I guess this means proms are unholy

May 12, 2005 5:33 PM

What's wrong with dating? everything. And those two hellbound teens look so happy, too.
posted by longsleeves (114 comments total)

LOL. At first I thought you meant carbon dating.

Christians have an excuse for everything. They get more divorces than anybody else? Why... it... it's the fault of the Modern System of dating. No. Wait. It's them homoseshuls. Er... no, it's those slutty feminazis... oh, Darn it... it's everybody's fault but their own.
posted by tkchrist at 5:38 PM on May 12, 2005

Geez, have I been going about this all wrong.

Thanks, Jesus!
posted by dflemingdotorg at 5:38 PM on May 12, 2005

This is too easy a target, but the section entitled Daddy's Girl: Courtship and a Father's Rights is also pretty cringeworthy.
posted by Pattie at 5:39 PM on May 12, 2005

"Dating arose out of the eighteenth century philosophical movement we now call 'Romanticism' which emphasized, among other things, passion rather than logic ..."

This explains everything.
posted by joe lisboa at 5:42 PM on May 12, 2005

But I guess hoping that Jesus or Christians in general won't get lumped in with the writers of this web site is too much to ask. Christians certainly don't speak with a united voice about gays or feminism--my mom has plenty of gay friends she knows from church.
posted by Pattie at 5:43 PM on May 12, 2005

Pattie writes " This is too easy a target, but the section entitled Daddy's Girl: Courtship and a Father's Rights is also pretty cringeworthy."

Indeed, the writer seems a little too upbeat about being the property (literally) of the men in her life.
posted by clevershark at 5:43 PM on May 12, 2005

OT: Awesome site, simply awesome. And helpful, too Here's what the Lord has to say about coming to terms with the onset of male pattern baldness:

Make thee bald, and poll thee for thy delicate children; enlarge thy baldness as the eagle; for they are gone into captivity from thee.

Micah 1:16

posted by psmealey at 5:45 PM on May 12, 2005

oops, preview used to be my friend.
posted by psmealey at 5:46 PM on May 12, 2005

Pattie, "cringeworthy" is right - she admits as much:

"This might sound harsh. 'Ownership' makes some cringe. Okay, okay. So call it "authoritative stewardship."

Insert your own joke about slavery here: _____ .
posted by joe lisboa at 5:48 PM on May 12, 2005

Jesus loves me, but clearly, he hates my endorphins.
posted by sellout at 5:48 PM on May 12, 2005

I don't actually disagree with the premise that dating doesn't train you for marriage. I just don't see that as a problem.
posted by cali at 5:51 PM on May 12, 2005

Dating can cause discontentment with God's gift of singleness.

Worst. Present. Ever.

Note to other deities: AskMe is a great resource for gift ideas. Cash is always good.
posted by DaShiv at 5:52 PM on May 12, 2005

Christians certainly don't speak with a united voice about gays or feminism--my mom has plenty of gay friends she knows from church.

Why if we got rid of the gays who's going to sing in the church choir? Won't somebody think of the children......?
posted by jonp72 at 5:53 PM on May 12, 2005

Whenever the other person starts to wear a little thin, you just slip out the back, Jack.

This is a highly suggestive sentence.
posted by interrobang at 5:54 PM on May 12, 2005

"Dating arose out of the eighteenth century philosophical movement we now call 'Romanticism' which emphasized, among other things, passion rather than logic ..."

Fundamentalists championing intellect over emotion? Somebody please gently scrape my brains off the wall. Thanks.

I'd love to see these people reconcile their rejection of romanticism, with the bible containing the Song Of Songs, one of the most famous love poems of all time.
posted by jonmc at 5:55 PM on May 12, 2005

interrobang, it wasn't 'slip in the back, Jack.' I chortled over the same phrase though; fundies trying to be hip always make me laugh.
posted by BrotherCaine at 6:06 PM on May 12, 2005

Ah, for the days when we executed women who partook of premarital sex. Good times.
posted by LittleMissCranky at 6:06 PM on May 12, 2005

This is like shooting fish in a barrel, of course, but following psmealey's link makes it clear how bad these guys are. They quote this in the capital punishment forum:

They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

John 8:4-5

Of course, they leave out Jesus's famous answer: He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
posted by Pattie at 6:09 PM on May 12, 2005

"Dating doesn't prepare children to face 'life's realities'"

Erm, it doesn't? Starting to go out is not comparable with starting a job, and breaking up is not comparable with losing a job? But that's probably a bad analogy (I suck at those.)

"Dating devalues sex and marriage."

I like how they say "sex" before "marriage."
posted by daninnj at 6:12 PM on May 12, 2005

I need a bucket
posted by cassbrown1 at 6:16 PM on May 12, 2005

You're all blasphemers and face painters.

Of course, they leave out Jesus's famous answer: He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

Not to mention Mary F. Magdalene. Fish in barrel indeed.
posted by mrgrimm at 6:17 PM on May 12, 2005

The father, who should be protecting his daughter's sexual purity, instead sends her off into the dark with some 17 year old boy whose veins are chock full of testosterone.

That's right: not blood but the body's own demon rum, TESTOSTERONE!
posted by scody at 6:22 PM on May 12, 2005

Man, I've heard these "christians" are cannibals too! They eat the body of their savior! And drink his blood!!!
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 6:22 PM on May 12, 2005

The father, who should be protecting his daughter's sexual purity, instead sends her off into the dark with some 17 year old boy whose veins are chock full of testosterone.

