic Creates Men Like Trump October 10, 2016

It is rather amusing and bewildering all at the same time how a basic statement like “we must choose the lesser of two evils” can survive in a nation that legitimately has no idea how to discern good from evil to begin with. Take the latest Trump fiasco, for example: people have lambasted a man (rightfully so) for his lewd, crude, and downright nasty comments toward women – yet were some of the very same 125 million ilk that purchased the erotica, Fifty Shades of Grey.

Yet this even erotica pales against the statistics of pornography – which has been clearly linked to sex trafficking, rape, and abuse, all under the guise of adult entertainment. Cue this up with the same people that can’t tell the difference between a healthy sexual ethic and a devious one; so long as the idea of “consent” is inherent to the discussion (or feigned in an industry like pornography and prostitution) – it must mean that this expression of sexual conduct is not only perfectly normal, but also, is actually good.

The sad part is that the above statements must come with the following qualifications:

  • No, nothing deserves sexual deviancy or misconduct, whether that comes through the most heinous form of assault, or merely through the foolish speech that often comes from men who haven’t been properly taught to cherish and respect women.
  • No, saying that there is an inherent disconnect in an American populous that condemns the words of Trump from five years ago, yet love depictions of violent sexuality on screen and in amateur literature (if it even qualifies as literature) – is not a sanction of Trump.
  • No, saying I don’t support Trump does not indicate that I support Hillary either. Good ol’ Billy-boy has his fair share of sexually deviant skeletons in the closet, which Hillary masterfully silenced for political expediency.
  • No, saying that the idea of “consent” does not automatically dictate healthy sexual conduct does not mean that non-consensual sexual activity is good in any form (it obviously is not).
  • No, calling out this hypocrisy is not advocating that we haven’t the right (or that it is inappropriate) to be disgusted by Trump’s comments.

There will likely be some qualifications I missed here, but I digress from the main point: we live in a culture that literally cannot even possibly begin to discern good from evil – and the outcry over Trump’s words only further demonstrates this reality because America’s sexual ethic created him.

Make Trump’s comments into song lyrics and add metrical rhythm, and it would be downloaded ad nauseam by hormonal teens with angst. Turn it into a series of dirty limericks and older generations would giggle and guffaw at it. Put the story in narrative and it becomes an all-time best seller. Film it and people regularly watch it and become aroused by it. But hear it from a man, which this same set of ideals created – and all hell breaks loose.

I am merely trying to express that we have lost the moral framework by which this logical conclusion is deduced from. It is not that we’ve simply embraced a faulty sexual ethic for years – but that we first found ourselves entertained by it. We’ve so inundated our culture with improper sexual ethics that the culture itself is now defined by issues of sexuality rather than a sense of ethic. We’ve actually confused the two, so as to say that unconstrained sexual expression in all its raw forms is an ethic.

Our country has created men like Trump for years now – and the sexual ethic of our combined with radical feminism is simply taking women and making them equally perverse. An infant in the womb is not a treasure, but instead a punishment that can be readily discarded by those who want to continue in consequence-free sex. Homosexuality is now openly celebrated as love by a society who literally doesn’t understand what the word even means; they conflate lust with love and thereby, advocate the former whilst demeaning the latter. More clearly, gushy feelings do not equate with love – and allowing all sorts of sexual freedoms does not actually advance a society because it is not an ethic.

Unbridled sexual activity is not a sexual ethic; a sexual ethic has constraints upon it. While one might convincingly argue that sexuality still has constraints upon it because certain practices are not sanctioned (i.e. rape, pedophilia, bestiality), the truth is that you can still have no true sexual ethic while certain activities are frowned upon. The reason being: people will still invariably restrict certain actions on the basis of subjective reasoning – yet a gradual erosion of that subjective reasoning happens, and standards loosen. Seldom do people accept a radical, over-night change in issues of morality; those standards must be gradually torn down so as to bring effectual change. This is precisely what leaders of the LGTB(ETC) movement have said since the late 70’s.

Historically, this has been proven time and again – simply look at how homosexuality and trangenderism was viewed 30 years ago and compare that to today. Look at how adultery was viewed 60 years ago and compare this to today as well. Look at the progression of Roman society and how their sexual practices developed. While we may not, as a society, enjoin our sexual practices with cultic practices, we nonetheless can deduce a common trajectory based on the normalization of practices that were once “taboo.”

The logical next steps are for people to push the boundaries further under the auspices of “love,” which again is not actually love at all, but lust. This is already happening with cases of incestuous relations (if the only harm is the potential baby – problem solved! Just abort!), polyamorous and polygamous relationships, the mutilation of consenting adults and even children is lauded (gender reassignment), and others from top universities have been calling for the stigma surrounding pedophilia to be surrendered.

The very simple point being: yes, you should be outraged by the comments of Trump. However, you should be equally outraged at the blatant hypocrisy bound in enjoying this same lack of ethical principles in another candidate’s husband (and her covering it up), through graphic depictions on the big-screen or a trashy novel, the expressions of a “hook up” culture, etc. Our nation has built its identity largely on a faulty sexuality that depicts sexuality to be the same exact sentiments of a classless Trump. Unbridled autonomy with respect to the sexual ethic is no ethic at all; it is a lack thereof. Are we really that surprised to hear these types of comments from a man that has not only demonstrated this type of behavior continually – but in a culture that glorifies in similarly perverse sexual ideals?


Featured Image: Strip Club Downtown San Francisco by Franco Folini; CC 2.0

"Man, what an unnecessary cascade of words! Please learn to write. This is virtually unreadable. ..."

Steven Furtick is the Most Dangerous ..."
"Welcome to Earth - it's a droll place and you're here until you die. Peasants ..."

Church Should Be Your Excuse for ..."
"My ex was fantastic at confession and repentance.But it didn't stop him from being abusive ..."

You Cannot Deny Someone Forgiveness and ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • If you can’t tell the difference between consensual adult sexual relations and grabbing people’s genitals without their consent, then you’re actually the person who can’t discern good from evil. Sorry to break it to you, but the modern conservative sex ethic really has little to do with the Bible, a book which did in fact permit polygamy and also allowed fathers to sell their virgin daughters into sex slavery. If you can’t understand the point of making consent the basis for sexual ethics, then you have no right to criticize homosexuality or BDSM.

    • Gilsongraybert

      Matthew, I appreciate your interaction – but if what you got out of this post was that I said consensual sex and Trump grabbing people’s privates is the same thing, you’ve either not paid attention or read into it. I’m specifically highlighting the fact that a loosened/unrestricted sexual ethic produces men who act like this, and it starts far before homosexuality is accepted (or a man decides he can touch whom he pleases without permission). That adolescence can manifest in several different ways – but the root issue is the same – and it is the product of a sexually deviant society.

      Secondly, the things you bring up toward the end of your comment are patently false and have been dealt with by many, many people. I’m relatively certain you’ve probably also heard such refutations. If you haven’t – it only displays a lack of textual awareness (to the Bible itself) and a lack of serious study on these matters, because no, polygamy was not sanctioned – nor was making a daughter go into chattel slavery for the sexual gratification of others… If you have heard counter-arguments and are still prattling on about this, shame on you. You are blatantly taking something and twisting it, in a painfully obvious wrong manner, even after having received a true exposition of the text. At the risk of projecting on you, it seems more like a regurgitated argument than one actually tested.

      • The Happy Atheist

        Oddly enough, I actually agree with you in principle, so long as you’re not making the “it’s not Trump’s fault, it’s the rap music” argument.

        • Gilsongraybert

          Nope, not the music’s fault; the music simply demonstrates what is already there, if that makes sense (not in Trump, the culture).

      • EtiennaD

        “loosened/unrestricted sexual ethic produces men who act like this,”

        Nope, conservative and anti-feminist views on women are what produces this. Does purity culture and slut shaming ring a bell?

        • Gilsongraybert

          I am in disagreement. Purity culture has it’s own problems and that is irrelevant to the topic – as a juvenile manchild is sexually deviant (hence his apparent need to treat women with contempt). Yet slut shaming is merely hypocrisy – and the solution to this hypocrisy and double standard is not for women to go around and sleep with whomever they want and be praised for it. We agree on the common problem there – but feminism seeks to solve it by doubling down on the poor ethical framework rather than taking a higher ground.

