Blogaround

Links not related to the antichrist:

1. Draco Malfoy becomes unlikely Lunar New Year mascot in China (February 4) Lol, this is very funny. So the Chinese translation of Malfoy's name is 马尔福 [mǎ ěr fú], where the 马 [mǎ] is the Chinese word for "horse" and the 福 [fú] means happiness and good fortune and is used all the time at Chinese New Year. So now, because it's about to be the Year of the Horse, apparently Malfoy is a Chinese New Year mascot.

Chinese culture is weirdly into puns, so I am not surprised that suddenly Malfoy is a thing for Chinese New Year. I haven't seen any of these decorations myself in the wild, but if I do I will definitely let you all know.

2. This xkcd about Groundhog Day. Also this one about proofs.

3. Purity Culture is Pedophile Culture (September 8, 2025, via Why It Matters that Jeffrey Epstein Recommended James Dobson) [content note: child sexual abuse] This is a blog series about how most child sexual abuse is committed by a father, step-father, relative, or family friend- this is true, we have statistics on this, and James Dobson knows this- but instead of doing something to help protect children from father/daughter incest, Dobson and other purity culture leaders teach an ideology where parents have total control over their children's bodies, where a daughter's virginity belongs to her father until marriage, where the father-daughter relationship is described in borderline-creepy romantic terms. Yikes.

4. How to be less awkward (January 7, via) "I learned an important lesson that day: when it comes to being awkward, the coverup is always worse than the crime."

5. How to Teach Textual Criticism To Fifth-Graders (July 23, 2025, via) "If Billy wrote his primary copy in pencil, though, and you feel like messing with them even further, get an eraser and do a fairly sloppy job of erasing everything he wrote."

6. Bad Bunny's Apple Music Super Bowl Halftime Show (February 9) I don't speak any Spanish, so I'm not really able to tell you if this is good or not. But I liked it.

7. They're cured of leprosy. Why do they still live in leprosy colonies? (February 7) "In fact, leprosy — also known as Hansen's disease — is one of the least contagious diseases there is. Ninety-five percent of humans are naturally immune and it's not easily contracted by the other 5%. Today, leprosy is easily cured with antibiotics, especially if detected early."

8. The vegetables on VeggieTales are not Christian (December 10, 2025, via) "Mike Asparagus is not a Christian; he is an actor who occasionally portrays Christian characters. You might compare Mike Asparagus to Mark Williams, who is not a practicing Christian, but still portrays the fictional character of Father Brown on TV[.]" I am so here for this.

---

Links related to the antichrist:

1. Pardon the Corruption (December 2, 2025, via) "DOJ lawyers normally apply standard criteria for pardons, these include: post-conviction conduct, character and reputation; seriousness and relative recentness of the offense; acceptance of responsibility, remorse, and atonement; and need for relief. The ideal case was someone who had served significant time, especially for more serious crimes, expressed remorse, and faced real hardship because of their conviction. Now, the ideal case is a wealthy supporter of the President who would prefer never to see the inside of a jail cell for their crimes."

2. Lawyers allege Dept. of Homeland Security is denying legal counsel to Minnesota detainees (January 19, via) "'One ICE agent said if we let you see your clients, we would have to let all the attorneys see their clients, and imagine the chaos,' said another attorney who asked not to be named. 'And I said to that person, yeah, you do have to let all the attorneys see their clients. You do have to accommodate that. That’s the Constitution. You chose to put them here. I didn't bring this guy here, you did.'"

3. Epstein Files Reveal How Pathetic Richard Dawkins & Other Men Are (February 6, transcript here) The Epstein files give an inside look at some drama that was going on with sexual harassment in the atheist community.

4. Two CBP Agents Identified in Alex Pretti Shooting (February 1) So... this is strange and I don't know what to make of it. I saw this news a few days ago but decided not to share the link yet, because it was only ProPublica reporting it, so I wanted to wait and see if it would be verified by other big news sites, before I shared the link. In the article here, ProPublica says they found the 2 names by looking at "government records"- but I don't understand what these "government records" are and how they got them.

So I guess let's still be skeptical about this? I'm sharing the link now because this was published a week ago and there still seems to be nothing mentioned on the other mainstream news sites (except The Guardian), and I find that very strange.

5. The unfathomable Minnesota transcript that must be read, as it tells the reality of America today (February 5) "What -- what can the Court expect going forward, because this is obviously not workable, and it's certainly not an example of complying with the Court's order, unless you feel it is?"

6. Trump refuses to apologize after posting racist meme of the Obamas (February 7) "'It's the most racist thing I've seen out of this White House. The President should remove it,' said Scott, who is Black."

7. Immigrant whose skull was broken in 8 places during ICE arrest says beating was unprovoked (February 7) "He remembers Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents pulling him from a friend's car on Jan. 8 outside a St. Paul shopping center and throwing him to the ground, handcuffing him, then punching him and striking his head with a steel baton."

Being Right vs Doing Good

Sign that says "Right" with an arrow pointing in one direction, and "wrong" with an arrow pointing the other direction. Image source.

Which is more important, being right or doing good? Having the correct opinions on every issue, or taking actions which make a positive difference in the world?

In the ideology of conservative Christianity and conservative politics, being right is more important than being good. You can see this in so many different issues. I have examples.

---

"Saved by faith, not by works"

I was taught that this is the main message of Christianity: We are not saved by something we did; we are saved by what Jesus did. We can never do enough good deeds to earn our way into heaven- we just need to believe in Jesus, that's how we get to heaven. We are saved by faith, not by works. 

Evangelical Christians say it's totally legit if someone does all kinds of immoral things, and then on their deathbed they repent and convert to Christianity- on that basis, they get into heaven. It doesn't matter what they did. It doesn't matter if they did good things or if they murdered a lot of people. What matters is that, in the end, they had the correct beliefs.

I've seen conservatives speak out against "the social gospel"- ie, the idea that Christianity is about helping people here and now, that Christianity can be good news for the poor (as Jesus said in Luke 4:18), that Christians should fight for justice. Speaking out against "the social gospel" because it would be bad if people were too focused on this idea of doing good and helping people, and that caused them to place less emphasis on making sure everyone believes the right things. Yeah, conservative Christians are very suspicious of anyone preaching that Christians should do good deeds. Doing good deeds should be a secondary concern- we can't ever lose sight of the fact that being right is the most important.

---

Focus on the Family

Focus on the Family is a conservative Christian organization which teaches that there is only 1 correct way to have a family. You have to follow all these rules- that's the "correct" way to live. That's God's way. This image of a hetero couple, with children, the husband as the head of the family, and divorce is not allowed.

If anyone is not living according to this model, well, they deserve whatever happens to them. They should be living the right way. See, we need to teach everyone that if you don't live the right way, then the natural result is that bad things will happen to you. That's just the way it is. It's a kindness, to let everyone know about the risks of living the "wrong" way.

One might point out, hey, wouldn't it be better if we do some research on people's actual family situations, and what kind of ideas/policies would actually help them? Ha! Of course not. In conservative ideology, we already know that people will only get the best outcome if they follow our rules. If they're not following our rules, we shouldn't support them in that. 

(See these posts from the Slacktivist: "Pro-Family" means anti-families and To truly be ‘pro-family,’ you have to be pro-worker)

---

Is homosexuality worse than other sins?

15ish years ago, when everyone was arguing about marriage equality, sometimes people would point out that it seems like conservative Christians are treating homosexuality like it's worse than any other sin. What's up with that?

Back then, I was evangelical, and my position was that it's *not* worse than other sins, and we should try to have consistent beliefs about sin, treating all sin as significant but also able to be forgiven by Jesus. (And also, I believed it wasn't a sin to have same-sex attraction, but it was a sin to "act on it.")