That's right: not blood but the body's own demon rum, TESTOSTERONE!

And if that father's own veins weren't full of testosterone at some point, he probably wouldn't have a daughter in the first place.
posted by jonmc at 6:26 PM on May 12, 2005

I agree with them. Dating is a bad idea. Dating is so old-fashioned. I prefer a good, hard shag.

By the way,"The Body's Own Demon Rum" is the name of my band's new album.
posted by Decani at 6:30 PM on May 12, 2005

The modern dating system does not train young people to form a relationship. It trains them to form a series of relationships, and further trains them to harden themselves to the break-up of all but the current one.

Dating, get it right the first time... or you're going to hell!
posted by TheSpook at 6:31 PM on May 12, 2005

You're all blasphemers and face painters.

What about people who openly profess atheism and wear paper bags on their heads?
posted by davy at 6:34 PM on May 12, 2005

Condoms cause cancer!
posted by furiousxgeorge at 6:34 PM on May 12, 2005

Dating develops a self-centered, feeling-oriented concept of love.

Oh, how horrible! Those evil, evil endorphins!

Dating creates an artificial environment for evaluating another person's character.

What isn't an artificial environment for evaluating other people?
posted by somethingotherthan at 6:34 PM on May 12, 2005

And, of course, there's this gem:

On the one hand, we save sex for our partners (and some even do that sparingly), but on the other, we engage in rampant emotional promiscuity, giving pieces of our hearts away until one wonders what will be left for that special, life-long partner.

Who knew there was something even more evil than sex before marriage?
posted by somethingotherthan at 6:37 PM on May 12, 2005

I can't help but think that the author has a point. The longest lasting and least problematic relationships in my family have been the arranged marriages, not the ones where the couples met and fell in love.
I'm not saying that dating is bad, but the western idea that it's the only way is a bit of a fallacy.
posted by BuddhaInABucket at 6:42 PM on May 12, 2005

BuddhaInABucket: Dating is no picnic to be sure. In fact, the whole mating/sexuality scorpion dance may be the most nerve-wracking emotional minefield ever created. I don't think any sane person would deny that. But the reasons this bunch gives are specious and nutty at best.

And in an aside to any Christians reading, I realize that these people do not represent most of you. So please don't take offense.
posted by jonmc at 6:47 PM on May 12, 2005

You're all blasphemers and face painters.

Like this chick?
posted by jonmc at 6:51 PM on May 12, 2005

The thing that's really strange about sites like this, as well as books like this (And the Bride Wore White, Passion and Purity, I Kissed Dating Goodbye, and the list goes on and on..) is that they are often written by someone who feels they have "messed up" in the past, but now think they have a good enough grasp on what makes a successful relationship to tell other people what to do. And I always feel like it's the messing up that got them where they are today, so how can they tell someone else not to do the same? Not to mention that they got to have their fun, so why can't I have mine?
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 6:54 PM on May 12, 2005 [1 favorite]

Military participation and the Christian

Irony!
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 6:58 PM on May 12, 2005

One of the more frequent causes of such mollycoddling occurs when a mother is bringing up her son without adequate direction from the son's father. Good intentions do not prevent this problem from happening. If he falls out of the tree, he might break his leg. But if he, banned from trees, must spend all his time reading edifying literature, he will be a pantywaist. And it would have been better for his future marital happiness if he had broken his leg in two places.

I agree. A man who has had both his legs broken is better prepared for the hellish nightmare that is marriage.
posted by Joey Michaels at 7:03 PM on May 12, 2005

The longest lasting and least problematic relationships in my family have been the arranged marriages

Could it be that the longest-lasting marriages aren't necessarily the best, and that perhaps the arranged marriages involve no real love at all, and thus are easy to tolerate, due to their mundane-ness?
posted by odinsdream at 7:18 PM on May 12, 2005

So what alternatives are there to dating? How does one choose a wife? A husband?

Dear lord, from what I can tell, the father is supposed to pick the husband, without that man dating his daughter. How exactly is the father supposed to pick? How does one tell how a man will treat his daughter, without seeing them together? Why wouldn't you just teach your daughter to evaluate potential suitors according to the same criterion you yourself would use?
posted by 23skidoo at 7:22 PM on May 12, 2005

and thus are easy to tolerate, due to their mundane-ness?

I'm not advocating arranged marraiges, odinsdream, but any successful coupling is going to have to involve a lot of tolerance for mundanity, since that's just life man. Hollywood and countless love songs have convinced people that all happy couples do is screw eachother silly while gazing deeply into eachother's eyes. This is not reality, either.
posted by jonmc at 7:22 PM on May 12, 2005

Why wouldn't you just teach your daughter to evaluate potential suitors according to the same criterion you yourself would use?

And allow women to be independent thinkers? Perish the thought!

On the Daddy's Girl page there was something about how the will of your father is the will of God. Talk about slippery slope!
posted by somethingotherthan at 7:29 PM on May 12, 2005

"This is too easy a target"

I happen to enjoy easy targets.

It's true that the horrible goings-on in Texas cement towns are to be taken more seriously.
posted by longsleeves at 7:31 PM on May 12, 2005

Barlowgirl has a passion to write songs about the journey that God has taken them on in their lives. Our main topics include trusting God, purity, and our stand on not dating.

it's a movement.
posted by quonsar at 7:41 PM on May 12, 2005

When there's a diamond, he gets the smooch :) says Lauren Barlow.

