Skip to content

Fem-Porn Watch – Yes Men Are Bad, Women Are Good.

January 3, 2013

It’s already been covered previously that pornography is considered just a men’s issue in Churchianity and not an issue for women, too. It was discussed that men’s porn is demonized, and any man using it is immediately treated like a leper. Any husband that does this to a wife is immediately considered the most vicious and foul person walking the earth, and the wife is portrayed as having every right to cut off sex from the man as well as his freedom, or frivolously divorce him.

This is consistent with the goals of Marriage 2.0 when it relates to sex and sexuality. It’s no wonder then, that women can’t clearly communicate against the female-oriented pornography and advocate the similar vicious no-tolerance prescriptions that men have to bear by their suggestions. Note it’s husband’s porn addiction, never the wife’s. And also note that her definition of “addiction” is any porn use at all.

Since I’ve written about this, I’ve tried to locate instances of major evangelical Churchian figures addressing female-oriented porn, and encouraging husbands to treat their wives pornography as adultery and divorce them if they do not comply. What do I hear?

*Crickets*

This is because porn is an integral part of Marriage 2.0, wherein the wife can use it as a tool along with willful sexual denial (sex as a weapon) to gain his submission to her. It takes a lot of conditioning for women to not give into their sexual desires and think that any sexual desire whatsoever, even in the context of marriage, is somehow evil. Amidst the conspicuous silence on women using porn and even more conspicuous lack of condemnation of it, I did find an interesting voice. Let’s let Pat Robertson tell us all about porn use in women:

I had to listen to this a few times (he rambles a lot) to see if he manages to flatly condemn feminine-oriented pornography. He doesn’t manage that at all, but he does prove one thing of evangelical Churchianity:

Men are indeed evil and women are indeed good.

After all, they have a lot to measure up to in fitting the Churchian mold, where all women are chaste, good, wholesome, and virginal creatures not spoiled by sin or anything of the flesh in any way. Meanwhile, men are vile base creatures no better than dogs, especially when it comes to sexuality. So only men use porn and women don’t use porn in the world of Churchianity. To summarize what happens in the video, as far as I can tell it:

1. Robertson turns to his co-host (relatively attractive I might add), calling her “a sweet Christian girl…lady” and asks “do you see anything in porn that attracts you?”. Given her reaction, I’m sure the question wasn’t planned. The question was pretty crass to be asking on national television, and she shouldn’t have been asked it at all. Regardless of how she answers it, I’m sure the truth is in a place that she can’t admit it freely and be accepted in Churchian circles. The commentator in the video below sees this same thing.

2. Robertson points out the typical Churchian line, that pornography is “a male thing, a boy thing, a guy thing”. He then points out that 30% of women are involved in pornography (Huffington cites this, but it 404’d). My guess is that this number seems to be the “typical” kind of porn and not the feminine-oriented porn. Given the popularity of 50 Shades of Grey, Magic Mike, and other forms of pornography (lifetime television, rom-coms, and so on), this number is likely much much higher. It is interesting to find that women who deal with the problem of pornography taking over their lives (i.e. real addiction and not Sheila Gregoire’s faux addiction) find no rest, aid, and comfort in the houses of Churchianity just like men dealing with marriage problems their wives create. They don’t fit the feminist Churchianity Marriage 2.0 script, so they are not recognized. How can an innately good woman be bad? As a result, these women are like the co-host, who couldn’t go off of script without losing her Churchianity cred.

3. Robertson then repeats things I’ve said both here and here regarding Fifty Shades of Grey. He then segues off into this stat that a 1/3 of all porn users are gay men. I don’t know how the 700 Club presents things and how much Pat Robertson knows of what will be on the teleprompter before he sees it, but this is definitely weird. I guess when he’s presented with something uncomfortable to his world view, which reflects religious feminism, he returns to what he knows.

Having seen a famous evangelical feminist Churchian express shock and disbelief that pure, chaste, and wholesome women can be into porn and asking his attractive female co-host out of that disbelief whether porn is attractive to her, we now come to some reaction:

I don’t know where these particular commentators lie in their belief systems (whether they are Christian or not). But the video expresses the testimony that the “man bad, woman good” mantra brings into the world. We shouldn’t follow the world by publicly wallowing in sexuality, but to carry this whole philosophy into practice brings a bad testimony into the world. The world knows that women are just as sexual as men and just as tempted as men. To portray women any different is hypocrisy.

