The Ten Men

The Ten Men March 3, 2014

by Vyckie Garrison of No Longer Quivering

I seriously need to stop reading the writings of contemporary Patriarchs … I thought the Persevero News article that I posted earlier today which defends child abusers was bad (and it is!), but Vaughn Ohlman’s latest is equally infuriating!!

After poo-pooing the list of “Ten Men” which a Christian author warns women not to marry (liars, playboys, deadbeats, addicts, bums, narcissists, abusers, control freaks … Von says, Hey – we all have our faults, give these guys the benefit of the doubt here), he comes up with his own list of the kind of guys Christian girls should be eager to marry:

1. Marry a man who is not forbidden to you by incest. (Leviticus 20:11-21)

2. Marry a man who is not already married. Unless the man and his wife believe in polygamy, such a man is off limits, as he would be violating his covenantal vow (Numbers 30:1-16). Even if they do, there are a lot of young men that don’t have wives. Pick one of them first. (I Corinthians 7:2)

3. Marry a man who your father has picked. It is your father’s job, and not your own, to pick your husband. Unfortunately that may mean that he picks someone that doesn’t fit any of your criteria. Don’t let that worry you, as he will be the man that God wants for you. God doesn’t make mistakes. (Jeremiah 29:6)

4. Marry a man that is dedicated to condom-free sex. [3] IE marry a man that plans to have children by your marriage. Marry a man that realizes that he is given the incredible joy of sex in marriage as a covenant with God; and one of the features of the covenant is God’s command to be fruitful and multiply. Having children is the way that God blesses the Godly man.(See Psalm 127:1-5, Psalm 128:1-6)

5. Marry a man that is dedicated to leading his wife, his children and, ultimately, his church and his community. To raising such a fine family, such a Godly family, that he will be asked to sit ‘in the gates’ of his church and civil community. (See Ephesians 5:22-33, Titus 1:5-11, I Timothy 3:1-13)

6. Marry man who is horny. Translation: marry a man who desires to have sex with you. Who is burning with that desire. (See Proverbs 5:15,20, I Corinthians 7:2, I Corinthians 7:9, and the entire Song of Solomon.)

7. Marry a man you have had sex with. (Exodus 22:16-17) Or even really, really want to have sex with (I Corinthians 7:9).

8. Marry that man you divorced. (I Corinthians 7:10-11)

9. Marry that man you are separated from. Or, if you are offended by my using the word ‘marry’ when you think you haven’t ‘divorced’ (I Corinthians 7:10-11) then I will tell you that you need to move back in with him and start having sex with him again, and stop defrauding him. (I Corinthians 7:3-5)

10. Marry a man that exists. Get married. (Genesis 2:18)

After Vaughn Ohlman’s post was up at his blog True Love Doesn’t Wait he took it down. He’s a coward for deleting his post when the feedback isn’t as positive as he expected.

Comments open below

Follow Vyckie on Facebook and Twitter

Vyckie Garrison started No Longer Quivering to tell the story of her “escape” from the Quiverfull movement.

Over time, NLQ has developed into a valuable resource of information regarding the deceptions and dangers of the Quiverfull philosophy and lifestyle. Several more former QF adherents are now contributing their stories to NLQ and our collective voice makes these Quiverfull warnings impossible to dismiss or ignore.

NLQ Recommended Reading …

Breaking Their Will: Shedding Light on Religious Child Maltreatment‘ by Janet Heimlich

Quivering Daughters‘ by Hillary McFarland

Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement‘ by Kathryn Joyce

 


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Nea

    Wait, so he got pushback on his own blog? That’s hilarious!

  • tulips

    Filed under: Women are not allowed to have standards.

  • tulips

    Probably the divorced couple getting remarried, explicitly prohibited ;P

  • Allison the Great

    Here are my responses to all ten of these bizarre things that a woman should look for (but not really look for because it’s her father’s job to look for it ) list:

    1. Duh.
    2. Again, duh. Even if he is into polygamy, um FUCK NO! EW, just ew.
    3. So why can’t women pick their own husbands again? Seriously? And no, that is NOT your father’s job. That’s your job. Daddy’s not the one who has to live with and screw the guy every night, you are, so again, I’m making that choice and you should be the one who makes it too. Women have the right to have control over their lives and pick who they marry. The crap that was written thousands of years ago was pretty fucked up and barbaric, and it sure as hell does NOT apply to today.
    4. Obviously sex is supposed to be a joy in a marriage, but it doesn’t ALWAYS have to result in having a child. Some people are entitled to make their own decisions about how many (if any) children they have and they can use whatever means necessary to have the size of family they want, big, small, or no kids at all.
    5. Wrong, marry a man that respects you. Support your husband’s ambitions yes, but make sure you’ve found someone that values ALL of you and respects your ambitions as well. Marry for equality and always stand by each other. That’s what I have learned from my parents’ egalitarian marriage and that is what I strive for when I do get married. Every year, they respect each other more. That is what I want.
    6. Well yeah, you should marry a man who desires you sexually. But don’t marry a horn dog who forces you to have sex when you don’t want to like when you just had a root canal, or a hysterectomy or a corneal transplant (I had one last Wednesday, it hurts like a motherfucker) and for some stupid reason he’s feeling randy and he won’t take no for an answer. In short, don’t marry an overly horny asshole. He has to take your moods and feelings into consideration too.
    7. No, this isn’t thousands of years ago. You do not have to marry the sack of shit that you dated but now can’t stand and for the life of you cannot understand why you dated that ass douche in the first place. You don’t have to marry that guy. Nope.
    8. NO. Just no. If you’re divorced and you’re happy, stay divorced. People get divorced for a number of reasons. It could be that he’s an asshole that has done some horrible things to you. It could be he’s a nice guy but you jumped the gun and married him when you shouldn’t have. Don’t marry the man you divorced.
    9. Only move back in with the guy you’re separated from if you want to. You don’t have to. You probably have legitimate reasons for separation and those reasons are none of Vaughn Ohlman’s business. You do you, buddy.
    10. WHAT!?!?! I have to marry a man that exists? What is this noise? *CRIES* I was going to marry either Jaime Lannister (I forgive you for your incest!!!! SHE LED YOU TO SIN! YOU KNEW NOT WHAT YOU DID!) or Jon Snow (I’m listening to the third book of A Song of Ice and Fire, Roy Dotrice BEST NARRATOR EVER) And now you’re telling me that I can’t marry either of them? I can’t even marry Tyrion? Goddammit! What about Dean Winchester, I can’t marry that bag of sex because he doesn’t exist?!?! Son of a bitch!

    On a more serious note, in another thread, I asked Mr. Ohlman if any of these beliefs bother him. He responded by saying that yes, things from “other teachers” do bother him. The thing is though, I think he’s bothered by the wrong things. Judging from this list he’s not bothered by misogyny, that’s for damn sure.

    These biblical laws probably didn’t even work when they were written. Most of them were extremely barbaric and fucked up. I cannot imagine how any of this would be inspired by a divine entity that loves us, and then says we have to follow this legalistic crap in order for him not to torture us for all eternity.

  • Brennan

    Notice how there’s no mention of the woman in #4. “The incredible joy of sex in marriage” is a covenant between *him* and *God.* No other parties involved. That sums up Vaughn Ohlman’s world view nicely: women exist to be guilt-free masturbatory aids that happen to pop out babies.

  • tulips

    Hands off Dean Winchester, my DD called dibs already. 😉

  • Allison the Great

    We are gifts and help meets to men, nothing more. We do not have the right to make our own choices and we need to shut up and stay in the home. That sickens me.

  • Allison the Great

    Oh hell naw, I will fight you for him, lmfao. Or we can share him.

  • Brennan

    “What about Dean Winchester, I can’t marry that bag of sex because he doesn’t exist?!?! Son of a bitch!”