          • EtiennaD

            Those who support human equality aren’t asking for women to simply be praised for sleeping around.

            Women have a right to sleep around as much as men do and be treated with respect just like men are afterwards.

          • Gilsongraybert

            Those two sentence are contradictory; you say you aren’t looking for praise, but to ask for respect after sleeping around is in some sense arguing that it is praiseworthy. My point is that for either sex, it is not praiseworthy and should not be respected or advocated.

          • EtiennaD

            They aren’t you are simply dishonest. Typical.

            You are saying feminists want women to be praised FOR being promiscuous.

            Feminsts are asking for women to be treated like PEOPLE STILL WORTHY OF RESPECT EVEN IF they sleep around
            or have sex outside of marriage period.

          • Gilsongraybert

            Being treated like a person and sanctioning a loose sexual ethic are two different things and you seem to want to conflate them. I personally don’t give a rip what a person does in their own time – that is between them and God. However, don’t expect me to have more respect for you as a person simply if you sleep around. Having a common dignity assigned to you has literally nothing to do with what you do – it is intrinsic to you being a human. Because you are human, you deserve a common respect – NOT because of the amount of sex you have. Women deserve decency because they are people. Human identity is not wrapped up in your sexual ethic. I can have ample respect of a person without respecting what they do – why is that hard to grapple with?

          • EtiennaD

            “However, don’t expect me to have more respect for you as a person simply because you sleep around.”
            There you go again. Your mentality is not any better that Trump.

            ” NOT because of the amount of sex you have. ”

            WHERE did i say that?

          • Gilsongraybert

            Lol, you clearly have an ax to grind. If someone sleeps around, male or female, I am not going to base the respect I have for them off of that. I am going to give them common decency because they are people. I would implore them not to do so because it has consequences, but I will treat either gender as a human being that has an inherent worth based on the very fact that they are human. If you can’t get that, I can’t help you out.

          • EtiennaD

            I do get that,YOU were the one implying that feminists want you to respect women BECAUSE they sleep around and to praise them FOR sleeping around

            All im saying is that someone sleeping around doesn’t mean they deserve to be treated like a subhuman monster

          • Gilsongraybert

            There is a logical connection to what this society lauds (unbridled sexual autonomy without anyone saying otherwise, hence your immediate leap toward purity culture earlier) and the concept of praising something. Praise here simply meaning that it is called “good” – not that I am asked to sing and dance in the streets about it.

            You are absolutely correct in saying that they don’t deserve to be treated like a subhuman monster. I disagree with the notion that there should be no judgment passed (on a moral level – not one of dignity). However, I am often met with vitriol for that statement (as you even likened me to Trump – my demeanor here has been nothing short of respectful to you).

            Put the pitchfork down. Calm your caps. Focus on the argument. I am saying that a sexual ethic that is based on autonomy breeds men like Trump. Someone has to lose out and be treated unequally – and that’s a good thing because there is such a thing as unhealthy sexual behavior. I maintain that Americans simply don’t know how to discern where that line is anymore because we have become a society that has built its identity in sex, and particularly, sexual autonomy for all. Do you see how those ideals don’t work together?

          • EtiennaD

            “I am saying that a sexual ethic that is based on autonomy breeds men like Trump. ”

            And you are wrong.

            I suggest you do some research on the puritan mindset and how extremely strict codes actually breed rebellion and sexual frustration.

            Conservative extremism got us here.

            And Trump’s view on women is very very very common in for instance, southern traditional culture. Don’t act as if this is something that perverted liberals created.

            This attitude was always here. You know why? It comes from OUTDATED views on women’s rights.

            Where do you think the idea that women are created only to serve men come from? liberals ? the LGBT? Feminists? It comes from conservative cultures

            Where do you think the idea of a woman being valued solely on her appearance and child bearing years comes from? Liberals? LGBT?Feminists? It comes from conservative cultures.

          • Gilsongraybert

            Do you think there is no one who is a conservative who has been calling out the behavior of men like Trump for literally ages? I’m not saying there is no fault with national conservatism – I am arguing that both conservatives and liberals who are radically opposed to actual values within the scriptures (which, by the way, is pretty equal) have a liberal sexual ethic. Simply because one publicly cries out about it and then goes home to do it in private, does not make them an actual conservative who holds those values. It simply means they are concealing their sin whereas the open liberal doesn’t care what others think. We are speaking two different languages if you think I believe that Christianity = Republican. If you keep coming at the argument like I am merely another byproduct of the American conservative (i.e. Republican) – you’re incorrect. That is specifically why I’ve blasted the behavior of men like Trump. But all you’ve done is simply insert every common trope you can think of against me rather than deal with the substance of what I’m saying – not what others have said before me who align strictly with a political party.

          • You are right that a number of conservative men and women have denounced Trump’s comments and even rescinded their endorsements. Better late than never, I guess. I mean he had affairs on both his first two wives and has bragged in interviews about being promiscuous. At least that part was no surprise. So if you want to demand a sexual ethic you approve of, you might want to start with presidential candidates. Or admit that you don’t really care the next time a Democrat is doing the same thing. (That goes for everyone, not just you.)

          • Gilsongraybert

            Hey, I cried out about Trump long before he was chosen by many I’m ashamed to say are constituents at this point. I’ve been purposefully distancing myself from those who support Trump for the very same reason you mentioned. I wish to be taken seriously about what I advocate is a biblical sexuality – because I am ashamed of those who have excused Trump’s moral (or lack thereof) character

          • Gilsongraybert

            I have done plenty of research on the puritan mindset. The issue, for those who do not know God and have no desire to please Him, is indeed a strict ethic (in all ways). The mindset others have who don’t give a rip about the reality of hell and judgment is, “eat, drink, and be merry – for tomorrow we die.” Of course they will find ways to go about conducting the sin their hearts desire to do. At the end of the day, complete autonomy is not a good thing, especially within the sexual ethic – and deviance from a strict ethic (or holding no ethic at all) are both manifestations of a liberal sexual ethic. These are two sides of the coin, if that makes sense.

            At this point, I’m going to have to bow out. It is painfully clear you don’t want to talk but simply squash someone who disagrees with you. For the record, I think feminism is just as blind as the patriarchy, and while you may adequately see the issue with not being treated as an image bearer, it is woefully inadequate as it seeks to blur any distinctions between men and women, and it celebrates sin, as feminism is synonymous with acceptance of sexual licentiousness, abortion, and the like. There are evils within both – yet you refuse to see it as an evil because of the desire to be liberated from the mindset of a man-centered world. Yes, it should not be man-centered – but it should also not be woman-centered or genderless-centered. It is to be Christ-centered – and the apex of every issue common to mankind is that it isn’t.

          • EtiennaD

            “Women deserve decency because they are people. Human identity is not wrapped up in your sexual ethic”

            CONGRATS thats EXACTLY what feminists are saying.

          • Gilsongraybert

            I didn’t say I had an issue with that point, if you followed the logic carefully. I don’t agree with the proposed solution of unbridled sexuality (among other things).

          • lady_black

            And who’s proposing that?

          • AustinRocks

            You got anything more insightful than “typical”? That’s about as sophomoric as it gets.

            Btw: men do not respect women who sleep around. Never gonna happen. Men respect ladies. That’s how reality works. A wise person works with reality instead of fighting against it.

          • EtiennaD

            And a lady can still be someone who has sex outside of marriage. Your outdated views are ter problem.

            And thanks for hinting that you think it is okay for men to sleep around. Hypocrite.

          • AustinRocks

            You’re like all liberals, the truth upsets you. Simple fact is: men do not respect women who sleep around. Beating your head against reality causes brain damage. The truth is never “outdated,” it just IS.

          • EtiennaD

            “Simple fact is: men do not respect women who sleep around. ”

            Outdated “men” like you you do. There are plenty of men out there who treat other human beings with respect regardless.

            By the way there is no difference between a man or a woman who sleeps around.

            The fact that “men” like you focus so much on the woman doing it speaks volumes.

            Moral truth doesn’t concern you misogynists. You are concerned about control and authoritarian like satisfaction from the shaming of women who live their own paths.

          • Donalbain

            I do.

          • AustinRocks

            People with no morals usually stick together.