But also, at the same time, it sort of made sense to me why we always talked about it in a way that gave people the impression that we thought it was the worst sin. Because there was something about it that intersected with this "being right vs doing good" dichotomy, in a way that other sins didn't. The issue wasn't just that "it's a sin to be in a same-sex relationship"- it was "it's a sin to be in a same-sex relationship, but some people are claiming it's not a sin, and they are wrong, and we need to make it very clear that they are wrong on this factual matter." If a Christian leader does something really bad, like abuse kids, or embezzle money, or whatever, they can stand up and make a big speech about "oh I did this sinful thing, but now I have repented and God has forgiven me." Regardless of their actions, they can proclaim that they now have the "correct" beliefs. But if a Christian leader gets outed as gay, well... they're going to continue to be gay. 

In an ideology where your actions don't really matter, as long as you say the right thing, a refusal to accept the required beliefs about homosexuality is basically worse than any actual bad thing you can do.

People might ask "Why are Christians making such a big deal about this? Aren't they supposed to be, like, helping the poor or something?" But see, nobody is debating whether it's good and important to help poor people or not. See, we all already know the "correct" answer on that, so no need to really make a big deal out of it. But this LGBT issue, well, people have the wrong opinions on it- so we need to argue with them all the time.

(Anyway, I'm queer now, and glad to not be in evangelical world any more.)

---

Policies that actually lower the abortion rate 

In the "pro-life" movement, the belief that abortion is bad, and that those women who want abortions are evil and must be stopped, is treated as more important than actually creating policies that lower the abortion rate.

Statistically, we know that banning abortion doesn't really lower the abortion rate. You know what does? Giving people good sex education, and access to contraception. Oh, but the "pro-life" movement can't be supporting those things- because, we know the correct lifestyle is to not have sex outside of marriage. If you're following the correct lifestyle, obviously you will never need an abortion. (Fact-check: this is not true.) It's very important to make sure everyone knows the correct way to live, and if they stray from that path, well, no we shouldn't give them any help or support. Just keep telling them what the correct thing to do would have been.

And another thing that lowers the abortion rate: Policies which help women have more control over their lives, enabling them to set up their lives in such a way that they're able to have the number of children they want to have. Policies which protect pregnant people's rights. Paid maternity leave. Ah, but the "pro-life" movement doesn't advocate for these things. Because it's about having the "right" opinion on abortion- not about actually doing things that will decrease the abortion rate.

(See this post from Libby Anne: How I Lost Faith in the “Pro-Life” Movement)

---

And every issue is like this

Seriously, most conservative political positions I can think of, they're about how we already know the right way to live and/or structure society, and therefore the most effective thing we can do is to tell people that's what they're supposed to do, and reward people who are already doing it. We can't give any help to people who aren't living the right way, ugh, that would be terrible, that would send the message that it's *okay* to live like that.

Political policies related to economics, for example. People who are college-educated, people who don't have credit card debt or student loans, people who are rich, people who own businesses- they are the ones doing things the "right" way. If someone proposes a new government policy that would financially help people who are not doing things the "right" way, well, obviously it's a bad idea- we should be teaching people what the right way is, and encouraging them toward it. Not rewarding their bad behavior.

Or another example- universal health care. Wow, wouldn't it be great if the US had universal health care? But conservatives oppose it, because the government isn't *supposed* to be doing that. We already know the "right" way to have a society, and it's that people should be responsible for themselves, rather than being dependent on the government.

(Very interesting that this belief about the "right" way to run one's government doesn't seem to take into account all the other countries in the world, and their different government structures and policies and the results they produce. Very interesting.)

---

Conservatives would argue that doing things the "right" way *is* what's most beneficial

Now, I'm kind of framing this like conservatives believe they must follow what is "right" at the expense of doing what actually helps people- but this isn't exactly accurate. They would argue that getting everyone to do things the "right" way *is* what's most helpful, in the long run.

They would argue that, if you really had perfect information about the results of polices that promote doing things the "right" way, vs policies which naively help people who appear to need help- if you analyze these results and calculate which way does the most good, you would find that doing things the "right" way *is* what's best, in terms of real-world results. Sure, they believe this on an abstract, theoretical level, but if you point to a specific study that found that sticking to the "right" way was harmful, this is not going to change their minds. Just speaking for myself back then, when I was growing up republican, I would have said the study wasn't measuring the full scope of the results. (Maybe something seems like a good idea now, but in the long run leads to the downfall of society, ever think of that? ... It's very hard to come up with actual evidence to prove or disprove this...)

It's not really about the evidence. We already know the right answers, so there's not really much of a need to actually go out and collect evidence about the real-world effects of these ideas. We already know what the right way is.

---

Which is more important, being right or doing good? Conservative Christianity and conservative politics say it's more important to be right. And this explains so much.

---

See also, this post from the Slacktivist: Rights for me but not for thee, which discusses the idea "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." 

I personally feel it fits better to say conservatism is about being right (and I said in this post). But you could make the case that this "in-groups and out-groups" thing is kind of saying the same thing. The in-groups are the people who are doing things the right way- of course the government should support them, not put restrictions on them! And the out-groups are people who are not living according to the "correct" rules- well obviously the law should try to push them to live the "right" way- and definitely should not give them any support in their wrongness.

---

Follow-up post: Jesus Weighs in on "Being Right vs Doing Good"

Related:

On Washing Machines and Republicans 

How long will you wait for your experience to match up with the bible?

Because of James Dobson, Christians Believe that Christianity Means Judging and Excluding Queer People

In 2022, after the Club Q shooting, Focus on the Family Colorado was vandalized with graffiti that says "Their blood is on your hands. Five lives taken." Image source and news article here: Influential evangelical group that opposes LGBT+ rights vandalised after Colorado Springs mass shooting

James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, has died.

When I think about Focus on the Family, I have a lot of anger and sadness. I grew up reading books written by Dobson, reading Brio magazine (Focus on the Family's magazine for teen girls), reading fundraising newsletters from Dobson. It was all about how, as Christians, we know the correct way to live, we know God's way to live, we know that if people don't follow God's rules, there will be bad results, and so we have to fight to make sure our culture doesn't normalize breaking God's rules.

I really believed all of it. 

And there's a lot I could say, but the areas where this has affected me the most are purity culture and queer acceptance. Yeah, the main source that taught me purity culture was Brio magazine. I totally believed it, totally believed all of it. Totally believed that "losing your virginity" would turn you into a completely different kind of person, unworthy of love, unable to ever have a good marriage. Totally believed that the best-case scenario was to never have physical contact with a guy, until marriage. Totally believed that it was an emergency every time I had a crush- I had to "guard my heart." Totally believed that all of this came straight from God's mouth. 

Purity culture has been such a huge thing in my life. I've blogged about it a lot... I don't really want to say too much in this blog post because it is such a huge thing. 

What I really want to talk about is queerness.

Long ago, when I was a teenager, before I had ever met any queer people, I was reading Focus on the Family's propaganda about them. It was about how being gay is so wrong, so disgusting, and isn't it just horrible that society is beginning to accept them? If there was ever a gay character on TV, Focus on the Family would raise the alarm about it, get all the conservative Christians outraged- how dare this TV show portray a gay person as a regular person that we can empathize with! Pushing the message that gay people exist and that's just fine- NO! The horror! It's not fine, it's against God's law, and everyone who is living "the gay lifestyle" is secretly miserable, and it's an outrage that the media is pushing this dangerous, false message that it's okay to be gay.

There were books that Focus on the Family promoted- which I read- "Marriage Under Fire" (by Dobson) and "The Homosexual Agenda", if you really want to know- which were about how we CANNOT legalize same-sex marriage. That would destroy society. People may ask "how, exactly, would it destroy society...? Seems like if you're not gay, it doesn't affect you?" Well, these books had an answer for that. You see, if same-sex marriage is legal, then people will think it's okay to marry a same-sex partner, which will totally change people's understanding of what marriage is, which will lead to polygamy and people marrying their dogs and pedophilia.

I believed all that. 

And... well, it's a long story, but I wanted to learn more about how to help those pathetic gay people who were trapped in "the gay lifestyle" and needed to know God's love and God's rules and how their lives would be so much better if they just try to stop doing gay things. As I learned more and more- specifically, reading blog posts from gay Christians- I realized that everything that Focus on the Family had said was bullshit.