    That’s a heart-breaker for all of us. 😉

  • Independent Thinker

    1. Marry a man who has never heard of Vaughn Ohlam
    2. Marry a man who will never discuss your grown children’s sex life on the internet
    3. Marry a man who doesn’t defend pedophiles
    4. Marry a man with the balls to speak out against domestic violence
    5. Marry a man who respects his wife’s health more than his personal sex drive
    6. Marry a man who understands the bible was written in three languages and it has been translated over and over again. None of those languages were in English thus significant grey areas for English translations exist.
    7. Marry a man who supports his family and goes to work everyday even if his boss is a woman
    8. Marry a man who doesn’t see anything righteous about lying or covering up the truth to support an agenda
    9. Marry a who isn’t paranoid
    10. Marry a man who doesn’t think your dad has the title or deed to your vagina

  • tulips

    She went as DW for Halloween, totally deserves mad props for pulling it off!

  • quietglow

    “Marry a man who your father has picked. It is your father’s job,
    and not your own, to pick your husband. Unfortunately that may mean
    that he picks someone that doesn’t fit any of your criteria. Don’t let
    that worry you, as he will be the man that God wants for you. God
    doesn’t make mistakes.”

    Logically, then, my father is god.

    Interesting.

  • Vaughn Ohlman

    Actually the post concerned was not scheduled to be posted for a few days, but an editor pushed the wrong button. Never fear, it will be back up soon, in its final version.
    And, no, I didn’t actually get any comments on the site. Would love some, so feel free.

  • Nightshade

    OK, but I want Sam. Or Crowley. Or Cas.

  • Joy

    You can have Jaime…I’ll take Jon Snow…but he’s got to move somewhere warmer.

  • Brennan

    11. Marry a man who would be suitably disgusted if you told him who Vaughn Ohlman is.

  • Allison the Great

    Oh I love Castiel. Shit this rule sucks. We have to marry someone who exists? How about we spilt these men up amongst ourselves up by episode? One of us can have Dean or Sam or Cas or Jon Snow or Jaime from one episode and then the others pick from a different episode?

  • Allison the Great

    Riiiiight. Dude, seriously, that post is marinated in wrong sauce.

  • quietglow

    Why would you love comments?

  • Trollface McGee

    So, in other words, if he has a pulse and a penis – marry him (as long as he’s a Christian and daddy does the penis picking).

  • Trollface McGee

    Yeah, really the “exists” part got to me too. I might be a lesbian but I still call dibs on some particular male (and female) fictional characters >.>

  • Allison the Great

    Yeah, I’m not a lesbian but there are certain female characters that whose bones I would jump if I were drunk enough, and this is coming from someone who is strictly dickly but damn there are some hot chicks in books.

  • Astrin Ymris

    Dibs on Dr. Daniel Jackson of Stargate: SG1!

  • Vaughn Ohlman

    Several reasons why I love comments, even (especially) negative comments:
    One is purely selfish: people love a good fight and tend to gravitate toward posts with a good argument 🙂

    The second is ministry related. Often those who disagree bring up good points or good questions. Often answering their questions, or fixing the article, can make the communication better.

    The third is purely personal, I like a good fight 🙂

    Kinda surprised anyone here thought I was a coward. I’m the one who agreed to be interviewed for this site (catch Bill Gothard doing that, eh?); and I’m not the one who ended the interviews.

  • Vaughn Ohlman

    Not sure what that means but when the post is published you will, hopefully, see the difference between the first and final version.

  • Lady Tenar

    I’ll fight you for Jon Snow!

  • Lady Tenar

    Well, ironically, I sort of agree with 7. You will definitely be happier if you marry a man you really want to have sex with and I personally think it’s probably better to have had sex with him already. 😛 (Where Vaughn and I diverge is that you don’t have to marry the very first guy you really want to have sex with and you don’t have to marry any guy just because you had sex. :-P)

    But…what if Dad picks a guy who makes your skin crawl, that you wouldn’t want to touch with a 10-foot pole? You’ve still got to put out for him, right? So 7 isn’t really so important after all. It’s got something to do with what a woman wants so how could it be?

  • persephone

    All these Vaughn types say they’re speaking for God, that they are his conduits, but they’re really just tin-plated tyrants using religion to control others and prop up their egos. Same as it ever was. You know Abraham told Sarah, “Oh, yeah, Yahweh told me I have to have a son, so since you’re a little long in the tooth, I’ll have to get it on with someone younger. How about Hagar? She’s pretty ho… er, handy, being your personal maid and all.” And thus three religions and the hells they created on earth were born.

  • persephone

    Because if they did, guys like Vaughn would never have sex.

  • Madame

    “The third is purely personal, I like a good fight :)”

    A good fight is something different from a good debate. I prefer debate, where people actually listen to each other and learn from each other.

    As this post is still being edited, note that it’s “marry a man whom your father has picked” (not who). NOT that I agree with that piece of advice, though… 😉

  • Allison the Great

    Oh yeah, you’ll get a fight. Number 3? What is THAT? Seriously why would you even think that a woman shouldn’t choose her own husband, and that it’s not her choice? Why does a woman have to have EVERY aspect of her life controlled and decided by someone else?
    I mean according to your standards, a woman is just property and she can’t choose anything. Her life is not her own. How is this okay? It is rather dehumanizing. I’m sure that if you had to live this way, and if all the autonomy that you enjoy as a man in this culture were taken away, you would hate this very much. I’m sure that you, from your lofty position of being male don’t have a problem with it now and that you have a host of bible verses that you think justify this, and those are just…sick. Remember when I asked you if you ever throw anything out? That’s the crap you need to throw out! I don’t think that any holy book should give you the right to take away the autonomy of another human being because of something like gender.

  • KarenH

    That list is essentially the rules for teaching girls they’re nothing more than a pussy and a pair of boobs and that they are property to be disposed of by their Daddies and sold to other men.

    And if my understanding of YOUR opinions on marriage stands, they are to be sold while still underage and too young to have finished school.

    If the god you worship not only buys into this shit, but commands it? I want no part of him. Nor any man who follows him.

  • KarenH

    Because penis. The god these men worship is a penis.

    Figuratively? Literally? It really doesn’t matter. Their god is a total dick.

  • Nea

    V believes in sexual slavery: one man hands a woman to another man without her input and specifically to serve for his sexual “needs.” That makes him a pimp, not a pastor. That V also suggests that she be a teenager able to bear (but not necessarily legal) makes him a pedo as well.

    He has been told this to his face before and the answer is “because bible.”

  • Vaughn Ohlman

    Thanks for the grammar correction, Madame. I think the dialect I grew up with lacked ‘whom’ and I never know for whom I should use it 😉

    That is an interesting definition for the difference between fight and debate. I am used to people saying that that is why they don’t like debate… because each person is just interested in defending their own proposition. Indeed in debates one is often even defending a proposition one doesn’t believe in, because one has been assigned it.

    Anyway, I like a good fight 🙂 It is Biblical language, too. Paul never said, “I have debated the good debate.”

  • Em

    But there are so many horny men dedicated to condom free sex on the market nowadays….how can I (my father) possibly narrow it down? I should probably just move back in with my emotionally unstable and drug addicted ex. It is totes but fair that I just get to walk around all the time with this bangin’ bod and he never gets to tap that. He is male and he deserves it, I am such a bad person for standing in the way of his god given right to impregnate me.

  • Joy

    Actually I believe Sarah offered Hagar to Abraham. There was a tradition that if a woman’s maid was pregnant and the baby was caught by the woman (Sarah in this case) then the baby was considered the woman’s, not the maid’s child. This was Sarah’s plan. Doesn’t make the results any different though.

  • Vaughn Ohlman

    DD,
    If you are asking me, specifically, why I am teaching that a woman should not be choosing her own husband, this late in the day, I am guessing that you have not been following my blog over the years. Naughty you. It isn’t the topic of this post, so I will let you read back and discover why that is. I’m sure you will find lots of nice posts to complain about.

    But touching the OP for a second, to clear up any misunderstanding that might exist, I wanted to say that is is those of us who believe in patriarchy, those of us who believe that women are the weaker vessel, those of us who believe in the strong protective role of the father, who should be the most aggrieved at any suggestion that Bill Gothard (assuming the accusations are true), the students and staff at Patrick Henry (ditto), and Doug Phillips (who has publicly confessed, at least in part), can somehow avoid their guilt for any and every inappropriate sexual relationship, covering up of inappropriate sexual relationship, or attempt to silence those who bring such a relationship forward.