          • Interesting since the men who sleep around are mostly sleeping with women, no? What an odd concept to think less of women doing something that men do as well and presumably on an equal number of occasions.

          • AustinRocks

            Yeah, men and women are different. Welcome to earth.

          • lady_black

            No. That’s YOUR hang-up, Buckaroo.

          • Wesley Brock

            I literally don’t have that hang-up. For one talking about accepting reality you sure seem to have a poor grasp of it. The reality is that pretty much all of us will have partners who have had other sexual partners in their lifetime. This idea that women should be virgins until they have sex with their husbands is absurd if you also permit that men may have sex with multiple partners. It’s fucking basic math. Men and women are represented in our society at about a 1:1 ratio. So if men are allowed to have sex with multiple partners that necessarily means, granting said men are heterosexual, that not all men will find women who are virgins for partners.

          • AustinRocks

            I did not even mention virginity in my post.
            Respond to what I posted, not what I did not post. Try to focus.

          • Wesley Brock

            The point of mentioning virginity was to illustrate how the concept of “sleeping around” is vapid. Since most of us will have partners who aren’t virgins it will mean that most of us will have partners who have already had sex before. So the question becomes how is “sleeping around” defined? Because currently it tends to have gendered definitions where women are considered to be sleeping around if they have more then a single partner whereas for men there doesn’t seem to be any such restriction which is what you seem to be insinuating by making the statement

            “men do not respect women who sleep around. Never gonna happen. Men respect ladies.”

            Which is a typical argument used by people to justify restricting women’s sexual freedom. So how about you focus and define exactly for us what constitutes “sleeping around” and why it should be different for men and women huh?

          • lady_black

            Respecting someone is not the same thing as praising them. I expect you to respect my marriage whether or not you like my choice of spouse. I never asked your opinion, and I do not need your approval.
            In theory, you shame women and men equally for sexual indiscretions. In practice, it turns out to be “boys will be boys.” So, drop the charade, and drop the double standard. Once you do, you’ll see everything work out on it’s own.

          • lady_black

            The solution is to stop worrying about the particulars, and instead worry about whether it was consensual. There is nothing “feminist” about what you call “sleeping around” which you define as having sex outside marriage.
            Men have always been able to get away with that while women were shamed. Well, I say, sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander. How about not shaming anyone for their sexuality? That strike me as a wonderful solution.
            Stop presenting false dilemmas as required choices. I don’t think we “agree” on anything.

      • There are more verses outlining the rules for multiple marriages than there are about homosexuality. Polygamy is undeniably permitted and never actually condemned. And virgins were undeniably sold into slavery without consent, no matter how you want to evade it, that’s sex slavery. People you consider to be deviants today actually have better ethics than our ancestors did 2,000 years ago.

        • Gilsongraybert

          Alright, since it seems like you’re bent of the “veracity” of your claims, why don’t you outline your hermeneutic for how you have determined that polygamy was sanctioned & how the Bible sanctions sex-slavery.

          • Brian K

            We don’t owe you a hermeneutic, we are reading the book and taking its express instructions at face value. That is the default position, there’s nothing “determined” about it, and the onus is on you to prove it wrong.

          • Gilsongraybert

            Lol, yes, it is on me to prove all contrary claims wrong. My, I have a tremendous amount of work to do, it seems, considering so many would love to be instructed and proven wrong. I gather you will humbly accept my instruction, then?

          • Brian K

            You are the one claiming The Bible is a moral document. If you expect us to believe that, in spite of its direct instructions to commit genocide and enslave virgin women (Numbers 31:17-18), then the onus is on you to explain why. If you don’t care what our opinions are about the bible, of course it’s not on you to prove contrary claims wrong, or engage us in any way.
            I have no intention of humbly accepting instruction from anyone on any subject, but I am prepared to be persuaded by a compelling argument.

          • Gilsongraybert

            The point in asking if you would “humbly accept instruction” is due to most people thinking they have the corner on biblical interpretation – who have rarely studied it at any depth beyond a few books by the likes of Hitchens, et. all. For a particularly bombastic individual who can’t be bothered to understand that their predisposition to and how they read certain texts might be wrong – I have no desire to waste my time. That person has no interest in compelling arguments or reasoned dialogue; they only desire to be victorious. It isn’t about that – and I will certainly not waste my time arguing with someone who has no desire to learn.

          • in a book that condemns other forms of sex with death by stoning, saying that if a man takes another wife he must not diminish food, clothing, or marital duties to his first wife (Exodus 21) is nothing short of approval. in fact, most of the Old Testament was supposedly written by or dedicated to polygamists (Moses, Samuel, David, Solomon).

          • Gilsongraybert

            So narrative literature informs what is mandated/sanctioned practice? Also, have you considered there to be a difference between apodictic and casuistic laws in the OT? These are focusing on polygamy, since that is what you responded in reference to in the above comment.

          • Actually, the disconnect between Biblical narratives and Biblical laws are very fascinating. Basically, nobody outside of the Heptateuch seems to follow legal prescriptions aside from the ceremonial. For example, adulterers like David aren’t stoned to death, rapists are brutally killed instead of having to marry their victims, lots of people have sex with close relatives, etc. Other than one person being stoned to death for gathering firewood on the Sabbath (Num. 15) and Achan for keeping spoils of war (Joshua 7), the Law isn’t really taken very seriously, not even by the Bible.

            And if the Bible really were supposed to be taken so seriously, shouldn’t it be very explicit about these things? “Thou shalt not own other people” and “Thou shalt not have sex without consent” ought to be in the Ten Commandments, no exceptions. Period. Those are certainly more valuable ethics than the questionable ones we do have in scripture.

          • Gilsongraybert

            You failed to answer the question in everything you just said. I’m asking for what type of hermeneutic you employ. But seeing that you aren’t even touching on an exposition of the Ten Commandments or the remainder of the Law, you’ve missed how very clear they really are. You have to devote more than five minutes to understand something outside of your own culture and time period. Go back and actually study the text.

          • I’m not gonna go down your hermeneutic rabbit hole. Why should anybody have to study confusing and contradictory ancient cultures and texts when the ethics we’ve developed in modern times are so vastly superior? It’s not so hard to see they got sex and slavery all wrong and we can do better than them.

          • Gilsongraybert

            Perhaps an analogy would suffice: when you read a modern biography, you obviously would read that differently than poetry, or personal letters, or a narrative? Why is it that so many would divorce the context of the proper literary framework in the scriptures, as well as the cultural/historical lens, and so forth?

            How you read the text is going to inform your presuppositions – the idea is that we allow the text to speak for itself rather than read into it what we think it must say. There is a proper way to study things – everyone knows this (otherwise why would we have different courses for differing subjects?).

            Secondly, your claims about the sexual ethic are wrong because that is your opinion rather than an argument about the merits of scriptural mandates. You’re entitled to your opinion, but it has no more veracity than saying you like ham. It also leaves a tremendous amount of vagueness with an open ended statement like “they got it wrong.” Who did? The historic church? The bible (God)? What are you basing that off of – your misconception of the sanction of polygamy? This is where your study method of the scriptures comes into play – because if you take narrative to be sanctioning something, you will read that polygamy is alright. But that’s not how one reads narrative properly. This also comes into play with the brief foray into case and apodictic law in the OT. Which laws were they that you sighted earlier – case, or apodictic? What’s the difference and what does that mean when we ask how to apply it? Furthermore, what is the role of the Law in the NT?

            With slavery, which is an incredibly common trope against Christians, I’m guessing you haven’t really done much historical study to see the position of the church at large, contrary to those operating under the guise of religion during colonial slavery. I’m also willing to bet you haven’t studied Roman era slavery, which is the audience to whom the apostle Paul writes. Am I far off in those assumptions..?

          • Look, the whole premise of the article in the first place was the claim that there exists some clear, unchanging biblical sex ethic. That’s obviously not the case, and when I criticize the sexual ethics in scripture then you say it has to be understood in the context of the time and culture it was written. Basically, that proves my point. And again, if you think the Bible is some absolute rulebook on morality, then there never should have been any disagreement on the issue of slavery because it should have been explicitly forbidden under any circumstances.

