Modesty standards are sinful.

Complementarianism is distinguished from egalitarianism for the most part not by the feminist conclusions they draw, but by the method they use to get there.  Both have adopted all (egalitarian) or nearly all (complementarian) tenets of modern feminist thought.  The difference is complementarians claim to merely to be accurately interpreting the Bible, and it is a simple coincidence that what the Bible teaches fits perfectly with Tumblr Feminism and the Women’s Studies department at the local university.

Thus when Pastor Matt Chandler preaches on toxic masculinity, he presents this not as the latest SJW fad, but timeless wisdom from the Bible.    Likewise when Pastor Doug Wilson overturns the meaning of 1 Cor 7, he doesn’t acknowledge that this makes him as woke as a blue haired feminist;  he explains with a straight face that when the Apostle Paul wrote (NIV):

10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband.

That he meant Not the Lord, but I, and A wife can separate from her husband if she thinks it is wise.  The thing to keep in mind is that complementarians have been doing this from the very beginning, so when they do this it feels perfectly normal.

For today’s example I offer Sheila Gregoire’s post explaining the sin of body shaming women by defining modesty standards.  Gregoire clearly has her work cut out for her in this regard.  First she has to recast the meaning of Romans 14 and 1 Cor 8 (emphasis original):

In Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8, Paul is making the “weaker brother” argument. Paul says that once we’re in Christ, we have great freedom. We can eat meat sacrificed to idols, for instance, because we no longer have any idols. God is over all.

But if you have a brother or sister who thinks that it’s wrong to eat meat sacrificed to idols, and you glibly do eat meat like that, and they follow you–then you’ve now encouraged them to violate their own consciences. You’ve caused them to stumble.

In other words, the “stumbling” that Paul is talking about is not committing an actual sin, like lusting or stealing or lying, but violating your conscience and your vow to God. So the concern in this passage is that we cause someone to stumble when we undermine their faith.

Paul is not addressing the scenario where a woman may cause a man to lust

Next she explains that a woman only sins by this standard if the woman sets out to make the men around her sin:

So can a woman weaken a guy’s faith by what she wears?

Yes, I think she can. If a woman deliberately decides to exercise her freedom in Christ in front of her male brothers who are really struggling, and does so knowing that they are struggling (which is the scenario that Paul lays out here), she can make him think, “I really can’t get over this sin.”

Not surprisingly, it turns out that we’ve had it all wrong for two thousand years.  Now, with the wisdom of the feminist revolution, we know that the Apostle Paul’s warnings in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 were warnings not to body shame women (emphasis original):

What do we do when a woman who is seeking walks into church wearing something really inappropriate, like a skimpy sundress? How do we tell her that she’s a stumbling block?

My response: You don’t! Because in this situation, SHE is the weaker brother. The men are more mature in the faith. It’s her faith that God is most concerned with. He leaves the 99 to find the 1.

What if setting a modesty dress code actually becomes a stumbling block for women because it weakens their faith?

She draws the same conclusion from Matthew 18:6-9 (emphasis original):

In everything, the state of our hearts matter. So if we are deliberately dressing in such a way that we are aiming to entice men to lust, then we are sinning. Period. Absolutely. We should not wear attire with the intention of causing men’s thoughts to wander or with trying to seduce anyone. In that scenario, it certainly is better to have a millstone placed around our necks and be thrown into the sea.

But what if that’s not our intention when we get dressed?

You have to admire Gregoire’s breathtaking ability to twist Scripture.  This is up there with her claim that biblical submission means giving your husband lists of chores, and that 1 Cor 7:5 is a license to defraud your spouse:

Let’s assume that it’s the wife with the lower libido for a minute (though it certainly isn’t always) and look at it this way:

If her husband’s body belongs to her, then she has the ability to also say, “I do not want you using your body sexually right now with me.”

Getting back to her wacky explanation that it is sinful for churches to enact modesty codes, keep in mind that her logic doesn’t just work for a woman wearing a skimpy dress to church.  Imagine a woman at the local nudist colony who wanders into church one fine Sunday completely naked.  She [un]dressed this way not to make the men in the church sin, but because this is how she always dresses.  In this scenario if we adopt Gregoire’s interpretation, Matthew 18:6-9, Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 all teach us that it would be sinful to ask the woman to cover up in any way, as this would be the feminist sin of body shaming.

But what about 1 Timothy 2:8-9?  Not surprisingly, Gregoire teaches that it doesn’t apply here either:

Here’s what 1 Timothy 2:8-9 says:

I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

Now, in that context, modesty wasn’t primarily about not being sexually alluring as much as it was about not flaunting one’s wealth. You can see that this is Paul’s primary concern because he goes on to talk about things which obviously cost a lot of money (jewelry, certain clothing, hairstylists) rather than about hiding a woman’s figure. This wasn’t about body shaming women; this was about ensuring that Christians were approachable, appropriate, and open to all, so that they were good witnesses for Christ.

Notice that whether you use Gregoire’s hypothetical (a woman in a skimpy dress), or my hypothetical (a nude woman), the message is the same;  the Bible strictly prohibits us from asking her to cover up.  After all, the nudist didn’t set out to make the men in church sin.  Moreover, she spent absolutely nothing on her outfit*, and she is without a doubt approachable and open to all!  The only remaining question is whether her outfit is “appropriate”, but as Gregoire has explained it would be sinful to suggest that what she is wearing isn’t appropriate.

Thus conclude’s Gregoire’s sermon on the topic:

And that’s it! The series on body shaming women is now over! It’s been a long week. But I’ve so appreciated your comments, and let me know what you think!

*Making her the most modest woman in the congregation!

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Complementarian, Modesty, Pastor Doug Wilson, Pastor Matt Chandler, Sheila Gregoire, Social Justice Warriors, Turning a blind eye, Ugly Feminists, You can't make this stuff up. Bookmark the permalink.

131 Responses to Modesty standards are sinful.

  1. Luke says:

    The most ironic result of extreme female immodesty, of course, is that by making the unclothed strange female body less and less special, is that to some extent it reduces male reaction to it. So, males unmotivated to do resource transfer and otherwise defer to women are less useful to women; good for the men, bad for the women. (If the women were going to be acceptable and fecund wives, then that’d be a shame; for feminist/anti-natal women, which going by current rates of frivorce and below-replacement birth, is of course the bulk of U.S. women now, and not so bad a thing from men’s POV.)

  2. TMAC says:

    Every woman who dresses that way knows exactly what she is doing.

    Hello?

  3. I’m waiting for when “Christian” women get behave pornographically while men are excoriated for lusting after them (whether they actually do or not). We’re already on the curve.

    The absurdity of it all is having a gaslighting effect. Judgement begins first in the house of the Lord.

  4. Anonymous Reader says:

    Gregoire inadvertently displays female in-group preference again. Both her daughters are married, so there’s no real need for them to put on skin shows in church to attract men anymore; she herself looks more like Andrea Merkel and so there’s really no need for her to flash boobs anymore. So the personal isn’t in play.

    But of course, what about all the other women, young and not so young, who want to show some skin in church in case Roddy Rockband Drummer is looking for a new girl, or Harley McBadboy came into church that day? Hypergamy must be served, so Sheila must be ready to defend the right of every woman to dress in any way she wants, any time / place she wants, especially in church….because Alpha might be somewhere in the vicinity.

    The theological implications are left for others.

    I like the way she calls a hypotetical woman “brother”; as with many feminists of her age group, Gregoire is consumed with a desire to be One Of The Guys (except when she’s Just A Girl, of course) so we have this sort of gender-bending language used. Because usurping the role of men is very important to feminists, including the conservative ones, it just has to be done with soothing sounds and words.

    Churchgoing men should visualize what Gregoire’s church must be like, with women in various leadership positions, and then make sure they don’t ever go to such a place by mistake. This is not to say some men wouldn’t be amused by playing amateur anthropologist & observing the oddities of his local MegaEqualtiarianChurch just to learn the native rituals.

  5. Pingback: Modesty standards are sinful. | @the_arv

  6. Anonymous Reader says:

    Say, someone help me out here, in Genesis we find the figures of Adam and Eve covering themselves with leaves, then later God makes coverings for them out of animal skins.