The bullshit. The mind-boggling expansiveness of the bullshit. Day in and day out, writing about how those bad gay people are going to DESTROY MARRIAGE- and it was all lies. It's really quite astounding, when you recognize the full scope of it... What would cause someone to go out in public, again and again and again, and say nasty, dehumanizing, completely false things about a group of people? How are people doing that and claiming to be Christians, claiming to follow the bible? The bible says "do not bear false witness against your neighbor."

And claiming that we know the correct way to live because God told us, and if you disagree, you're disagreeing with God- the bible says "do not take the Lord's name in vain."

When I think about James Dobson, when I think about Focus on the Family, I think of the verse where Jesus said:

If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

Because of the bullshit propaganda promoted by Focus on the Family and other nice Christian groups, people believe that an important part of being Christian is discriminating against queer people. Really. Seriously. So many Christians who, upon hearing about the some aspect of queer people's lives, have a knee-jerk reaction "that's bad, that's against God" rather than wanting to learn about it in order to care about people and "love your neighbor as yourself." So many non-Christians believe that Christianity is anti-LGBTQ. So many news articles with headlines about the fight between Christianity and queer rights, as if something that's good news for queer people is obviously bad news for Christians.

Dobson played a big role in this. Because of Dobson, people believe Christianity is about judging and excluding queer people. Because of Dobson, people believe that "morality" means making rules for other people's sex lives, rather than anything related to helping people. Because of Dobson, news articles say things like "people are voting based on their values" and we all understand it means being cruel to queer people.

---

This article from Wonkette has about the right amount of respect towards Dobson: James Dobson Meets His Maker. (It Is The Devil.)

---

See also, the Focus on the Family tag on my blog

Blogaround

1. The Performative Sexuality of Matt Walsh (January 19) 8-minute video from Jessie Gender. "Okay, obviously on its face this is the funniest ****ing thing I've seen this man say, and I have seen this man say some really fun, dumb ****, amongst all the horrible horrific fascist nonsense that he says and [transmisic] bullshit."

2. This Cat Is NOT "Totally Normal"!! (January 20) 1-hour-37-minute sudoku solve video. Wow, this is amazing. "It's absolute nonsense and yet you can actually find a way through this!"

3. 7 Ways to Be An Ally to Autistic People (January 2) "Joking around and whatever is perfectly fine, but sometimes when I can’t figure out if people are being serious or just joking and ask for a quick clarification, they either refuse to answer or actively make my question part of the banter like it wasn’t meant to be serious.  Don’t do this to people, it’s rude."

4. Google promised to delete location data on abortion clinic visits. It didn’t, study says (January 17, via) "A year and a half has passed since Google first pledged to delete all location data on users’ visits to abortion clinics with minimal progress. The move would have made it harder for law enforcement to use that information to investigate or prosecute people seeking abortions in states where the procedure has been banned or otherwise limited. Now, a new study shows Google still retains location history data in 50% of cases."

5. What It's Like to Be Denied an Abortion in Your State (January 18, via) [content note: pregnancy loss] "I just could not believe it. It was already hard enough dealing with the fact that my baby wasn't going to make it. This was a wanted pregnancy; this was a planned pregnancy."

6. Tim Scott Quoted Fannie Lou Hamer At A Trump Rally And Now I Want To Punch My Fist Through A Wall (January 22) "At that time in Mississippi, if you registered to vote, your name and address ran in the paper for two weeks so the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacists could terrorize you if you were Black."

7. Ohio pastor charged for housing the homeless in his church sues city in federal lawsuit (January 24)

8. The Biden Administration Is Ending Bank Overdraft Fees as We Know Them (January 18) "Under the new rule, overdraft fees at large banks will be limited to the service's cost–expected to be as low as $3 per incident. Currently, the typical consumer is charged $35 for each overdraft."

9. Focus on the Family's Scary Stance About Men Jailed for Domestic Violence (January 22) [content note: abuse, domestic violence] "Why is there no testimony from a man saying, 'I learned that trying to control my wife wasn’t okay'?"

10. Take a Hint! How Chinese Officials Are Subtly Promoting Having Children (January 24) "The challenge even prompted the China Family Planning Association — formed in 1980 to help implement the one-child policy — to seek the public’s help in formulating new propaganda slogans for the three-child policy in 2021." Oh yeah that's what we need, propaganda slogans. That'll do it. [/sarcasm]

I find it a bit goofy that this article is framed like "the Chinese government is promoting these images of families with 3 children, hoping it will convince people to have more kids" [my paraphrase, not an exact quote] which is, uh, how shall I put this, obviously ridiculous. Can you imagine any parent being like "well I have 1 child, and WOW childcare is expensive, but oh look here's a statue of a family with 3 children, I should totally have more kids!!!" LOLLLLLL.

It would make a lot more sense to frame it as "Because the one-child policy was in place for 30-some years, in Chinese culture it's now seen as 'normal' to only have 1 child (for example, the typical image of a family is a mom, dad, and 1 child). Now that China has changed to a 3-child policy, the government is trying to promote more images of families with 2-3 children, to show that this should also be seen as 'normal.'" Like not with the expectation that this is going to *convince* people to have more kids (lol what on earth), but simply as a way of helping people see that there can be different sizes of families and that's all fine.

11. Journal Club: Has Virginity Lost Its Virtue? (January 24) "Study 2 took data from a national survey to see how likely people were to consider a relationship with a virgin."

12. Raped, pregnant and in an abortion ban state? Researchers gauge how often it happens (January 24, via) [content note: rape statistics] "As an abortion provider in Montana, Dr. Samuel Dickman has seen patients routinely who tell him they became pregnant after a rape." This study estimates 64,000 pregnancies from rape in states where abortion is banned, since Roe v Wade was overturned.

13. Call for Submissions | February 2024 Carnival of Aros | The Meaning of “Romance” Across Time and Place (January 18) Good topic! I haven't written anything for the Carnival of Aros before, but I will probably write a post for this one, because I have some things to say about the differences in romantic traditions in Chinese and American culture.

Blogaround

Graffiti on Focus on the Family HQ says "Their blood is on your hands. Five lives taken." Image source.

1. How Asexuality Is the Quiet Queer Revolution (November 11) "What if we start decentering sex? This is the radical question we are forced to confront once we start recognising asexuality as a real identity deserving of space in this world – one that makes it queer for how it subverts normative sexuality, and dares to imagine a world where we free ourselves of its baggage entirely."

2. Rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic: Southern Baptists still arguing over women pastors (November 6) Kind of shocking to me, reading this, how openly these men just hate women pastors. I know I used to be in that culture, and I used to believe there was something to the concept of men being leaders more so than women, but now it just seems incomprehensible to me. And these men believe in a "this doesn't make sense but God wants us to do it anyway, and obedience to God is the most important thing" God, whereas I believe in a "you're gonna stand before Jesus someday and She's going to be like, 'what the hell were you thinking???'" God.

3. How the pandemic took the toxic out of my Turkey Day (November 23) "Thanksgiving was the one day of the year that I knew was going to suck. Not just for me, but for my son and husband too, the two most important people in my life. They rode out that horrible day with me every year."

4. The few, the loud: How ‘very online atheists’ differ from other atheists (November 21) "Most atheists are pretty quiet about it, but a few people drive most of the online discussion of atheism. This creates a potential mismatch between typical atheists and the most visible atheists, to the extent that there are predictable differences between the two groups."

5. Do the rich pay their fair share? (November 15) "Billionaires in the US pay a smaller tax rate than most teachers and retail workers. Thanks to a tax code that favors income from wealth over income from work—and a slew of tax-avoidance strategies—the richest among us end up paying a smaller percentage of their income to the federal government than most working families."

6. Stochastic terrorism and the Colorado Springs Club Q shooting (November 21) "In the US this weekend, Club Q in Colorado Springs joined a long list of places struck by concrete violence informed by a broader cultivation of hate. The term for this terrible outcome is 'stochastic terrorism': when an act of public violence is individually unpredictable (i.e. in terms of exact date, target, perpetrator), but also statistically predictable, based on a series of preceding factors, such as sustained hate-mongering from prominent media sources."