            For your information, I’ve studied the Bible and its contemporary cultures and religions a great deal. I’ve done a pretty thorough textual analysis of the comparative law codes and mythologies in both testaments. Now I’m not going to hold pre-enlightment cultures up to modernist standards, they probably did the best they could under the circumstances. But at the same time, people today shouldn’t be bound to ancient, obsolete law codes. I already know that it’s wrong to stone people for any reason, I don’t need the NT to tell me not to do that anymore.

          • Gilsongraybert

            No, I was saying you need to understand it’s proper literary form to read it properly. That is how literature works. We just do it intuitively at this point with most things, but look at any curriculum for elementary students and you will see how they teach this to be done. It’s culture it was written in is not the final litmus for interpretation, yet it nonetheless remains vital to understanding it because while these are timeless books, they are not ahistorical. There are terms, phrases, words, and even syntax used that means something different in our modern epoch.

            You clearly don’t do this within the scriptures because you can’t even distinguish between what I am referring to in OT Law, specifically the Mosaic Law in this case. I earnestly find it hard to believe you’ve done a comparative textual analysis of law codes in both testaments – care to flesh that statement out a little bit more..? Not to be rude, but you’re not even speaking in the appropriate terminology for one who has done comparative textual analysis of the Law (for starters, why capitalize it like I just did?). You’ve also shown you’ve not done any historical analysis on these same themes – and have actively sought to downplay the importance of it. Even some of your hardest atheistic biblical scholars would frown upon that.

            Yet your statement on the Bible being an absolute rule book on morality is probably the most troubling part of what you write – because though the Bible does definitively give revelation to morality and a proper ethic (one which modern society itself is entirely indebted to – unless, of course you believe morality is relative and done vacuously throughout all history) it is about the person of Christ and the ultimate plan of redemption through Him.

      • lady_black

        “I’m specifically highlighting the fact that a loosened/unrestricted sexual ethic produces men who act like this, and it starts far before homosexuality is accepted”

        No, it does not. And YES, selling a woman into chattel sexual slavery was condoned, and even required by selling a raped woman to her rapist for 50 silver shekels. They just called it “marriage.” How many women do YOU know that want to marry a rapist?

      • Statistics Palin

        Like every other poorly-educated, idiot fundamentalist you blame gays for everything from Katrina to 9/11. They simply exist and they have a right to do so. You’re following in the footsteps of your ancestors in the “faith” who considered dark skin a curse from God and, therefore, supported slavery and Jim Crow laws. Your “ethical” standards allow you to persecute even sexually abstinent homosexuals – even those too young to have had sex.

        Your Calvinist sh!t “god” makes people gay and then sends them to Hell for being gay. You must be one inadequate bastard to require your god to give you people to sh!t on so you can feel better about your vile self.

      • Sarah Flood

        A loosened/unrestricted sexual ethic does not produce men that grope women uninvited. A view that women are property and lesser beings than men *does* produce these men, and that attitude has existed since time immemorial. If you view women as slightly inferior, slightly less capable, slightly less intelligent and logical, you can justify all kinds of reprehensible behavior and then cast doubt on the woman by reminding everyone that women are “emotional” and “dramatic”.

        Sexual assault is not new and it has not increased since the 1960s. Recognition that consent is actually necessary and good *has* increased, which increases general awareness of the phenomenon. But gone are the days when bosses could assault their secretaries on a regular basis and get away with it and when men could rape their wives under protection of the law.

        If anything, what the liberal left is doing is fighting back against the idea that women’s bodies are the property of men and are actually the property of the women whose souls reside in them. In all my years of growing up in conservative churches, the idea of consent was literally never even brought up. It was not considered necessary to even discuss what consent means. Married men and women were considered obligated to have sex with their spouses whether they wanted to or not. A boy in my youth group consistently sexually harassed the other kids in the youth group, and he was the favorite of the adults. Even when adults were TOLD, it was considered more important to remain on good terms with his parents than to do anything about his behavior. I have been treated MUCH better by my liberal, feminist, somewhat agnostic boyfriends than I was by my conservative, evangelical boyfriends who considered it their responsibility to assert control over my life.

    • Caspian

      I agree with your post. Particularly “If you can’t tell the difference between consensual adult sexual relations and grabbing people’s genitals without their consent, then you’re actually the person who can’t discern good from evil.”

      However, Mr Graybert is right about context. Virgins were not sold for the purpose of ‘sex slavery’; they were sold/bought to insure the wealth and line of the family. Although, the point shouldn’t be lost that it still did not require the woman’s consent.

      As far as polygamy goes, it was not outright condoned any more than slavery was outright condemned.

      • Brian K

        The issues with The Bible you mention aren’t ones with room for nuance. If the book were in fact timeless and perfectly moral, it would have a very different take on slavery and involuntary marriage.

  • AustinRocks

    These spasms of Virtue Signaling really are sickening. Back when Michael Jackson was in legal trouble for his pedophilia addiction, I agreed with everyone that he was a total slimeball, and yet every day parents allow their kids to watch programs which toss out sexual references every 5 seconds, and depict gays and transgendereds as perfectly normal people. Face it, our culture is porned to the max, we push the idea that everyone has a right to sexual gratification, then suddenly everyone starts clutching her pearls and reaching for the smelling salts – “Ooh, dear me, that VILE Donald Trump, what a pig!” Yeah, he’s a pig, he lives in a pig culture in which people think it’s cool for both men AND women to sleep around. Trump typifies the pig culture, he did not create it.

    • EtiennaD

      Trump typifies what many conservative men secretly feel about women. He is simply open about it.Lets not act as if the anti feminist attitude he also carries isn’t found in many so called good ole boys.

      • AustinRocks

        The fact that you hate conservative men does not mean you have the power to read their minds. It’s typical of leftists, they think their hate provides with awesome powers of perception.

        If you keep your distance from conservative men, that will be a win-win. Women who hate men should resolve their issues among their own kind.

        • EtiennaD

          Nice try but I dont hate men. I hate ignorant abuse supporters like yourself.

        • I think we’ve seen which conservative men think Trump’s actions and statements are okay and which do not. Many do not and they have been clear in their response that they don’t talk that way and don’t condone others doing it either.

    • LGBT people having the basic right to exist, freedoms from freedom of speech to freedom of association etc allowed instead of an overbearing moralistic government cracking down on them, has nothing to do with sexual abuse. And you know it.

    • Sven2547

      Whining about so-called “virtue signalling” is so remarkably intellectually-lazy.

      • AustinRocks

        Click “Block,” you won’t see my comments.

        • Sven2547

          Stop embarrassing yourself, and I won’t see you keep embarrassing yourself.

          • AustinRocks

            Keep on giving commands, and I’ll keep on snickering.
            There’s a little Stalin inside every atheist. You can’t put us in gulags – yet – but for now you flame every Christian blog and try to silence us. Not gonna happen.

            I can only imagine what kind of person has no job and spews her hate at Christians 24/7. It’s a dead certainty that she’s not happy or mentally stable.

          • Sven2547

            What anti-Christian hate? I’m just criticizing your accusations of “virtue-signalling”. Apparently disagreeing with you makes me Josef Stalin?

            I can only imagine what kind of person has no job and spews her hate at Christians 24/7. It’s a dead certainty that she’s not happy or mentally stable.

            Beats me. I fail to see why you’d add that, since nothing about that describes me at all.

  • candide

    And there is no evidence that so-called born again Christians have better attitudes towards sexual exploitation than non-believers.

    • Etranger

      Spot on.

    • lady_black


  • Yes, because two normal, fully-grown adults who have a powerful and meaningful romantic relationship with each other and they happen to be born gay males is oh-so totally the same thing as a sexual predator grabbing innocent women to their shock… *sighs*

    Gilbert’s ‘argument’ reminds me of how the people at PETA also say breathlessly “a pig is a dog is a fly is a cow is a boy is a snake is a bull” and the like. There’s no reason. No logic. Just ideology.

    Okay, you can pretend that a bunch of black-versus-white different behaviors are all the same morally, but don’t except nearly all people to agree.

    • Etranger

      I will be playing pool tonight with 20 gay guys (regular event at a bar),all more demonstrably moral than trump, yet it is our fault trump is evil. Funny; yet sad because the author ACTUALLY believes that!