    Was that body shaming? Did Adam and Eve body shame each other, or only themselves, or both? God was body shaming them later on, is that true?

    Just asking.

  7. earl says:

    What if setting a modesty dress code actually becomes a stumbling block for women because it weakens their faith?

    Imagine what she is saying: excersising a virtue somehow weakens a person’s faith.

    Woe to those who call good, evil.

  8. ” If her husband’s body belongs to her, then she has the ability to also say, “I do not want you using your body sexually right now with me.” ”

    Wives are certainly “able” at any time in marriage – even repeatedly over its course – to relegate the value of her husband’s devoted monogamy to her down to zero.

    But Sheila and her feminist followers should not pretend that doing so does not come without consequences.

    Wives who do this, or feel authorized and empowered to do it, are practicing sexual infidelity themselves. Men do not agree to marry women in order to become celibates or to have drip-fed, passionless obligated-compliance sex from their wives.

    But the source of this wifely sexual rejection should be examined. Usually it has nothing to do with God or any of her sanctimonious, feminist pomposities.

    It has to do with her aging libido and/or depletion of genuine sexual desire for her husband.
    Sadly, once her genuine sexual desire lost (assuming he ever had it in the first place from her), most husbands out there lack the knowledge, conviction, discipline and self-concept to ever fully restore it.

  9. Anonymous Reader says:

    constrainedlocus
    But the source of this wifely sexual rejection should be examined. Usually it has nothing to do with God or any of her sanctimonious, feminist pomposities.

    It has to do with her aging libido and/or depletion of genuine sexual desire for her husband.

    Or more simpler, the woman is using sex as a lever to control her man’s behavior, and/or a weapon to punish him for behavior she doesn’t like. I doubt any conservative feminist would ever even admit such exists, but…who cares what they believe, reality exists anyway.

    Plus this also has to do with “enough children” as well as “youngest child reaches age 3 to 4”. It’s known in other corners of the androsphere that once a married woman has birthed the number of children she wants, her interest in sex can drop off. It is also well known that women get restless once the youngest child is 3 to 4 years old and thus able to do some self-care; this is likely just hypergamy / “monkey branching” from her hindbrain at work.

    Of course, in the case of girls who have ridden the Carousel quite a bit, their sexual ardor may drop off as soon as they’ve safely locked down their Beta Bux – leading to the joke about “the only known anti-aphrodisiac food known, wedding cake”….

    Sadly, once her genuine sexual desire lost (assuming he ever had it in the first place from her), most husbands out there lack the knowledge, conviction, discipline and self-concept to ever fully restore it.

    This is indeed sad and true. It is probably easier for a man to regain sexual desire from a wife who had a low N at marriage, too.

  10. ray says:

    She wore the skimpy dress to church, but she didn’t mean anything by it. All good, no consequences.

    She forced the dad of her children out of their lives, but she didn’t mean anything by it. All good, no consequences.

    She falsely accused some stranger of a crime because he wouldn’t obey her commands, but she didn’t mean anything by it. All good, no consequences.

    The gates of hell are choked with American females. Plenty of room for more however, and more there shall be.

  11. Bruce says:

    “It has to do with her aging libido and/or depletion of genuine sexual desire for her husband.”

    And ubiquitous female oriented porn.

  12. earl says:

    All good, no consequences.

    The gates of hell are choked with American females.

    Hopefully we know what the road to hell is paved with.

  13. Paul says:

    I have other hear repeat the ridiculous and absurd “argument” of Gregoire, so she does have her influence:
    “If her husband’s body belongs to her, then she has the ability to also say, “I do not want you using your body sexually right now with me.”

    This is wrong on so many levels, but what worries me most it that it CLEARLY goes against the DIRECT command in the text

    1 Cor 7:4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.

    I really cannot understand the thought processes these people use to convince themselves they have come up with a valid and sound interpretation.

  14. earl says:

    I really cannot understand the thought processes these people use to convince themselves they have come up with a valid and sound interpretation.

    I’ll keep it simple. Isaiah 5:20

  15. Scott says:

    On modesty and aesthetics in general.

    A few weeks ago I was at the grocery store and snapped two photos. One is of my wife and my two boys following her through the store. The other…

  16. Boxer says:

    A few weeks ago I was at the grocery store and snapped two photos. One is of my wife and my two boys following her through the store. The other…

    The other one is the wimminz you wish you had wifed up.

    Don’t lie. You know you can’t resist those sweet back boobies… me either!

  17. Bruce says:

    From memory (maybe faulty) CS Lewis made the argument that if a woman dresses immodestly but doesn’t do it to encourage men to sin she is guilty of impropriety but has not committed a sin.

  18. Lost Patrol says:

    I offer Sheila Gregoire’s post explaining the sin of body shaming women

    I can’t get the link to open. All the others do. Rather than suspect any failure on my part, I like to immediately go with conspiracy theories. She knows it’s from Dalrock and has a secret way to make it stall out. Am I close?

    [D: Ha! Good catch. That was on me. It should work now.]

    Scott – We owe you one for that. But the “hills are alive” Matt Chandler response was LOL enough to make up for it in advance. I sent you an email to your old haunts if you are still checking.

  19. earl says:

    Every woman who dresses that way knows exactly what she is doing.

    Well they know exactly what they are doing…but they’ll give you the story it’s about ‘comfort’.

    When it gets real cold I’ll wear long underwear under jeansbso this is the closest thing I can compare to what it feels like for a woman wearing her yoga pants leggings in public…there is nothing comfortable about them, they are constricting. However if they are doing it because it highlights certain parts of their body….

  20. Scott says:

    LP

    I saw it I just haven’t been able to open it

  21. Oscar says:

    “I do not want you using your body sexually right now with me.” Sheila “Concertina”* Gregoire

    With whom, then?

    *Combat Engineer joke

  22. Lost Patrol says:

    Scott

    Conspiracy! Trying again. It must be seen. Hard type it into a browser if you have to.

  23. earl says:

    “I do not want you using your body sexually right now with me.”

    I do not want you using your body to spend my money on things right now.

    What you’ll starve…welcome to your husband’s world.

  24. Oscar says:

    @ Earl

    “I do not want you using your body sexually right now with me.”

    I do not want you using your body to spend my money on things right now.

    I do not want you using your body to overeat and become obese.
    I do not want you using your body to dress like a whore outside the house.
    I do not want you using your body to dress like nun in the bedroom.
    I do not want you using your body to backtalk me.
    I do not want you using your body to disobey me.
    I do not want you using your body to gossip with your bitchy friends.

    Isn’t this game fun?

  25. OKRickety says:

    Gregoire writes: ‘In other words, the “stumbling” that Paul is talking about is not committing an actual sin, like lusting or stealing or lying, but violating your conscience and your vow to God.’

    So, “violating your conscience and your vow to God” is stumbling, but not “actual sin”? But lust is actual sin, so “Paul is not addressing the scenario where a woman may cause a man to lust”. That’s quite an interpretation on her part.

    A little research on Gregoire’s blog shows that she is inconsistent on how she uses these passages about the weaker brother. In Christian Sex Toy Parties: Are They a Good Idea?, she says to ‘Remember the “weaker brother” argument when it comes to sex toy parties‘.

    “And in the same way that you wouldn’t host a wine tasting or shots party for the College & Career group in your church–even if you drink wine or the occasional mixer–why would you host a sex toy party for people when you really don’t know their back story?”

    In other words, you don’t justify drinking or a sex toy party because it is possible that you would cause someone to stumble. Exactly the same logic would apply to women dressing in a sexually provocative fashion.

    In her post Can We Cause Someone to Sin?, Gregoire seems to get it right. She writes this:

    “So Paul is saying: if what you are doing can cause someone else to sin (or fall, or stumble), don’t do it.

    Therefore, we are to be very aware of the effect our actions can have on someone else sinning.

    We don’t like to think about it very much, but it’s there in Scripture.”

    I would argue that Gregoire only wants to think about this in the way that is convenient to her argument at the time. In this case she addresses this to a marriage relationship, I think the same argument is even more true for our interaction with other Christians. She also writes:

    ‘Ultimately we are responsible for what we did. And it is more important to God that we deal with our own sin than that we worry about someone else’s. When you are in conflict with your spouse, your main job is not to fix your spouse; it is to go to God and ask, where did I play a role in this?’

    and

    ‘And if there is anything that you did–even if you were only 5% responsible, as if such a thing could be measured–it’s important to own up and admit that. It helps you break the ice. You’re not blaming your spouse for everything; you’re saying, “we have a problem. I know that I partially contributed to it. I did X and Y, and I am truly sorry, and ask you to forgive me.’