That's my favorite quote of all.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:49 PM on May 12, 2005 [1 favorite]

That "daddy's girl" stuff literally nauseated me. The dating stuff, fine, I can understand people feeling it's too complicated, that in a certain way we become habituated to the idea of 'serial monogamy' and lose a real expectation of 'forever', yadda yadda. i dunno if that's a bad thing, and I'm all for trying things out, but on the other hand, it's possible that in reality you can have a pretty good sense of how likely something is to last pretty early on (on some level, there's an instinctive response which is pretty accurate, and it can be in the overthinking that we confuse ourselves) so that if you wanted to keep things simple you could just basically have friendship level relationships until you met The One.

But the 'daddy' line of thinking was just sickening. That a person would so willingly deny her own autonomy is just baffling to me...

bizarrely, googling her name shows that the author of that has an MBA and works for morgan stanley. I'm not sure what to make of that.
posted by mdn at 7:55 PM on May 12, 2005

bizarrely, googling her name shows that the author of that has an MBA and works for morgan stanley. I'm not sure what to make of that.

Sugar mommy.
posted by DaShiv at 8:10 PM on May 12, 2005

DaShiv,

yeah, but would you want to marry that?

not like she's gonna let you slip in the back, Jack..
posted by slapshot57 at 8:12 PM on May 12, 2005

"This is like shooting fish in a barrel, of course"

There are so many barrels, though.
posted by longsleeves at 8:14 PM on May 12, 2005

Just to make sure, this is the fundamentalist conservative side of Christianity that is making this stupid statement. There are plenty of folks, that just happen to follow Christ, that would think this is fucking retarded.

I swear I'm getting that bumper sticker that says "God save me from your people" (that and the other two I saw the other day "I was born okay the first time" and "Jesus is coming...and we'll gettem again")
posted by Hands of Manos at 8:17 PM on May 12, 2005

odinsdream- the implication of "long lasting" was "didn't divorce because they like each other"
posted by BuddhaInABucket at 8:20 PM on May 12, 2005

There are plenty of folks, that just happen to follow Christ, that would think this is fucking retarded.

Word!
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:25 PM on May 12, 2005 [1 favorite]

the implication of "long lasting" was "didn't divorce because they like each other"

What culture supports arranged marriage, but then also supports the couple getting divorced when one of them wants to? Maybe they don't get divorced for the same reasons that they don't choose their own spouses.
posted by 23skidoo at 8:31 PM on May 12, 2005

Well-read pantywaists apply within. But only if you've been reading edifying literature.
posted by Soliloquy at 8:36 PM on May 12, 2005

if during the dating period one of the "sweethearts" is interested in staying together but the other has a change of heart and wants out of the relationship, the possibilities for emotional snarls and interesting complications are almost endless.

This reminds me of the billboards a local Christian radio station has all over the place here in Atlanta... they have the logo on one side, and on the other in huge letters: "SAFE FOR THE WHOLE FAMILY"

At first this cracked me up, seeing music advertised like soap ("Won't stain! Non-allergenic!"), but now it just makes me sad.

It seems to me there is a particular type of American Christian for whom God is a way to insulate themselves from pain and fear... to make a little bubble around themselves where everything is safe, painless, nice.* I guess we all have this drive to a certain extent. I wonder, are the ones who get REALLY crazy about it that way because of some past pain, or is it because they've been so successful at it, they can now imagine imagine nothing worse than to experience pain?

*(Being a gay guy who was raised a Southern Baptist, I've always been struck by similar behavior patterns between the two groups... I know gay people who try to live in a "gay-only" world where everything is safe, painless, and nice, as well.)
posted by BoringPostcards at 8:41 PM on May 12, 2005

I think young women shouldn't date, as it detracts from time that could be spent performing valuable activities in and for th community such has having sleep-overs with pillow fights in their jammies with the blinds open. And I don't think there's a red-blooded male on this site who truly disagrees.

I also think I, personally, am way too emotionally promiscuous and hereby resolve to be more emotionally prophylactic in future. If that's all right with the pope.

Speaking of which, is it the christian thing to do to ignore a man who tells you that homosexuality is a "moral evil" if he's wearing a dress?
posted by Sparx at 8:51 PM on May 12, 2005

23skidoo: Islam. Generally, when you get past all the politics, it's pretty supportive of divorce if the marriage isn't working out for any of a number of reasons.
posted by BuddhaInABucket at 8:57 PM on May 12, 2005

Whenever the other person starts to wear a little thin, you just slip out the back, Jack.

Man, if only they'd continued that: "When she says she's not going to have sex until after marriage, you make a new plan, Stan. You don't need to be coy, Roy -- just hop on the bus, Gus. Drop off the key, lee, and get yourself free."
posted by bokane at 9:00 PM on May 12, 2005

I'd love to see these people reconcile their rejection of romanticism, with the bible containing the Song Of Songs, one of the most famous love poems of all time.

This is accomplished with a lot of handwaving about symbolism and allegory and how the poem is really about a higher and chaste spiritual love for God, usually by people who are secretly ashamed that they pop a boner over bellies being compared to heaps of wheat.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:00 PM on May 12, 2005

Generally, when you get past all the politics, it's pretty supportive of divorce if the marriage isn't working out for any of a number of reasons.

I don't want to appear argumentative, but I just don't generally know much about Islam in general. What would "getting past all the politics" entail?
posted by 23skidoo at 9:02 PM on May 12, 2005

But the 'daddy' line of thinking was just sickening. That a person would so willingly deny her own autonomy is just baffling to me...