      • Luminous

        Trump never

        • Etranger

          Lol. Good one. None of the people I mentioned actually did that either. They also respected others’ sexuality. Trump doesn’t.

        • Oh, more BS games with statistics? Alright. The majority of individuals that have had AIDS in the history of the world have in fact been heterosexuals, particularly in nations such as South Africa. Therefore, straight people are evil and should be put into camps.

          Your “logic” doesn’t even begin to be rational. Human beings are individuals and should be judged based on their personal character. That’s reality.

          • Etranger

            Good reply. I had failed to mention in my reply that hiv aids has nothing to do with morality. Knowingly infecting someone might be immoral. Simply having an illness has nothing to do with it.

  • Etranger

    Ah yes, trump’s disgusting behavior and attitudes (which are not found in anyone I personally know…maybe I keep company with people who do know good fro evil) are the fault of gays and feminists. I love evangelical logic and choice of scapegoats!been dealing with it since I was a teen in the late 80s. Nothing has advanced for them has it; same hate different day.

    • EtiennaD

      Evangelicals are desperately looking for a scapegoat because they know where it embarrassingly comes from–them.
      They are the ones who have long been teaching, like other conservative cultures, that women are the property of men.

      They can’t find themselves to admit that the outdated and ignorant model of male authority and female submission needs to be rejected.

      That is where folks like Trump get their view of women. Along with the puritanical roots of sexuality and the sexual frustration and rebellion that resulted from it.

    • Gays and feminists encourage straight men to sexually assault women by grabbing them in the genitals? Really?

      • Etranger

        You didn’t catch the sarcasm?

    • Sarah Flood

      Yeah, I love how feminists are somehow responsible for the misdeeds of the archetypal symbol of problematic patriarchy and anti-feminist behaviors.

  • michelle

    The result of our sexual ethic? I would say the belief that ‘a star’ is permitted to sexually assault women whenever he wishes is a result of our idolatry of celebrity, power and money.

    • If any overall social trend is to blame, the most logical thing is to sociopathic materialism (something that you can fairly call ‘mammon’, I suppose). The notion that money and power equals goodness. And that trend sure isn’t isolated to any one group: it’s infected American Christians, American Atheists, American Agnostics, and all kinds of people alike.

  • Scotty Ragtop

    It all happened incrementally. When “living in sin together” and “shacking up” got replaced by the nonjudgmental “living together,” the battle for traditional marriage was already lost, abetted by no-fault divorce. America replaced “holy matrimony” with “sex is sacred.” We can try to keep our own lives clean and raise our kids to have standards, but expecting chastity from politicians is absurd. Remember that Reagan – Mr. Conservative himself – was our first divorced president, the guy who signed the nation’s first no-fault marriage law in California, the guy who said that when he was between marriages he “slept with every starlet in Hollywood.” Trump is neither new nor shocking.

  • HamburgerHelper1

    Poor Donald. He’s just a victim of society. 😛

  • Wesley Brock

    Ah look at the conservatives moan about the problem they created. Last time I checked the people supporting and giving a pass to Trump, and others like him were Christians, particularly Evangelicals. So let’s see look at some of your arguments.

    “An infant in the womb is not a treasure, but instead a punishment that can be readily discarded by those who want to continue in consequence-free sex.”

    I’m not sure why you think that sex should have consequence to begin with? The fact that you use that wording suggest to me that you see the infant in the womb as a punishment on those who don’t have sex according to your values and not a treasure. The idea that having a child before you are emotionally or financially ready is desirable or good is absurd and puts said child at great risk. Since we are literally biologically compelled to have sex it becomes an important part of our health. Studies have confirmed this much indicating that those who have sex regularly are happier and healthier. Freeing women from the cycle of child birth allows them to not only take part in this healthy activity on the level of men but also allows them to pursue other goals which many desire to do. Which given the fact that we have no shortage of people on this planet is a good thing. Not everyone needs or even should have children. Even with correct and constant use of birth control you can expect to have at least one unplanned pregnancy. That’s with the best BC by the way.

    “Homosexuality is now openly celebrated as love by a society who literally doesn’t understand what the word even means; they conflate lust with love and thereby, advocate the former whilst demeaning the latter.”

    No I think you are the one who doesn’t understand what the word means. No where in it do I see anything that would disqualify homosexuality from being love. If I love a dog, a sport, or a food I can sure as fuck love another man. The idea that lust is the driving force of homosexuality and not heterosexuality is apart of the old narrative used to demonize them. The fact is that lust operates equally in both. Lust is the first step to love in sexual relationships.

    “polyamorous and polygamous relationships,”

    Like all those found in the Bible by people god though were morally outstanding? Tell me exactly what is wrong with either of those?

    “the mutilation of consenting adults and even children is lauded (gender reassignment), and others from top universities have been calling for the stigma surrounding pedophilia to be surrendered.”

    I don’t care what consenting adults do as long as the consent is actually free from coercion. As for calling gender reassignment mutilation you’re full of shit. Mutilation is the practice of cutting off baby boys foreskin which is widespread in this country, and has no medical basis. Gender reassignment in children is rare because between surgery and hormone treatment is expensive and requires care, especially on the still developing bodies of children. However recognizing and supporting children in their gender disphoria is laudable and has none of those issues. As for the movement to remove the stigma of pedophilia so what? Does the removal of the stigma mean that we will legalize the act? Slippery slope argument at it’s finest. The removal of the stigma is being called for not so we legalize the act but so that we can begin to treat it as a medical issue instead of a criminal issue. If it is a orientation for which people have no say in then studying it is in our best interest. The fact is that children can not be said to give consent due to problems of power in the relationships so it would still be illegal and should be.

    In the end I find your arguments that Trump is a result of the progressive sexual ethic to be bullshit. The progressive sexual ethic has no provision in it demeaning women, touching them without consent, commenting on their physical appearance unwarranted, using said appearance to judge their ability to perform certain task or any of the other garbage that spews from that man’s mouth. No in fact, that kind of crap is the stuff we consistently see from the repressive sexual culture of Evangelical Christians who despite professing that women are not things, behave as though they are, that put men in position of unquestionable authority over women and children, that protect and cover up the abuses of these men, that teach their children that their natural curiosity and biological compulsions are not to be understood but feared as a sign of sin and weakness. Don’t you dare blame us for the problems your kind created.

    • EtiennaD
    • Jeff

      Bitter much?

      Beyond that, you have a lot of your facts backwards, and you are yelling at the wrong people.

      • Wesley Brock

        “Bitter much?”

        If I am so what? Or is this merely a rhetorical technique trying to use the perception that I’m angry as a way to discredit my points? A informal logical fallacy called “Tone Policing”. I suspect it is because you masterfully did nothing to actually refute my points except proclaim that you could i.e.-

        “Beyond that, you have a lot of your facts backwards, and you are yelling at the wrong people.”

        I don’t think I have the facts backward, I don’t think I’m yelling at the wrong people and I don’t think you can demonstrate otherwise.

        • Jeff

          You have further proven my point.

          Rant all you want, but don’t try to take the intellectual or moral high road, because you’re not on either.

          • Wesley Brock

            No, I haven’t because you literally never made a point. You just accused me of being bitter in lieu of a point. You then just claimed I had the facts backward but apparently felt no need to enumerate said facts almost as if you’re just talking out your ass.

          • Jeff

            And now, a third time, you have proven my point. You are bitter to the point where you make no sense, you twist facts, and now are cussing for emphasis. A sure sign of loss.

          • Wesley Brock

            What point? You have not made one. You make constant reference to my being wrong about facts but never actually demonstrate that to be the case. Cussing is no more a “sure sign of loss” then misspelling words is. A sign of loss would be refusing to answer questions or when you do answer them, as in the case of your answers to Etranger below, don’t actually support your position.

            So for the third time now what facts do I have wrong? What have I twisted? How does being bitter invalid my points?

          • dominik12

            Jeff … I’ve been following this thread for a little bit and you’ve left me with ONE question … are you REALLY Grayson Gilbert? That’s the ONLY reason I can understand your miscellaneous ramblings and attacks on folks that are responding to Grayson’s treatise.

          • Gilsongraybert

            No, I have no need to hide behind a pseudonym. I’m a big boy and comment publicly. Beyond that, I don’t have the time to devote to this thread like he does – I have a family and other, greater responsibilities. No offense to anyone here, but I have no ecclesial authority over anyone commenting, and for that matter, no obligation to provide a response or clarification on every comment or misconception.