The world can read Scripture and know what you claim to represent, especially if there are those searching for something better than the world. In simple terms, there are things of God that people of the world even know and know better not to do. Doing them, especially if those in leadership do them, drives people away from the Lord and leads these people to brand the Churchian group as hypocrites. There are those who place themselves in leadership that are trying to double-talk people out of looking at such things that exist within their environments and basing their actions upon them. These are indeed the hypocrites. Jesus had something to say about such people:

And he spake a parable unto them, Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch? The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother’s eye. (Luke 6:39-42)

Churchianity is blind to the fact that women are sinners just as men. This is true because the proctors of Churchianity are as blind to this as the rest. This is why the crickets are resoundingly loud when it comes time for them to renounce this sin in women the same as they do in men. Do you not think that the world sees this blindness for what it is? Their Personal Jesus is just alright with them, though. Unfortunately for them, the day will come that the real Jesus will have something to say about all of this. May repentance come to all those who are willfully blind to sin before that time comes!

Edit: The link I mentioned above that 404’d seems to be reflected in this link, which works. It does seem that the 30% of women speaks specifically of Internet porn (i.e. visual stuff).

12 Comments
  1. This blog is refreshing, really. I am very thankful that you got over your writer’s block, sir. There is so much here to heartily agree with that I won’t bother to try and cover it all but will stick to a couple of points.

    The first is how committed you are to public propriety amongst Christians on issues of sexuality. Yours is an increasingly rare opinion.

    The second is the absurd Churchian notion that women are asexual and/or only motivated sexually by true love. It’s laughable, and it’s killing marriages.

    If 1/3 of all women use porn (and I agree that this stat refers to the traditional porn that is most associated with men), that is no small number. Additionally, it doesn’t even include the print erotica that most women use without even considering the true nature of what they are reading because there are no pictures.

    As if that matters.

  2. Excellent catch on the hipocrasy. I’ve been having a long term discussion with my parents over the same topics you discuss here. On cue it always seems to come back to ‘the gays are destroying marriage.’

    Homosexuals are the boogy-men in modern churchianity. Along with abortion. I may be very unpopular to say so but it seems to me that abortion and homosexuality are more likely the result of broken marriage not the breaker of marriage. They are the resulting concequenses of abandoning God’s plan for marriage. So nothing new here. Just like churchianity confuses homosexuality and abortion as the cause not the result – they now do the same with pornography.

    Churchianity is off the rails and trying to point a finger at anything other then their own failings.

    PR is either clueless or lying. Either is unacceptable in a Christian ‘leader.’

  3. No-fault divorce is upstream of abortion and homosexuality, and quite possibly contraception is upstream of that. Pretty much everything the then-pope said about the consequences of widespread use and acceptance of contraception has come to pass.

  4. I’ve talked before about how some sins are focused on while others are ignored. I also specifically addressed the homosexuality angle here. As the story of David teaches us, sins have consequences and tend to snowball when not dealt with.

    I love to go out of my way to use the “sanctity of marriage” phrase to make this point because it tends to be a farce when you really think about it. It tends to piss off people in places like Dalrock’s when I use it, though. The Churchians blew up Godly marriage in the 60’s and 70’s in favor of Marriage 2.0, and that is what they are defending. Groups like the National Organization for Marriage are laughable when they make their pronouncements in this light too, like One thing we promise you: We will not sell out the core truths of Genesis, not for any price. They started in 2007 when this gay marriage stuff started, not when the feminists made their assault. They have sold out the core truths of Genesis from the very beginning.

    It was interesting when I was with a group of people in person and mentioned (more or less) what you did. I brought up divorce and promiscuity as causes or contributors of abortion and homosexual marriage and how they are never addressed. This is never addressed in churches for the obvious feminist reasons. This group was an older one that I know tends to actually look at their Bibles once in a while and respect what they read, but it shocked them for a minute until one of them finally spoke up and agreed with me. Funny how that works. In other groups, I would have been like Joseph and asked to leave for bringing this up. Easily.

  5. The video is blocked by my work, but if the young attractive lady you are referring to – is that young black lady – she is the reason I stopped watching Pat Robertson altogether.

    It is almost like they put her on the show as a token “post-feminist” woman.

    P.S. In case any morans (sp intentional) are reading, I am not racist. The young ladies skin color is not what discouraged me from watching the show, it was her attitude towards men.

  6. Yes, that would be the one (Kristi Watts). The second video mentions “the older white woman” he works with, and that would be Terry Meeuwsen. As the second video explains, it’s creepy and awkward anyway that Pat Robertson asked the question, but a little more so that it happened to be to the young attractive one. I’m not going to speculate as the commentators in the second video did on what the truth of the matter is with such things, just say that the entire matter is creepy and wrong, no matter what way you take it.

  7. I agree with Elspeth, and want to say this is one of the best Christian marriage oriented blogs I read.

  8. @Elspeth, @empathologism All I can say is may God have the glory! He deserves it alone!

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. - Advice for a former slut married to a beta provider to whom she is not sexually attracted. | The Woman and the Dragon
  2. Links and Comments #18 (Thanksgiving Edition) | The Society of Phineas
  3. Society of Phineas – The Best of 2013 | The Society of Phineas
  4. We might as well have a theory for our dominant mode of cultural discourse | vulture of critique

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 90 other followers

%d bloggers like this: