From Yahoo Parenting.
Excerpt: (links removed)
In Wisconsin, a state senator has introduced a bill aimed at penalizing single mothers by calling their unmarried status a contributing factor inchild abuse and neglect.
Senate Bill 507, introduced by Republican Senator Glenn Grothman, moves to amend existing state law by “requiring the Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention Board to emphasize nonmarital parenthood as a contributing factor to child abuse and neglect.”
The bill would require educational and public awareness campaigns held by the board to emphasize that not being married is abusive and neglectful of children, and to underscore “the role of fathers in the primary prevention of child abuse and neglect.”
Saying that people “make fun of old-fashioned families,” Grothman — who has never been married and has no children — criticized social workers for not agreeing that children should only be raised by two married biological parents, and told a state Senate committee that he hopes the Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention board, of which he’s a member, could “publicize something that’s politically incorrect but has to be said in our society.”
“Whether that leads to more people paying attention and having children after they’re married or whether that leads to some others making a choice for adoptions,” he said.
Is he right about his assertion? Let’s see what the research says.
Excerpt:
The institution that most strongly protects mothers and children from domestic abuse and violent crime is marriage. Analysis of ten years worth of findings from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has conducted since 1973, demonstrates that mothers who are or ever have been married are far less likely to suffer from violent crime than are mothers who never marry.
Specifically, data from the NCVS survey show that:
- Married women with children suffer far less abuse than single mothers. In fact, the rate of spousal, boyfriend, or domestic partner abuse is twice as high among mothers who have never been married as it is among mothers who have ever married (including those separated or divorced).
- Married women with children are far less likely to suffer from violent crime in general or at the hands of intimate acquaintances or strangers. Mothers who have never married–including those who are single and living either alone or with a boyfriend and those who are cohabiting with their child’s father–are more than twice as likely to be victims of violent crime than are mothers who have ever married.
Other social science surveys demonstrate that marriage is the safest place for children as well. For example:
- Children of divorced or never-married mothers are six to 30 times more likely to suffer from serious child abuse than are children raised by both biological parents in marriage.2
Without question, marriage is the safest place for a mother and her children to live, both at home and in the larger community. Nevertheless, current government policy is either indifferent to or actively hostile to the institution of marriage. The welfare system, for example, can penalize low-income parents who decide to marry. Such hostility toward marriage is poor public policy; government instead should foster healthy and enduring marriages, which would have many benefits for mothers and children, including reducing domestic violence.
That’s just a summary, click the link for the all the data. Christians should care about the safety of children – and that means telling men and women the truth about the consequences of their choices. It’s nice to see one legislator standing up for the safety of children. Grown-ups can’t just do whatever they want in order to try to make themselves happy. We have to care what the consequences of our choices will be for the little ones – born and unborn.
WINTERY KNIGHT 
What about widows? Or single fathers?
LikeLike
Widows should be exempt – a father who dies is not the same as a father who cheats, abandons, abuses, or anything else beastly that men do.
As far as single fathers go, I don’t have the data. But I would guess that very, very, very few men become single fathers by choice.
LikeLike
Does the bill take that into consideration?
LikeLike
A single parent is a single parent, for whatever the reason.
LikeLike
Sorry Pat, what do you mean by that?
LikeLike
That’s not true. Children with fathers who die are MUCH better off than children with defective fathers, because no rejection of them or their mothers occurred. That’s why women need to be careful about who they have sex with – because that relationship with the father matters and there is no substitute.
My understanding of what you are saying is that it doesn’t matter to a child if a woman has four children from four different men, all of them who do not bother to marry to her for life. But to the children, that situation is completely different from the situation where a woman marries a man who commits to her, provides for the family, leads the children, and dies protecting the family from evil – e.g. – by running into a burning house to save them. That is completely different than a man who never commits or who commits and abandons.
Check this out, Pat:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCR/is_4_35/ai_84017196/
Quote:
I hope that helps. It’s important to note that a woman who carefully vets the biological father of her child is usually blameless – she normally cannot control whether her husband dies or not. However a woman who marries a man who abandons the family or who never commits is responsible for disobeying the Bible, and if not the Bible, then disobeying prudence. It is important for a woman to make a man prove that he 1) has self-control, so she knows he will be faithful and 2) has a solid, practical education and a resume showing continuous paid work, so she knows he can provide, and 3) a record of attacking evil, so she knows he can protect, and 4) a pattern of mentoring and persuading Christians and non-Christians in apologetics and theology and moral issues, so that she knows that he can lead the children morally and spiritually.
LikeLike
In Canada at least, the courts tend to favour the mother unless she displays some sort of erratic behaviour, like jeopardizing her children’s safety for personal gain. I’ve known a couple of people to have been awarded to their fathers and raised in single-father homes due to drug or money or behavioural issues on the mother’s part…
LikeLike
I would count being a widow as marital parenting if it were my bill. I’m sure someone will mention this to him and he can amend the bill.
LikeLike
Really, you’re sure? I doubt it.
Besides, there are exceptions to your exception. What if a woman is a widow because she poisoned her husband? Hmm…actually, then, she should be incarcerated, so that’s a poor example.
Let’s see…what if the woman is technically a widow because her philandering husband, who has been missing for months, was shot by a jealous lover? She, apparently, failed to vet the father of her children as you recommend. She’s guilty of child abuse.
No, it’s better to just leave the bill as written. Censure the whole lot of us.
Senator Grothman wants to spread the message that traditional families are best for raising children. Great! That’s true! He believes his bill is a step in the right direction. It is not. It could, however, create more antagonism toward single parents, no matter how they became single parents, and consequently make life for their children even more difficult than it already is. And this is important…how?
LikeLike
I think that many women are not serious about marriage. They don’t want to prepare for it. They don’t want to choose the right men. They don’t want to promote laws and policies that produce good men. They don’t want to promote laws and policies that strengthen marriage. They don’t want to take responsibility for their own choices and actions. The desire for selfish happiness causes them to not be rigorous in preparing for marriage and in evaluating men for marriage. When things go wrong, they refuse to take responsibility for the harm they cause to innocent children. And when men like me point out the harm they cause, they resent being judged and refuse to be held accountable.
Women have to learn that a good marriage is not the result of an emotional roller coaster, an expensive wedding, and peer approval. It takes reading, thinking and preparation to find the right man. It takes continuous improvement, service and self-sacrifice to keep the right man. From what I have read in these comments, there are many women who want nothing to do with their own responsibilities to prepare, select and serve the right man.
LikeLike
Good post. Thank you.
Note how the Yahoo article recasts calling a spade a spade as “penalizing”. Sometimes the truth isn’t going to make people feel good. But that doesn’t mean we have the right to ignore it or pretend that reality is different to what it is.
LikeLike
Somebody says children are more likely to be abused if from a one parent family, so it has to be true, right.
I can see this as being an excuse for more abortions. Dad won’t marry me, so they’re gonna say he/she’s being abused and take the child away from me so I might as well get rid of it now.
I do not agree with children being brought up out of wed lock, but I don’t start castigating parents who try. By the way, I see you’ve emphasised the word women again.
LikeLike
It’s not an excuse for more abortions, it’s a reason for more discipline around the sexual activity. Instead of regarding sex as a recreational activity that is reasonable for minors, we should be communicating that sexual activity is for people who are married and in a position to support a child. If we were serious about protecting children, that’s what we would be doing: and we can communicate our preference for lifelong married love as the best environment for children by crating tax incentives for married couples who stay married. We could also eliminate all laws, policies, social programs and payments that make single motherhood and premarital sex cheaper and less risky. To deal with the transition period, we can provide tax incentives for adoption.
I am very very very serious about making sure that children are safe, and that means that I will do anything possible to promote lifelong married love. That is the gold standard. We can permit other arrangements but society should promote, celebrate and support married couples and marital sex and marital stability and self-sacrificial commitment.
LikeLike
What about women who are abandoned? She doesn’t procreate alone…
LikeLike
This law feels a bit like the stoning scene in the Gospel. Please read this, and let me know what you think…http://lamehousewife.wordpress.com/2012/03/08/the-reality-of-singlemotherhood-revised-article/
blessings, brother…
LikeLike
That story is not in the earliest manuscripts:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/aprilweb-only/117-31.0.html
It was added in around 900 A.D. by some overzealous scribe.
LikeLike
Knight, are you joking? How are you telling us that story is not in the Bible? I’ll be looking into this.
LikeLike
Jennifer, just check the margin notes. It will say that the whole woman taken in adultery does not occur in the New Testament manuscripts until much later. (Read the article – it looks like it is in 1581!)
Here:
http://bible.org/article/my-favorite-passage-that%E2%80%99s-not-bible
He writes:
Dan Wallace is the top evangelical scholar on Bible manuscripts.
LikeLike
I have received a comment to the effect that Codex Bezae is supposed to have originated in the 5th century, but that is as early as it goes.
LikeLike
I think that was about the time they put the NT together and said this and the OT would be the official Bible. I know they did leave a lot out. ‘Gospel of Thomas’ ‘Gospel of Mary Madelane’ Done it again, mind’s gone blank on spelling. I believe if they had put in everything they had at that time, we wouldn’t have been able to lift if, even if it was in the smallest print.
LikeLike
If it really occured, I see no reason why John would have a problem with it. Still, if it didn’t, that doesn’t erase the truth of Christ’s character that it represents. I’ll look into it, thanks.
LikeLike
I’m writing a post on it for you right now. This is one of a handful disputed passages in the New Testament. The other one is the long ending of Mark, which I think has a better case for its being authentic. Again, your Bible will have footnotes for both of these passages explaining that they are not in the earliest manuscripts. I’m not a liberal, I am a conservative (literal Hell, non-material souls, exclusive salvation) evangelical – it’s just important to know about these disputed passages.
LikeLike
Thank you. You don’t have to write a post for me, I believe you. I find the topic interesting and will explore it further. I also agree with probably most of your conservative views.
LikeLike
I think we know who would cast the first stone.
LikeLike
I just want to make it clear what Pat’s view is. She quotes from a document that is not in the original text of the Bible because she likes it – even though it’s 900 years after the Bible was written. She thinks that asking women to not fornicate so that children are not put at risk for abortion of the effects of single motherhood by choice is equivalent to stoning women.
Is that clear? Apparently, women can do what they want, and any attempt to hold them accountable to the moral law in order to protect children from abortion, neglect, abuse and other nasty effects of fatherlessness is the equivalent of stoning them for adultery.
LikeLike
It is in the Bible, if you like it or not. I am not condoning fornication, but you are condoning fornication by men. it is the woman’s fault, the men don’t come into it.
you haven’t actually mentioned stoning, but the way you are talking against women you are on the borderline of doing so.
As I said before, you either believe in the Bible or don’t. You can’t pick and choose. Since you have said about that not being in the Bible at the beginning, you obviously don’t. The New Testament was added to the Old about 400 years AD when different documents, letters etc were decided by the Vatican. As the Bible was put together then is how it is now. Different documents found since, the Dead Sea Scrolls, a fragment of Luke’s gospel etc have only enforced that the Bible is true.
As I’ve said before, you twist things to try to make anyone who doesn’t agree with you, especially woman, to be stupid or evil or both.
LikeLike
I just want to be clear to all, although I e-mailed you private about my status as a virgin. I advise men to be chaste. I advise women to select men who are chaste, because it promotes marital stability and fidelity. What I am saying is that women should be enouraged NOT to go near men who are willing to have sex with them before marriage. Those are BAD men. AVOID!
In fact, I am probably one of the clearest voices on the Internet promoting male chastity, and platonic love:
https://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2012/02/26/study-80-of-single-evangelicals-aged-18-29-are-no-longer-virigins/
https://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/valentines-day-what-to-do-if-you-dont-have-a-wife-or-sweetheart/
LikeLike
But look at your posts on here. Any time any of us say about men being involved as well, you phoo phoo that and put all the blame on the woman.
LikeLike
From Wikipedia: The first surviving Greek manuscript to contain the pericope is the Latin/Greek diglot Codex Bezae of the late 4th or early 5th century. It is also the earliest surviving Latin manuscript to contain it; 17 of the 23 Old Latin manuscripts of John 7-8 contain at least part of the Pericope. …. Until recently, it was not thought that any Greek Church Father had taken note of the passage before the 12th Century; but in 1941 a large collection of the writings of Didymus the Blind (ca. 313- 398) was discovered in Egypt, including a reference to the pericope adulterae as being found in “several copies”; and it is now considered established that this passage was present in its usual place in some Greek manuscripts known in Alexandria and elsewhere from the 4th Century onwards. In support of this it is noted that the 4th century Codex Vaticanus, which was written in Egypt, marks the end of John chapter 7 with an “umlaut”, indicating that an alternative reading was known at this point.
And from Wieland Wilker’s textual commentary (which does not accept the passage’s authenticity): The earliest manuscripts that actually have the pericope are: D, b*, d, e, ff2, all from the 5th CE. Several Latin Church fathers from the 4th CE on know the pericope in John.
Also, when you get a chance, you might want to track down and read Maurice Robinson’s “”Preliminary Observations Regarding the Pericope Adulterae Based Upon Fresh Collations of Nearly All ContinuousText Manuscripts and all Lectionary Manuscripts Containing the Passage.” Robinson is the leading evangelical Byzantine textual scholar — yes, a bona fide textual scholar, not simply a pastor or theologian who dabbles in textual criticism — and a former “eclectic text” proponent.
I’m not trying to get into an argument about the passage’s authenticity here, or but into this discussion. But, FWIW, 1) mis-characterizing the textual history of the passage isn’t the way to win any argument and 2) John himself said that Jesus did many things besides those recorded in the canonical Gospels. So, this could be one of those very times where an historical incident was recorded and widely disseminated, but was only later introduced into the Biblical text — but again not nearly so late as you suppose. Being non-canonical does not equal being non-factual.
I would think it would be much better not to put all one’s eggs in one’s basket. Don’t reject a controversial passage (which some *scholars* accept as authentic) in an effort to defend your position. Accept, at least for the sake of argument, that the passage is authentic (or at least an historically accurate reminiscence of an incident involving Jesus) and proceed from there. (By the same token, those using the passage should be willing to search elsewhere in Scripture to find support for the point being made so that this one passage is not bearing the full burden of support.)
LikeLike
Pat, I can’t imagine where you’re getting the idea that Knight is only blaming women. He’s talking about warning them away from rotten guys; HOW is this hurtful or shaming to them?
LikeLike
I’ll have to write a list of questions up to help women evaluate men, so that they are equipped to choose men who will commit for life.
For now, they can just reverse engineer the list I provide men with, so that they will know how to choose women who will commit for life.
LikeLike
You make it sound like a business transaction in a market. In reminds me of the scenes in the Biblical films where they are looking at slaves. she they look at each other’s teeth, should the woman look at the man’s muscles etc.
LikeLike
I think it’s important to see what is going on here.
Some of the female commenters here actually have the beliefs that lead to child poverty and child abuse. They promote it because of the opinions they hold.
Here are those opinions:
1) Women should not have to rigorously evaluate men who they have sex with to see if they are good providers, protectors, moral leaders and spiritual leaders
2) Women should be allowed to inflict poverty, neglect and abuse on their own children by being careless with sex
3) Women should be allowed to disregard what the Bible teaches about premarital sex, and prefer men who also disregard what the Bible teaches about premarital sex
4) Women should be able to judge men based on their emotions, music, movies, women’s magazines, and peer approval and then expect lifelong married love from a type of man who has none of the qualifications for marriage
5) Women should be able to have sex with men and then expect that men who have sex without committing will become model husbands and fathers
To me, this is identical to a case where someone wants the freedom to drive drunk, resents all of the responsibility for their destructive actions, and resents being held accountable.
LikeLike
It’s a bit odd to read some of the comments here. It’s like babies are conceived with no preceding choices. When I was a young woman I would get so angry with my mom because she would tell me I was responsible to make sure sex didn’t happen before marriage. I wanted the men to be responsible too. In fact, I still think they should be and I hope my virgin daughters marry virgins. But women are the gatekeepers to sex since a man can’t have sex with a woman if she doesn’t consent. So women actually do have the power to end most fatherlessness all on their own by making the choices WK advocates.
And this is somewhat beside the point, but I’ve known a decent number of abandoned wives. Most abandoned women are not 100% victims. Broken relationships almost always involve both parties because both parties are broken people. A man shouldn’t leave his family, but the stereotype that men abandon sweet, loving, accepting wives to have sex with somebody younger isn’t reality. Most divorces are initiated by women. Women are not the sweet, put-upon victims in the culture of single parenthood – they just objectively aren’t. Most of them copulate with bad boys who have no clue that sex carries responsibility and then go all postal because bad boy doesn’t see what baby has to do with him.
We are doing women no favors by excusing bad behavior. Behaving badly causes damage. So if we care for women we will hold them responsible for their choices.
Bringing up widowhood is a red herring.
LikeLike
I am not excusing them, but men are just as much responsible. I can remember on several occasions men trying to get me drunk so they could get me in bed. On several occasions I had men asking me how I was sober when I had had as much to drink as they had as they had kept giving me dirnk. They used to really get annoyed when I pointed out the full glasses round the room where I had hidden them. Two sips when they were watching, then dump the nearly full glass when they turned their backs.
I was lucky as things like this weren’t spoken about in those days, but I had two older brothers who warned me about this things when I left home. Men used to be responsible for getting the condoms in then, there wasn’t the pill and other method as there is now.
even today it happens. I have a young friend in the village and I told her this story. A few months later she came and said she was glad I had told her that story as a man tried to do it to her and she remembered what I had told her. You are all trying to make out that it is always the woman’s fault, the poor innocent little men are the victims who have been trapped into bed by the women.
LikeLike
But this is exactly what WK is saying, Pat. You avoided the wiles of bad men because of your brothers’ warnings. Your young friend avoided a bad man because you warned her. WK is saying to girls to stay away from the bad men. Don’t sleep with them. Don’t have babies with men you aren’t married to and don’t marry bad men. He has never said and none of his commenters have said that these men aren’t responsible for their bad behavior.
LikeLike
No he’s not. He’s saying that women should be perfect, men don’t have to and it’s the woman’s fault.
LikeLike
Please indicate exactly where he said that. You are being illogical by arguing from emotion. Stamping your foot and saying, “But he’s being meeeaaaan!” isn’t an argument. Engage WK’s actual ideas, what he actually says rather than what you think he said, or nobody is going to listen to you. If a woman doesn’t have sex she won’t have children. This is a statement of fact, not a moral statement about men or women. Unless these men who won’t take responsibility for their children are raping the women, then they’ve both sinned. I’ve been unable to find in any of WK’s writings the demand that women have to be perfect.
However, I’ll come right out and say it – if a woman fornicates, it’s her fault. It’s also the fault of the man she fornicates with. It doesn’t matter how hard he pushed for sex. It doesn’t matter how sexy she was. It doesn’t matter how hard it was to say no. They’ve both sinned.
But the point is that it is child abuse to raise a child without a good father. Therefore, a woman must marry and stay married to a good man so the kids have a chance at a decent life. This is a really, really simple concept. I’m not sure why it makes you so angry. You appear to see the world quite simply – women are victims of men – they have no power, they have no moral agency, they have no choices. That’s a view that is completely removed from reality.
LikeLike
Women again. so do men. A lot of men seem to think that when they get married the little woman is supposed to wait on them hand and foot,
You have no idea of what some girls go through. I’m not saying that some of them aren’t slags, but I will give you an example. I have a woman in her 20s with four children. She had both parents at home and they were both alcoholics and both abusive. She ended up running away and living on the street. She tried a few times to go back, but it was always the same. We used to know when she’d been home as she’d be covered in bruises (and I mean covered). The children’s home over here also had the reputation of being abusive, sexually and physically. When a person lives on the street there is only one way to survive, beg, steal or sell your body. Most of the kids did all three, including the boys. You will probably call Tanya a slut cos she has four children. She has turned her life around, come of the drink and drugs, all street children take to blot out what is happening to them. The church she has started attending helped her get an apartment for her and the children, but the landlord is selling the apartment and wants her out. She is moving in with us as people will take her in but not the children. Of course, by your standards the children should be taken off her. Only problem is that over here fostering is new and not many people do it. We still have people wonder why we do it.
There are a lot of one parent families who have histories, but as far as your concerned, your judge, jury and executioner. Don’t bother looking into their back ground, just judge them because they have had children out of wed lock. Thank God the churches over here do not think they are perfect and everyone who doesn’t meet up with their expectations is evil. They look into the person, not the outward appearances, but the whole person, their background.
I wonder how any of you would have survived her background. Not everyone has a perfect Christian upbringing, not everyone is so lucky. You obviously have, well, bully for you all.
God will judge her, not me and everyone else who has children out of wedlock.
As for the men flaunting themselves in front of women, I’ve seen plenty of men do it as well, or, as was with me, trying to get them drunk to get them in bed. As I have said before, it takes two to make a bargain.
According to some on here, women are sluts and men are perfect. Take the blinkers off and look around you properly.
LikeLike
Oh my. I was feeling quite alone until you wrote this comment. Thanks for sharing! I agree with you completely. I’m not trying to be mean to women, I am trying to be nice to children, and I am glad when someone understands.
LikeLike
I don’t think it’s mean to women to point it out when their choices will make their life stink. Being a victim is for the birds and it’s time everybody stopped lying to girls by telling them that whatever urge enters their little heads is a good urge. No, some choices will result in damage to innocent people and the chooser is answerable for those choices. Besides, the thrill a bad boy provides is a drop in the bucket compared to the grief he leaves in his wake. I don’t accept that women are the victims of bad men unless they choose to be.
LikeLike
Couldn’t reply directly under Pat’s last comment….
Pat, you seem like a lovely, compassionate, caring person, but telling people that they are helpless to make better choices isn’t loving. Proposing policies that will support family formation and punish family dissolution is not judging, condemning, or throwing stones. People like the young lady you mentioned are welcome in my home and in my church – God loves them no less because they are broken. But I wouldn’t lie to her and say it’s fine for her to sleep with and have babies with multiple men. It is just a fact that her children are disadvantaged because of the choices she made and pretending that her brokkenness and fragility changes truth isn’t loving her. I don’t doubt she did what she needed to do to survive. But that doesn’t change the objective fact that her children will grow up disadvantaged and nothing we do can change that. That’s why we must discourage single parenthood and fatherlessness, for the sake of a stable community.
I’m not sure where you came up with most of the accusations you’re flinging around. I don’t want to take children away from their mothers and I have up close and personal experience with abusive men and the resultant damage they inflict. Take care what you assume about other internet commenters.
LikeLike
I am not encouraging it, but people on here seem to think the man has nothing to do with it. We have spoken to her and several others, the understand what we are saying, but in her position they don’t always have a choice. That senator and others are saying almost that bad things don’t happen in a married relationship with mother and father. Most of the kids on the street here are usually from two parent families. We do occasionally get kids from one parent families, but not nearly as often. I also know quite a few kids in England who wish dad wasn’t around. Again, I’m not saying all two parent families are bad, but just because there are two parents doesn’t make them good either.
Again, Tanya, my young friend has come off the street and is turning her life around. Having had a bad family life with two parents she loves her kids like crazy and wants them to have some stabilty, but with her. I’ve only met two of the kids so far, and the younger of the two has taken to Len like mad. Mum and the four kids are moving in tomorrow, by the way. But why I’m getting annoyed, everything is being put on the woman as if the man has nothing to do with it.
I know many are looking from a Christian view point, as we all should, where they’re concerned, but we have to remember that not everyone in the world is Chistian or have a Christian upbringing. We also need to remember that we mostly don’t know their background, why they sleep around, although sometimes the girls think the man loves them and it’s not until they get pregnant that they find out that the man was only after sex, and he disappears from the scene. Again I know quite a few this has happened to, including our eldest foster daughter. Her father said he was going to marry her mum, started working out how much it would cost etc. As soon as he found out that mum was pregnant and she wouldn’t have an abortion, he was off.
This is why I’m getting so worked up on this subject, people are making judgements, when they don’t know half of it. The girls are displayed as sluts all the time, and the men are poor little innocents who have been trapped into the situation.
LikeLike
Again I just want to point out the sub text of Pat’s comments.
1) Women don’t have a choice of who they have sex with
2) One anecdote refutes the statistics showing that marriage helps prevent child poverty and child abuse and domestic violence
3) It’s fine for fathers to be taken away from their children by the state, never mind what the evidence says
And this is the view of many people who are anti-marriage. It’s not based in evidence. It’s based in a desire to equate sin and non-sin. It’s based in a desire to avoid evidence and to make policy based on emotions and intuitions. It does result in harm to women and children. It does increase the size of government, thereby raising taxes and reducing freedom and lowering business competitiveness and therefore raising unemployment and debt that children must eventually pay fore.
What is the goal? The goal is to eradicate the distinctions between good and evil, to remove the responsibility from women to choose men responsibly, to redistribute wealth so that no one has to care about right and wrong, and to harm children so that grown-ups can follow their hearts on an emotional roller coaster. To tell women to be prepared and selective with men is “stoning” them for adultery. To tell women that impoverishing children and exposing them to neglect and abuse is “stoning” women for adultery.
The children get screwed two ways. One, they get no father. And two, not only are they impoverished, but they will be saddled with massive debt incurred by subsidizing divorce and single motherhood. That’s the end result of all of this postmodern moral relativism. Anything goes = children suffer. It’s anti-child.
LikeLike
I said in her (Tanya’s) position. Both mother and father abused her so she ran away to the street. Her only way to survive was beg, steal or sell her body (on the street boys as well as girls sell their body). I wonder how many of you have lived on the street in the middle of winter wondering where the next meal is coming from (next meal could be a sandwich if you’re lucky).
I’ve been married for 38 years so you can’t say I’m anti-marriage.
Every case is about an individual. You cannot generalise about why there is no husband (father). Also again, as I’ve said the world is not a Christian environment, unfortunately.
LikeLike
It seems that with the exception of Joycalyn, the women here do not understand why exactly more pressure is placed upon women to stay chaste even though both men and women should stay chaste.
Gerry T. Neal: http://thronealtarliberty.blogspot.com/2012/02/folly-of-feminism.html
“Traditional sexual morality declared that sexual intercourse was to be reserved for the marriage bed and was wrong outside of wedlock for male and female alike. These rules could hardly be considered unfair to women. If anything, they were drawn up explicitly to ensure that women are treated fairly. By restricting sexual intercourse to marriage, in which a man and woman have pledged themselves to each other for life, the rules declare that men are not to take advantage of women by sleeping with them if they are not willing and committed to helping raise the children that may result.
This is not where feminism claims to find the unfairness. The traditional code of sexual behaviour included more than just the “no sex outside marriage” rule. There were prescribed roles for men and women – men were to woo women and women were to accept or reject their advances. They were not supposed to accept men’s attentions too quickly, much less be the first to show interest. The importance of pre-marital chastity was more impressed upon women then upon men, women were more harshly judged for breaking the rules than men, and the burden of responsibility for waiting until marriage was made to weigh more upon women then upon men.
This is what feminists call “the double standard”. They have frequently exaggerated it, (8) but more importantly they have missed the whole point. If society traditionally treated female observance of the rules of sexual conduct as being more important than male observance of such rules it was not in order to deny girls a privilege of “having fun” given to boys. It was because the natural consequences of disobeying the rules are harder on women than on men. It is women, not men, who get pregnant. It is therefore, more important for a woman, that the man she allows to potentially impregnate her be bonded to her in a life-time agreement to live and raise their children together, than it is important for a man, that the woman he sleeps with be in such a relationship with him. This does not mean that it is not important for a man at all – it is better for a man to have all his children with his wife than for him to have them with multiple women scattered all over town – just that it is more important for a woman. Whatever the feminists might say about the so-called “double standard” it existed for the benefit of women and not for the benefit of men at the expense of women.”
It’s really that simple.
LikeLike
I agree with this comment, and thank you for writing it. I know that your blog can be pretty rough, and so I appreciate this very fair comment.
In addition to what you said, I do think that it is a good thing for men to be chaste, so that women know that they can trust them and rely on them. It’s important for women to feel safe with men.
LikeLike
Thank you, Wintery Knight. Yes, Patriactionary can be rather rough, but we adhere to traditional sexual morality and we full-heartedly believe that both men and women should be chaste.
Btw, Gerry T. Neal is not an editor for Patriactionary, just a patron and frequent commenter. I was linking to his personal site because he had a recent article about the folly of feminism. I think you might have confused his words for mine; I was just simply quoting him.
“In addition to what you said, I do think that it is a good thing for men to be chaste, so that women know that they can trust them and rely on them. It’s important for women to feel safe with men.”
I agree completely. The ideal is a marriage between two virgins and there are many reasons why. Pair-bonding is one of the main reasons. The less partners either a man or woman has the easier it’ll be for them to pair-bond. It’s far easier when both sides have no previous partners. Also, less baggage and trust issues as you’ve mentioned, but I think that ultimately ties into pair-bonding.
LikeLike
The rules were made by God for all. The commandment says though shalt not commit adultery. It does not say, women should not commit adultery. It says thou, meaning all, men as well as women. As I’ve said before, men can walk away and deny it is theirs. I used to work in an HIV clinic. Our counsellor used to come out of the counselling sometimes wanting to hit someone. A man would come in for testing, and tell her that he had so many partners as well as his wife or that he went with prostitutes. She would then have to counsel both and the man would sit there in front of his wife saying that he had never been unfaithful and his wife must have been ‘playing about with men.’ Because of the rules of counselling she couldn’t call him a liar, but she was the one damned.
I am not saying all women are innocent, but men are just as responsible.
You say about the children. As I’ve mentioned before you want to want to watch ‘Missing Pieces’. Re-uniting children with the parents they were taken away from. Many of these children, not all, but many, have been more damaged by being taken from their mother than if they’d been left there. In the work I do, some children are more damaged by being left with the parents when the parents have stayed together. My 8 year old and our 12 year old are two examples.
Over here they don’t have the Social payments you have in America and we have in UK, but we have just as many one parent families. It is nothing to do with jumping on a band waggon.
You seem to have had a bad experience with women, and just seem to want to lay the blame on the women all the time.
LikeLike
Please don’t pick on any people in particular, let’s just stick to the level of ideas and not attack people.
LikeLike
You are the one who started it off by trying to blame the women and it has nothing to do with the men.
LikeLike
“You are the one who started it off by trying to blame the women and it has nothing to do with the men.”
I’ve noticed that you say this on almost every article that WK writes.
LikeLike
What I meant, Pat, is that you make the same complaint over and over on most of WK’s posts. I don’t understand why you are so belligerent. Yes, there are a good amount of bad men out there. Yes, there are a good amount of bad women out there. However, you continually out words into the mouths of WK and other commenters(like Joycalyn) that simply aren’t there.
You say that some commenters believe that it’s just all women are bad and all men are perfect. Which ones?
A two-parent family with a father and a mother is most likely to be stable. It is least likely to be abusive. That is just plain fact. Your story about “Tanya” is an exception and exceptions do not make the rules.
From what I’ve read from WK, he promotes chastity for both men and women. One thing is obvious, which party gets hurt more from an out-of-wedlock birth? The woman or the man? It’s the woman. Both are at fault(for fornication) but the woman gets the brunt of the natural consequences.
WK, from what I’ve read from him, has been saying that women should be wise in choosing who they marry. Same thing goes for men. Neither group should be fornicating.
LikeLike
Like you Svar, I thought it was mostly kids of one parent families who lived on the street. When I started I was amazed and shocked that very few one parent children end up on the street, it is mostly two parent families. You say it’s easier for men in a one parent situation to abuse, it isn’t. If mum has to go out, who is she most likely to leave the kids with, her husband, their father.
Can I suggest, that although you don’t do what Len and I did, you find somewhere local where you can work with these kids. It will be a real eye opener, it was for us.
If you ever do manage to do it, if your are talking about the Lord watch how you do it. We originally came out to work with a Ukrainian pastor. We were with a group of kids and he was talking to them. A couple of boys walked past us and our translator talking and my translator started laughing. She said it wasn’t funny really, but one had said that if God was like his father we could keep him.
LikeLike
You might be right, Pat, except that your assertions are based on anecdotes whereas I am using official studies and objective evidence.
Link:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/09/marriage-america-s-greatest-weapon-against-child-poverty
Excerpt:
Again, we have two choices.
Either we can make decisions based on evidence, or we can make them based on emotions.
Either we follow the evidence, hold women accountable, and help children OR we follow our emotions, treat women as victims who cannot be counted on to make responsible decisions, and then inflict poverty, abuse and neglect on children, and then give those same fatherless children a crap economy, a crap education in failing public schools, a massive national debt, and high unemployment caused by higher taxes and more regulation of job creating and businesses.
LikeLike
My evidence is with real people, not words someones put together on a piece of paper.
LikeLike
“Like you Svar, I thought it was mostly kids of one parent families who lived on the street. When I started I was amazed and shocked that very few one parent children end up on the street, it is mostly two parent families. ”
Pat, single(over even a few) anecdote doesn’t stack up against the stats. The exceptions do not make the rules.
The stats show the general trend which may be the opposite of what you’ve observed, but it is still the general trend.
“You say it’s easier for men in a one parent situation to abuse, it isn’t. If mum has to go out, who is she most likely to leave the kids with, her husband, their father.”
Where did I say that? I said that the natural consequences of fornication are easier on men than they are on women. Men can step out, while the woman still has the baby to raise and if she aborts, she’ll be the one who’ll bear most of the guilt(considering the fact that the man is not around).
“Can I suggest, that although you don’t do what Len and I did, you find somewhere local where you can work with these kids. It will be a real eye opener, it was for us.”
Look, Pat, what you’re doing is admirable. I applaud and respect that. But I’m only 18. What I can do, is not sleep around and knock up chicks. That’s what I’ll do. It’s really that simple.
LikeLike
Svar, some of the Christian’s that go out on the street to help and talk to those living there and younger than 18. If you find a church or Christian organisation to let you help with the street kids, you’ll not go our on your own, but with someone experienced. The street kids will take more notice of you, being nearer to their age, than of someone of our age. We had to go out for months before they trusted us.
You actually said that in two parent situations you wouldn’t (or are less likely) to get the abuse.
LikeLike
“You actually said that in two parent situations you wouldn’t (or are less likely) to get the abuse.”
Exactly. I did because it’s true. Your anecdotes do not erase the general trend.
A few stories is not enough to point to what the general trend is.
LikeLike
No, it’s not more important. There’s also the fact that a man can sleep around and impregnate another woman, and his wife could have no idea what happened because his body doesn’t show the consequences. Simple fact is, there has been an ugly double-standard, and it’s not just because of pregnancy.
LikeLike
“No, it’s not more important.”
Once again, Jen, you are being emotional and not fully comprehending what Gerry is saying.
“There’s also the fact that a man can sleep around and impregnate another woman, and his wife could have no idea what happened because his body doesn’t show the consequences.”
That example you provided their doesn’t refute Gerry’s argument, it bolsters it because that’s the exact same scenario that he is referring to. Women get pregnant and men do not and this is why the natural consequences of premarital sex affects them far more that it does men. That is simple fact
“Simple fact is, there has been an ugly double-standard, and it’s not just because of pregnancy.”
No there has been not. If you were to read the essay, you would know why. Traditional Christian sexual morality dictates that both men and women should be chaste. You say that it’s not just because of pregnancy but you do not back up your assertions with either logic or evidence. Once again, you are emoting and misunderstanding.
LikeLike
I have read the essay, Svar. Don’t presume to tell me how I feel or what I read or understood. No it’s not just because of protecting women; that may be the reason some fathers react thus, but not every society; the idea is a rosy fantasy. Do you think Muslim men executed non-virginal women because they were worried about those women being hurt by sexual indiscretions, or that African men mutilated women to protect them? No; they did it to protect their pride and image as men to avoid having sullied women. That’s perfectly logical knowledge. And here’s the brunt of the matter: I don’t have a problem with men exerting that standard personally because they want to protect women from pregnancy and the emotional consequences; I have a problem with men punishing women more harshly because they want to protect THEMSELVES. Guess what: both scenarios have happened.
LikeLike
First off, we’re talking about Western men and traditional Christian sexual morality. I do not know why you felt it was necessary to bring up the Muslims(who do not adhere to traditional Christian sexual morality) or the savages of Africa(who also do not adhere to traditional Christian sexual morality). Bringing up those two examples of non-Westerners and non-Christians and trying to paint there behaviors as that of Western Christian men severely weakens both your argument and your credibility.
I can’t believe that you thought that bringing up Muslim and African men would actually bolster your argument that Western Christian patriarchy was a bad. Have Western Christian men killed women who lost their virginity? No. The standard practice at the time would have been to force the man deflowered her to marry her(this, btw, is backed by the Bible. Deuteronomy). No one dies. Have Western Christian men ever mutilated the genitals of women? No.
“And here’s the brunt of the matter: I don’t have a problem with men exerting that standard personally because they want to protect women from pregnancy and the emotional consequences; I have a problem with men punishing women more harshly because they want to protect THEMSELVES. Guess what: both scenarios have happened.”
Guess what? You argument fell flat the moment you brought up Muslim and African men. Gerry T. Neal’s essay was about the sexual morality of the Christian West. That is what he was defending. He wasn’t defending Muslims and he wasn’t defending Africans. You’re basic argument is that because some patriarchies(Africa is actually a pretty good example of the end-game of feminism) are failures and harmful to women all of them are.You haven’t proven this to be true about Western Christian patriarchy. Try again.
LikeLike
I never once said that Western men act like Africans and Muslims, Svar; you’re not comprehending me. I clearly said that the extra sexual pressure was NOT done for women’s protection in every society, meaning I wasn’t just referring to Western ones. Sending pregnant girls away from home to have their babies away from their family, like they did even in the 1950’s, was also not for their protection, it was ro protect the image of their families. My “argument” is simply that the extra pressure on women has not always been for their benefit or out of benevolent concern. It’s that simple, and that true. And the real fact of the matter is simply this: even though I understand WHY the extra pressure has occured doesn’t mean that I excuse it as RIGHT. Especially not when it results in extra shaming or punishment by her own family.
“The standard practice at the time would have been to force the man deflowered her to marry her(this, btw, is backed by the Bible. Deuteronomy). No one dies.”
Unless she was raped and didn’t scream loudly enough.
LikeLike
I’m not comprehending you fully? What you basically did was throw out a red herring that had nothing to do with the topic at hand. We’re not talking about “all” societies, we never were. The essay was talking about the Christian West. Your example about Muslim and African men was completely irrelevant to the discussion because, once again, we were not talking about all societies, we’re talking about the WEST. Once again, you’re undermining your argument and your credibility.
“Sending pregnant girls away from home to have their babies away from their family, like they did even in the 1950′s, was also not for their protection, it was ro protect the image of their families. ”
Do you have any proof for this happening? Any links? Any evidence to back up this claim?
“Unless she was raped and didn’t scream loudly enough.”
You’re getting desperate know, aren’t you? Since you can’t come up with a decent argument, you decide to bring up rape when the situation I was talking about was a situation where the situation was more akin to a “pump-n-dump”.
You’re going to have to try better. Throwing out red herrings and ad hominems(you haven’t tried the latter… yet) is not going to work here.
LikeLike
How old are you Svar. What Jennifer says is true. I was around at the time she’s talking about. We would sometimes get girls being sent to an ‘aunt’ for a holiday. Very fat when they went, nice and slim when they came back. My parents were the type who talked to us, unlike a lot of their generation and we were told why the girls had gone away. You seem to be the type of person, if it’s not written in black and white, it didn’t happen.
LikeLike
I’ve seen both films and books reference sending girls away to have their babies and then give them up; I’m surprised you’ve never heard of this practice. The film I saw was based on a true story, of a woman who reunited with the son she had to give up. It is you who are emoting now, Svar, accusing me of being desperate when my examples of religious men in the Jewish faith, who you claimed honored women Biblically, had extremely harsh punishments for women who couldn’t be married to fix the damage. The proof is in the same book of the Bible you quoted. If a woman was betrothed and then raped, yet didn’t scream loudly or at all, she wasn’t pumped and married, or pumped and dumped; more like pumped and killed.
“Listen to conversations when men are together and when they talk of other men. Men sleep around it’s ‘Whoop, whoop, good on ya.’ Women sleep around they’re a slut.”
Why would this have to do with her defense of me? It doesn’t; you demanded that it should. You’re becoming clearly angry and less steady in your analysis and demands. Pat’s point is that in the west, men have shamelessly applied this standard in a very ugly way, out of no concern whatsoever.
LikeLike
Not all men in the west, as I’ve made clear, but certainly some.
LikeLike
i don’t think Jennifer is. You say she doesn’t back her emoting with assertations. Listen to conversations when men are together and when they talk of other men. Men sleep around it’s ‘Whoop, whoop, good on ya.’ Women sleep around they’re a slut.
As I’ve said before, this isn’t a world where 100% of people have Christian values. Jennifer and I are talking world values, the majority of people.
LikeLike
Pat, pay very close attention. There are good men and there are bad men. What we are saying is not that bad men are actually good men. What we are saying is that women must be encouraged NOT TO CHOOSE BAD MEN and that they are RESPONSIBLE NOT TO CHOOSE BAD MEN. That’s all we are saying. Women ought to believe that it is their responsibility to study and inform themselves SO THAT they understand the harm they can cause by choosing the wrong men and then expecting them to turn into model husbands and fathers overnight. That doesn’t work. And since it doesn’t work, women should instead do what does work:
1) prepare themselves to know what children need from men and women in order to be healthy, successful and happy
2) evaluate and select men who can commit over the long-term to protect, provide and lead children
3) vote for laws and policies that promote marriage and make it easier for men to choose to marry – e.g. – opposing no fault divorce and single mother welfare, and promoting lower taxes, smaller government, and less regulation of job creators
It’s very important to understand that feminist man-blaming is anti-child. The end result of your man-blaming and single motherhood subsidizing is more child poverty and more child abuse and more domestic violence. Those are the facts. Maybe in order to help children, we need to tell women NO.
LikeLike
As I keep saying, the world is not a Christian world as much as we would like it to be. Perhaps you’d like to go door to door telling youngsters how they should choose a spouse. You can only tell people you have contact with,
LikeLike
Thank you Pat. I agree about the unfairness of such ugly double standards, which when used by the type of men you described are very far from Christian concern, but I hope you also appreciate Wintry Knight’s post and how it is important for women to take responsibility.
LikeLike
It is Jennifer, but only if they have the choice or have been taught Christian standards. As I keep saying, he is talking ideal, not the norm. The majority of people don’t get the chance. I had a friend of my daughter come over to our house. My daughter kept saying to her ‘Ask my mum.’ I eventually asked her ‘Ask me what?’ Turned out she was being pressed in school my some kids and certain things were being said. I told her she should ask her mum (they were a Christian family). Her answer was ‘I did and she screamed at me that as a Christian I shouldn’t even be thinking of things like that.’ If Christian parents take this attitude and won’t talk about things such as sexuality etc, how are the kids to learn. This was in England, by the way, not Ukraine.
Over here we have our foster kids bring their friends in to talk to us as they can’t ask anything like this. I also know a few kids who had a strap taken to their backs when they asked.
Yes, our youngsters should be told a lot about sex, marriage, love etc, but how when even a lot of the time Christian parents won’t talk about it.
LikeLike
“i don’t think Jennifer is.”
You wouldn’t.
“. You say she doesn’t back her emoting with assertations. Listen to conversations when men are together and when they talk of other men. Men sleep around it’s ‘Whoop, whoop, good on ya.’ Women sleep around they’re a slut. ”
Is that supposed to be an argument? That tired old saw that you keep playing is completely irrelevant. I mean is there any logical connect between these two statements?:
1. ” You say she doesn’t back her emoting with assertations.”
Yes, yes I do.
2. “Listen to conversations when men are together and when they talk of other men. Men sleep around it’s ‘Whoop, whoop, good on ya.’ Women sleep around they’re a slut.”
Okay….
What exactly does 1 have to with 2? Nothing. You don’t have an argument. Just because you think you do doesn’t mean you actually do.
“As I’ve said before, this isn’t a world where 100% of people have Christian values. Jennifer and I are talking world values, the majority of people.”
“World values”? What, say might those be, Pat? Once again, there are no such thing as “world values”. Second off, if there were, they would be completely irrelevant because we are talking about the West. Not some Turd World crud hole, but the (previously)Christian West.
Yes, this world is not full of people that have 100% Christian values. But, we’re not talking about the entire world and neither is the essay by Gerry T. Neal. There was a time in the West when it was Christian or atleast fairly Christian. That is what the essay is talking about and that is what I’m talking about.
LikeLike
So sorry Svar, I didn’t realise we only had to worry about America.
LikeLike
In one of your above comments you say, “The rules were made by God for all.” Yet now you say we can’t expect non-Christians to abide by God’s rules.
God’s structure for family formation works because He made us. It works for Christians and for non-Christians. There is empirical evidence that children suffer terribly in homes without fathers. This isn’t a Christian issue – it’s a stable society issue.
Almost all abuse that occurs in 2-parent families is in blended families and is committed by the stepparent or boyfriend/girlfriend. Look it up.
Every example you’ve presented has strengthened WK’s position – that girls need to marry, procreate with, and stay married to a man who is stable, a good provider, and committed to family formation. Otherwise, their lives will look like what you’re describing. It’s actually quite possible to experience unrelenting pressure from a man to have sex and to say no, even if that man is breathtakingly sexy. But girls won’t start saying no unless there are dire consequences for saying yes. There will always be seducers, both male and female. They must be socially marginalized – there is no other way if we want children to have decent childhoods.
LikeLike
Thanks so much for being clear on these issues, Joycalyn. I hope nothing that I am saying is too mean, but sometimes I do get a little flustered.
LikeLike
joycalyn how do you expect the non-christians of the world to obey God’s rules when they don’t even know them.
As for the abuse being by a step-father, no, Tanya’s dad was her bio dad, most of the kids on the street had the abuse from bio dad.
Over here mostly men won’t marry a woman who already has a child because if Soviet times they were taught ‘You can’t love a child who isn’t your own flesh and blood.’
Most of my evidence is from the kids themselves, not from bits of paper.
LikeLike
@ Joycalyn
Exactly. I don’t understand why Pat doesn’t understand that WK is promoting the measures that’ll prevent the vast majority of the miserable situations that she’s describing.
Also, I also noticed the disconnect between her “God’s laws are made for all” and then her talk about “world values” and how non-Christians are not bound by Natural Law. If you can’t stay logically consistent, how do you expect men to actually your arguments seriously? You’re the only woman on this thread who has stayed logically consistent and hasn’t thrown out ad hominems, red herrings, or put words in the mouths of other commenters.
@ WK
Thomas Aquinas: “All that is true, by whomsoever it has been said has its origin in the Spirit.”
I understand your frustration. If anything, I’m probably the one who has come across as “mean”. There is nothing will telling the truth as inconvenient or hurtful it may be for others to hear.
LikeLike
Pat, we were talking about only the West(which isn’t jst America). Therefore, bring up the Islamic world or some civilizational backwater like Africa is irrelevant.
Once again, the West. Learn to focus.
LikeLike
“Over here mostly men won’t marry a woman who already has a child because if Soviet times they were taught ‘You can’t love a child who isn’t your own flesh and blood.’”
No intelligent man wold choose to cuckold himself. It’s not the Soviets who taught men this; this is nature.
“Most of my evidence is from the kids themselves, not from bits of paper.”
LOL. How am I supposed to know what you say is true? To me, all of these stories seem like tales. That’s where the stats come in.
Reality is not subjective. There is a general trend and exceptions do not make the rules.
LikeLike
Thank you Svar, I love being called a liar. As I say, go out for yourself to see street children, and stop making excuses about your age.
LikeLike
Pat he isn’t disputing your experiences, he is saying that we have to be concerned about what the research says about the general trend.
Also, please no more comments on that whole “bastard” thing. People are offended.
LikeLike
What is the matter with people on this site. It has to be how everyone thinks or you get offended. don’t worry, I won’t bother any more, you nearly all seem to be the type who don’t like anyone disagreeing with you. I have also been told that you (in the pleuran) are only talking America. The rest of trhe world can go run.
LikeLike
“Thank you Svar, I love being called a liar.”
Anytime, sweetheart ;)
“As I say, go out for yourself to see street children, and stop making excuses about your age.”
I went outside. I saw some children on the street. They were my neighbor’s little brothers. Am I good now?
LikeLike
I said the West. The West includes more than America.
LikeLike
I DO understand, however, how some men might react more harshly if their daughters made a sexual mistake because they’re afraid for them.
LikeLike
Knight, you seem like a kind and decent man. While I’m lividly against women deliberately having children without fathers, I would never guilt a woman who, for ex, made the mistake of getting pregnant but chose to raise her own kid if the dad showed no interest.
LikeLike
WK: You haven’t said one mean thing. Just because a woman calls you mean doesn’t make you mean. We women are emotional creatures and we tend to be deeply empathic. What that means is when we hear you say women shouldn’t have babies without being married to a good man we think of our friend, who is a good woman struggling to raise children on her own. It’s hard for women to think abstractly and globally because we are fundamentally relational. This relationality is needed for successful family formation, but it’s irrational when we refuse to see the destruction all around us because we know somebody who is really suffering from relational breakdown.
It is standard issue for females (I’m the mother of 3 daughters – I have a bit of experience) to think anybody who opposes them is being mean. Females also think being specific about actions having consequences (as in, saying girls having babies with bad boys is causing societal chaos) is being mean.
Don’t be fooled by it. It isn’t mean to tell the truth – it’s honorable, and a masculine strength. The people who tell you otherwise want you to be a sissy man and care more for people’s feelings than you do for their souls.
LikeLike
It’s not even disregarding their feelings, it’s wanting to keep them from getting hurt in every way. You’re a strong and gentle guy, Knight, and that’s a rarity.
LikeLike
A interesting comment was made “joycalyn how do you expect the non-christians of the world to obey God’s rules when they don’t even know them”
One can leave God / Bible out of the discussion.
Allow me to point out the obvious – sexual intercourse has consequences. What are they ? There are plenty of social and scientific studies that show the outcomes.
Out of wedlock intercourse has consequences of the worst outcomes with the bulk of the damage falling on the children (what did you expect ?). To think otherwise is against the evidence and delusional.
How does one ensure a better outcome ? Give it your best shot and plan and prepare for marriage ( chaste and standards).
To want both (unchaste fun) and good marriage w/children with a “good outcome” is unrealistic. Yes, there are “exceptions” but exceptional people are few and far apart and statistically insignificant (1%) and understand consequences and won’t get caught up.
LikeLike
Svar said that my ‘stories, could be just tales. That is saying that I made them up and they aren’t true.
Svar, as I’ve said get out and work with street children. I am sure there must be a church or Christian organisation in your area somewhere working with disadvantaged children.
You also say that men in all countries don’t want to take on other men’s children. Look around you, there are plenty of men who have, good Christian men, including pastors. The saying about not loving someone who isn’t your own flesh and blood is from the Soviet times, I keep getting people tell me this when they can’t understand that Len and I love the kids we take in. They think we’re doing it for the moey.
LikeLike