7. Catholic hospitals are wrecking reproductive health care (October 11) "But doctors at a Catholic hospital won’t do that. They will perform the C-section, sure, but that’s it. They are forbidden from tying a woman’s tubes thanks to Directive 53."

8. San Francisco launches new guaranteed income program for trans community (November 16) This seems very weird to me. A government chooses one specific marginalized group and picks some people in that group and gives them money. Yes, it's great for the people who receive the money- but it feels weird to me that a government would be doing that. Seems like the sort of thing a charity should do? A government is supposed to do things that benefit society as a whole.

I don't know, perhaps there are other examples where local governments have done this sort of thing, just focused on one specific disadvantaged group, and the result benefitted society overall, and now San Francisco is kind of modeling their plan on something like that?

And, please note, when I say a government is supposed to do things that "benefit society as a whole", I don't mean like, everyone should directly benefit from every government program, or some nonsense like that. If, for example, the government gives money to low-income people to lift them out of poverty, I do count that as "benefitting society as a whole" because a society which helps people get out of poverty is a better society than one that doesn't. But I'm not sure about just focusing on trans people, because there must be a lot of low-income cis people who are in need too. And this program is just giving them money, rather than addressing specific trans issues. (Addressing specific trans issues would also be an example of "benefitting society as a whole"! A society which helps people get transgender-related health care, for example, is a better society than one that doesn't.) This seems more like "here's a good thing that happened one time to a few specific trans people" but it doesn't go any farther than that.

But anyway, the important thing is to see the results of this program. It will definitely be a great thing for those people who receive the money, but my question is, does it make sense from the government's perspective to focus on them specifically?

9. "Anti-science" is a meaningless phrase (2021) "People honestly SHOULD be skeptical of any human-related science."

10. Here’s why vandals sprayed graffiti at Focus on the Family headquarters (November 27) When I heard that the Focus on the Family sign had been vandalized, I was like, "GOOD." I grew up reading and believing their propaganda, all their books that take the Lord's name in vain and bear false witness against their neighbors. I read "The Homosexual Agenda" and "Marriage Under Fire"- books about how "homosexuals" are trying to destroy marriage and destroy society and must be stopped. It was all lies. And now I'm queer, and I'm mad.

If One Partner Doesn't Want to Fix the Relationship, Then It's Just Not Fixable

A man and woman sitting on opposite ends of a bench, ignoring each other. Image source.

So Focus on the Family is publishing a new book called "How God Used “the Other Woman”: Saving Your Marriage after Infidelity" by Tina Konkin. Sarahbeth Caplin has a blog post about this: A New Book from Focus on the Family Blames Women When Their Husbands Cheat. Yep, the book is about how, if your husband cheated on you, you can save the marriage by determining what your role was in causing him to cheat. Umm. Okay... that sounds unhealthy and victim-blame-y.

Caplin's post includes a quote from Sheila Wray Gregoire, a Christian blogger with a much healthier view on cheating. Here's the part that I want to talk about:

A marriage can only start healing if the cheating spouse first repents. That’s always the first step. Once that’s done, the hurting spouse can choose to extend grace, can go to counseling and look at how drift was caused, and try to rebuild. But unless there is total repentance from the cheater, you won’t get anywhere.

Yes, she is absolutely right. If the person who cheats isn't interested in fixing the marriage, then it doesn't matter what the non-cheater does- it's never going to work. In that situation, the marriage is just not fixable.

To put it more generally: If a relationship has some kind of huge problem, and one partner wants to work on solving the problem, and the other partner doesn't, then it is just not possible to solve the problem and make the relationship healthy again. It's just not.

This fact is SO IMPORTANT TO ME because I never heard anything like it in Christians' teachings about purity and dating and marriage.

In Christian purity culture- which is targeted toward unmarried people- breaking up is The Worst Thing Ever. And in Christian teaching about marriage, divorce is Always Bad. So all of the advice about what to do if you're in an unhealthy relationship is along the lines of "do these things to fix the relationship" instead of "here are the criteria you can use to decide if the relationship is fixable, or whether you'd be better off just leaving." Leaving is not an option, so I never heard any teaching about how to make a healthy decision about leaving.

Yes, the "how to fix your marriage" advice from Christians often included a disclaimer about "we're not talking about people in abusive relationships- if you're being abused then you should get out" and "okay in SOME cases divorce is okay, like if there's cheating or abuse." But those things were only mentioned to show that we aren't talking about them. They only gave "here is how to fix your marriage" advice- they did NOT give "here is how to recognize abuse" advice or "here is how to go about getting a divorce if there's cheating or abuse" advice.

And similarly, for the unmarried people, there was no teaching about how to break up in a healthy way. All of purity culture was about how to avoid ever experiencing a breakup, because if you have an ex that means you gave them part of your purity and you can never have a perfect marriage. Back then, I was terrified of breaking up. So terrified.

So no, I never knew that if one partner doesn't want to fix the relationship, then it's just not fixable. I never heard that before. I never knew that, in a situation like that, it's not possible to make the relationship healthy. If your partner really shows no signs that they'll ever be willing to work with you to solve the problem, then the best thing you can do for yourself is to break up. There's nothing good or virtuous about staying in a relationship like that.

Instead, all the advice goes like this: If your husband isn't treating you right, then here's what you need to do. You need to pray for him every day. You need to be a better wife. You need to submit to him more. You need to smile and not complain. You need to have sex with him more. And so on and so on. And if you do all these things, he will magically change and become a better person.

(Related: all the evangelism tactics we used to do, back when I was "on fire for God." We were trying to get people to change their personal religious beliefs. I didn't know about boundaries; I didn't know everyone's beliefs belong to them and I can't "make" them change. All the evangelism training was about how to try to coerce and manipulate people into changing. And how to pray for God to coerce and manipulate them into changing. I thought if I followed all the steps, then it would "work.")

No, it doesn't work that way. If someone doesn't want to change, you can't make them change, no matter what you do.

See, I now believe in boundaries morality. Boundaries means you can't "make" anybody do anything. You can't make someone treat you better. You can't make someone agree with you. You can't make someone become a better person. Everyone is in charge of their own self. You can't make someone treat you better, but you should set boundaries so that people who would mistreat you don't have access to you and therefore won't be able to mistreat you. And sometimes, when you set a boundary and somebody realizes they don't like being excluded from your life, it might inspire them to change their behavior and stop mistreating you. Maybe. It might. But it also might not. The goal isn't necessarily to make them change, it's to protect yourself from their bad behavior, whether they change or not.

A long time ago, I was dating a guy, let's call him Xin, and he was sometimes very nice and affectionate, and sometimes seemed to be acting like he didn't really want to have a girlfriend. And I loved him, and I cried a lot during the times he wasn't treating me right. I ... It never occurred to me that I would be better off breaking up with him. I was starting to get out of purity culture but I was still terrified of the very concept of breaking up; it wasn't something I considered as an actual option. Instead I tried everything I could possibly think of to manipulate him into being a better person. Occasionally he would treat me better, for 1 day, and I would be so happy and feel like it was all worth it and we could totally make this relationship work.

It felt like a big milestone when we hit the 6-month mark. Then the 1-year mark. I thought that being together for 1 year was something to celebrate- as if staying together is "success" and breaking up is "failure." No, that relationship was happy for just the first few months but then it should have ended. We all would have been better off. Staying in a relationship with a partner who doesn't treat me right isn't an accomplishment.

I knew the relationship wasn't happy, and so I feared that it would end. And by "it would end" I mean my boyfriend saying to me "we should break up." I never thought maybe I could be the one to say to him "we should break up."

I thought "loyalty" was a good thing. I thought it was godly how I was good and loving toward him while he was being heartless toward me. I thought "giving up" on the relationship was a bad thing. I thought I was supposed to selflessly love him and always do what would be best for him.