    True, but in her most recent post on the topic, she denies any possible responsibility on the part of the women, and thus the problem, as usual, is entirely with the men.

    She even provides an order for dealing with an issue:

    “1. Examine yourself and see if you contributed in any way
    2. Confess this to your spouse and to God
    3. Humbly tell your spouse how his/her actions are hurting you now”

    Item 2 should include repenting of the “contribution” (God forbid we should call women’s behavior sin).

    Looking at these two other posts, it is clear that Sheila understands the concept of the “weaker brother” argument, but she is absolutely unwilling to use it in the case of women dressing in a sexually provocative fashion. Sheila would do well to leave her feminist-inspired thinking behind and follow this scripture:

    3 Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; 4 do not [merely] look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. [Phil. 2:3-4 NASB]

  26. feeriker says:

    It’s past time to recognize the obvious: putting it bluntly, Sheila doesn’t give a shit about what Scripture really says, and neither do any of the deluded churchian twats who are her customer base. They want their ears tickled in the most affirming and reassuring of ways, and Sheila is peerless in her ability to do that.

    The customer is always right, and hard, painful truths don’t lead to fat bank accounts.

  27. earl says:

    Isn’t this game fun?

    Quite…funny thing is women never seem to like it when that game is played.

  28. Cane Caldo says:

    @OKRickety

    A little research on Gregoire’s blog shows that she is inconsistent on how she uses these passages about the weaker brother. […] I would argue that Gregoire only wants to think about this in the way that is convenient to her argument at the time.

    This is it. This is also Doug Wilson, Matt Chandler, Tim Keller, J.D. Greear, and all the other American Protestant pastors in the approving public’s eye. Anything is permissible to argue as long as the argument upholds the false ideal that men are to let women have their way; Rollo’s “Feminine Imperative”. The argument doesn’t have to be that women are right. It just has to be that (whatever the case) to tell a woman she is wrong is more wrong than whatever possible wrong she might have done. In this case: Gregoire didn’t say women can’t dress immodestly. She said a man can never rightly say so, and if he tries, he sins. The spirit of that false ideal stands directly against the spirit which the Bible calls “quiet”, and it attacks the Biblical instruction that wives respect and obey their husbands.

    21 For three things the earth is disquieted,
    and for four which it cannot bear:
    22 for a servant when he reigneth;
    and a fool when he is filled with meat;
    23 for an odious woman when she is married;
    and an handmaid that is heir to her mistress.

    America is disquieted because of this, and she cannot bear it. Everything else are knock-on effects.

  29. Dalrock says:

    Well put Cane.

  30. Cane Caldo says:

    We could accurately define complementarianism this way: a false Christian theology of the human sexes which holds that men and women are equal except that men have no authority to judge or–especially–discipline women for those choices.

  31. Damn Crackers says:

    “If her husband’s body belongs to her, then she has the ability to also say, “I do not want you using your body sexually right now with me.””

    Pretzel logic, Gordian knot, Mobius strip version of Biblical Exegesis. BTW, the passage from Corinthians about eating food was directed at those Christians in Corinth who went to the pagan beef and brews to enjoy feasts (and other temptations found at places like the Temple of Aphrodite).

    Gregorie is following the same exact pattern as these proto-Gnostics at Corinth. She, like those early Christians, believed that “since I believe in Jesus, I can do anything!” St. Paul uses 1 Corinthians to correct them.

    The Christian always had to walk a fine line between antinomianism and Pharisaical dogma. Shelia clearly follows the antinomian path.

  32. Joe says:

    “What do we do when a woman who is seeking walks into church wearing something really inappropriate, like a skimpy sundress? How do we tell her that she’s a stumbling block?

    My response: You don’t!”
    ************************************************************************************
    Men everywhere thank you Sheila!

    LOL.

  33. Crude says:

    How does anyone get “it’s a sin to violate your conscience or cause someone to violate theirs” from that passage?

    Paul seems to be talking about a person who isn’t aware of this teaching, and who may not even be a Christian. The injunction reads as “Don’t engage in an activity like this if others may take as a sign that you are a fellow pagan (and thus are supporting the non-Christian religion) or that your religion regards pagan beliefs and practices as acceptable.”

    A “weak conscience” in this case seems to be a person who isn’t informed of Christian teaching on this matter. Not just some making of the conscience sacrosanct.

  34. earl says:

    “What do we do when a woman who is seeking walks into church wearing something really inappropriate, like a skimpy sundress? How do we tell her that she’s a stumbling block?

    Probably what Shelia doesn’t get…and why would she since her focus isn’t on Him to begin with…is Ms. Skimpy Dress turns my mind from focusing on Christ, which is why I’m there, to focusing on her.

  35. Pingback: Modesty standards are sinful. | Reaction Times

  36. Hazelshade says:

    Great agree & amplify re nudity, Dalrock.

  37. thedeti says:

    It’s common in Protestant/evangelical circles to say we must focus on what’s in the woman’s heart. This is what Gregoire does with Mt. 18:6-9. Whether a woman’s attire is immodest depends on the condition of her heart when she wears it and her reasons for dressing that way. It’s OK to dress in what appears outwardly to be immodest, as long as she didn’t intend in her heart to provoke lust or be enticing. It’s OK to come to church nude, as long as she didn’t intend in her heart to provoke lust or entice.

    Pastors tell us, “we have to look at what’s in her heart. If she didn’t intend it, it’s OK.” And the only way to know her intent/condition of her heart is to ask her. If she says she didn’t intend to do anything sinful, well, it’s OK.

    What they always forget is that our outward appearance is a reflection of the condition of our hearts, out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks, and so forth. Everyone knows why women show skin in their attire. It’s to flirt and to draw attention to themselves, regardless of time of day, day of the week, or location. A woman’s attire and outward physical appearance reflects the condition of her heart and her intent more clearly than a thousand words said to the contrary.

  38. vfm7916 says:

    You made me laugh with this one, Dalrock. Kudos to Scott, Oscar, and then Cane with the finishing blow…

  39. Dammit Sheila! / ¡Caray Sheila!

  40. OKRickety says:

    Crude,

    ‘How does anyone get “it’s a sin to violate your conscience or cause someone to violate theirs” from that passage?’

    Since you don’t say, I don’t know which passage you are referencing. However, both Romans 14:13 and 1 Corinthians 8:13 refer to causing your brother (presumably a Christian “brother”) to stumble, and Matthew 18:6-9 refers to causing “little ones who believe” in Jesus to stumble.

    Sinning related to a “weak conscience” is definitely discussed in 1 Cor. 8.

    “And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ.” [1 Cor. 8:12 NASB]

  41. Anonymous Reader says:

    The link is now visible & it is from June of 2017 – back when one or both of Gregoire’s daughters were still on the hunt for a beta chump churchgoing sucker man to wife them up. So it is perfectly natural for Gregoire to defend a slightly slutty skin show in church, if it would just get her some grandchildren in a few years.

    In many cases one can say “follow the money” and explain a bias clearly, but when it comes to women and slut-shaming it’s usually AF – Beta Bucks that suffices.

  42. Dalrock says:

    @Anon Reader

    The link is now visible & it is from June of 2017 – back when one or both of Gregoire’s daughters were still on the hunt for a beta chump churchgoing sucker man to wife them up. So it is perfectly natural for Gregoire to defend a slightly slutty skin show in church, if it would just get her some grandchildren in a few years.

    In many cases one can say “follow the money” and explain a bias clearly, but when it comes to women and slut-shaming it’s usually AF – Beta Bucks that suffices.

    I’m inclined to go with a simpler answer. Gregoire is offended at the idea of men judging women–ever. This is the Christian equivalent of the slutwalks we saw a few years back. It is a tantrum in response to the idea of a man thinking unapproved thoughts about slutty women.

  43. Anonymous Reader says:

    deti
    It’s common in Protestant/evangelical circles to say we must focus on what’s in the woman’s heart.