My sister went from dating an abusive (redundant?) crack dealer to becoming a born again christian and marrying a guy from her church 12 years her senior. Superficially, they sound like very different relationships, but they are sadly an echo of one another. Sure, her husband doesn't hit her (that I know of) but she is entirely subservient to him.

Only now, the bible says its okay. When she first told me how she always listened to her husband because that's what it said in the bible, my jaw dropped to my knees. How can ANY self respecting woman buy into that. (but the self respecting part was, of course, what was missing) they even included in their wedding vows how she would ALWAYS defer to his judgement because god said he was the boss. I left.

Of course, the problem, as I said, was the whole self respecting part. Our father was abusive, I was a cunt, she was a slut, and while I'm sure we weren't the most abused persons even on our block, none helped with our self esteem. I grew up hating abusive men, she grew up dating them.

And now she's a BAC who's been barefoot and pregnant since getting married.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 9:05 PM on May 12, 2005

BuddhaInABucket writes " I can't help but think that the author has a point. The longest lasting and least problematic relationships in my family have been the arranged marriages, not the ones where the couples met and fell in love.
"I'm not saying that dating is bad, but the western idea that it's the only way is a bit of a fallacy."

It's an interesting thought, but would be more enlightening if the only difference between western and eastern (?) cultures were was the dating/arranged marriage difference. There are so many other fundamental differences that it's impossible to pin the divorce rate to just one thing. Of course, then there's the question of whether having a high divorce rate is even a bad thing. But, some other factors that may come into play would be the western focus on the individual, the myth of the American Dream (all happiness, all the time), the idea of fighting for your rights rather than working together towards a compromise, etc.

This FPP could have been better if it had linked to other related articles.
posted by heatherann at 9:08 PM on May 12, 2005

*sigh* doctrinaire christianity holds that right after Grandma dies she's dancing the Electric Slide in Heaven with whomever she wants to spend eternity with,
minus whomever in the family didn't transgress without apologizing. Or something like that. BTW I am a baptized, confirmed catholic so depending on who you listen to I'm doomed to endless burning shrieking pain or guaranteed a home in My Father's House. I abstain
posted by longsleeves at 9:11 PM on May 12, 2005

hahahhah, my grandmother confided in my uncle before she passed that she would be spending eternity being a playa up in Heaven, because her marriage vow clearly stated "till DEATH us do part." God love her. *pours some of his 40 out*
posted by 23skidoo at 9:18 PM on May 12, 2005

I remember reading that Jessica Simpson's father gave her one of those "True Love Waits" rings when she was around 12 and called it a promise ring.

Creepy.
posted by SisterHavana at 9:19 PM on May 12, 2005

23skidoo- I mean what generally passes for islam in the middle east. Like every other religion, there are many schools of islamic law and all have evolved (or devolved) over time. Some allow a woman to draft her own marriage contract, some don't. If a woman does draft her contract, she gets to state the terms under which she can get a divorce- and she can even state "anytime I want." This goes all the way back to the origins of islam. Muhammad's first wife is presumed to have a contract with him stating that he would not take on any wives or concubines while she was alive.
So, does that answer your question? The culture that allows arranged marriages and divorce is islam.
I know I've seen a bollywood film (forget which one) where this same sentiment is echoed: you marry first, love later. I guess this presupposes two well-matched people, which perhaps was the situation for all such couples in my family.
on preview: your grandma sounds like one cool cat
posted by BuddhaInABucket at 9:23 PM on May 12, 2005

Those Barlow girls wear more makeup than I do. I'm just saying.

We believe that God has one perfect man already chosen for us; therefore we have no need to worry ourselves in searching for him. When the time is right we know God will bring us together. In the meantime we are not hiding in a closet avoiding all males

I dunno, that sounds kinda hawt. If confining, the way closets tend to be.

And I honestly can't think of anything else to say about the "Daddy's girl" site that wouldn't involve projectile vomiting.
posted by jokeefe at 9:28 PM on May 12, 2005

One day the brakes won't be applied in time, and over the cliff they will go.

Well, aren't we a bunch of fucking drama queens!
posted by c13 at 9:32 PM on May 12, 2005

While I totally disagree with the viewpoint of the people who wrote that page, I have to hand it to them for putting together fair argument. There's little incendary reactionism on that page, itself, and more than a few neutrally-pointed-out truths, like "At the very least, this system is as much a preparation for divorce as it is for marriage."

No shit.

I also can't bring myself to people who say things like:

"the fact is that dating was entirely unknown at the time the Scriptures were given to us. This means that for those who take the Bible seriously should consider what the Bible has to say on the formation of families."

Fine. Do what you like.
posted by scarabic at 10:11 PM on May 12, 2005

can't bring myself to have a problem with people
posted by scarabic at 10:11 PM on May 12, 2005

joshharris.com talks about stuff along those lines too. he makes a distinction between dating and courting, actually. stuff like "the fact is that dating was entirely unknown at the time the Scriptures were given to us. This means that for those who take the Bible seriously should consider what the Bible has to say on the formation of families." is just not a very good way of putting it; rather it's the Bible's concept of looking at a relationship between a couple that will lead to marriage that's the issue. something like that.
posted by aielen at 10:22 PM on May 12, 2005

What goes completely ignored in this article is the joy and reward of finding your wife/husband after slogging through the dating scene.

By the way, what are we doing reading literature by people who seem to imply that they still support stoning?
posted by Jon-o at 10:27 PM on May 12, 2005

But do daughters, per se, belong to their Daddies?