    As some of you know my blog, and focus, is largely on the role of the father. Thus my focus here is not on the judicial aspects, the church discipline aspects, or the overall culture aspects; but on the role of the father. To say that Bill Gothard is guilty of X, Y, and Z sex crimes is not to say that one cannot discuss the issues that DD and I have been discussing (a bit reluctantly on her part).

    A father who checks out as a father, who allows false doctrine into his house, who allows his children to participate in events and systems that teach false doctrine, that sends his children away for ‘training’ in that false doctrine, who teaches his children that purveyors of false doctrine are appropriate ‘authorities’, who does not teach his children how to cry for help if placed in an inappropriate sexual situation; who does not teach those children what such as situation IS in the first place, who does not, once he learns about ‘inappropriate sexual conduct’, raise heaven and Earth to get the purveyor dethroned and thus protect other vulnerable children, etc. etc. is a father who bears a (totally separate from the issue of the guilt of the sexual predator) guilt for his sins.

    And this is true even when the predator is not overtly known to be teaching false doctrine, but is instead revealing other disturbing character traits: such as pride, a tendency to make his ministry revolve around himself, etc.
    And this is true even when that is not evident, but the ‘training’ and the like is such that separates the family, and places an unBiblical authority in the hands of some ‘trainer’. It is not for nothing that the Scripture tells parents that they are the ones who should ‘train up’ their children in the way they should go.

    (Sounds like I should write a blog post, eh?)

  • tulips

    Yes, you should write a lot of them and you should definitely quote Rushdoony as much as possible throughout the text.

  • Vaughn Ohlman

    I haven’t actually quoted Rushdoony much. I tend to quote Calvin, Gill, Henry and the like.

  • Nightshade

    Not entirely even the Christian requirement. http://truelovedoesntwait.com/the-path-to-marriage/is-it-wrong-for-a-christian-to-marry-a-non-believer-ideals-vs-commandments-2/

    ‘So then, if a godly father has an unbelieving son or daughter, where is
    he to find a spouse for them? Is it not equally a sin on the part of the
    Church congregation if they would DENY one of their needy members of
    the Scriptural remedy, especially the remedy to prevent fornication
    (sin)? James 2:15-16 condemns those in the Church who would not put their faith into action by meeting the needs of a brother or sister.

    Certainly it is a difficult calling indeed for a believing man or woman
    to endure the hardship of being one flesh with an unbeliever. Yet, the
    Scripture commends such actions. In verse 14 of 1 Corinthians 7, it says
    that the unbelieving spouse is actually sanctified by the believing
    spouse, that their progeny would be a holy seed, as in Malachi 2:15. Moreover, both 1 Corinthians 7:16 and 1 Peter 3:1
    tell us that the unbeliever may eventually be converted by the faithful
    love of the believer, and this is a legitimate practice. We may rightly
    condemn “dating evangelism”, as it is called (that is, the attempt of a
    Christian to convert a non-Christian via a romantic, non-covenant
    relationship), but it IS biblically legitimate to practice “marriage
    evangelism”, if that term may be used. Again, the married life for this
    believer would be no picnic (who ever said marriage was?), and the
    apostles admit as much, but the godly father and the Church in general
    is no less obligated to meet the needs of its unregenerate members. [3]’

    And read further down that page if you’ve got the stomach for it, a child of unbelieving parents is still supposed to marry whoever the parent chooses. ‘The truth of the matter is that a father’s will for his (Christian)
    child to marry a non-believer is not grounds for disobedience.’

    Apparently if Daddy picks the penis you’re stuck with it.

  • Trollface McGee

    I think you just summed up fundie religion perfectly.

  • Aimee Shulman

    So I guess ol’ Vaughn has never encountered the verse that says “Do no be unequally yoked,” and is actively choosing to ignore the part where “the unbelieving spouse is sanctified” and “if they be pleased to dwell with you, depart not” is EXPLICITLY REFERENCING people who converted AFTER MARRIAGE and whose spouse has not followed them into their new faith? And the verses immediately following “For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband, or you, husband, whether you will save your wife?” And the verses where Paul says he wishes everyone could be single like him because “the married man/woman cares about pleasing his/her spouse, but the unmarried man/woman cares more about pleasing God”? And the verse where Paul says “He who gives his [daughter] in marriage does well, but he who does not give his [daughter] in marriage does better”? Vaughn Olman is doing the thing where he selectively takes verses out of context and carefully hides the context and surrounding verses and all passages that might give a more nuanced view, is what I am getting at here.

  • tulips

    He basically conceded as much 🙂

  • tulips

    Lol Karen, you say that like you expect him to be offended or have some modicum of shame for his despicable ideation re the sexual enslavement of women. “They are the weaker vessels…so let’s get on with the work of exploiting them be cause we’re MEN! Manly men! We’re men in TIGHTS (tight tights)”.

  • tulips

    No time like the present, get to work! You could work several quotes in by noon if you get in gear.

  • Trollface McGee

    Wow, do I regret skimming that – I need me some brain bleach.
    So basically, a man’s ejaculation makes him a God and he gets to control anything his sperm come in contact with or are a result of (he even argues that a “natural” father deserves more respect than an adopted one, because penis).
    That’s some sick, perverted crap right there. And extremely blasphemous if one claims to be a believer.

  • KarenH

    Sorry. I hadn’t had my coffee yet 🙂

  • tulips

    Pretty much. I advise my daughters to cut a wide path around men with these types of dysfunction…it’s a good way to end up being found in the trunk of a car at the bottom of a distant lake. Spitting in the wind to some extent because it’s not exactly hard work to persuade against intimacy with a boring and inexperienced semi literate loser who believes you exist for his use and convenience. Shooting fish in a barrel really.

  • quietglow

    That’s interesting. So you see yourself as flat-out brawling with other people, not trying to convince or prove?

    Most people I’ve had interesting debate with would bring up your second point first. Other viewpoints are how we see all the sides of a large problem, and sometimes they help find other shortcuts up the mountain.

    And your third idea brings you back to conflict. Have you ever read slacktivist here on patheos? Fred writes a lot about people who use anger and offendedness like a drug.

  • Vaughn Ohlman

    Nope, bummer, gonna be out of town. What did I need quotes for again?

  • quietglow

    And Jesus never said “I will make you fishers of comments.”

  • Trollface McGee

    I remember a commandment… maybe the first? That says “thou shalt not have any other Gods before me” or something – but hey, real men don’t let the Bible get in the way of their phallic worship.

  • Nightshade

    He explains his way around everything, going on the assumption that he is right and everyone else is wrong.

  • Vaughn Ohlman

    I believe the word I used was ‘fight’. I would refer you to Paul saying ‘I have fought the good fight’ and ‘we wrestle not’.

    And in ‘fight’ vs ‘debate’ I would probably still plunk down for ‘fight’. As I say, debates tend to be artificial things, where people are even given positions they disagree with.

  • quietglow

    But “fights” are for one purpose: to hurt people and win. “Debates” are to state positions, find edges, and change minds. Even if I were unable to convince you, for example, I still might debate your ideas for the benefit of others around to read.

    By and large this comments section is full of survivors of religious abuse by male leaders. Are you sure you should come here looking for a fight?

  • quietglow

    I know exactly the reaction my father would have if I popped in and asked him to find me a husband, too… a long, afflicted stare before he brought both hands up to rub at his eyebrows.

    Sometimes I do these sorts of things to him, poor man. I think I owe him some baking.

  • quietglow

    Imagine how different this would be if he were more drawn to the metaphor of running the race, and saw a conversation with women as passing the baton.

  • Vaughn Ohlman

    I didnt come here, I was brung 🙂

  • quietglow

    Are you sure that you should be looking for fights here?

  • Allison the Great

    You’re taking our discussion from the other thread and bringing it here. I didn’t do that, why are you? I kept it relevant to this post. This post is based off of a blog post that you plan to edit and then publish . In this post you made a list. I asked you about a specific number in this list. How is that off topic? I didn’t bring up sex crimes at all here. Perhaps you should re-read my post here again? And then take what you gave me earlier this morning to the other thread.