It turns out, in reality, "loyalty" isn't intrinsically good. It's only good to be loyal to someone who deserves your loyalty. Someone who loves you. Someone you can trust. And it's bad and unhealthy to be loyal to someone who doesn't treat you right. (And that's why I don't worship any god. I believe in God, but I don't worship them because I'm not willing to say they deserve my loyalty. Boundaries.)

And finally ... well ... I decided that me loving Xin and wanting what's best for him meant I should tell him "okay, we will take a break from our relationship." I didn't do it for myself; I did it because I decided he would be happier if I stopped trying to manipulate him into being a decent boyfriend. (Or at least, that's how I reasoned it out- maybe I also did it because of "selfish" reasons but I was a good Christian and therefore wasn't allowed to be honest with myself about that.) I still thought there was something wrong with making a decision to break up. I still thought that I should always put others first and never be motivated by caring about my own emotional needs- that would be "selfish." I didn't know about boundaries yet. In boundaries morality, you put yourself first. That's how it should be. But all my life, Christians had taught me the exact opposite.

And then I started dating Hendrix, who from the very beginning has always acted like he is just the luckiest person in the world to have the privilege of being in a relationship with me. And every day he says and does little things that show he's in love with me. (Reader, I married him.)

But even if I hadn't met such a good partner after breaking up with Xin, breaking up still would have been a good decision. Being single would be better than being in a relationship like that- though I didn't have any way to believe that back then. I loved Xin, I was lonely, and my whole life I had heard so many warnings about losing my "purity"... if I have to start over and find a new partner, that means starting over with less purity than I had originally, and therefore I would be less valuable and less deserving of a good partner.

I wish I had been taught a whole comprehensive ideology about "yes, even though breaking up is sad because you love him, logically it is a good decision because of these reasons." Instead, my "whole comprehensive ideology" was purity culture with its beliefs about how breaking up is The Worst Thing Ever... And then occasionally an adult who didn't buy into that might tell me I deserve better and someday I'll find a way better partner, and in the meantime it's better to be single than to put up with that crap anyway... but I didn't have any way to actually fit that in to the rest of my worldview with regards to dating. So it felt like just some fleeting faraway possibility, not something I could actually trust.

No, the idea that I could tell him "we should break up" because I deserved better was never something I actually considered. There was no way I could, when I believed "loyalty" was good and "giving up" was bad, when I believed a relationship that ends is a "failure" but a relationship that keep racking up anniversaries is a "success." When I believed in "always put others first." When all the relationship advice I'd heard was about "here is how to fix your relationship" instead of "here is how to know if your relationship is worth fixing." When I had heard stories of women who suffered for years and years in bad marriages, who kept submitting and working hard to be a good wife, until finally God magically changed their husband into a good husband- and those women were role models, that was the "correct" thing to do in an unhappy marriage. When divorce was only mentioned in terms of "yes, divorce is allowed in some cases but we aren't talking about that," basically saying that if your husband cheats on you then technically it's not a sin to divorce him but it's still better to stay in the marriage. When Christians were always saying "marriage isn't about making you happy, it's about making you holy" and divorce is for those selfish losers that didn't realize "marriage is hard" so they bailed at the first sign of conflict.

I wish I had known about how to put myself first and how to make healthy decisions about breaking up. I wish I had known about boundaries, and no matter what I do, I can't "make" someone treat me right. I wish I had known that if one partner just won't do the work to fix the relationship, then it's just not fixable.

------------------------

Related:
"How Far Is Too Far?" My Story, And What I Wish I'd Known
From "Virtues Morality" To "Boundaries Morality" 
"Marriage Is Hard"

Blogaround

Scar, from the 1994 Lion King cartoon. Image source.

1. Who Invented the Food Pyramid and Why You'd Be Crazy to Follow It (posted July 26) "Our recommendation of 3-4 daily servings of whole-grain breads and cereals was changed to a whopping 6-11 servings, forming the base of the Food Pyramid as a concession to the processed wheat and corn industries."

2. Making progress in Chinese in spite of praise (posted 2012) As a white person who can speak Chinese, I can confirm that this is very real.

3. James Dobson Visits the Border and Shows His Nativism (posted June 28) "We love you. God loves you. But you can’t come into our country. Sorry."

4. The Lion King: Was It Worth It? | SCB Review (posted July 23) [content note: spoilers for "The Lion King"] "Here's the thing about the animated Scar, is that he's just perfect." Yep, I agree with pretty much their whole review.

5. Jury: Katy Perry’s ‘Dark Horse’ copied Christian rap song (posted July 30) Wow, this takes me back to like, 2011 when I was super-into Christian rap. (Wow I could write a WHOLE POST about that- any readers interested? Here's a sneak peak: Lecrae is like the rap version of John Piper.) And yes, back then I totally did notice that the beat running through the entire background of "Dark Horse" sounded a lot like "Joyful Noise."

6. One-Time Purity Culture Advocate Joshua Harris Now Says “I Am Not a Christian” (posted July 26) Wow. As far as I know, no details have come out about this besides his instagram post, and I am all curious and want to know more. BUT ALSO, remember just last week I said, and I quote, "right now he still has a lot to learn and he should work on learning that instead of continuing to tell everyone his half-baked opinions" so, yeah, it's okay that he hasn't shared details.

Blogaround

1. James Dobson: Migrants “Will Soon Overwhelm the Culture” (posted July 8) "Dobson has been saying for ages that Christians have lost the culture. What “culture” is it that Central Americans will overwhelm?"

2. USA's formidable women's soccer team is no accident. It's a product of public policy (posted July 6) "In 1972, when title IX was passed, there were only 700 girls playing soccer at the high-school level in the whole United States. By 1991, the year of the first Women’s World Cup, there were 121,722 high school girl players – a 17,000% increase." Wow, this is astonishing to me- imagine if high schools just *didn't have* sports teams for girls.

3. Why I’m not a Bridge Builder within Evangelicalism (posted July 4) "In other admittedly harsh words, evangelicals only give a limited degree of freedom to one subset of human beings if they can surely throw other human beings under the bus."

Blogaround

1. My Son "Fixed" 'The Giving Tree' (posted June 22) "We want them to understand that kindness doesn’t mean giving yourself away to make someone else happy until you are nothing but a stump. ... We want them to know that when you love yourself, you set boundaries that allow for authentic relationships built on mutual respect and honor."

2. Is Toy Story 4 the Best Toy Story Movie? | Spoiler Review (posted June 25) I agree with the Super Carlin Brothers' thoughts on Toy Story 4.

3. Dr. Dobson's July Newsletter What the f***?! This is James Dobson's account of his visit to the border patrol facilities on the US southern border. Parts of it show concern for the refugees who are suffering, but overall it's about how we need to close the border, we need to support the orange antichrist building his damn wall, isn't it terrible that these poor and possibly-violent people are allowed to enter the US, etc.

I'm posting this here because I always saw Dobson as a good Christian role model, when I was growing up. My family bought books and magazines from Focus on the Family, and I read and accepted what they said, never doubting that Focus on the Family taught The Correct Things That Christians Should Believe.

And now he's writing this blatantly unbiblical anti-immigrant crap. The bible is clear: we need to welcome the immigrant, the refugee, the stranger. (And usually I don't use the term "unbiblical" and I don't say "the bible is clear" but I'm angry and it's ****in' clear on this.) Look at the last paragraph from Dobson's post:

What I've told you is only a glimpse of what is occurring on the nation's border. I don't know what it will take to change the circumstances. I can only report that without an overhaul of the law and the allocation of resources, millions of illegal immigrants will continue flooding to this great land from around the world. Many of them have no marketable skills. They are illiterate and unhealthy. Some are violent criminals. Their numbers will soon overwhelm the culture as we have known it, and it could bankrupt the nation. America has been a wonderfully generous and caring country since its founding. That is our Christian nature. But in this instance, we have met a worldwide wave of poverty that will take us down if we don't deal with it. And it won't take long for the inevitable consequences to happen.

Ewww, disgusting, how will I explain this to my children.

See also: Sarahbeth Caplin's post on this.
And Libby Anne's post.