    It’s interesting how “don’t judge” of a few years back has now become “don’t prefer”. Men are no longer allowed to have a preference in women. Just take what is available, man up and shut up.

    No marriage strike visible, but some number of men looking at the Daughters of the King on display and saying, “pass”.

  44. Crude says:

    OKRickety,

    Since you don’t say, I don’t know which passage you are referencing. However, both Romans 14:13 and 1 Corinthians 8:13 refer to causing your brother (presumably a Christian “brother”)

    1 Cor 8 is what I had in mind, yes.

    But why would I presume they’re talking about Christians with the meat example?

    1 Cor 8:4-7 is outlining the example, but what’s pivotal there isn’t disagreement among Christians, but knowledge, especially at the start of 1 Cor 8:7. The issue there isn’t conscience, but understanding.

  45. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock
    I’m inclined to go with a simpler answer. Gregoire is offended at the idea of men judging women–ever.

    Occan’s razor has a sharp edge…

    This is the Christian equivalent of the slutwalks we saw a few years back. It is a tantrum in response to the idea of a man thinking unapproved thoughts about slutty women.

    …and can cut very deeply. Because if you are correct, Gregoire has elevated her emotions, her feelze above the literal words in the Bible. Therefore her feelze are her god, for realze. That cuts not just to the bone, but clear through it.

    Isn’t there like, I dunno, some sort of rule, or a suggestion or a command or something about that? Asking for a friend…

  46. scg777 says:

    @Crude

    I should point out that the end of Romans 14 presents that even if something lawful is not done in faith–that is, you violate your conscience–it is sin.

    22 The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. 23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.

    The assumption Paul has, of course, is that one’s conscience is under the authority of the Spirit of God and thus does not corroborate Gregoire’s incorrect exegesis, since immodesty is unlawful in any case, for both men and women.

  47. Pastor James Comey feels the same way about intent and email servers.

  48. Has anyone else noticed that the only objection to Islam that conservative have is that it imposes standards on women that aren’t a whole lot different than the standards that were imposed on women from the European Middle Ages until about 100 years ago?

    Steven Crowder had Naomi Wolf on his show last year, and from what I could tell his only objection to her is that she isn’t sufficiently critical of Islam for imposing modesty on women. “Conservative” feminist Christina Hoff Sommers does the same thing. During the protests in Tehran earlier this year, she and Jack Posobiec kept retweeting that photo of the girl who had removed her hijab in public.

    Why are the audiences of these conservative personalities supposed to care that Islamic countries expect something of women that was expected of them for centuries in the Christian West? And where do these conservatives draw the line between “enforced modesty” and oppression? Modesty is socially enforced in Kiryas Joel’s Haredi community. Why aren’t conservatives demanding that their transfer payments be cut off until they get with the 21st century?

    Here’s conservative wunderkind Ben Shapiro informing Tai Lopez that the 1950s were “sexist” because women weren’t wasting their fertile years working entry-level white collar jobs:

  49. Sharkly says:

    Crazy Whores!

  50. seventiesjason says:

    that “sunday morning nightclub thing” ?

    You notice? You’re a perv, creep and not a ‘christian’ and of course have a horrible porn addiction.
    don’t notice?

    “How the men the don’t ask us girls out! we’re amazing! we don’t bite!”

    I belong to a ministry at the local AG church here…..might find something else to do….but staying home Sunday is actually looking like a viable alternative to church…but the Chandlers of this world will now trell me “i am foresaking the gathering”

    The church service I was at this past week was lovely, ritualistic but there was no “gathering” there. The Salvation Army Corps here has three people. The local AG church gave a sermon that we can’t “ever, ever, ever judge!!!!!” and all the other churches have a rainbow flag and signs that say “hate free zone” or a “black lives matter” sign in the front.

    What’s a mother to do? 😉

  51. Sharkly says:

    I Just need to show up to Mz Gregoire’s church in a mankini and see how long it takes them to change their doctrinal tune. LOL

    Crazy Whores!

  52. ray says:

    earl — “Hopefully we know what the road to hell is paved with.”

    Based on experience I’m guessing it’s not donuts?

    Tho I can think of worse things.

  53. earl says:

    But what if that’s not our intention when we get dressed?

    Girls night out was not intended for her to hook up with Adultery McLoverboy…but it happened. Hence it’s not a sin.

    Right…I don’t think that flies anywhere.

    By that logic I could punch her in the face and say I didn’t intend for that to happen.

  54. Crude says:

    sgc777,

    Thanks for the info. I can understand the possibility that an individual doing something they think is a sin is in fact a sin, even if they were wrong about it, because it’s a direct defiance of a perceived command from God. But as you seem to say, the inviolable aspect of conscience presupposes certain knowledge and intent: it’s the sincere Christian’s conscience, or the knowledge of a non-Christian about Christianity, which matters.

    As opposed to the importance of conscience, full stop, regardless of Christian teaching or even belief.

    I notice Gregoire’s assumption also has the hallmark of victim olympics – the woman who is dressed immodestly is considered ‘the weak one’ and thus everyone has to cater to her. The idea that someone else may be weak in their faith, and get disturbed or misled *by that woman* doesn’t enter into her calculus, since that would mean that maybe she doesn’t have a trump card. And the whole point of ‘weakness’ here is having a trump card.

    So damn tiring.

  55. seventiesjason says:

    Well….at least in The Salvation Army, members were required to wear the Uniform to Holiness, which did enforce modesty……and Soldiers who are not married are not supposed to sit next to each other

  56. ray says:

    earl —

    The enemy luuurves! it when we rely on our god uh good intentions. Makes it easy. Look at Leftism, mostly kids who think they know what’s good for the world. Just like I did.

    Getting older and becoming conversant with Scripture illustrated to me how the Good Intentions of my youth led directly to evil. So much for that, it was pretty while it lasted.

    What folks — especially females — need is obedience. The very thing they hate. But they’re happier thataway that’s the truth. (Plus boys get to have daddies.)

    The Bible counsels obedience, instead of following our own rather treacherous hearts. I’m far from perfect but even I know that obedience to Christ is a shield and a comfort.

  57. earl says:

    @ray…

    Do we need any more proof as to why Paul wanted women to be silent in churches?

    I’d be interested to know what her husband’s take on modesty is.

  58. Dying2live116 says:

    Sort of off topic, but whenever anyone decides to listen to Sheila Gregoire in the future, make sure to play the creepy music from Full Metal Jacket. The name of the track is Sniper. Tell me if it’s fitting or not…

  59. ray says:

    Scott —

    What a great blessing God gave you in those boys.

  60. ray says:

    Bruce — “From memory (maybe faulty) CS Lewis made the argument that if a woman dresses immodestly but doesn’t do it to encourage men to sin she is guilty of impropriety but has not committed a sin.”

    C.S. Lewis doesn’t get to judge what’s a sin and what isn’t.

  61. Sharkly says:

    I recommend the nipple rings with a cross pendant, for a Christ honoring touch to your “Free them in Christ” non-body-shaming ensemble. Unashamedly show everyone that Christ is more than just in your heart. Lead others to Christ by what you wear! Save a seeker, for just $9.99. Grand opening sale at Sheila’s, cuming soon.
    https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1228/2894/products/ers010_300x300.jpg?v=1525494142

    Jude 4 For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

  62. PokeSalad says:

    I’d be interested to know what her husband’s take on modesty is.

    In the Church of the Immaculate Sheila, he must remain silent.

  63. Sharkly says:

    You can justify anything when you put appeasing the “seeker” above the commands of God.

    What do we do when a woman who is seeking walks into church wearing something really inappropriate, like a skimpy sundress?

    That’s why Sheila is always bringing up the “seeker” AKA “unsaved strawman”. You can overturn anything for the seekers.

    Well, ‘Skimpy Sundress Seeker’ isn’t the only seeker in the audience today, “Bestiality Bob” is also visiting. So not only will we need to refrain from slut-shaming, but we’ll need to throw a shout out to all our Goat F*cking seekers in the sermon. Possibly a quip about “separating the sheep from the Goats”, based upon their bedroom mannerisms, to make them feel welcomed, so they’ll come back.