    And as far as being “late in the day” to ask this question, well the things is, I’ve only been following Vyckie’s blog for a short period of time. I’m new here, so no, I have not been reading your blog. I guess you’ll have to indulge me by answering my questions, huh? After all, you’re here for a discussion, let’s discuss.

  • Madame

    Debating is fun, and no, it doesn’t have to be artificial. Debating has helped me work on expressing my ideas clearly, concisely and politely. It has helped me work on my written language (English isn’t my strongest language).

    I’ve learned more about the other person’s perspective while defending my position. I can’t recall ever retracting from my position. I guess I’m a bit hard like that.

  • Suzanne Harper Titkemeyer

    “I’ve learned more about the other person’s perspective while defending my position.”

    This! This is the value of debate and examining all sides of an issue. That is one of the things I love best about Quoting Quiverfull is that it challenges us to reexamine exactly what it is we believe, good and bad.

  • Vaughn Ohlman

    I am using email to reply. Thus I can’t see the thread and didnt notice which post i was replying to.

  • Allison the Great

    I see. So does this mean you’re going to answer my question as to why you have such a low opinion of women that you think we can’t make decisions for ourselves?

  • quietglow

    The only way a woman could “defraud” a man by not having sex would be if her body were nothing more than material goods and “consent” were this one-time contractual thing, like an exchange ticket for one (1) virginity.

    Coercing someone into sex through guilt seems a little sacrilegious.

  • quietglow

    The right key is the one marked “DEL,” by the way.

  • Madame

    I agree that parents should protect their children and teach them to trust their inner voice if a situation feels wrong. I think it’s impossible to prepare our children for every situation in life, but we can teach them to listen to their inner voice and not assume that it must be ok because others seem ok with it. They don`t only have to know how to cry for help, they have to be able to stand up to it and gte out of it on their own, or not go into it in the first place.

    The young women sent to Gothard were not prepared to stand up for themselves. They had been taught to submit to and trust authorities. Not that it’s wrong to submit to proper authorities, but as our children mature, they need to know about abuse of authority and their right to get out from under it (if possible).

  • Vaughn Ohlman

    Ummm, DD, where exactly did I say that? If you could post the whole context, please.

  • Allison the Great

    It’s number 3 on your list. And sorry, no I can’t post it. It screws up the print. I’m sure you have your own copy of number 3 as you’re the one who wrote it.

    Choosing a spouse is a huge decision that one can make for another person. Obviously you wrote that because you don’t think that women should get to make that decision for themselves. “Because bible” is not a valid answer when you’re talking to me. I want to know why YOU think women should not make that decision for themselves.

    And while you didn’t exactly say you have a low opinion of women, every word in this post that you intend to publish hints that you do. It says that you view women as sex toys and baby machines without you even saying it. What I want to know is why you think that way?

  • KarenH

    Right. We keep forgetting that you men from Patriarchy are never responsible for the things you do.

  • Nightshade

    Because bible. That’s the answer to everything, doncha know.

  • tulips

    Polygyny is in the mail for this cult if it isn’t already being practiced on the down low. Calling it.

  • Edie Moore McGee

    LOL! Love the Game of Thrones references.

  • persephone

    I can hear the conversation:
    Sarah: Hagar! Seriously?!
    Abraham: Sure. She’s in the tent all the time anyway. No one has offered to marry her. (except for all those guys I sent packing over the last few years. Damn, that girl is fine.) She wouldn’t be a wife. She’s got awesome childbearing hips. (yum)
    Sarah: she’s my.maid. I don’t want her flaunting her child in front of me. I’m your wife!
    Abraham: look, babe. You’ll always be my number one. She’ll have a kid, you adopt it, we.dump her off at the next oasis, it’ll be like she was never here.
    Sarah: I still don’t like it.
    Abraham: if I don’t have a kid soon, my relatives are going to come in after I die, seize everything and leave you begging for food. Lot might take you in, but you know what a perv he is.
    Sarah: fine. Whatever. This is on your head. Okay, you can have Hagar, but only until she’s pregnant, then no more sexy times. (enjoy it while it lasts you old lech. Better her than me.)
    Abraham: coolio.

  • teaisbetterthanthis

    I call Karl Agathon/Helo from Battlestar Galactica. Y’all can fight over the GoT fellas.

  • Joy

    No one is forcing you to comment. I used to have a teeny tiny amount of respect for you because you at least commented here….but now that I know you just like to fight, well, that teeny tiny amount of respect I had for you just vanished.

    I, a woman, do not respect you, a man. Why? Because of your words.

  • Nightshade

    Something I hadn’t thought of before, and for the life of me I can’t imagine why…but what if 1 and 3 conflict? What if dear ol’ Dad wants to give you to a cousin, uncle, even brother? Mr. Ohlman seems pretty strongly in favor of parental choice, even if that is to an unbeliever in some cases, so why would he allow the kiddies to balk at a bit of incest if it’s what Dad wants?

    EDIT: After all Abraham married his half-sister, Moses’s father married his father’s sister, Jacob married two women and kept that in the family, also Isaac…ad nauseum…so we have biblical precedent.

  • Vaughn Ohlman

    Ah, that explains it. I believe that women can, and must, think for themselves AND that they should marry the man Daddy picks. Sorry for the confusion.

  • Vaughn Ohlman

    Ps i believe the same re men.

  • Trollface McGee

    Or what if we go the Rick Santorum route and daddy wants us to marry a goat? I mean it’s all about obedience to daddy (unless he tells you something REALLY ungodly – like going to college or something)

  • Nightshade

    Ewwww, LOL! Exactly how far is this obedience to parents supposed to go? What if Dad gets his jollies out of lesbian fantasies and wants his daughter to marry another woman? If obedience is supposed to be absolute, without loopholes, the daughter should do exactly that.

  • “These biblical laws probably didn’t even work when they were written. Most of them were extremely barbaric and fucked up.”
    His rules are not Biblical laws, they are random texts taken out of context. Many believers – and unbelievers – on this site have showed him his mistakes on many points of Bible interpretation, but I don’t think he learns from women. And I guess at least 90% of us commenters here are women.

  • Amen – that is phallic worship, not Christianity.

  • Allison the Great

    Yes, I’m aware of what you believe. But why can’t they just choose it for themselves? And why can’t people choose their own mates?

    Second, as I’ve said before it is clear from your writings in this soon-to-be blog post that you have a lower opinion of women than you do of men. Why is that? From what is written here, women are nothing but mere sex toys.

  • Allison the Great

    And he doesn’t even answer the questions in these “fights” either.

  • Vaughn Ohlman

    Why should they have their father get them a husband? Cause God gave him that job.

  • Allison the Great

    There will be a huge fight for Jon Snow. May the odds for ever be in your favor!

  • Allison the Great

    Yeah, that’s why I keep asking him “why” because quoting the bible is not good enough for me. I am trying to get him to answer as to why he regards women in the way that he does, but he won’t.

    I don’t accept bible verses as answers. It’s like “oh good you can read, now why do YOU think that way”. I don’t care what’s in the bible. As I’ve said before it’s old and doesn’t apply to today. The whole book is messed up so I disregard it. I know the hatred of women and the need to control people is there without the bible or the belief system, I just want to know why they use those to justify that hatred and low opinion.

  • quietglow

    Points 1-10 of his list boil down to “I want to have sex, human intimacy, and loving company, but I don’t want to have to treat women like equals.”

    Why would he fight fair?

  • Allison the Great

    Yeah, but that’s old crap. We know better now. Why cling to this old crap and try to be so controlling?

  • Allison the Great

    True. It’s a very infantile mentality, isn’t it?

  • Nightshade

    More like screw the women, literally and figuratively.

  • Nea

    Seriously! I’m like “good, nobody’s called Sherlock yet.”