The answer to this question will bring us the answer to the propriety of courtship as a model for a daughter's pre-marriage relationship with a prospective suitor. For the crux of the courtship question is not empirical, but principal. I define courtship as the discovery of a life-partner for a daughter under the direct oversight of the father. Any man seeking to beg, borrow or steal a daughter's hand without her father's endorsement is seeking to gain, in unlawful ways, "property" not his own. Daughters are Daddy's girls in the objective sense, and this particular daughter rejoices in that truth. I am owned by my father.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 10:28 PM on May 12, 2005

I am owned by my father.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 10:29 PM on May 12, 2005

So I really am "Daddy's girl." And no man can approach me as an independent agent because I am not my own, but belong, until my marriage, to my father. At the time of my marriage, my father gives me away to my husband and there is a lawful change of ownership. At that point and at that point only, I am no longer bound to do my father's will. Instead, I must answer to my husband.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 10:35 PM on May 12, 2005

Hey, I like my women like I like my coffee... subservient...
posted by Jon-o at 10:40 PM on May 12, 2005

jonmc: I'd love to see these people reconcile their rejection of romanticism, with the bible containing the Song Of Songs, one of the most famous love poems of all time.

PinkStainlessTail: This is accomplished with a lot of handwaving about symbolism and allegory and how the poem is really about a higher and chaste spiritual love for God

heh...and at the same time, the mystical poetry of the Sufi master Jalal-ud-din Rumi is sold to the west in exactly the opposite translation: from chaste spiritual love for God into earthly passion for a partner-du-jour...
posted by UbuRoivas at 12:04 AM on May 13, 2005

At the heart of V.S. Naipaul's "A House for Mr Biswas" is a story of how love develops between two people whose marriage has been arranged for them. If you'd like to know what BuddhaInABucket is getting at, you might read the book. Which is superb.
posted by TimothyMason at 12:18 AM on May 13, 2005

can't bring myself to have a problem with people

I actually thought that the first version nicely illustrated the concept you were trying to get across. In a Freudian slip kind of way.
posted by catachresoid at 12:27 AM on May 13, 2005

One of the sources listed on that website is a guy named Doug Wilson. He was a judgmental fundy youth minister when I was a teenager growing up in Moscow, Idaho. I vaguely recall him walking out of some other church amid accusations and acrimony to lead his own church, Christ Church (which he's heavily promoted nationwide, resulting in a bunch of fundies relocating to Moscow). He's managed to alienate a lot of folks in town, and was eventually censured for plagiarism by a group of University of Idaho professors over a booklet he self-published with co-author and League of the South co-founder Steve Wilkins arguing that Slavery was biblically justified and that slaves basically had it pretty great.

William Ramsey, a history professor at the University of Idaho, summarizes the issue for History News Network.

It would be nice if Doug Wilson's hateful ideas were just limited to the misguided local church that he has built up, but (from Dr. Ramsey): "He had founded a k-12 school called 'Logos' that taught history from a 'Biblical Worldview' and an unaccredited college called 'New Saint Andrews,' where he had installed himself as 'Senior Fellow of Theology.' Other faculty members at the college included Wilson’s son Nate, his brother Gordon, and son-in-law Ben. Wilson, it turned out, had cultivated an empire of 'classical' schools based on a biblical worldview that included over 165 private academies around the country, all of which purchased educational materials published by his personal 'Canon Press' in Moscow, Idaho, or affiliated 'Veritas Press' in Lancaster, Pennsylvania." The Southern Poverty Law Center doesn't think much of his work with neo-confederates either.

He does have his followers. Here's a little bit of the catfight from a Christian News magazine.

Sadly, there are plenty of people who can't identify this as nonsense, and are happy to have a guy like Doug Wilson tell them how to live their lives. And sadly for my old hometown, a bunch of them have migrated there.
posted by surlycat at 2:06 AM on May 13, 2005

I am owned by my father.

Please, we're on the Internet. The word is "pwned".
posted by bwerdmuller at 2:33 AM on May 13, 2005

Sugar mommy.

She specified elsewhere that "Prospective suitors with $100,000 or more on hand may contact her Daddy."

To me the anti-dating and the daddy's girl pages are pretty different. The anti-dating stuff I'm inclined to also think, eh, whatever works for you. But the 'women are never independent agents' stuff is just disgusting. And again I find it confusing that she's a working professional. I know these people rationalize which bits they follow, etc, but it seems obvious that even 50 years ago a woman banker would've been considered some kind of rebellious feminist dyke...
posted by mdn at 5:03 AM on May 13, 2005

Let me weigh in on this.

In my church, the focus is on what is called "intentional friendships." The idea is that you are friends-and only that-with lots of people, but "courtship" -or for all intents and purposes dating-is reserved for investigating whether or not you should marry someone. I know of people that followed the more legalistic version of this (such as is described in the first link) and it was a trainwreck.

To me the terminology used is not so important as the attitude.

Full disclosure: I got engaged the day before my first "date" with my present husband. (Parents not involved.)We have had our difficulties but I can honestly say we were supposed to be married. In hindsight there are things we probably should have done differently but after almost 22 years we both still really love each other. What I basically tell my young adult children is take courtship/dating seriously. Two of them subscribe to "courtship" and one doesn't. Oddly enough it is the one that doesn't that is presently engaged.
posted by konolia at 5:09 AM on May 13, 2005

The relationship thing is way overrated.
posted by HTuttle at 5:20 AM on May 13, 2005

The Bible didn't mention dating, so we shouldn't do it? Y'know... The Bible didn't mention indoor plumbing either... Which could be the reason that the Pope shits in the woods.