And this tweet:

I don't have the stamina to go through this today, y'all. I just want to say, imagine being the Christian child expert that the administration knew they could safely give a tour of concentration camps to and expect nothing but support.https://t.co/HVWHblpL6U

— Ice Bear is Over It (@sparkle_heretic) 2019年6月30日

4. An Amazon employee made an AI-powered cat flap to stop his cat from bringing home dead animals (posted June 30) Cool!

5. Researchers eliminated HIV from the DNA of infected mice. It's the first step toward a cure for humans, they say (posted July 2)

6. So the President F*cking Hates My Girlfriend (posted July 2) "She’s going to do her thing, at her own damn speed, to her own damn rhythm, and she’s going to apologize to exactly NO ONE for it."

I Wanna Preach the Good News of Masturbation

A woman in a lab coat and goggles, looking at a beaker. Image source.

A few weeks ago Libby Anne posted this article, Hey Focus on the Family: Masturbation Is Actually Important, which is a response to a Focus on the Family post telling teenagers that masturbation is bad.

Her whole post is very good, so you should read the whole thing. I want to talk about the 2 main points she makes about why masturbation is important:

1. "First, masturbation has a place in marriage. There will be times when one partner wants sex and the other isn’t in the mood. There will be times when one partner wants sex, and the other can’t have sex. (I’m thinking in particular of the weeks that follow labor and delivery, but there are other times as well.)"
2. "There’s a second problem with Focus on the Family’s logic on masturbation: for women especially, but also for men, masturbating before marriage is a good way to get to know your body, and to get to know what you like and what brings you pleasure."

OKAY YES.

About #1: Yes. Wow. Yes. If masturbation is an option, that is a total game-changer. I've been married for almost 2 years, been having sex with Hendrix for 4 years, and it's only just very recently I've realized that I don't have to stress myself out about making sure I offer to have sex with him as much as he might "need" it. I can just tell him to masturbate himself. WOWWWWWW.

Even though, before we even started having sex years ago, Hendrix told me that there's nothing wrong with masturbating- he told me it's not "cheating" or anything like that. Still, I was stuck in this ideology that says I'm responsible for meeting all his sexual needs. It never occurred to me that, if he has "needs" and I don't want to have sex right now, THAT'S OKAY because he can just masturbate.

This conservative Christian ideology, which teaches that masturbation is NOT ALLOWED, immediately sets up this totally unnecessary conflict, if one partner wants to have sex and the other doesn't. It doesn't have to be that way! People can masturbate! Praise Jesus.

And yes, I know that masturbating is different from having partnered sex. My husband prefers having sex with me, rather than masturbating. Because it's different, having the human connection and the emotions and love that go with that. Honestly, because I'm asexual, I can't really speak to the concept of having "sexual needs" in general and how meeting those needs with masturbating is or isn't different than meeting them through sex.

But I will say this: If you prefer partnered sex because you want the emotional connection with your partner, wouldn't that emotional connection only be good if both of you actually want it? If one person is only saying "yes" because they feel like they're responsible for their partner's sexual needs, then are you really able to have that loving connection?

Wouldn't it feel a lot better and loving if you always knew there was another option available, that everyone has the freedom to say "no" because their partner can just masturbate and take care of themself? Then when people say "yes" to sex, you know it's because they actually want it.

And about point #2, learning about one's body through masturbation: YES. Dear god, I am CONSTANTLY BAFFLED about why more people aren't talking about this.

I can only speak for myself here, but: WITHOUT MASTURBATING, IT WOULD BE LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO LEARN HOW TO HAVE SEX IN A WAY THAT FEELS GOOD. Is this not the case for other people? This was such a huge life-changing revelation for me. Why on earth isn't everyone who cares about sex-ed shouting this from the rooftops?

Like, why? Really, why? Ever since I started researching my body through masturbation, I have been trying to come up with some plausible explanation for why this is apparently not a big deal to other people, even though it's SUCH A BIG DEAL to me. Here are the possibilities I've come up with:

1. Maybe for most people, they are able to have sex that feels good, even without having experience with masturbation.
2. Maybe for most people, they masturbate a lot when they're teenagers and learn about their bodies that way, and maybe they don't even realize that's how they learned it. They don't think about how clueless they'd be if they had never masturbated. 
3. Maybe most people (or maybe people with vaginas in particular) are *not* having sex that feels good, but they don't talk about it.

Like, does anybody have any insight into this question?

My experience with trying to figure out how to have sex would have been SO DIFFERENT if someone had given me this advice: "You shouldn't have partnered sex if you've never tried masturbating before." Seriously, that is THE #1 THING I WISH I'D KNOWN. Is this not the case for other people? Is it because they're able to have sex without ever having masturbated and it works fine for them, or is it because of course they've masturbated, everyone has masturbated, obviously, so this isn't even worth mentioning?

Before I met Hendrix, I had never ever masturbated. Never ever. Never even considered it. Because of course it's a sin, right? I did have a tiny bit of experience with using my hand to feel around "down there", a little bit, but I did it like a kid breaking the rules, sneaking around afraid of getting caught, trying to be done as fast as possible. (Please note, I lived alone, I wasn't worried about getting caught by *other people*- I was worried it was a sin and meant I was a bad person.) Now I research my body like a scientist- confident, unashamed, pursuing knowledge because I deserve it.

But that was how it was, the first time I tried to have partnered sex. I naively assumed it would "just work" even though I only had the vaguest idea of what a vagina was, and no understanding at all of the concept of being able to put something inside my vagina. Spoiler: the sex was not that great. (But for mental health reasons I'm really glad I did it- you can read more about that in this post.)

As I went through the process of rejecting Christian "purity" ideology, I changed a lot of my beliefs about sex and relationships. From "unmarried sex is a sin and will ruin your life" to "unmarried sex is okay." From "masturbation is a sin and will ruin your life" to "masturbation is okay." But then I realized, I have to go even farther than that. Masturbation is not just "okay"; masturbation is SO EXTREMELY GOOD. Like, holy crap. I'm asexual, so I'm sure my reasons for liking masturbation are different from most people... mostly it's because I want to learn about my body. And having sex with my husband would be A THOUSAND TIMES MORE DIFFICULT if I wasn't also masturbating.

Wow I want to tell people! This is important! Highly recommend!

Of course, since I'm asexual, I know that there are a lot of asexual people who aren't interested in masturbating, and of course that's totally fine. People can live a happy life without masturbating! (Uh, that's what I did before I met Hendrix.) But I VERY VERY STRONGLY advise against having sex with a partner if you've never *tried* to masturbate before. Like, at least feel around with your hand to get a basic sense of the geometry of your genitals and what it might feel like to have a sexual partner touching them.

So yes, masturbation is not a sin. And it's not just "okay"; it's better than that. For me, it's ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. And wow, I wish I had known that before trying to have sex.

---------------------

Related:
A Post About Masturbation
My Husband Is Not The Entire Focus Of My Sex Life

Blogaround

A baby wearing a squirtle costume. Image source.

1. One type of diversity we don't talk about at work: Body size (posted January 3) "Studies show that discrimination increases the higher a person's body mass index."

2. Trump’s tweet about migrant kids' deaths caps a year that was horrible for children (posted December 31) [content note: mention of child death] "The rash of school shootings and the effects of immigration policies are glaring examples of direct harm to children, but there are a host of less visible issues that also are devastating to children."

Children are the most vulnerable members of society. Within any oppressed group that suffers discrimination, violence, poverty, etc, it's the children who suffer most. I believe that's why Jesus said the kingdom of heaven belongs to children. We need to do better. We need to prioritize children's needs.

3. Our Bail System Costs the Country $15 Billion Per Year (posted December 20)

4. The Women’s Resistance We Aren’t Hearing About is Happening Now In Kerala. (posted January 5) "On New Year’s Day, 5.5 million women formed a human chain across 385 miles spanning the state of Kerala, India. They demanded that the Hindu temple at Sabarimala should open its gates to women in accordance with a ruling by the Indian Supreme Court in September 2018."