  • Nea

    Slacktivist had a post about how easy it is for con men to take in fundamentalists because fundamentalists are up front about the “proper” positions on things to be seen unconditionally as part of the tribe. One of those positions is “because Bible” and so that’s what V is doing. That it’s a completely incorrect way to convince anyone secular is irrelevant.

  • Nea

    Saves him the bother of stealing what we say here and twisting it to his own ends on his own website, thereby breaking two commandments with one transgression: theft and false witness.

  • tulips

    OfFred style.

  • tulips

    My convenience.

  • Carry

    Jeez, the difference between people like Vaughn and the Taliban and fundementalist Islam? Worshipping God using different names (Allah/Lord), and Taliban uses violence to get their way…but who says that won’t change? As more and more people embrace equality among the genders and as less and less people attend Church that teaches these extreme gender roles and all that are left are the zealots and fundies…maybe they will turn to violence as well. We did see a little of it when some abortion clinics and doctors were murdered by extremists, so it’s possible it could happen. Fundematalist/extremist Christians may one day strap bombs to themselves and declare Holy War/Crusade on everyone they don’t like and will bomb public secular schools, Planned Parenthood, hospitals giving contraception to patients, churches that allow gay weddings to happen within their doors, etc.

    Sure, it’s forbidden to kill others, but it’s not like Christendom has kept true to ‘thou shalt not kill’ in the past.

    Other than also honoring different individuals who lived on Earth (Jesus/Mohammed, tho Muslims also honor Jesus, just as another prophet, not the Son of God); there really isn’t much of a difference between Islamic extremists and Vaughn.

  • tulips

    I can’t believe I’m about to give props to an (atheist) MRA but he made a salient point when asked how he could support what is undoubtedly a theocratic movement as a passionate atheist and he said that the movement had nothing to do with deism. The supposed deists constructed their power hierarchies and used religion as decoration. They aren’t even internally consistent. It’s all about power, he saw it clearly, and I have to say he made a great point I could not refute.

  • You believe men cannot make a decision re spouses? Then why would you suggest fathers – men – do, if you believe that of them?

  • Allison the Great

    You typed what I’ve been thinking, that there are few differences between the Taliban and the way Mr. Ohlman thinks.

  • Allison the Great

    Has he done this to you?

  • Allison the Great

    THEY are total dicks, and so their god (which is just a part of their own ego) is just like them. They need him to be just like him, being the yes deity to every fucked up little thing they do.

  • Allison the Great

    So then since you think that women should think for themselves, you wouldn’t have a problem with say, your daughter saying “Dad, no. I’m not going to marry that guy that you picked for me, please butt out”

  • Trollface McGee

    The entire premise is so ridiculous, that it’s limitless. If it were me, I’d be telling them the Lord spoke to me, and they are to be wed to the Toaster – I mean, it makes as much sense as anything else.

  • tulips

    Hmmm…yes it’s unnervingly easy to find a tight relationship.
    http://christianpatriarchy.com/

  • Carry

    Vaughn thinks like any other extremist thinks, just under a different God’s banner. Plus I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s fantasized putting powerful women ‘in their place’.

  • Allison the Great

    What is this Rick Santorum goat reference?

  • Allison the Great

    Yes, it is true he already said it. I’m asking these questions, because I’m intrigued by someone who just shuts off his brain to common sense. It’s just so bizarre to me that someone would be so obsessed with the Old Testament given how fucked up it was. Even if that society did work back then, there’s no way it could work now, thankfully.

    I know I’ve asked these questions to death but his answers, although inadequate did satisfy at least one curiosity. I mean I’ve only read of this man on Quoting Quiverful and I’ve never engaged in conversation with someone like that. It was a way for me to see for myself that he doesn’t, or rather can’t engage in a conversation with women who aren’t mentally beaten into a submissive role. He also has a hard time when his extreme views are challenged.

  • quietglow

    Very sensible. You never can tell what a person is about to do, but a good toaster is comfortingly reliable.

  • Allison the Great

    Well, now I know, lol. I’ve eradicated my boredom at least temporarily.

  • Allison the Great

    I’m stuck at home, it’s murder. I can only watch X-files and play video games for so long. I need to engage in some sort of discussion otherwise my brain will turn to mush.

  • Vaughn Ohlman

    I suppose it depends on what you mean by ‘have a problem’.

    Let me explain how we arrived at the point where we are now. When, about seven years ago, I started realizing that my children were getting to the age where they might need/desire spouses I started doing research on what the Scriptures had to say about the subject. I brought my wife and children along every step of the way, sometimes having long discussions on the various subjects. As a result I wrote two books and innumerable blog posts etc.

    And, along the way, I had my children’s heart. It was Joshua’s desire that I find him a wife and, after a long and difficult search, he and Laura are married. My other children are waiting eagerly for me to find them spouses.
    What would I do if one of them came up to me and, respectfully, said that they no longer wished me to be involved? I would step out. I have made that clear to them and in writing.

    Would I think they were making a wise choice? No. More wise then, say, pursuing a career as a stripper or public school teacher but less wise then trusting in the Lords’ process. But I would let them go their own way, as to do anything else would be to defraud their potential spouse.

    Indeed it is one aspect of courtship that I find particularly appalling: that the father reserves to himself a frowning and hysterical veto over their child’s decision of a spouse. We might disapprove, we might counsel… but we would rejoice in their marriage and do everything to promote it in Godliness.

  • Nightshade
  • Vaughn Ohlman

    Retha, I believe I used the word ‘should’ not ‘can’. I believe that Godly, virgin young men *should* rely upon their father (assuming he is willing and able) to find them a wife.

    As for how that should happen, and other issues related, you can find many of those answers on my blog.

  • Saraquill

    3. So if you’re dad is not alive or otherwise available, then what? The caveat that one’s dad word is irrefutable makes me wonder about what would happen if the woman in question was ordered to marry a houseplant.

    4. This is a big **** you to the elderly, barren, QUILT*BAG and childfree.

    5. Sounds too much like an abusive twit I was with.

    6. … And a **** you to asexual men.

    7. What about this business of being a virgin at marriage?

    1 and beyond. Why should I take Ohlman seriously?

  • Allison the Great

    No offense but I think it would be wiser for them to tell you to butt out and let them make their own decisions. It’s their life, and they’re going to have to start making decisions on which direction their life is going to go, and since their life is not yours, why should you get a vote? It’s true that you are their father and you do have to make decisions for them early on but there’s a point when that has to stop and you need to let them take the reigns. WIll they make bad decisions? Sure they will. But their mistakes will be their own and they won’t have to live with a mistake that you made for them. They get a choice in the matter. You could choose someone that they absolutely HATE and then expect them to be okay with that. There is something seriously wrong with taking away someone’s life choices because of nonsense that was written thousands of years ago.
    We don’t follow these laws anymore because they’re not necessary . Times have changed and so has civilization, and it has changed for the better. You can’t tell me that God commands it. To be honest I don’t think he ever did. I think that MEN wrote those laws and then added religion to them. People expect us to believe that God loves us, yet he is a petty, jealous, tyrannical legalistic asshole. I don’t buy it.

    I’m glad you’ve told your kids that you’d step out, and that you would accept their decision if they told you to. That’s a step in the right direction. That’s one point you get above a lot of men that are in this culture, they would not do so.

  • Allison the Great

    The questions we’ve been looking to answer are: 1) what type of person is most likely to have sexual desires that can be classified as deviant and 2) how likely is that person to want to have sex with a goat or other farm animal as a result. Our research proves conclusively that Rick Santorum would very much like to have sex with a goat. Probably a large dog if no goats are available

    Holy goat fucking hell, Batman! I died laughing at that.

  • Petticoat Philosopher

    Well, it is Christianity. It’s just, thankfully, not the kind you adhere to.

  • Petticoat Philosopher

    I think you’re kind of ignoring the cultural context in which that text was created. Which was a messed up cultural context but the events of Genesis are completely in keeping with the norms and practices of society at large in that time and place. That doesn’t mean it should have any bearing on how things are done, of course.

    Also, if you’re going to criticize Christianity, criticize Christianity. Islam and Judaism should be discussed on their own terms instead of just lumped together with Christianity.