(I would just like to take this moment to point out to Dhoyt, if he's watching, that the same sort of "stone the adulterous women" and "you are the male's property" stuff that he said was inherent to Islam is right here, and that the only reason that it's not pushed with the stridency of shariah is because of American cultural prohibitions and our sense of pluralism...)
posted by klangklangston at 5:26 AM on May 13, 2005

bizarrely, googling her name shows that the author of that has an MBA and works for morgan stanley. I'm not sure what to make of that.

More bizarrely, she was earning her MBA at 19. Which would be impressive, maybe, but she was earning it at Pace. I sincerely doubt that she's an "analyst" at MS in the traditional sense. I'd bet she analyzes expense reports.
posted by Kwantsar at 6:06 AM on May 13, 2005

Wonder if Sarah is the subject of this photo album.

Probably. Sarah Faith, their firstborn, completed high school at 15, St. Francis College (magna cum laude) at 18, and received her CPA and MBA by 21; she was married in March of 2002 and is a happy stay-at-home-mom in the Atlanta area.
posted by Kwantsar at 6:17 AM on May 13, 2005

My aunt told me once that she thought it was insane to get married to someone without having any idea about whether or not you could even live in the same house with that person in the first place. There is a lot more to cohabitation than just sex and all. When I got engaged, my new fiancee and I moved in together. Even after four years of dating it was hard for my wife and I to adjust to living together. When we did get married, after four years of cohabitation things were easy. We had each other figured out.

It doesn't make any sense to me to commit to a lifelong monogamous relationship unless you're really goddamn sure that the person you are choosing is the right one for you. I'm glad that my family felt the same way. My mother-in-law was the one who first suggested we move in together (to save on rent). I did ask her father's permission to marry, not because I felt that I had to but because I felt it was the polite thing to do, given the way I had been welcomed by her family. I also asked my own father if it was OK with him that we move in together, because I value his opinions. I think I'm the only one of four children to have done that, and it felt good to my wife and I to know that our own families approved of our relationship. I think that's the best thing there, really. Dating isn't just a way to see if you like the other person, it's a chance for the rest of your family to figure out if this person is right for you. If you're treated badly by a potential mate, odds are your friends and family will notice if you give them a chance to do so.

If I ever have a daughter, I hope I can be as cool about it as my father-in-law. He's a Vietnam vet, ex-Marine, ex-cop, ex-prison guard, avid gun collector and hunter. He never made me feel unwelcome or uncomfortable dating his daughter. I think Step 1 in that would be to not raise daughter as a fundamentalist anything, but to each her to choose a good mate by providing an example of what a good mate might be like, specifically by treating my wife with love and respect.
posted by caution live frogs at 6:20 AM on May 13, 2005

During the lie detector test, dad asks one nervous young man, "Did you bring condoms with you this weekend?"

Reality TV almost caught up with these iluminati. The only difference is that the mom got to have some input too... (btw, NBC took down the show's original page).
posted by joaovc at 6:29 AM on May 13, 2005

it's a movement.

It's one kind of movement, anyway....
posted by the_bone at 6:31 AM on May 13, 2005

Marriage is about more than compatibility. It is also about having to learn to choose not to be selfish. What I mean by that is that it is about more than just "is this person making ME happy." A lot can be said about just deciding to make things work. When people talk about relationships taking work, I think this may be what they mean.
posted by konolia at 6:34 AM on May 13, 2005

googling her name shows that the author of that has an MBA and works for morgan stanley. I'm not sure what to make of that.

it seems obvious that even 50 years ago a woman banker would've been considered some kind of rebellious feminist dyke...

From the link: Since a daughter is, by the grace of God, always under authority--there being a transfer at marriage from a father's to a husband's--daughters are "Daddy's" uniquely.

Having worked in the still extremely male dominated world of banking, it sounds pretty par for the course that she would do well in that environment. If you're accustomed to unquestioningly taking direction from men and conforming to their preconceived notions of women's roles in the workplace, you are likely to be a great success in the big corporate banking world.

A career truly opposed to her would view would be a counselor for battered women.
posted by jennyb at 6:56 AM on May 13, 2005

we engage in rampant emotional promiscuity, giving pieces of our hearts away until one wonders what will be left for that special, life-long partner

They must really hate Janis Joplin.
[Embedded MIDI file on this trippy page.]
posted by kirkaracha at 6:59 AM on May 13, 2005

konolia writes " In my church, the focus is on what is called 'intentional friendships.' The idea is that you are friends-and only that-with lots of people, but 'courtship' -or for all intents and purposes dating-is reserved for investigating whether or not you should marry someone. I know of people that followed the more legalistic version of this (such as is described in the first link) and it was a trainwreck.