    • cken

      True Christians share in the blame. However, secularism has exacerbated sexual proclivity.

      • EtiennaD

        No it hasn’t. Puritan strict roots on sexuality is what created this,

        Overly strict prudish an harmful regressive attitudes on sexuality s what gave rise to sexual frustration and rebellion.

      • Wesley Brock

        You do realize that the word “proclivity” simply means “being predisposed to a given activity”? And if we’re talking about human proclivity towards sex I would argue that is nature’s doing. It’s only your regressive sexual ethics that make the natural expression of human sexuality seem exacerbated.

  • Jeff

    “Make Trump’s comments into song lyrics and add metrical rhythm, and it would be downloaded ad nauseam by hormonal teens with angst. Turn it into a series of dirty limericks and older generations would giggle and guffaw at it. Put the story in narrative and it becomes an all-time best seller. Film it and people regularly watch it and become aroused by it.”

    Well stated and accurate. Thank you!

    • Etranger

      I listen to a lot of music that people download ad nauseam and I can honestly say I have not heard any lyrics that echo Trump’s comments. There is talk about sex and such but no mention of sex against a woman’s will. I will keep searching!

      • Jeff

        Are you aware of a genre called rap?

        • Etranger

          LOL, yes, that is one of the genres I am very familiar with. If you know of a song that advocates non-consensual sex that is frequently downloaded, let me know. I may have missed it.

        • are you aware of a tactic called stereotyping?

          • Jeff

            Would you like some examples?

          • Etranger

            Yes, been waiting 19 hours for examples. You have none.

          • Jeff

            I’ll just post a link. And yes, I know EXACTLY what smug answer you’ll give.


          • Etranger

            Thank you for the link. Yeah, very raunchy lyrics; not my cup of tea. No mention of non consensual sex though. (See not a smug answer! Just simple and to the point).

          • Etranger

            In summary, your original comment that that paragraph from the article was “accurate”, is incorrect. Trump’s statements are lewd but also describe sexual assault. The few rap songs you provided have crude descriptions of sex. Lewd, yes. But not the same thing.

          • Jeff

            You responded exactly as I knew you would. Word for word.

          • Etranger

            Excellent. Proves you refuse to see facts and don’t know the definition of smug.

          • Jeff

            No no, I see you.

          • Etranger

            Okay. How sad, not understanding the English language or the difference between consensual and non consensual sex. Very scary!!!!

          • Jeff

            Awwww, look at that – a snotty little liberal Millennial.

            Try these lyrics on, junior.

            “Put molly all in her champagne, she ain’t even know it, I took her home and I enjoyed that, she ain’t even know it.”

            “Sit down beside her like a spider, hi there girl, you mighta
            Heard of me before, see whore, you’re the kind of girl that I’d assault
            And rape then figure why not try not to make your p—y wider?
            F–k you with an umbrella, then open it up while the sh–s inside ya
            I’m the kinda guy that’s mild but I might flip and get a little bit wilder”

            “Hope they know my n–a gutter, f— kidnap kids, f— em in the a– throw ’em over the bridge.”

            “Tired of my face, Telling lies gettin’ n—s wives tied up and raped.”

            “Our navy, our ate and leave and rape your lady, Or maybe take more whores, show me your titty.”

            “And you call this sh– rape but I think that rape’s fun”

            Shall I include some more? Do you have any more utterly STUPID comments you want to make, junior?

          • Etranger

            Calm down man. First I am not snotty. Second, I am not a liberal millennial. Third, I have yet to make utterly stupid comments.
            Thank you for these lyrics, you finally found one that illustrates your point. Those are awful lyrics. What song is it from? Would you say it is popular? Most of us would condemn such songs and I certainly wouldn’t listen to it; not saying there aren’t plenty who would.
            This will be my final reply to you. You obviously have anger issues and cannot have an adult conversation.

          • Jeff

            I’m not riled up. But I’m also not interested in your snotty little games. Go play somewhere else. You lost this one.

          • Etranger

            Haven’t lost yet. You were wrong in your first comments. You found one example of a rap song that talked about rape/assault. (Still waiting on the title…)
            Sorry, I figured you were upset since you were so rude. Maybe that is how you just are normally.

          • Jeff

            Again, condescending little snark.

            That’s not one song – so you’re wrong about that too. But don’t bother doing any actual research about the things you pontificate about.

            Goodbye, good riddance.

          • Etranger

            Ciao. I never said anything that needed research. Who knows, you probably made those lyrics up yourself from your fantasies for all we know. Provide proof and support your points is not too much to ask is it? Plenty of popular rap (frequently downloaded was the criterium) does not contain that stuff. Some does; doesn’t make it right, nor is it free from criticism,as you and the author suggest.

          • Etranger

            Pointing out facts is condescending snark? Wow.

          • Etranger

            Soooo…looked up some of those lyrics and funny thing, those artists have not received carte blanche praise and acceptance for those songs. In the case of rick Ross he lost endorsements and did a public apology. There are criticisms galore about all those songs. Kind of runs counter to the flippant nonsense uttered by you and the blogger.

          • See Noevo

            How about some hits from the rappers who have been feted by Barack & Michelle at the White House?

          • Jeff

            I haven’t paid much attention to that, honestly. I understand that Beyonce was one of their guests – and I do find that a bit odd. Is that who Barack & Michelle really want their daughters emulating?

          • Jeff

            Wants some examples?

        • Are any rappers running for office? I suspect some of them would not get very far because of things they have recorded or done. You are looking for ways to excuse something that you know is wrong and you probably wouldn’t do yourself.

          • Jeff

            Wow – there’s a rabbit that just got chased.

            The focus of this article – a focus I agree with – is that we have become such a vulgar, profane, sexually screwed up society that this “Trump is naughty!!!” hype is a farce.

            And don’t go smarting off about how I’m trying to defend Trump, because I’m not. I find the man disgusting.

          • Well, then we agree on something. I agree that too much public media is far too crude. I am no prude but I do not care for reality shows and a lot of the disrespect show to much is much of pop music. I do think there’s a point to be made about that as part of what liberals call “rape culture”. I think we might find more common ground that you think. We should excuse talk like that no matter who is saying it.

    • But how do the two wrongs make a right?

      In this case, it’s even worse given that there isn’t a close comparison. It’s a lesser wrong making a greater wrong right. Which is, well, nonsense.

      Trump is bragging about having committed sexual assault. Fantasy violence, while indeed horrifying and maybe something that could cause problems such as a general desensitization in society, is still something that’s not real. And fantasy violence is often portrayed as a terrifying, despicable thing– something that the ‘bad guys’ do that the ‘good guys’ fight against. Even when it’s glorified, there’s often some kind of catch or underlying context there.

      Quite a contrast between, say, a teenager talking idly about enjoying stealing cars in Grand Theft Auto versus a fully-grown adult bragging about the last luxury vehicle that he actually carjacked in flesh-and-blood.

      • Jeff

        I don’t disagree. And I loathe Trump. But nothing about any of this is new information. He’s said the same thing in his books, so why is it that just now everyone is alarmed?

        But at the same time, let’s admit that our culture has become (maybe always has been?) extremely sexually vulgar. Profane. Pornography is the norm. A good share of rap music includes lyrics about rape and other sexual violence and perversions.

        It’s all disgusting, and there’s no excuse for it. But our current feigned outrage is largely hypocritical.

        • EtiennaD

          And guess where that culture came from? From the long overdue sexual frustration and rebellion of puritan America

          The more unnecessarily strict, uptight, and harmfully prudish society is, the stronger and extreme the rebel and frustration is. Pure psychology.

          • Jeff

            Yeah, you’re right. This kind of deviant violent sexual behavior has never existed any time prior to now, and has never been a part of any society until now…

            This isn’t pure psychology. It’s pure BS.

            Please start studying history.

          • EtiennaD

            Go back and read and see the context im talking about fool.

          • Jeff

            I read it.

            You are wrong.

            Come back after you’ve studied World History.