  • Petticoat Philosopher

    I actually prefer Helo (Tahmoh Penikett) when he’s Paul Ballard from “Dollhouse.” Especially when he’s walking around in nothing but pajama pants…

  • Petticoat Philosopher

    We roam around the forest looking for fights!

  • Petticoat Philosopher

    Okay, since you are not averse to answering questions and discussing your views, please answer me this (I am genuinely curious.) What are your views on female sexual desire? You generally talk about sex as if it were something that only men think about and want (and also have a right to). Reading most of your writing about sexual desire, from which women and their feelings are completely absent, one would think that you believe that women do not have sexual desires at all and that sex is merely a wifely duty for them to perform, certainly not something for them to derive any pleasure from themselves (besides the pleasure of obedience, of course). But your point 7, in which you tell women to marry men “that they want to have sex with” at least acknowledges that it is possible for a woman to want to have sex for reasons besides being a meek, pious wife who is aware of her duty to submit and obey.

    So what do you believe? Do you believe that women and girls have sex drives, sexual desires, and sexual tastes? Do you believe that it is possible for teenage girls as well as teenage boys to experiment with masturbation, sexual fantasies etc? Do you support teaching young women about their bodies, teaching them that they are capable of experiencing sexual pleasure (and using all the words, yes “clitoris,” “orgasm” etc.) and that sex is supposed to feel good for them to? Do women get in on any of this sexy fun or is it all just duty? And, if so, how do you propose to make sure that women know this and are prepared for it, especially when you propose marrying them off when they are not really women, but girls? I genuinely want to know the answers to these questions because so much of the conservative, patriarchal Christian community seems really uncomfortable with the entire concept of female sexual desire. But if you’re talking about women actually wanting to have sex, then it’s got to be at least somewhere on your radar? So how does it fit into your grand master plan?

  • Trollface McGee

    Rick Santorum is famous his hyperbole about how same-sex marriage was going to lead to all sorts of stupid things like man-on-dog etc. etc. He didn’t mention goats specifically but I know Vaughn is a man of the Bible, and those men sure did love their goats.

  • Petticoat Philosopher

    Well, that’s true if you’re doing formal debate, like if you’re on a school debate team. You defend the proposition to which you are assigned which is not necessarily the one with which you agree. But “debate” has a much broader definition than what applies to formal, organized team debate.

  • Allison the Great

    I think it’s funny how obsessed these religious men get over other people’s sex lives. It’s as if the concept of “none of your business” is completely lost on them.

  • Nea

    Yes. He took a quote of mine for his website, pretended that there was no context to the conversation or pushback for the dictates of his that led to the quote, and when I called him on it, he took only the tiny portion of that that he could equally twist and not the context it was in. I told him he did not have permission to use my words unless he used the entire quote.

    He did not retract, correct, or delete, and warned that commentary at his place is only allowed under his rules.

    He is a thief and he bears false witness. If he truly believes that God judges, he might think about repentance. Until he apologizes and erases what he has used without permission, I will continue to call him the thief he is.

  • Allison the Great

    That’s a pretty crappy thing to do. What was it about?

  • Bodhisvaha

    #1, #2, #5, #10 — I would never have thought about these basic requirements for marriage candidates! Thank you so much, Mr. Ohlman!

    #3 — does God always act through my father to prevent him from making mistakes, or does God’s omniscient, providential wisdom animate him only during the selection of spouses?

    #4 — Does “True Love Doesn’t Wait” also extend to the line at the sexual health clinic?

    #6 — Mr. Olhman, after my last experience, I will definitely take steps to ensure that my next husband is burning with desire for me, instead of having homosexual tendencies. I must test him. The trouble is, that last time I just couldn’t tell in advance. Once, while we were courting, he did refer to me as his beloved Paul instead of his beloved Paula, but he vowed that was an accident!

    I must learn from my mistakes, and that means that I’ll have to make absolutely sure that my future husband is not pretending his desire for me, the way that my William did, sweet-talking deceiver that he is. I’m sorry to say that this testing will require fornication before marriage, because after William, I’m convicted that I should see his desire with my own eyes before promising myself to a man before God. I’ll have to not only to test my future husband’s attraction to me, but also his attraction to other men, so we will have to have at least one threesome with another man. I’m sure that God will understand this is in the holy cause of avoiding homosexuality.

    Thinking about it further, it would be terrible if one day I discovered homosexual tendencies in myself and became a man-hating lesbian homewrecker. I should assure my future husband with his own eyes that I have no attraction to other women. Following Matthew 7:12, I should offer myself up for a similar test with my husband and another woman. Then, my future husband and I will both rest secure in the knowledge that we are attracted only to the opposite sex.

    #7 — I’m so grateful, Mr. Ohlman, to have your reassurance that God will understand and forgive all the fornication and orgies that I’ll have to undertake in order to build a lasting marriage.

    #8, #9 — But Mr. Ohlman, what if we are parted because my husband had homosexual tendencies and is now living that degenerate lifestyle with his lover? Should I sneak into my husband’s bed and ravish him while he sleeps? What do I do if his lover catches us and calls the police?

  • persephone

    I understand the cultural context. I am not a sailor on the all cultures have the right to exist ship. I don’t care what the cultural norms were beyond understanding the people and the society they lived in. It doesn’t mean the behavior is acceptable. It was also a localized, limited culture. If you study other societies of around the same reputed period, you will find a very wide variety in the treatment of gender, marriage, children, slavery, and on and on.

    Anytime Abraham is discussed you have to recognize the he is the root of those three religions. The fundamentalist members of those three religions have caused death and destruction for millennia. The non-fundamentalist members often do not stand up against them, thereby making themselves complicit.

  • It isn’t. Christianity, word origins:

    Main word: “Christ” + Suffix: “-ian”

    Christianity is about Christ-likeness or Christ-following.

    1) Christ, the one followed in Christianity, said to call no man or earth father, teacher, etc. for one is our father and teacher, God. He also denounced people for listening to their fathers, who is described as the killers of the prophets.

    2) The main texts on which their father-centered religion is based comes from the pre-Christian Old Testament.

    3) The whole set of 26 “tenets of Biblical patriarchy” contains only 4 references to Christ, and then to say he was male, men should follow his example in their leadership, the church keeps the keys of Christ’s kingdom, and parents should use gifts in the body of Christ. Not one of those references has Jesus as the main topic. In contrast, it contains 7 direct references to the authority of the father.

  • Should or could, my point still stand:

    1) Fathers should find spouses for their children. (Source: Vaughn Ohlman, regular argument)

    2) Fathers are men.

    3) Men should not find spouses (Source: Vaughn Ohlman, this comment thread)

    The above is self-contradictory, even now I replaced the word “could.” But then, you read the Bible with the same level of reading comprehension that you employ in this argument, so I am not surprised.

  • Petticoat Philosopher

    Way to not respond to what I said. I did not ever say that the behavior was acceptable. My interest is exclusively in, as you say, “understanding the people and the society they live in.” Your description of Abraham makes his actions sound like the behavior of a particularly manipulative individual as opposed to a person simply following the (messed up) customs of his culture. It makes his behavior sound deviant as opposed to normalized in his culture and I think that that distinction is important when understanding these texts. And, yes, I understand that those customs were not universal. Hence my use of the phrase “time and place,” which, you know, kind of implies that I have an inkling that in other times and places, customs were different.

    And I did, in fact, manage not to miss that Abraham is considered the father of 3 religions but only of them is being discussed here. I won’t speak about Islam because I don’t feel I’m qualified but, as a Jew well-versed in Jewish history and culture, I am qualified to speak about Judaism and I don’t see how we ended up filed under “wreaking death and destruction for millenia.” For most of that time, we lacked the power to do so even if we wanted to and we were shouldering quite a bit of the burden of that death and destruction visited upon us by others. Judaism has historically had its own baggage. You can’t simply project the baggage of Christianity onto it simply because Christianity happened to appropriate some of that culture’s religious texts. Those are two very, very different stories.

    And if you look into Jewish culture, you will find that non-fundamentalist Jews (that’s the vast majority of us) are speaking up against the fundamentalists. Very, very loudly. At this point, more practicing Jews embrace things like egalitarianism and LGBT acceptance than don’t. Our big problem is not that there isn’t pushback against fundamentalism, it’s that the fundamentalists are the ones with the big army (that they don’t actually fight in, of course) who have pragmatically formed an unholy alliance with right-wingers who are motivated by nationalism, not religion. It’s a complicated set of issues that are very different from those of contemporary Christianity. I’m so tired of the “3 Abrahamic religions” trope, as if they’re all the same just because this one dude pops up in the texts of all 3.

  • KarenH

    God didn’t seem all that upset that Ruth chose her own husband. He made her the great grandmother of King David and the many times removed grandmother of Jesus. She was honored, revered, and respected. Despite being a Moabite.

    Are you sure you’ve actually read the Bible?

  • Petticoat Philosopher

    So…bust out “No True Scotsman” and then just blame it on the Jews and their backward legalism then, ignoring the fact that these teachings, or something similar, are followed by a huge number of self-identified Christians? I’m so tired of this. Throwing the darker legacy of Christianity at other cultures (historic and current) like a hot potato is not a solution to these problems.

  • aim2misbehave

    Same…. I call Mako Mori!

  • aim2misbehave

    Whatever, I’m calling dibs on Raleigh Becket, too 😉

  • This is not a fallacy. If someone has a fake passport by which he is born in Glasgow, while he is actually from Moscow, it would be no fallacy to point out he is not truly a Scotsman. And if someone claims to be a Christian, while not actually following Christ, he is no true Christian, by the very meaning of the word.
    I realize that this does not solve the problems of patriarchy, but falsely blaming Christianity does not solve it either.

  • Astrin Ymris

    The thing is, no person or group owns a patent on the term “Christian”, so no one can claim to be arbitrator of who is– or isn’t– really Christian.

    You can objectively verify or falsify a claim about what country someone was born in, but you can’t objectively determine which people or sects are “really” following Christ.

    Honestly, I do get your point about someone who claims to be “Christian” while ignoring the spirit of almost everything Jesus is held to have taught while he was alive to speak for himself, preferring to quotemine both the Old and New Testament for verses which can be used to support their own “kinds” privileged position. But the fact remains that anyone who wants to do so can call themselves a Christian.

  • Nea

    Strong women in the Bible, who he, of course, keeps saying don’t exist.

  • Trollface McGee

    It’s sad, some of them go to great lengths to describe the “horrors” of gay sex and get so angry about improper girls having the sexy sex. And of course it’s their business, how are they going to know who to stone?
    I think it comes from a culture that says the only kind of sex is ok is the more boring and dangerous kind, forbids sexual fantasies, role-playing, masturbation – basically all the stuff that makes sex fun and exciting is bad.

  • Joy

    Aw shucks, someone I love and live happily ever after. Well, *heaving a great big sigh* I supposed if I have to make that sacrifice in order to obey God, I can attempt that. (Dear God, hear my prayer, this would be a sacrifice that I would LOVE to make!!!)

  • Joy

    My dad would tell me to look for myself…although he would want to meet the guy and check him out for himself. If I would have listened to my parents before I got married to my ex, I wouldn’t be divorced today.

    I think parents can advise (assuming a healthy relationship exists between parent and child), but the final decision rests with the two in the relationship.

  • Petticoat Philosopher

    Who decides who is “following Christ?” You? I much prefer your interpretation of what that means, of course, but the patriarchy types believe just as strongly that they are truly following Christ and they believe that it is you who is not truly doing so. As an outsider, it seems to me that there is scriptural support for both the good and the bad (though liberal Christians have a way of dispensing with the bad by trying to hang it all on the Old Testament–you know, the part they can blame on the Jews–Roman culture, any other culture but their own so they don’t have to give up their idea of supremacy. It’s very discouraging to me as someone who wants to be allies with religious progressives of all kinds.).

    Nobody is “falsely” blaming Christianity. I don’t think anyone with their eyes open can deny that the self-identified “Christian” community is to blame for many of these problems right now and they are extremely influential in our society in general. I’m not going to evade the essential truth that it is followers of Christianity–whatever that means and it means many things to many people–that are causing most of the trouble right now. This is not to say that Christianity is some how inherently inferior. I pretty much think all ideologies are only as good as their followers. If the followers change, the religion changes, for better or worse. But nothing’s going to really change as long as “progressive” Christians simply disown their more embarassing co-religionists by blaming their terrible ideas on other cultures and religions. It’s offensive and alienating to those of us who actually belong to those other cultures and religions.

    Please stop deflecting the responsibility for the harm that has been done in the name of your religion onto the Jews, the Romans (who at least aren’t here anymore to be harmed by this kind of thing) or anybody else. We’re tired of being the whipping boy/girl.

  • quietglow

    My father’s just raised me to handle my own adult life, so while he’d love to meet whoever I pick, my question would be as unreal as if I’d walked up and asked him to pick out some children for me to adopt.

  • Madame

    He takes some passages and discards other passages. I think every person who identifies themself as Christian does that.
    Von comes across as a very Old Testament Christian.

  • Guest

    I would like to know what Von thinks about polygamy. The verse that talks about fathers giving their daughters’s hand in marriage obviously supports his idea that fathers are the ones who get to pick husbands and, get this, decide whether daughter will marry at all!!!!
    That’s quite scary…I’m wondering whether Mr. Botkin is practicing that one.

  • Guest

    All that talk about the needs of the unregenerate but not a word about the women’s needs.

    This piece is disgusting.

  • Madame

    Yes.
    And all along he claims to believe women are the “weaker vessel” and need to be protected by men. Yeah. They surely are made to be the weaker ones, as in the ones who have NO say in their life, EVER. And they sure need protection. From their daddies.

  • Vaughn Ohlman

    Yup, even read the book of Ruth. Wrote a commentary on it, in fact. Even read chapter 3:1-5

    Rth 3:1 Then Naomi her mother in law said unto her, My daughter, shall I not seek rest for thee, that it may be well with thee?
    Rth 3:2 And now is not Boaz of our kindred, with whose maidens thou wast? Behold, he winnoweth barley to night in the threshingfloor.
    Rth 3:3 Wash thyself therefore, and anoint thee, and put thy raiment upon thee, and get thee down to the floor: but make not thyself known unto the man, until he shall have done eating and drinking.
    Rth 3:4 And it shall be, when he lieth down, that thou shalt mark the place where he shall lie, and thou shalt go in, and uncover his feet, and lay thee down; and he will tell thee what thou shalt do.
    Rth 3:5 And she said unto her, All that thou sayest unto me I will do.
    and verses 12-13

    Rth 3:12 And now it is true that I am thy near kinsman: howbeit there is a kinsman nearer than I.
    Rth 3:13 Tarry this night, and it shall be in the morning, that if he will perform unto thee the part of a kinsman, well; let him do the kinsman’s part: but if he will not do the part of a kinsman to thee, then will I do the part of a kinsman to thee, as the LORD liveth: lie down until the morning.

  • Vaughn Ohlman

    Young virgin *women* with Godly fathers should let their father’s find their spouses for them…
    As should young virgin *men* with Godly fathers

  • Vaughn Ohlman

    Truth. And ‘fight’ has a broader definition then some might admit. No one minds it when a nurse says the patient is ‘fighting’ for life,

  • gimpi1

    If we can go back in time as well as marry imaginary men, then I call dibs on Duncan McLeod in Highlander! But only if he’s OK with polyandry. I’m not giving up my current husband for him.

    (Hey, it makes as much sense as what Mr. Ohlman wrote.:-)

  • gimpi1

    I read one fairly-learned commentator who explained that he takes the common societal practices of biblical times as mandates for life for all time, rather than understanding them as simply how a society living in a specific place and time organized itself. It’s sort of like insisting we use horses for transport because horses were the primary means of transportation when the Constitution was signed and claiming anyone who uses busses or planes or cars is a traitor to the U.S.

  • gimpi1

    I don’t believe he used either word… you know he didn’t speak english, right?

  • Vaughn Ohlman

    Some quick answers (longer answers deserve a whole post. I am sooo behind!!) 1) I am not your typical ‘conservative’ Christian, particularly when it comes to teaching my children about sex.
    2) I Cor 7:2-5, 9 all talk about women’s need for sex. The Song of Solomon is full of her enjoyment thereof. And I teach that.
    3) However both Scripture and nature also teach that the men/woman sex/relationship needs are assymetrical. Not that either are non-existant or unimportant, but assymetrical in strength/nature.

  • gimpi1

    I think the way I would put it, Madame, is our children should be raised to respect proper authorities. You still weigh what that authority tells you, and only choose to follow that authority if that seems wise. I never submit to anyone, but I choose to go along with someone pointing out a wise path.

    We should respect authority (assuming they have earned that respect.) But no one is entitled to unthinking obedience.

  • gimpi1

    They’ve done it before. Remember Oklahoma City? Remember the Huttertree army? Remember the Church of Jesus Christ, Christian? Remember the KKK?

    Fundamentalists of any stripe often become violent when they feel they have lost credibility with society at large, when they are being ignored, or when the world is changing faster than they can cope with. All three of these memes are in play today. I admit I’m worried.

  • Madame

    I agree that respect is probably a better word than submit to, but sometimes we have to respect a person’s position even if we think they are wrong and won’t follow them willingly. Sometimes we can`t get out from under a person’s authority immediately without negative consequences.

  • gimpi1

    I’m sure you’re right, Madame. I have real issues with authority and obedience. I’ve quit jobs, walked out on business deals and ended friendships over demands for obedience.

    If anyone gives me an order, my instinctive response is, “Who do you think you are and why should I listen to you?” I hope I would have the sense to table that response in an emergency, but I can’t guarantee it.

  • quietglow

    Nature teaches males and females have asymmetrical needs? What, like the anglerfish, where the male parasitically attaches himself to a female and remains there the rest of his life? In fact, he’s so parasitic he dies if he does not find a female?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglerfish
    How long have you been studying biology?

  • quietglow

    “commentary at his place is only allowed under his rules.”

    This is the best part, considering this is the man who said: “Anyway, I like a good fight” when asked why he wanted us to comment at his site.

    I, too, like to demand my boxing opponents enter the ring wrapped in duct tape, blindfolded, and punching only when I say “when.”

  • Nightshade

    Dunno how a person can get the idea that nature teaches that, any more than how nature allegedly teaches that a man should have short hair-but that’s another subject!-but I’d bet on that being at least part of Mr. Ohlman’s justification for polygamy, which we’ve already seen he seems inclined to view favorably.

  • quietglow

    Interesting. Lions with short, patchy manes are unhealthy or old lions. Male birds are the ones that go in for flashy, towering plumage. I can’t think of any animal that deliberately removes its hair, much less male-specific examples.

  • Nightshade

    Yep, but it’s in the Bible, 1 Corinthians 11;14, ‘Doth not even nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?’

  • quietglow

    Uh… doth it? Boy, that is a stumper.

    No wonder shellfish are an abomination, what with those little crabs that deliberately put plumy, frondy anenomes on their shells and scuttle about.

  • Gypsy Rose B

    I guess this means I can’t marry Captain Jean Luc Picard or Atticus Finch. 🙁

    (My heart is breaking *sob*)

  • tulips

    In a nutshell, wait until he’s drunk…make nonconsensual sexual advances…and see how it goes. Great advice. /sarcasm.

  • Astrin Ymris

    Hey, I would call John Crichton of ‘Farscape’, but he SO totally belongs with Aeryn that I can’t bring myself to. ;-D

  • Petticoat Philosopher

    lol, I so love that you mentioned not only those two fictional heartthrobs but mentioned them in the same sentence! They’ve always seemed in the same vein to me. 😛

  • Vaughn Ohlman

    Oh, I’m not offended DD.
    But I am afraid I will have to reject your worldly wisdom and go with what Scripture clearly teaches.

  • Vaughn Ohlman

    BTW, the final, edited, purposeful copy of Ten Men is now live:
    http://truelovedoesntwait.com/the-path-to-marriage/readiness/the-ten-men/

    Feel free to ask me any questions you have there.

  • Guest

    Oh dear… I just read it.
    And you forgot to fix the who-whom thing.

  • Vaughn Ohlman

    oops. Forgot to tell my editor . Now I have to try to find your comment again.

  • Vaughn Ohlman

    That is certainly an assymetric need!!

  • quietglow

    So you believe that nature teaches males are shrunken, shriveled parasites?

    I’m making a point from nature to argue your assertion from nature, if you needed that spelled out for you in detail.

  • Vaughn Ohlman

    I made the obvious to everyone point that men and women (human men and women) can be readily observed in the natural world (as opposed to making a theological point) to have differences (ie to be assyumetrical) in they way they react to each other in sexual/romantic/committed relationships.
    I thought your quip about the fish was a funny example of an extreme assymetry and responded in that vein.

  • quietglow

    The differences between men and women aren’t that significant, especially compared to many differences widely existing in the natural world. And they can easily overlap, compared to differences existing in the natural world.

    So comparing humans to all of nature really doesn’t do much. And “nature teaches” is pretty useless, since you can find an example of whatever you want in nature. Nature is generally best off used descriptively, not prescriptively, when it comes to human mores.

  • Vaughn Ohlman

    I think any decent comedian (Dave Barry comes to mind) would be happy to disabuse you of these non-signifigant differences. Having been married for 25 years I have found the differences to be profound. And biologically they are profound as well.

  • quietglow

    Your source for infallible truth is a comedian who exaggerates things for humor. That’s, uh, that’s… ok.

    You have been married to one person for all this time; this person appears of a type willing to cater to your, uh… opinions, so congratulations on your sample size of one.

    Biologically? Let’s see. You’ve got a couple minor differences in the physical structure of the brain, a few physiological differences that don’t amount to much, and a slightly different muscle/fat ratio. Meanwhile, nature teaches us that each population will have outliers, so you’re going to have “feminine” women and “masculine” men because that’s how nature does things.

  • quietglow

    PS – You probably think you’re fighting with me.

    You’re… not. You’re really… not.

  • Vaughn Ohlman

    Actually comedians tend to be a rather good source for this kind of common sense ‘what everyone knows’ kind of humor.

    And biologically there are lliterally hundreds of differences between men and women. The brain, yes, huge differences there, ones that manifest very early in life (read a fascinating study the other day on the way that very young boys and girls interact with toys), hormones, blood chemistry, age and effects of puberty, verbal ability and propensity… literally hundreds of differences.

    But, hey, you’re welcome to your delusion, I guess.

  • Vaughn Ohlman

    Oh, I’m having great fun.
    For your reading pleasure I would suggest: darkwing.uoregon.edu/~rlweiss/473/rog-elan.htm

    and if you prefer youtube just google ‘It’s not about the nail.”

  • quietglow

    Are you trying to be nasty with “delusional?”

    Okay, name several hundred differences. Actually, name a hundred differences, please. I’m noticing that your differences mostly center around developmental hormones. Hormone activity is, uh… yes. That’s one difference. Good job.

    I am very sorry that you enjoy this. I find it rather sad that you need this to be true so very badly.

  • Vaughn Ohlman

    Given that the sex organs alone contain hundreds of differentiated structures that would not be hard. Boring, but not hard. Add in the hormone differences, sexual cycle differences, body form and strength differences, brain differences… the list goes on and on.

    But we started this part of the discussion talking about male and female sexuality. I affirm that females are highly sexual beings, even while affirming their differences. Indeed one profound and important difference is that of the way they both orgasm.

  • quietglow

    Except male and female sex organs both arise during development from the same early cellular structures in each case, so you’re talking about a process that happened during development of the organism, just branched two different ways. In other words, that is literally symmetrical.

    Actually, I didn’t start talking about male and female sexuality; I started talking about asymmetrical males and females. You want a “huge” difference between males and females? Look at the anglerfish again. That’s a huge difference. You want a cluster of fairly unimportant, largely unremarkable differences that don’t apply to every male and female across the species? Look at humans.