    Is it just me? When did church become a place for the unsaved? I was always taught the church was the assembly of believers. That you weren’t supposed to preach milk every Sunday for the unborn. But, that you preached meat for the building up of the believers. The church is supposed to equip Christians to spread Christ, not do the job for them instead. Crazy Whores! They’ll invert everything to ram their Feminism into the church. The “Seekers” is just a head-fake to divert you from judging Jezebel when she walks in. ‘Yoga pants Yolanda’ is Probably the pastor’s daughter anyhow.

  64. Lost Patrol says:

    to tell a woman she is wrong is more wrong than whatever possible wrong she might have done.

    The Eleventh Commandment, Book of Complimentarian.

  65. BillyS says:

    Sharkly,

    Evangelism should be done “Out where the sinners are” to quote a book title. Too many churches focus on getting the unsaved into the church instead of teaching their members to witness and win them out in the real world. Sure, a few will come into churches, but not that many overall and I find that most churches completely miss that area.

  66. OKRickety says:

    I’d be interested to know what her husband’s take on modesty is.

    I’m fairly certain Sheila’s husband, although “he knows more about science and philosophy and theology than anyone I know” (which I suspect is a very low bar), would make sure to ask her what he thinks first.

    Personally, I think I’d rather know what her church elders think about her teaching. But even if they know what she teaches, which I rather doubt, I suspect they would still think the sun shines out of her backside.

  67. feeriker says:

    seventiesjason says:
    August 6, 2018 at 7:27 pm

    Welcome to the end times. Your experience shows us why very soon the only REAL church will be identical to its early First Century ancestor.

    Is it just me? When did church become a place for the unsaved? I was always taught the church was the assembly of believers. That you weren’t supposed to preach milk every Sunday for the unborn. But, that you preached meat for the building up of the believers. The church is supposed to equip Christians to spread Christ, not do the job for them instead.

    Again, welcome to the End Times, where spiritual “meat” is a forbidden substance that causes feelbadz (and so rare that no one in Churchiandom would probably recognize it even if they saw it – and would spit it out like a toddler spitting out cooked vegetables even if they did manage to get a mouthful of it).

  68. feeriker says:

    Evangelism should be done “Out where the sinners are” to quote a book title. Too many churches focus on getting the unsaved into the church instead of teaching their members to witness and win them out in the real world.

    Billy, that requires the pew-warmers to delve into **GASP** apologetics, which requires **DOUBLE GASP** reading and understanding THE BIBLE (no, not some churchian Oprah Book of the Month Bestseller – the Bible. Yeah, I know, multi-syllable words and all. Oh, the horror!). And that of course requires …**WRETCH/MOUTH VOMIT** TIME AND EFFORT.

    Nope, not gonna happen. Too much work required.

    As for “getting the unsaved into the church,” it’s highly unlikely that any of the “saved” regulars would ever notice their presence even if they did bother to show up, if most churches’ “Sunday morning welcoming committees” are anything to judge by.

  69. Frank K says:

    the other churches have a rainbow flag and signs that say “hate free zone” or a “black lives matter” sign in the front.

    Why do I get the sinking feeling that those churches will be repurposed as mosques in the not too distant future?

  70. Spike says:

    Sheila must know she’s deliberately flipping the script. Painting the ”weaker brother” as the woman at church in skimpy attire simply lets said woman off the hook. Men remain uncomfortable, but that’s not Sheila’s concern.
    What I find amazing is that she wouldn’t dare say the same sh!t about work dress codes. Go into a corporate environment with a string top and exposed g-string, and you’ll be asked to cover up, because it’s a professional environment. Persist in ”wearing what you like”, and you’ll eventually get fired. Church isn’t a professional environment. It’s a holy environment.Behave like it is.
    Considering Sheila has also treated her husband like shit by demanding that he lower his sex drive, ”training” him by wearing frumpy bed attire, she is either completely ignorant and uncaring about man’s sex drive, or deliberately doing theological gymnastics to toy with men’s sex drive. Both are unacceptable.

  71. Opus says:

    Scott contrasts two very different photos. One demonstrating that he has a wife-led marriage and that his twin sons have been trained to carry the shopping bags and with seeming military precision poor Scott trailing behind to record the event and the other that some Americans (though not Mychael) are well-fed – or have I entirely misunderstood the photographs.

    Are any of these the famous people of Walmart of whom I have read so much. Strange to see what looks like a waste-bin in the left-hand photo.

  72. earl says:

    Are any of these the famous people of Walmart of whom I have read so much.

    That’s a real thing.

  73. Opus-

    Interesting analysis. I actually do not have immediate recall of what Scott was even doing at the grocery store that day. He hates the store. Usually, its because he is free and I call him to ask if he will meet me there. Its one of the few chances we to have walk around with each other and just talk about things.

    I think he was probably on the phone for something work related and told us to go on ahead and he would catch up. I’m pretty sure that’s when he snapped the photo. He was being kind of silly that day, so he took the other one and showed it to me. Scott likes the way I dress in public, and when he points it, I do it more. It’s basic psychology, and I don’t mind that he uses it to get more of what he wants. He’s my husband. Why wouldn’t I want to do things he likes?

    Our boys are very little (2 and 5) and so of course they follow me around like little ducklings. The store we go to has these little miniature shopping baskets that they think are really cool, which I presume is a phase they will grow out of soon enough.

    This is not a case of beat down, hunched over dad carrying all the heavy stuff while following the head honcho wife bitching at them as we walk through the store. I’ve seen that too, and its pretty sad. I’ve actually confronted women in public who treat their husbands that way.

  74. Opus says:

    Two and Five? They look like peas in a pod.

  75. Opus says:

    My (ex?) girlfriend informed me that men can only cope with a maximum of seventy-two minutes of shopping. I can assure you all that I have long attained the Olympic standard which is well in excess of seventy two minutes – but I did it because I actually like being with my girlfriend (and all the shop assistants are sympathetic to my predicament).

    From the photos I also note that Americans cannot afford socks – we will send humanitarian aid; the socks we are not wearing because of our never-ending heatwave.

  76. earl says:

    In the Church of the Immaculate Sheila, he must remain silent.

    Since she has authority over his body.

  77. Roger says:

    Take a walk around town, or (especially) across a campus quad somewhere on a warm summer day, and take note of how much flesh the women expose as compared to the men. Aside from the occasional shirtless male jogger, generally speaking and on average the men are far more covered than the women, many of whom are wearing bottoms that amount to little more than panties and tops with only straps and displaying lots of cleavage. Most of the men, on the other hand, are wearing shorts that go down to the knee, and T-shirts with sleeves. I’ve often asked myself why so many women choose to dress that way. Slut-walkers militantly proclaim that whatever they choose to wear is no one’s business, and that their choice is not an “advertisement.” I’m convinced that, if not always an advertisement, it’s at least a pathetic assertion of power. In societies that are REALLY patriarchal, women cover themselves. In ours, exposing of flesh becomes an in-your-face assertion. Consider the antics of FEMEN. What we see here everyday is just a somewhat toned-down version of FEMEN.

  78. Boxer says:

    Since she has authority over his body.

    She does have authority over his body. The text says he can’t fuck/kiss/grope other women.

  79. earl says:

    She does have authority over his body. The text says he can’t fuck/kiss/grope other women.

    I was being facetious. Since she decided to twist text into this…

    If her husband’s body belongs to her, then she has the ability to also say, “I do not want you using your body sexually right now with me.”

  80. Boxer says:

    I was being facetious. Since she decided to twist text into this…

    If her husband’s body belongs to her, then she has the ability to also say, “I do not want you using your body sexually right now with me.”

    Yes. Feminist logic. “You can’t prove that the moon wasn’t designed by the patriarchy, to give us wimminz menstrual cycles, therefore, that’s the reason!”

  81. earl says:

    Feminist logic is having no clue what authority means other than they want it all without the responsibility of it.

    Besides her twisted text is basically torpedoed here.

    ‘Do not deprive one another, except by mutual consent for a limited time, so you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again, so that Satan will not tempt you through your lack of self-control.’

  82. Oscar says:

    @ earl

    Since she has authority over his body.

    In fact, two parts of his anatomy reside in her purse.

  83. earl says:

    Almost like Paul had some sort of insight that 2000 years later some feminist would try to twist the text into not wanting sex with her husband.