          • Gilsongraybert

            Unfortunately most have no interest in world history these days; I have a sneaking suspicion this is precisely why we are progressing the way we have been as a nation. What is the old adage? “Those who never study history are doomed to repeat it; those who do are doomed to watch it.”

          • Jeff

            ^ Right. A couple months ago, I had somebody yell at me, “You HAVE to admit that white people are the only ones who have ALWAYS enslaved other races!!!”

            I wasn’t sure what to say. Where do you even start, when confronted with such profound ignorance?

          • Gilsongraybert

            Ouch, that’s pretty bad. I end up bowing out more than I finish a conversation – not because a person gets nasty or rude, but simply because I don’t have an ability to cram a series of lessons in a short response (let alone blog post). Pascal sure had it right when he commented on people’s ability to be distracted!

          • Jeff

            I really don’t mind those type comments, if the person making them is open to learning.

            I ask said person if she was aware of the fact that roughly half the population of the city of Rome – during the time of Christ – consisted of slaves. She of course, had no idea. Asked her about slavery in Asia, from ancient times through today. No clue. Asked her if she was aware that slavery continues in Africa even today. She was appalled.

            Slavery is not a racial problem. It is a broken humanity problem.

        • Etranger

          You are very correct to ask why all of a sudden people (I.e., republicans) are outraged by trump. Too late for them to play a morals card!

        • There’s still the question of who’s the “our” in your sentence. There are plenty of individuals to whom outrage is neither feigned nor hypocritical. You’re engaged in the same kind of sloppy thinking when you hear, say, far left people say something like “The whites have been responsible for all of the ills of America” or “The capitalists have destroyed us” or “They’re controlling the media”. You have to specify things beyond a bogeymen “They”/”Our”/etc.

          As well, I’m still disturbed by your refusal to understand the difference (or obstruction as such) between being lewd and profane versus being domineering and assaulting. The two aren’t the same. There’s a genuine distinctness between walking down the street and hearing someone say something nasty to you versus what if you’re standing in a line and someone grabs you from behind to grope you. One is terrible but is still free speech. The other is horrifying to the point that we as a society agree that it should be a jail-able offense.

          • Jeff

            I included some rap lyrics about rape, etc. in a comment below.

            Read them, be outraged, rail and rant, then get back to me.

          • You’re acting as if this is nothing more than a stupid left-v-right points scoring contest. It’s not. I have no interest in ‘getting’ you. Nor is this a matter of pretending outrage. A major Presidential candidate supported by over 40% of the nation has bragged openly about sexual assault. That’s horrific. That’s the central thing.

          • Jeff

            And another Presidential Candidate went overboard trying to silence or discredit the women her husband raped.

            So do tell… Who’s the clean one here?

          • I missed the rape charges against Bill Clinton. I know he was accused of sexual harassment (only one case, settled out of court) and some affairs (consensual). What I don’t remember is him going on Howard Stern and bragging about all the affairs he’s had. Bill Clinton is no saint, to be sure. (I also think that in the current political environment he wouldn’t survive the Gennifer Flowers scandal like he did in 1992. No Democrat will survive a scandal like that in 2020 or forward. )

          • Jeff

            Give me a break! 😀

          • No.

            Being sleazy and sleeping around with various woman while you’re married is a terrible thing, but that consensual activity is not the same thing as sexual assault. You know that. I know that. Don’t decide that maintaining right-wing talking points is more important than accepting the facts.

            And, of course, two wrongs don’t make a right. It’s particularly galling when Clinton’s cited evil here is to “Stand By Her Man” when he did bad, sleazy things that were wrong but consensual. Whereas Trump’s cited evil is committing acts of sexual assault to the point that he brags about it.

            It’s as if we’re on the jury of a criminal trial where one neighbor stole the other neighbor’s mail, and the other neighbor shot him as a response, and you’re saying: “Well, but that mail could have been important, and clearly neither of them are the ‘clean one’. They’re both sinners. They’re both wrong. I can’t condemn either one of them.”

          • Jeff

            1. Where have you seen me defending Trump in any way?
            2. How in holy hell can you POSSIBLY flippantly excuse Bill Clinton’s sexual deviancy? Are you saying he DIDN’T rape the women who have accused him of rape? Is rape consensual?
            3. Just admit that you’re a Hillary fan, and you’re going to vote for her regardless of decades of corruption, lying, crime, and fraud.

          • 1. By making false equivalency and lying.

            2. Why do you refuse to accept that there’s a difference between a)cheating, being vulgar, and the like and b)sexual assault? Frankly, this kind of attitude is one of the major reasons that I’m really, really glad that I’m not a Christian. “Sin” is a very bad way to judge what is moral or not moral. The Bible talks of slavery being fine while sleeping around is worth stoning over. I don’t agree. Neither should you. I understand that you have to pretend that rape=adultery=sex-outside-of-wedlock because that’s what your religious beliefs demand, but I’d rather live in reality.

            3. I voted for McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012. I dislike Clinton greatly. She’s wrong about gun control, wrong about taxes, and wrong about a great many things. If anything describes her best, it would be “Richard Nixon in a dress”. But she’s not an authoritarian psychopath who should be in jail for sexual assault.

            You guys could have nominated Rand Paul. You could have nominated Jon Huntsman. You could have nominated Gary Johnson. You could have actually cared about limited government, economic growth, and the like. But no. You embraced authoritarian politics in its purest form and put forth one of the worst examples of American big government aristocracy in history. You expect me to be happy about this? No.

        • Sarah Flood

          I’ll admit we have problems with sexual obsession in culture. You know how you create an obsession? Make something taboo.

          And actually, I find much of the outrage entirely consistent with people’s sexual ethic: consent. If you are 100% consistent on demanding consent in all sexual situations (which we all should be), and somebody violates that, then the outrage is completely non-hypocritical. People aren’t bothered by Trump having sex (well, not in moral sense anyway). They’re bothered by the fact that he made it quite clear that he doesn’t ask for consent before grabbing women’s genitalia.

          If, however, you are constantly stating that sex is ok in marriage only and that any sex outside of marriage is sinful and dirty, and then Trump starts bragging about sexually assaulting women and telling stories about trying to seduce married women, and you calmly downgrade that to “macho talk”, you are indeed a hypocrite of the worst kind.

  • Joe Monte

    To the extent that America is like Egypt: Egypt’s sexual ethic creates men like Trump.

  • cken

    I would bet 80% of American males have been party to macho locker room talk not unlike Trump’s regardless how disgusting we think it is. I have heard women say things equally sexually disgusting about men. Keep in mind that about 70% of those who purchased Fifty Shades of Grey were women. Which would lead one to believe that about 100 million women fantasize about being controlled and sexually abused if the man has enough money.
    However, Trumps remarks pale in comparison to what Bill and Hillary have done and said.
    Sadly maybe this country has to hit rock bottom by becoming more of a third world country under Hillary before we wake up.

    • Etranger

      I played high school basketball and football and never heard sexual assault talk. Last week I was talking with air force and army buds. Same thing on their end- they talk about women and it can get crude; they don’t talk about being able to grab whatever woman they want when they want. 50 shades of grey? You do know that was a fiction book right?

      • It’s been odd this week hearing men that I seriously doubt have ever talked like that defend Trump’s comments as if they were no big deal. It’s one thing to admit that you don’t like those words but like his policy about this or that, but to pretend that all men talk about sexually assaulting women is rather strange, especially from men who I’m sure have never said several of those worse, at least not since adolescence.

        • There’s the fundamental thing that so many men provide a kind of ‘cover’ for the tiny handful of men that are rapists and abusers that they’re muddying the waters– allowing so many perpetrators to get free. I don’t know where this ends. I’m hoping that the U.S. continues to progress and doesn’t slide backward like Afghanistan and Iran did in the middle of the 20th century.

          • Animal Farm

            …..then America should retrace her steps back to God who gave her the power to get wealth. In an election period, you people nominated two Presidential candidates and the two of them happens to be evil! What does that suggest?

          • It’s a rather weird reading of the Gospels to think that Jesus Christ said that following him would make you have great earthly power and lots of earthly wealth.

            I could quote quite a lot of verses that would point to the exact antithetical opposite.

    • AustinRocks

      I don’t think that’s true at all. 80 percent sounds ridiculous – more like 95 percent. Locker rooms are what they are, and men are men.