5. ‘Sheer Joy’: Ireland Will Have Free Abortion Care on January 1 (posted December 17) "Abortion in Ireland will be free, safe, and legal up to 12 weeks into pregnancy starting January 1, a major blow to the Catholic Church and opponents of the country’s abortion rights law, who tried to drag out the legislative process with support from U.S. anti-choice advisers." Good news~

6. Film Theory: What is Disney's Body Count? (posted December 9) and part 2 and part 3. Wow. Matpat goes through every Disney movie (not including sequels) and overanalyzes everything in order to calculate death counts. I love it.

7. Every congressperson along southern border opposes border wall funding (posted January 8) "One thing they actually all do have in common is that they all agree with virtual wall protection but not physical wall protection."

8. James Dobson Wants You to Pray and Fast to Protect Trump from Impeachment (posted January 8) Grosssssssssss. How will I explain this to my children.

9. Why Was Dumbledore Teaching Defense Against The Dark Arts? | Harry Potter Theory (posted January 8) I LOOOOOVE videos like this because it's EXACTLY THE SAME THING as biblical apologetics. In this case, Jon Carlin noticed that the timeline implied by a comment by Dumbledore in "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" (set in the 1990s, published in 2005) seems to contradict what we see in the movie "Fantastic Beasts 2: The Crimes of Grindelwald" (set in the 1920s, released in 2018). Because of our firm belief that both of these sources are inerrant and set in the same universe, we need to go on a grand research quest to resolve this problem. It involves reconstructing timelines based on offhand mentions of durations and dates contained throughout the canon, quibbling about sentence structure and how something may or may not mean what it first seemed to mean, and completely missing the point of the story. Yep, that's apologetics.

10. Why a Medieval Woman Had Lapis Lazuli Hidden in Her Teeth (posted January 9) Science!

Blogaround

"Roses are red, alt-facts aren't true, I want to destroy white supremacy with you." Image source.

Links related to the orange antichrist:

1. These Conservative Christians Are Opposed to Trump—and Suffering the Consequences (posted February 11) "On November 18, Smith’s bosses told her they didn’t think she could be a good spokesperson for Focus on the Family, according to Smith."

2. OK, so we’re talking about Frederick Douglass today (posted February 1) "So let us highlight some of those contributions with Douglass’ own words — words that live on in much the same way that Trump and Spicer believe that Douglass himself does."

3. How a Photo of Jewish and Muslim Kids Protesting President Trump Went Viral (posted February 1)

4. Histories for the Trump Era, Part 1 (posted February 3) "That brings me to the Fugitive Slave Act and the inability to implement it in Boston."

5. SNL: Melissa McCarthy’s Sean Spicer Is Back and Better Than Ever (posted February 12) lololol

6. We would have taken part with them (posted February 9) "This is something we’ve been telling ourselves for thousands of years. For his part, Jesus wasn’t buying it."

----------------------------------------------

Links about other things:

1. Why this choir is a huge hit with China's stressed out millennials (posted February 9) Hendrix loves this choir. Their songs are so funny!

2. Star Wars Theory [about Han Solo] (posted February 9) [spoilers for "Star Wars: The Force Awakens"] Wow, now this is quite the fan theory.

3. Watch Matt Dillahunty Talk About How Atheists Should Respond to Biblical Contradictions (posted February 3) "Do you have such a strong belief that there is no god or that this bible is crap or that this scripture cannot possibly be perfect that you're not willing to engage in reasoned discussion but instead you have a prejudice that is encouraging you to find fault where there may not be any?" This is a really good video, from an atheist, about why it's not helpful to search for giant lists of "bible contradictions" on the internet and naively rush into an argument with a Christian as if you're obviously right. For one thing, not all Christians even believe the bible has no errors. And many of those supposed contradictions turn out to not really be contradictions if you actually research the context and culture those passages came from.

4. Ezra isn’t the Good Guy in this story (posted February 6) "The preachers who love to cite Malachi 2:16 in their own rants about the evils of divorce never seem to notice the earlier biblical passage Malachi is reacting against."

5. No, Trans Women Are NOT ‘Biologically Male’ (posted February 10)

6. Godly messages: You’ve got mail! (posted 2013) "Keeping a victim dancing depends upon keeping that victim off-balance and off-kilter, uncertain how to please the captor(s) and even more uncertain of how to avoid punishment. If that’s how these Christians’ god operates, then he’s an asshole who doesn’t deserve love or worship."

7. Top 10 Most Romantic Moments In Pixar (posted February 14) Awwww <3

All of the LOLs for this Sermon on "Marrying Young"

Two cute little doggies, dressed up like a bride and groom. The groom dog is giving the bride dog a kiss. Image source.

Two of my recent posts have touched on the idea that, in purity culture the worst possible thing you can do is have sex if you're not married, and therefore the logical conclusion is that people should rush into marriage when they're probably too young to realistically be making that decision.

In general, this "you need to get married very young" is not explicitly taught in purity culture, but it is the inescapable conclusion. I've heard Christians say you should be mature, be able to live independently, work on your own character first before you get married, but honestly this advice is incompatible with the number one foundational teaching of purity culture. Purity culture emphasizes over and over how premarital sex will ruin your life, how it's a mistake that will haunt you forever [growing up in the church, I don't think I ever heard anyone disagree with this], but very little is said about how marrying someone who's not right for you will affect your life long-term. (Instead, we get teaching about how divorce is always bad and if you work hard at it and both spouses really really love God, you can definitely get through any marriage problem and everything will be okay.)

But every now and then, you get someone who comes along and says that yes, we should push kids to get married young. Like Al Mohler, who gave this sermon: The Value of Marrying Young. This isn't some extreme, inconsequential fringe element of purity culture. The webpage at that link says this about Mohler: "Dr. Albert Mohler is the president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and a nationally-recognized leader among American evangelicals." He is a council member of The Gospel Coalition [oh my god you guys, there are 60 council members and all of them are men? WTF? I mean I guess I should have expected that, it's The Gospel Coalition, but... wow] and regularly blogs for their site. And the sermon was posted on Focus on the Family's website- I grew up reading magazines and books published by Focus on the Family, I see them as pretty representative of conservative Christianity.

Anyway. The main point of Mohler's talk is that, for Christians, adulthood means marriage. Marriage is not one possible option, it's what YOU MUST DO. There are rare cases when people have "the gift of celibacy" but for most people, nope. Get married NOW OR ELSE.

You think I'm kidding? Here are some fun excerpts:

Now I want to suggest to you that there is no biblical category of enduring singleness. I told you, you wouldn't like it. There is no biblical category of enduring singleness, except for the gift of celibacy and that for God's glory in Gospel service.

Now this is counter-intuitive, because we live in the day where we prize our ability to define our own existence and to choose our own lifestyle. We live in aday of confusion--we're gonna be looking at this very closely--a day of confusionin which marriage has been so marginalized, it has been so postponed, it is now one option among others. And so, what we have is the rise in the society and even in many churches, of enduring singleness seen as one more lifestyle option.

And I believe the Scripture does not leave that option open to us except in extraordinary circumstances, one of them being the celibate gift that God gives certain individuals for His glory and for Gospel service. ...

...

... Let me be brutally honest. If you have been given the gift of celibacy, you will know it when before your Creator and Lord, you are able to say, "I can gladly live out my days without the pleasures of sex, without the company of a spouse. And I can do so, praising Your name, trusting You for my every provision and I am ready to be deployed in Your service to Your glory." If you can honestly say that, then go and seize the mission, the ministry the Lord would give you and fulfill it to His glory.

Wow. You guys, I don't think I've ever heard this particular take on "the gift of singleness." He's saying only people who "can gladly live out [their] days without the pleasures of sex, without the company of a spouse" are called by God to singleness and celibacy. So I guess that generally means people who are asexual and aromantic. (Note: many asexual/aromantic people do get married, just not necessarily for the same reasons that others would.) This is very different from what I've typically heard about singleness in the church- people often talk about how hard it is, how they do wish they were married, but they are obeying God by being single. Mohler is putting forth a truly bizarre idea here: that there are people who want to be married, but are not married, and that shows there is something horribly wrong with them. They are very bad sinners. Umm. Don't you think it's because maybe they haven't met a decent partner yet? Or something about their circumstances prevents them from getting married currently?