"To me the terminology used is not so important as the attitude. "

In my two years of bible college, I met lots of people following some variation of this. One couple was super-legalistic and had a lengthy contract, signed in front of witnesses, stating exactly what type of physical interaction was allowed (no kissing, hugs from the side okay, hugs from the front not allowed, etc). They were nutters, basically. Now they're married and will probably end up running a church somewhere (*shudder*). I saw a lot of engagements rushed into and broken off -- one guy broke 3 engagements in one school-year. Another friend and I were discussing it, and she said it put "gay-ass pressure" on the relationship from the start -- one of the most graphic analogies I've ever heard. :)

I don't know. I mean, there's a difference between "sport dating" and taking things seriously, and there's a difference between dating responsibly and throwing marriage into the mix right from the start. Maybe you can combine the two; I've met a lot of people where that fucked things up right proper. When you combine "am I going to marry this person?" with "does GOD want me to marry this person? be friends with him? be on this date right now?"... well, it's a lot of pressure, perhaps unneeded. Plus, a lot of them are 18 or 19, don't know themselves very well yet, but feel a big push to get married because most of their friends are getting married between 20 and 22 (in my experience of the youth group crowd, anyways), so they might start courting and not have the courage to back out, because courtship is very close to engagement... and that's hard to break off. When combined with the age-old fear of becoming a spinster, which is a very present fear for many 22 year old women in bible college.. yeah, it can make for some stupid decisions. And most of them don't believe in divorce. (Or sex education, but that's another matter.)

konolia writes "Marriage is about more than compatibility. It is also about having to learn to choose not to be selfish. What I mean by that is that it is about more than just 'is this person making ME happy.' A lot can be said about just deciding to make things work. When people talk about relationships taking work, I think this may be what they mean."

That, on the other hand, is solid. It doesn't necessitate courtship, but it's one of the key principles of it for a lot of people, so that's cool.
posted by heatherann at 7:01 AM on May 13, 2005

And this sums up my whole beef with hard-line religious adherence in general:

The very first question of the Heidelberg Catechism is this: What is your only comfort in life and in death? The answer is matchless: That I am not my own, but belong, body and soul, in life and in death, to my faithful savior Jesus Christ. Sinners find this answer repulsive. "Not my own? That's no comfort! That means I can't do what I want!"

Well now, isn't that the whole issue?

Yes indeed. Thinking is too hard.

But if her father should forbid her on the day he hears of it, none of her vows or her obligations by which she has bound herself shall stand, and the Lord will forgive her because her father had forbidden her."

It's like the common law view that women can't be responsible for their own crimes because, as stewards of their husbands, they lack the capability for independent thought. Clearly, this woman has done some dumb things in her past and has decided that the path to happiness lies in never having to make or take responsibility for her own decisions again. The banking career makes more and more sense with every line I read!
posted by jennyb at 7:06 AM on May 13, 2005

The dating thing actually had some valid points but amongst other comments they were completely debunked but any semblance of possible hope they had went out the window with this

Are you saying that you're just a piece of property? How could you think of yourself in those terms? You need some serious help with your self-esteem there! Get real! Get with it! This is the 90s!" In the preparing your daughter for courting.

That's right the 90's! Hmm .... ok I guess being 5 years or more out of date isn't a problem? After all they do use a book that is many centuries old and has been riddled with poor translations. C'est La Vie
posted by jackdirt at 7:16 AM on May 13, 2005

The article conveniently ignores the fact that the New Testament (nevermind the OT) was written in an era where it was common to get married at 12 and by 35 you're dead.

There simply wasn't time for dating.
posted by RockCorpse at 7:18 AM on May 13, 2005

Okay I am now enthralled...

From Barlowgirl.net, where they use both Bible verses AND contemporary Christian song lyrics to support their arguments for dressing modestly, mental and physical purity, and waiting on "the Lord's timing for romance":

. . . as Christians, it's important to be very careful to make sure our clothes don't cause our brothers in Christ to stumble.

Add "rape crisis counsellor" to the list of careers not likely to be undertaken by these ladies.

It's not about, "how far can I go and still technically be a virgin?" but "how close can I get to God's standard of absolute purity?"

This I can support. I've never understood the concept of screwing every way under the sun being okay as long as "God's special hole" stayed penis-free. But this is hilarious:

We may or may not actually be virgins, but all of us have made the comittment to save sex for marriage from here on out, realizing that God offers full and complete forgiveness for past mistakes if we will just ask Him (I John 1:9)!! How awesome is that?! :)

That's totally awesome! YOU SLUTS!

At the same time, I really do like the general ideas presented on this page. Yes, don't make finding a relationship the focus of your life. Be Cinderella rather than waiting on Prince Charming! It's a very empowering idea of becoming true to oneself first as the way to a healthy relationship until you get to the part about God being the one making the decisions and the whole endeavor being less about self-actualization and more about just following orders. And from my empirical experiences and the comments of heatherann, it seems like God generally wants people to get married at an alarmingly young age. It's easy to wait on God to tell you when to get hitched when you can count on getting the call like, any minute now.

(Sorry for the multiple comments. Religious wing-nuttery really fascinates me.)
posted by jennyb at 7:24 AM on May 13, 2005

Hey, I like my women like I like my coffee... subservient...

I like my women like I like my coffee, too... tied up in a sack and thrown on the back of a donkey by Juan Valdez.
posted by brand-gnu at 8:18 AM on May 13, 2005

Look at the state of most relationships. Look at all the lonely people in the world. Something is not working. I am not a religious man. I don't think I believe in god, certainly not in a christian, jewish, muslim, etc. god. Take away the references to scripture and jesus and I think the basic point of this article is spot on. (But I'm just a lonely old gay guy in NYC, so what do I know.)
posted by MotherTucker at 8:21 AM on May 13, 2005

Having worked in the still extremely male dominated world of banking, it sounds pretty par for the course that she would do well in that environment. If you're accustomed to unquestioningly taking direction from men and conforming to their preconceived notions of women's roles in the workplace, you are likely to be a great success in the big corporate banking world.