  84. Opus says:

    Jan Berry and Dean Torrence wrote a song entitled ‘One Piece Topless Bathing Suit’ about a ninety-three year old woman so attired – they seemed to have a thing about elderly women not acting their age (The Anaheim Azusa and etc etc etc, and an old lady from Pasadena) . What I notice is that you never see women past a certain age showing any more flesh than men of any age, but younger women always reveal more flesh than men (save when men go shirtless). I wonder what the reason for this anomaly between the sexes might be. Hmmm.

  85. Kevin says:

    Maybe our bodies are temples dedicated to the most Holy and designed to house His spirit and so we cover them up to signify they are holy. Crazy right?

    Does anyone enforce a dress code on a visitor? You might help someone in a bikini but otherwise if they progress in the church they will figure it out or you can tell them.

    Body shaming is the dumbest first world concern in the world and all Christians should shun the very idea. With few exceptions we remain in control of our bodies and can do what we want to shape them (but will admit its super hard and age is always working against us). There are made up feminist sins for feminist worship and feminist commandments. They have nothing to do with God.

  86. Indeed– and how will he know how to to restore it, or where to begin, when there is no recourse for him to address her wilfulness or the excuses she gives for her frigidity, and no church teaching on how to take command of an unruly wife?

  87. feeriker says:

    Mychael says:

    I’ve actually confronted women in public who treat their husbands that way.

    I hope you had video rolling when you did this. I would love to see what I can only imagine to have been the screams of angry outrage you got in response (and imagine the violent tantrum the henpecked husband was on the receiving end of once they got home from the store for having caused Godzillette to have been publicly shamed and humiliated).

    Earl cites:

    “Do not deprive one another, except by mutual consent for a limited time, so you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again, so that Satan will not tempt you through your lack of self-control.”

    It goes without saying that either:

    1. This verse, along with every other that admonishes women/restricts their behavior, is absent from The New American Woman’s Bible (c), or

    2. The phrase “except by mutual consent for a limited time” has been hamsterized by the typical fridgebitch churchian ex-CC wife to mean “his consent ain’t needed ’cause ‘my body, my choice’ and “limited time” means “what limited time he has left on this earth” (which will seem like an eternity).

  88. earl says:

    It wouldn’t surprise me if the Shelia types somehow contort mutual consent into:

    ‘I don’t consent, and because I have authority over your body…you don’t consent either.’

  89. feeriker says:

    ….no church teaching on how to take command of an unruly wife?

    The OT has Proverbs twice saying that living in what amounts to Hell is preferable to living with a contentious wife. It also has men divorcing such wives or taking second and third wives and concubines, probably at least in part as a means to negate any power over the libido that the fridgebitches thought they had.

    The NT, however, seems to prescribe nothing but permanent separation without divorce and celebacy for the deprived husband. In ages past when patriarchal authority upheld by law and social custom let husbands deal with such wives in pretty much any way they saw fit (short of maiming and murder), this was seldom necessary. Today in the Western world, that’s no longer an option. Might this perhaps be one reason why the Faith gains so little traction with modern men, especially from more patriarchal cultures that are under assault from the forces of modern progressivism.

  90. feeriker says:

    It wouldn’t surprise me if the Shelia types somehow contort mutual consent into:

    ‘I don’t consent, and because I have authority over your body…you don’t consent either.’

    Tha is EXACTLY what they’re saying. We know this by their actions and attitudes.

  91. “It’s known in other corners of the androsphere that once a married woman has birthed the number of children she wants, her interest in sex can drop off. ”

    Drop off? Yeah, like a pine branch in a windstorm!

  92. earl says:

    The NT, however, seems to prescribe nothing but permanent separation without divorce and celebacy for the deprived husband.

    Well if she’s making your life hell and holding out on you anyway…that actually sounds like a decent proposal getting away from a rebellious woman for the sake of your soul.

    The Western world’s biggest problem is the wide scale acceptance, encouragement, and promotion of female rebellion. The minute any man tries to correct it…he’s seen as the bad guy.

  93. earl says:

    Heck in the case of Lori Alexander anytime a woman tries to correct it…she gets pitchforks and torches.

  94. I C-4 what you did there. Who’s got the most Bangalore* for her buck, indeed?

    *Another Combat-Engineer joke.

  95. virginia says:

    @Bruce — “From memory (maybe faulty) CS Lewis made the argument that if a woman dresses immodestly but doesn’t do it to encourage men to sin she is guilty of impropriety but has not committed a sin.”

    Remember that C.S. Lewis lived in a time where “immodestly” may have meant a knee-length skirt or a short-sleeved blouse, not crop tops and booty shorts. I could take seriously the argument that women who wear the first two articles of clothing aren’t trying to arouse male desire. The latter two, not so much.

  96. “She has authority over his body.”

    And a short leash tied low and snug, by these accounts.

  97. Joe says:

    True story:
    I was once told to put my shirt back on at a church sponsored work day at a poor persons house who could not afford to fix their house. It was really hot sweaty work. So the t-shirt came off. Standard procedure for me while doing the lawn at home. I thought nothing of it.
    Apparently my visible ads and sub 10% body fat self was just a bit too much for the women to take. (It was one of the women there who told my wife to then tell me to put my t-shirt back on) she told me who it was. They could not even face me in person.
    Hysterical.
    Guarantee that if I were fat, that nobody would dare tell me to put my shirt back on.

  98. feeriker says:

    (It was one of the women there who told my wife to then tell me to put my t-shirt back on) she told me who it was)

    Lemme guess: it was a bitchy, fugly landwhale who had either 1) no man in her life, or anything close to one; 2) a lard tub couch-potato beta husband, the sight of whom clothed or nude she couldn’t stand; or, 3) a Poindexter dweeb beta husband who couldn’t generate tingles in her if he used a cattle prod on her.

  99. Anonymous Reader says:

    Off topic: if you have a Facebook account seriously consider shutting it down. This goes double for any children or teenagers.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-to-banks-give-us-your-data-well-give-you-our-users-1533564049?mod=e2tw

  100. Depends on the shopping Opus….

    At a going out of business record store in San Jose back in the 1990’s I spent a whole day combing through that place.

    Thrift shopping takes time (clothing) but the rewards can be excellent if you have the time.

    Shopping as in a “shopping mall” or going to ‘Walmart”? Get in. Get what you need. Have a LIST and stick to it, then Get out. I worked at a mall all through high school and college….they lost their “luster” and appeal to me very quickly while working in one. It was a very “1980’s teenage” thing to do….to “work” in a mall……..but by the time I was in college, home summers working one…….contemplated suicide a few times. There was a skit on the American show “Saturday Night Live” in the early 1990’s called “Gap Girls” and it fit exactly what I worked in and around at the Gap and in the mall…..

  101. Opus says:

    @Jason

    That is entirely different. I took my girlfriend to a local record fair – paid both our entrance fees – and within a minute or so she said she was leaving and would see my at home – girls have absolutely no staying power (or interest in Vinyl) but I can crate dig for an hour or two, no problem.

  102. cynthia says:

    “Every woman who dresses that way knows exactly what she is doing.”

    You’d be surprised how many women, especially the younger Millennials, don’t actually understand this. We’ve been taught from preschool that men don’t have the right to look at us, regardless of what we’re wearing, and that men only stare because they’re pigs.

    In places where men truly are pigs, yeah, women dress differently. Japan was like this. Japanese girls will wear extremely short skirts at times, but they’re always balanced out with opaque leggings and baggy tops. Why? Because men behave very lewdly towards you if you don’t.

    To Shelia’s point, being too overbearing in terms of religious standards can provoke some extreme rebellion. I had friends, back in high school, who were in one of those denominations where they couldn’t cut their hair or wear anything but long skirts. It was a pretty suppressive church, in a lot of ways, and my friends both ended up getting way deep into black magic. Might sound silly, but this was quite the problem in the 90s. They both came to their senses eventually, but not before doing some really terrible things. One of them has spent the last fifteen years in missionary work, I suspect, in large part as penance. But even at that, the clothing wasn’t necessarily the cause, but a symptom of a church that wanted blind obedience and failed to provide its children any reason to believe but fear.

  103. earl says:

    We’ve been taught from preschool that men don’t have the right to look at us, regardless of what we’re wearing, and that men only stare because they’re pigs.

    Figures…all women learn is that they are above reproach and men are nothing but vile and evil. We’ve completely lost sight of almost everything.

  104. Agreed Opus…..but for national Record Store Day……the ComCon for vinyl heads….there is a HUGE push about “respecting” female record collectors and “helping” them get psyched about vinyl

  105. and big push to not “sexually harass” them in record stores…..evidently women are harassed, assaulted, raped, and hit on “non-stop” and we “men” need to respect boundries on this “fun” day.

    I have only met maybe two female collectors, and they were cool.

    I would like to know where all of this harassing is occurring???

  106. RICanuck says:

    We’ve been taught from preschool that men don’t have the right to look at us, regardless of what we’re wearing, and that men only stare because they’re pigs.

    The hawt guys can look all they want. The rapey male gaze is when a woman notices a man or boy, who is beneath their notice actually looking at them. Remember, 80% of all men are below average.

  107. Oscar says:

    You’d be surprised how many women, especially the younger Millennials, don’t actually understand this.

    Bullshit.

  108. seventiesjason says:

    For once Osacr. I agree with your statement

  109. feeriker says:

    Oscar says:
    August 7, 2018 at 7:47 pm

    You’d be surprised how many women, especially the younger Millennials, don’t actually understand this.

    Bullshit.

    Oscar, that response should have been in 72 font, bolded, underlined, italicized, and followed by two dozen exclamation marks.

    Cynthia really should know better.

    I have only met maybe two female collectors, and they were cool.

    I would like to know where all of this harassing is occurring???

    Inside the chemically damaged, paranoid schizophrenic heads of a few dozen manhating cat women.

  110. seventiesjason says:

    I don’t use Tinder, but I know guys who do (sounds like a TV commercial)……my old roommate in Fresno Brian is on it. He showed me how it works once…………

    “women, especiallhy younger millennials don’t undertsand this”

    Every girl under the age of 25 pic on Tinder:

    the camera held “just so” to get a nice view of that gaping cleavage. Makeup done. Lots of skin. You would think many had a wind machine going as well…..it looked like a fashion shoot……..

    oh….and also, I was really surprised that every woman was just looking for “only friends”

    No, they have no idea what they are doing.

  111. Boxer says:

    oh….and also, I was really surprised that every woman was just looking for “only friends”

    Sorta like what every wimminz says, after you roll out…

    “I’ve never fucked on the first date before!”

    Yeah, you are all “just looking for someone to connect with,” and you all just happened to fuck on the first date, for the first time, with me. I must be a helluva unique guy. (shakes head *no*)

  112. seventiesjason says:

    Off topic….speaking of the :coming sex bot” revolution (it will be more like an anti-revolution in my opinion). Rod Serling and his “Twilight Zone” (the BEST TV show / series ever made) in 1965 had an episode called “The Lonely” and it was about a female robot companion…………the music, the lighting and writing with such subtle style……….best scene from this episode

  113. Sharkly says:

    big push to not “sexually harass” them in record stores…..evidently women are harassed, assaulted, raped, and hit on “non-stop”
    I would like to know where all of this harassing is occurring???

    Well, you vinyl-collecting neckbeards, look at them while they’re in the store. And that’s RAPE !!!

  114. ray says:

    feeriker —

    ‘fridgebitch churchian’?

    That is lovely. Would make an excellent name for a band, e.g., ‘Mitch and the Fridgebitches’

  115. ray says:

    feeriker — ‘Might this perhaps be one reason why the Faith gains so little traction with modern men, especially from more patriarchal cultures that are under assault from the forces of modern progressivism.’

    It might. Young men correctly are repulsed by the modern fem-churches. Want no part of it.

    The Lord is severe in Revelation concerning apostate churches, particularly in the end-times. This is largely due to the fact that such false churches drive souls away from Him, including unborn souls. These churches also delay souls from seeking and/or finding Him. Being found, that is. For the aggrandizement and satisfaction of said ‘churches’, usually.

    That’s the kind of thing guaranteed to get His attention, the kind even the demons fear.

  116. Opus says:

    @Jason

    Record Fayres: Women are not interested in Vinyl (or Shellac) and never will be. That of course will not stop some female claiming that at Fayres men pester them sexually and arguing that special arrangements should be made for female collectors and there will certainly be some mangina keen to enable that to happen. Men at Record Fayres are not the sort of people to have wives and girlfriends – at least on the basis of their appearance so one presumes. One always suspects however that those few women one sees at Fayres are there for the purpose of enticing men just as they do whenever they move into a male environment – the short skirt or plunging neckline gives it away. I have been Record Fayring for nearly three decades and one hardly ever sees a female although I must confess that whilst he was alive I saw a thirteen-year-old girl trying to buy up anything by Michael Jackson and I also once came across a middle-aged woman in a junk shop buying up so she explained to me pre-recorded cassettes (I am crazy about blank metal cassettes – it is my main interest; vinyl being a sideline) as she felt the market for them could only become more profitable – the exceptions proving the rule. American pressings are always excellent – solid covers, love French pressings and also Japanese pressings with their obi strips – English not so much.

    Tinder: women are always looking for friends – to do otherwise would be to trip their anti-slut defence.

  117. earl says:

    oh….and also, I was really surprised that every woman was just looking for “only friends”

    ‘It just happened’

    Plausible deniability. That’s why they have no clue what’s going on…they can just plead ignorance and blame others.

  118. seventiesjason says:

    Here in California Opus, quiet a few…..actually a lot…..of gys into vinyl do indeed have girlfriends, or a steady FB.

    Especially the DJ’s one’s who are into the 12″ maxi / club singles.

    I don’t knock those guys because many of them do have a love a music and are into a lot of other stuff than just they spin at a nightclub. Also, strict vinyl DJ wizards I admire for the fact to mix between to tables with a moving record takes practice…..they have to practice a set, and the whole baseline of setting one up takes time.

    My DJ skills between decks is just fading in and fading out. I do play with tape-loops a la George Martin (RIP) on my reel to reel deck….splicing, taping backwards…….fun stuff.

    Most Americans are not into 45rpms. I am for the fact of the Mod and northern soul music was mostly only released on that medium. One has to go on ebay for this genre or travel to the UK…..;-)

  119. Opus says:

    @Jason

    One of the great mysterys in my life is how Disc Jockeys who when I was young were always seen as losers (couldn’t get a girl – probably fat – so he spins discs) are now seen as god-like. I am sure there is a skill but what that may be is lost on me. Lots of 45s here. I have a thing for E.P.s – but I just recall I had to explain to a friend of mine recently what I referred to when I used the term E.P. I was amazed that he did not know.

  120. seventiesjason says:

    Opus:

    Joe Jackson being the hip guy he always will be released just about all of his material in the USA from 78-83 on EP. I love it!

    That’s what I am coming to the UK for. 45rpms mostly! Stuff that you just cannot get in the USA, esp the Mod stuff………I have some, but have paid out the nose for it on e-bay….and its usually the highly collected stuff.

    I’m looking for stuff by The Action, Keith Powell, Shel Naylor, and a grip of other forogotten no-names mostly on the Pye and Immediate label. I did see sixties Mod singer Chris Farlowe perform at Dylans Welsh Pub in SF back in 1998…….older, but that voice held. Came out on the small stage in shades and a suit, you could split a hair on the seam of his trousers. Sharp yo! The twenty of us there that night (every Mod in SF) was there, and few Brit ex-pats. Awesome night.

  121. seventiesjason says:

    Opus. Think. Farlowe tore this up on his live show.

  122. Opus says:

    @Jason

    You are staying so your explained in Wardour Street which is parallel to Berwick Street (pronounced Berik) and that has a a number of interesting second-hand record shops.

  123. ChristianCool says:

    Do you know what is truly “interesting” about these so-called “Christians” who re-interpret on-point, non-contextual, plain-and-simply textual Scripture to fit whatever they believe in on that given day?

    In my line of work (paralegal/law student), we call these people “Judicial Activists”. They take actual plain text of The U.S. Constitution and re-interpret it to fit whatever it is they want.