And probably the FUNNIEST PART is that, though it's not mentioned in this sermon, Al Mohler believes same-sex marriage is a sin, so presumably he believes gay people just have to be single and celibate. [Unfortunately I couldn't find information on which side of the anti-LGB camp Mohler is in: the "try to be straight" side or the "just be single forever" side.] I find it absolutely hilarious that in this sermon he says the only people who are allowed to not get married are the people who are okay with being single and celibate- and yet this completely contradicts his stance on same-sex marriage. lololololololol.

He makes the claim "there is no biblical category of enduring singleness" based on ... what? Does he know Jesus was single? And Jesus didn't start his ministry til he was 30? What was Jesus doing all through his 20's? Probably dragging his feet about marriage and refusing to commit, like milennials today, am I right?

Here are a few other HILARIOUS lines from that sermon: "And it means that you in this generation, must take up responsibility to understand that marriage is not a lifestyle option" and "Adulthood equals marriage." I mean, you guys, I'm not even angry about this, it's just so FUNNY how he's totally making shit up and claiming it's what the bible says. [I lolled so much listening to this sermon and Hendrix was like "???"] And it's HILARIOUS that Mohler thinks he's the one who "values marriage" while young people who "delay marriage" do not. I mean, which of these sounds more like someone who "values marriage":

1. You must get married because that is the expected next step in life, that is what you have to do, whether you like it or not.
2. Marriage is a really really big commitment and we should take it very seriously. It's "til death do us part" and I want to be very very sure about that before I say it. In fact, maybe it's such a big deal that I don't want to make that kind of a promise. Maybe marriage isn't for me. Or at least not til I'm really really sure.

And also about the "adulthood equals marriage" thing- does he think we all have perfectly suitable spouses lined up and we're just choosing to put off the wedding for no good reason? Like, does he realize that in order to get married, first you have to find someone that you want to marry? That's a pretty important first step. And it takes time. I mean, are you supposed to just grab anyone (ahem, anyone of the opposite gender) when you hit age 18?

Oh hey speaking of ages, Mohler says this:

In the year 1900, the average boy reached sexual maturity at about age 15 and married generally by 20. The average girl reached sexual maturity at about 14 and married somewhere between 18 and 20 or somewhere thereabouts.

We now have a situation in which sexual maturity comes for many girls, the average before age 13 and for boys, the average at right about age 13. Now what have we done here? We've created this incredible span of time where sexual passion is ignited, but there is no holy means for it to be fulfilled.

Now some of you are immediately doing a calculation, saying, "He's asking us to marry at 16." (Laughter) No, but I want to tell you, I think that in a world that was much less confused and in a world that ordered itself according to biblical priorities, we would have a world in which people could marry much younger, much, much younger and have the full support of the society, which would see the holiness of marriage as the central crucible for adult making. (Applause) But we don't live in that world. (Applause)

He doesn't give a specific number- but he does say that in an ideal world, puberty would be the number one factor in choosing when to get married. Yes. Seriously. For people who buy into this ideology, marriage is little more than a permission slip to have sex, and sex is a bigger deal than marriage. They're so afraid of unmarried people having sex that the idea of legally tying two 20-year-olds together for life seems to carry a much smaller risk.

I mean, just stop and appreciate how bizarre that is. And how totally terrified they are of sex.

Also this: "What is the ultimate priority God has called us to? In heaven, is the crucible of our saint making going to have been done through our jobs? I don't think so. The Scripture makes clear that it will be done largely through our marriages." LOLOLOLOLOL you guys you guys, oh this is so funny, he's claiming that the bible says our spiritual growth occurs more in the context of marriage than anything else. Like, where does the bible say that? This is completely made-up. Good joke, good joke, I lolled so much.

The bible presents a picture of marriage which doesn't look anything like what these conservative Christians claim. People married for economic reasons and political reasons, not because of love and commitment between two individuals. Wait, did I say two? Yeah, actually in the bible men often had several wives. Also, women had very few rights; if they weren't married, they wouldn't be able to provide for themselves. That's why there's so much concern in the bible for taking care of widows- because society was too sexist for them to be able to take care of themselves.

Also, look at this bit from Mohler's talk:

Marriage is so important because we want our autonomy. We prize our autonomy. We want our personal zone of privacy. We like to define our own lives and autonomy is one of the besetting sins of our time and of our ego and of our drive of the giant "I," that first-person, singular pronoun that stands at the center of who we are. We want our autonomy and marriage says, "You don't have any autonomy."

Now, for any of you who have been reading my "Boundaries in Dating" series, where I keep talking about my continued astonishment at the fact that the "Boundaries in Dating" writers are Christians who believe that your own needs, desires, and emotions matter, and you think I'm exaggerating and that the church didn't *really* teach me that my needs/desires/emotions don't matter: here it is. Mohler literally said it. Autonomy is a sin. He said autonomy is a sin.

This is a violent teaching. This is a teaching that tells Christians they should submit when people treat them badly. This is a teaching which ignores the reality of psychological trauma and tells us that our emotions don't matter. It says that we should always put others first, and any moment where we do something purely because we want to is a horrific selfish sin. It keeps Christians from recognizing when they are being mistreated or abused, keeps them from standing up for themselves.

Autonomy. Listen: we are created in the image of God. Does God have autonomy? Yes? Then we do too. Autonomy is NOT a sin. You are meant to be able to make your own choices. You should put your own needs first (while also caring about other people, in ways that are reasonable for whatever type of relationshp you have with them). Your desires matter and your emotions matter- and if people don't respect that, then don't let them in your life.

Elsewhere in the sermon, there's a bunch of gender-essentialist crap about how women need husbands to protect them, but men also need their wives to protect them- for "the protection of his passions." Yeah. A man needs a wife to handle all his sexual passion, to protect him from going out and having sex with any random passerby and thereby ruining his life (as previously mentioned, in this ideology, sex outside of marriage is The Worst Thing Ever). This led to the following exchange between me and my fiance:

me: "Honey, I'm supposed to protect your sexual passions."
Hendrix: "So, do you want to do that tonight?"
me: "Well I guess we have to, Al Mohler said so."

[But I guess since we don't yet have a piece of paper that says we are committed to each other in a legal sense, it doesn't apply to us?]

[Girls, feel free to hit on your male partner using the line, "How about we go back to my place and I can protect you, if you know what I mean."]

Throughout the part about husbands and wives "protecting" each other, Mohler keeps saying that this is what the bible says. Again, I find that ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS because the bible says no such thing. You can find a verse here or there about a husband providing for his family or a wife keeping the home, but there's nothing even remotely close to this concept of "God made men to be the big strong protectors and spiritual leaders of their families, and their role is to pursue a woman, whose role is to be passive." Like that's just absolute nonsense. You won't find anything like that anywhere in the bible.

And there's just one more absolutely hilarious bit I'd like to show you. At the end, one of the Focus on the Family commentators sort of disagrees with Mohler:

John: Well, I've seen the research that says a young adult's brain isn't fully developed until about 25, especially in young men, so don't get married too soon. But my kids are in the 20's. I've got several in their 20's and they know some friends who have gotten married at 20, 21, 22 and they're doin' pretty well. So, I think in spite of the research, there are some at least, examples I see of kids who are making good decisions in that time frame.

Oh my goodness, he thinks there are OTHER FACTORS in deciding when to marry BESIDES one's body's ability to have sex. Like, brain development and maturity, for example. He disagrees with Mohler. How about that.

All right. Anyway. I think we've had enough of this ridiculous sermon, huh? His main point is that it's just so sinful how kids these days want to wait til they're like, *ready* to get married. Because OBVIOUSLY the bible teaches that you HAVE TO get married once you're an adult. (Note: the bible doesn't say anything like that.) And isn't it awful that people think they have autonomy. And the timing of marriage should be based on when you go through puberty more than anything else.

Yeah. Okay. I had a good laugh, because none of this nonsense is from the bible.