      Agree about Bill and Hellary. Everyone connected with them says they can both outcuss ever sailor who ever lived. I learned back in college that left-wing women love to talk dirty, they seem to think it makes them more like men. Strange that feminism chose the vilest aspects of maleness and told women “Be nasty, men are.”

      • Sarah Flood

        Well, hopefully you and all these men you know are on the “not safe to be around” list of all the women you know, since you’re all bragging about all those sexual assaults you’ve committed.

    • No. Most men do not brag of rape and sexual assault. To claim so is incredibly bigoted and hateful to men. Men are not brainless animals with no reason that are only lead by hormones.

    • Sarah Flood

      Fifty Shades of Grey is
      1. A terrible representation of what BDSM actually is
      2. A fantasy, not real life.

      Lots of people fantasize about things they would NEVER do in real life. I would never take up rock climbing; I’m petrified of heights. Do I fantasize about it? Yes.

      And yes, your view that 80% of men talk like this is disgusting and an incredibly low view of men. I know plenty of men absolutely horrified by what Trump said because they recognize it as sexually deviant and violent. This isn’t “sex talk”. This is a pervert bragging about sexually assaulting women. And unless you hang out with different (and far more deviant and criminal) women than I do, I call BS that you’ve heard women brag about randomly grabbing men’s penises without asking. Because that would also be a crime. And those women should be called out and shut down for it, not excused because “everybody” is doing it.

      • cken

        My point was that women must fantasize about it that is why they purchased so many books. You are right usually women don’t talk about grabbing, it is more what I would do to him or he could do to me.

        • Sarah Flood

          Fantasizing about BDSM, in which the submissive partner is actually the one in control (because everything that happens only can happen if that partner is okay with it) and which is intensely consensual (often things are completely talked out beforehand) and which requires a ton of trust between partners and fantasizing about actually being assaulted (which, in my experience, is terrifying, bewildering, and dehumanizing) are two entirely different ballgames.

  • MeChelle Hall

    I was getting hopeful that this article was going deeper, but then it stalled upon the usual suspects. Having come to faith rooted in Christ Jesus when I was about a month from turning age 41 (in 2009), although now 27-years married with an adult son, and having tried, without success, to question people I thought as possibly-knowledgeable mentors, I still have only partial understanding as to what holy sexual union is. To stop at such fragments of what it is not just doesn’t seem to be cutting it!

    Similarly to the way this article depicts Mr. Trump’s attitude being borne of an ill society, I suspect that some of the other areas were/are also an outflow over generations with the affected individuals perhaps not having any idea that their life-long identifications are from Enemy lies that they didn’t even accept on their own behalf. Even personally, and that as a heterosexual, married female (not as someone having to deal with confusions of broader sorts), until I came to have my own personal faith, I had hardly a clue that what was happening in my own life was so twisted from healthy, for society largely encouraged just that.

    • Gilsongraybert

      MeChelle, what particular questions do you have about what a holy sexual union is? I find that directed questions get directed answers, and would be happy to provide some from what I’ve been exegeting out of 1 Thessalonians 4:1-8 if it is applicable. There are numerous other passages that refer to a proper sexuality as well, but I am more so curious as to what your questions may be.

      • MeChelle Hall

        I realized after writing my comment, which did, essentially, contain my question, of what is holy sexual union, that it’s not so easily answerable, for the physical aspect is such a minor portion of the whole, and the whole, on Earth, is as a reflection of through-a-mirror-dimly. Telling what it is not likely holds just as much as telling what it is, and, after reading Swiperthefox’s reply-comment, just slightly prior in this thread, I’m thinking this may not be the place to proceed. Ultimately, I grasp it is to be an act of worshipping God, in the context of a holy marriage, where mutual submission is the course chosen, in the fullness of both wife’s and husband’s individual freedom (no coercion, manipulation, etc.), fulfilled in a physical interaction that reflects and acknowledges Christ and His bride, the Church.

  • Ann

    Like the “The Sexual Revolution Created Donald Trump” article, this one has missed the mark. I am very saddened that other Christians are promoting such a harmful and severely ignorant view on human sexuality and gender.

    What you two seem to ignore is that men like Trump have far more in common with conservative culture.
    Don’t avoid the obvious link between male authoritarianism (the outdated woman submit man dominate model) and the abuse of women.

    Trump is perfectly in line with the patriarchy. What we are seeing and hearing from him in regards to woemn, is male ego worship and patriarchal idolatry.

    The LGBT and feminists and liberal sexual ethics in general, have NOTHING to do with this. They aren’t the ones teaching that a man owns his household, owns his children, owns his wife, owns his wife’s status of virtue, etc
    They aren’t the ones teaching that a woman needs to obey her husband like some silly child with no say or that there is no such thing as spousal rape. They aren’t the ones teaching boys that a girl is fair game if she doesn’t fit the purity mold and is okay to disrespect.

    • calduncan

      Hysterical hogwash.

    • “[S]pousal rape” doesn’t exist. Women that are married have a wifely duty to accept their husband’s physical needs. To do so otherwise is to harm their husbands. That’s immoral, disgusting, and wrong. If the man needs sex, then sex must be provided. The women need to understand that their place is to serve just as the Church serves Christ. These “anti-spousal rape” laws are acts of anti-male, anti-Christian bigotry done by extremist feminist leftists, part of the grand worldwide conspiracy of Cultural Marxism done to eliminate the Church. Those women are evil. Period.

      / Channeling social conservatism
      / I feel sick now
      / Really sad that some 1/4 or so of Americans believe this garbage.

      • MeChelle Hall


    • Gilsongraybert

      Biblical headship is not in line with patriarchal structures; biblical headship does not teach a man owns his family, but that he leads his family by placing their needs before his own. It is sacrificial. Social conservatives are not necessarily in line with biblical conservatives. Social conservatives can easily go to another extreme and thereby pervert the biblical sexual ethic.

      I’ll repeat what was said below: if one goes privately to commit sexual misconduct, yet publicly hides his sin – he is not a conservative. Simply touting ideas does not mean you hold to them or are mastered by the conviction that it is true. Both liberals and social conservatives can easily have a liberal sexual ethic. Unfortunately, I believe far too many in the church (and outside of it as well) think that conservatism equals Christianity.

      Progressivism treats sexual licentiousness as an incredibly good and praiseworthy thing and that autonomy is the highest goal – social conservatism takes that cue and perverts sexuality equally, believing that they also have no bounds – yet they hide it because progressives are tired of the “pot calling the kettle black.” Again, both hold a liberal sexual ethic that is contrary to the revealed will of God.

      Social conservatives don’t hold the market on morality – the scriptures do.

    • petej

      There is no Christian church on planet earth that “teaches boys that a girl is fair game.”

      Not one.

      Deal with facts, not feminist propaganda.

    • Rowland Reeves

      Grayson Gilbert: Appreciate your accurate description of the current condition of American culture. Trump is a product of the cultural degradation that has occurred over the past 50 years. Largely due to the movies, Television, and unlimited access to porn on the Internet. I would also agree with Ann’s post in that patriarchal beliefs contribute to the acceptance of that degraded belief system in the name of male dominance.

  • Rowland Reeves

    Grayson Gilbert: Appreciate your, in my opinion, accurate description of the current condition of American culture. Trump is a product of the cultural degradation that has occurred over the past 50 years. Largely due to the movies, Television, and unlimited access to porn on the Internet. I would also agree with Ann’s post in that patriarchal beliefs contribute to the acceptance of that degraded belief system in the name of male dominance. No nation can long survive if its culture degrades to base beliefs and immorality.

    • matthew harvey

      No nation can long survive if its culture degrades to base beliefs and immorality.
      How do you define morality ?

      • Rowland Reeves

        My opinion – partial description of morality – Don’t steal, lie, bribe, belittle or bully others; don’t use your wealth to hold others down. Avoid drug addiction and thus the many negative consequences of that life style. Hold public office in high esteem with a sense of responsibility and dedication to improving the human condition.

      • Rowland Reeves

        My opinion – partial description of morality – Don’t steal, lie, bribe, belittle or bully others; don’t use your wealth to hold others down. Avoid drug addiction and thus the many negative consequences of that life style. Hold public office in high esteem with a sense of responsibility and dedication to improving the human condition.