    In your 1 Timothy 2:8-9 where women are called to be modest (“I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God”). But the Sheila Gregoire’s of the world re-interpret plain text to say this is “non-applicable” or they say this is about “flaunting wealth”. 🙄

    In The Constitution, Activists take the 14th Amendment ratified in the 1860s in regards to resolving the question of whether slavery is legal under original Constitution and to grant equal protection to freed slaves, and find the “right to privacy”, which then leads to “right to abortions” under the “Equal Protection Clause”. 😡 They use the 14th Amendment to justify anything they want, from illegal citizenship given to children of illegal aliens (which is not based on actual Constitutional text) to a myriad of other “unspecified rights” and unpsecifided obligations (such as allowing anyone to enter USA unrestricted, opposing the Travel Ban) and such things are nowhere found in Constitution.

    While the Sheila Gregoires and the Doug Wilsons of the world are a danger to Christian doctrine, these leftist Democrat-party Activist Judges are a threat to EVERYONE who lives in America today and in the foreseeable future.

    One is creating the danger of sending good unwise men and women to hell and the other group seeks to end freedom and America as we know it.

    We are already creating awareness and an important discussion worldwide to expose and warn of the dangers of false teachers of the law. 🙂 But let’s also remember the threats and dangers we face in our country today, with a Supreme Court nominee waiting to be confirmed and the fate of the nation hanging in the balance in about 90 days.:!:

    (Sorry I got political here, but this is something we should all think about with elections coming up Nov 6, 2018)

  124. Opus says:

    Despite its eloquence I tend to think that Jefferson’s “We hold these truths to be self-evident” is nothing but sophistry – they are neither truths nor self evident but undigested French Enlightenment and Lockean wishful-thinking. Impatience and ambition are what lay behind your revolution which today’s technology would have resolved with little problem. I can see it now as the Speaker of the House of Commons intones: ‘The Right Honourable Member for Massachusetts South’ whether in person or by video-link.

    One of the advantages of not having a written constitution (or perhaps any constitution at all) is that ‘judicial activists’ have nothing to interpret: America with its endless Constitutional Amendments have created a rod for its own back and I assert that Jefferson and his co-conspirators would be appalled in the manner his straightforward words have been twisted out of any shape that they would recognise.

  125. ChristianCool says:

    @ Opus:

    The Amendment process was NECESSARY and planned in the original draft of The Constitution. That is why the Framers put the Amendment process clearly stated in the original document. Ben Franklin said the original Constitution was basically the “bare minimum” they could get all 13 States to agree on, and that included allowing slavery to continue, despite its implications to a government based on freedom and God-given rights. George Mason actually worked a “backroom deal” to amend the original Constitution as soon as all 13 States ratified it, because he (and most of the Framers) knew it was grossly incomplete and lacking in protections for individual freedoms.

    Imagine not having the right of Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech (1st Amendment), Right to Keep and Bear Arms (2nd Amdn), and the clear idea that all freedoms not included on the “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” (10th Amendment).

    Can you even imagine an America without these basic freedoms? Unless you allow Amendments to occur, America would be a tyrannical place where rights are given by men and can be taken away easily by passing “hate speech laws” or Socialism, like Venezuela or France.

    .Jefferson is one of my top favorite presidents and one of the greatest political thinkers of all times. But even Jefferson realized the Bill of Rights was a critical part of America, and that is who he got rid of the “Alien and Sedition Acts” that suspended the 1st Amendment during the Madison presidency.

    The Amendment process is NOT the problem. The problem is leftist Democrat activist judges that re-interpret the Constitution to whatever they want it to say. It is no different than activist leftist “Christians” that re-interpret The Bible, like Sheila Gregoire and Doug Wilson.

  126. Opus says:

    @Christian Cool

    I refer to your second paragraph: where I am (England) we have no such rights: There is a State Religion (which most people acknowledge as theirs) and we do not own guns (even the police are unarmed – and prefer it that way). We are free because we have no limits on our behaviour save as willed by the Monarch with the advice and consent of the Lords, Temporal and Spiritual and the Commons. ‘Rights’ is to us a term without meaning.

  127. ChristianCool says:

    @ Opus

    Sorry, I did not realize you are a Brit, living as a subject to the crown. Ooops. :-/

    The whole set of “Freedoms” granted by the Parliament in the UK are abstract at best and are completely subjective. Take freedom of the press in the UK: it is TOLERATED to some extent, but it it by no means guaranteed by any irrevocable document in the UK. Heard of Mr. Robinson who was imprisoned for reporting on gangs of Muslims raping young British girls and children? So much for a “free press”, huh?

    In UK, you also have “hate speech laws”, which make it criminal to say anything that is PERCEIVED as anti-gay, anti-Muslim, anti-mass immigration, etc.

    Definitely a dangerous country to live in, if you oppose the elites.

    Also, UK is a known haven for divorce rapes by women against men. In America, divorce rape is a nightmare. In UK, it is a national crisis and hell on earth.

    I saw this British blog in the past discussing how British men are becoming Chavs and that is similar to Africanized “gangsta culture” in America. It is the ghetto-fication of our culture, causing as a negative reaction by men to FemiNazism.

    https://kshatriya-anglobitch.blogspot.com/2009/04/chavs-neurotypes-and-anglobitches-death.html

    What do you think of this guy’s assertions about UK’s “Chav” culture? Is this real? hat is going on in UK regarding the “backlash” to FemiNazism?

  128. Opus says:

    @Christian Cool

    I overlooked Freedom of Speech which is another piece of Enlightenment wishful-thinking. If I choose to say publicly that Kellogg’s Cornflakes is my favourite Breakfast Cereal, that Evolution by way of Natural Selection Theory is devoid of empirical proof, or that the Holocaust is a fiction I may do so because The Crown in Parliament has not so far restricted my freedom to do so, publicly – but at some later time it might.

  129. Luke says:

    Opus, I would bet a body part that if you stated any of the following on a live BBC broadcast or in a letter to a major U.K. newspaper with your name attached, that you’d have significant governmental sanctions swiftly following:

    1) that the Holocaust was minimal;
    2) that blacks are dumber than whites;
    3) that Muslims can never belong in the U.K., that they’re inherently violent criminals, and they need to convert to Christianity and be exiled from the U.K.;
    4) that all nonChristians (such as Jews and Muslims) and homosexuals are all going to Hell when they die;
    5) that any church that allows women or sexually active homos as clergy is apostate and no longer Christian;
    6) that the U.S. Founding fathers (and de facto U.K. law for freemen, if you go back far enough) were correct, that by natural law (not subject to repeal by any government) that free men have an unrestricted right to own and carry firearms;
    7) that anyone advocating feminism or socialism is a traitor, and should be imprisoned or exiled;
    8) that children belong with their father if their parents aren’t married and residing together, with NO court-ordered child support legally allowed.

    Go ahead. I want to watch.

  130. Opus says:

    @Christian Cool

    It is true that fear stalks the land which is why (like a delegate at a speech by Stalin keen not to be the first to cease applauding) Corporations and Schools and any politician who does not want a swift end to his career sings from the LGBT hymn-book and worships any one who is neither English nor Christian nor male – the same goes for the BBC. The response of the average person is Brexit (as America’s is Trump).

    Tommy Robinson was imprisoned so I understand for Contempt of Court that is to say he broke an order of the court.

    Kshatriya is not English and seems (like our own Anon) to have a chip on his shoulder about us. Chavs are our White Trash and have not I think changed since the Industrial Revolution but where ordinary working-class ends and Chav begins will depend on ones view of acceptable behaviour. It is worth reflecting that the average English I.Q. is 100 (America’s is a still respectable 98) and as that must include all the Chavs they can’t be so bad. Feminism has very little effect on the working-class but it does affect the middle-class as women are given privileges over men thus fueling their hypergamy. Theodore Dalrymple (who being ((())) is also not English) fine writer that he is had a lot to say about Chavs in the days when he was Prison Doctor and George Orwell did likewise decades earlier – Dickens too I suppose.

  131. Opus says:

    @Luke

    See the first paragraph of my comment to Christian Cool at 05.41am.

    It is why one has Boris Johnson tip-toeing around Islamic Burkhas by comparing women who wear them to male Bank Robbers (not that any Bank Robber has been seen for decades) when what he really wants to say is Muslims go home. His making Theresa May-hem look right is so annoying.

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

w

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.