yeah, I have no doubt that everyone involved could keep her properly unemancipated and all that; it just seemed to me internally hypocritical. Learning a skill or trade, no matter how rote, seems out of line with the basic belief system. She couldn't call daddy to make work related decisions for her, etc. I dunno, like I said, I know that people reinterpret stuff so that it makes sense to them, but the fact that she could go to business school and get a job in the financial sector is thanks to feminism. It just seems kind of weird to take advantage of women's rights at the same time as blatantly denying that women ought to have any rights.
posted by mdn at 8:54 AM on May 13, 2005

Hmmmm, I don't see any paradox in her being a banker. I didn't read every link postified here, but the gist of it was "My father is the boss of me until I get married, at which point my husband will be the boss of me and the provider for me." I don't think this means that her father and (later her husband) will make every decision for her, but rather that if the father (and later her husband) disagrees with her decisions, then she is obligated to do what he says. Also, what better way to get a rich-ass husband than to set the bar at least as high as you would be able to earn on your own.
posted by 23skidoo at 9:04 AM on May 13, 2005

My own dear father is one of these fundamentalist wahoos who believes that the purpose of dating is to find the right person to marry. I have never understood this, not even during my own brief "I'm gonna love the Jesus!" phase (ages 12-15, ended when I started dating and was ostracized by my youth group) when I did True Love Waits and had one of those gold rings and everything.

I am not a TLW sucess story. I waited until the ripe old age of 15, but that's not the point. I dated a bit in high school and college, never really slept around (I have slept with fewer people than most of my friends my age despite having a good two years headstart on most of them).

This dating business was seen as highly suspect by my weirdo father. When I got involved in a long distance relationship with an Icelandic boy, he took a trip to the airport as the right time to tell me that this was not God's Plan and I should use the time I had to say goodbye and move on. Gee, thanks.

When I ended up marrying this very same guy at age 22 (not to put an end to living in sin, but rather to put an end to living on different continents), he couldn't have been happier. Suddenly, God's Plan had changed. Nevermind that God had told him (personally, God talks to my father. Apparently, he calls him on the phone.) earlier that this was not to be. My getting married was the best thing I could have done in his eyes as it showed that I was well on my way to being barefoot and pregnant and doing the Lord's work of wiping the faces of greasy children.

Now, I'm quite glad that my father decided to accept my spouse into his wacko heart, but it does make me wonder about his particular religion wherein all of a sudden it's ok that I married an atheist bastard*. Does he really think I'm making a big mistake by not being with a Christian and just doesn't want to say anything to hurt my feelings or is he truly glad that I have "settled down?" Hard to say. I'll have to wait for his next phone call from The Big Guy.

(Note : I know that not all Christians, not even all fundamentalist Christians, are like this. My father is crazy. He'd be crazy no matter what particular deity was calling him up.)

*bastard in the technical "born out of wedlock" sense.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 9:23 AM on May 13, 2005

Hmmmm, I don't see any paradox in her being a banker.

can y'all who don't see the hypocrisy here at least admit that if she had been a banker 100 years ago, she'd have been a feminist? Isn't it clear that her modern lifestyle is thanks to an active change in the roles of women in our culture, which was not endorsed by the church or bible?

I realize that people get used to new norms and just ignore the history, but it seems to me that if you're going to claim that the historical tradition is incontrovertible, then working and handling finances wouldn't be an option.

I see this all the time & just find it irritating because it seems to deny the reality of how different lives of women are now, thanks to feminism. The everyday stuff is just sort of absorbed as if "it's always been that way," but it simply hasn't. I'm just looking for consistency: if you want to say the biblical system was exactly right, then get married at 14 and don't go to school. If you pursue any sort of skill or status in society beyond being a possession of father or husband, then you are implicitly grateful to early 20th c. women who very clearly acted as and demanded to be recognized as independent agents.
posted by mdn at 10:02 AM on May 13, 2005

Yeah, but 300 years ago a female magician would have been a witch. You don't have to believe that we should live as if the past 2000 years never happened just because you want to use the Bible as a justification for not-dating.
posted by 23skidoo at 10:40 AM on May 13, 2005

If he falls out of the tree, he might break his leg. But if he, banned from trees, must spend all his time reading edifying literature, he will be a pantywaist.

As a kid, I solved that problem by reading edifying literature whilst sitting up in a tree. No, really, I did. Strange kid.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:41 AM on May 13, 2005

She specified elsewhere that "Prospective suitors with $100,000 or more on hand may contact her Daddy."

We have a name for this out here in Lost Angles:

"Golddigger."

I don't care if she works at a bank, either. She's just looking to marry a new daddy. By the standards discussed above, I agree with those above that she should still be living in her father's home, dipping the well, scrubbing the clothes and darning socks with Mother and any as-yet-unmarried sisters she might have. As well as owning nothing but what her father will provide for her.

I really can't stand women like this - and even worse, women who will trumpet left and right how independent, self-sufficient and evolved they are, yet if Richard McMansion comes along with his Benz and that $100K cash on hand, *poof* they go right off and marry "Mr. Just Like Daddy."

Hypocrites. *puke*

yeah, yeah, my luck in mate-finding has been horrible, and i have a bitter edge. i'm working on getting the $100K, just to see if that changes the way women look at me. dating sucks.
posted by zoogleplex at 5:34 PM on May 13, 2005

if Richard McMansion comes along with his Benz and that $100K cash on hand, *poof* they go right off and marry "Mr. Just Like Daddy."

If someone came along with those things, I can guarantee they're not like any of my family.
posted by dagnyscott at 8:40 PM on May 13, 2005

If he falls out of the tree, he might break his leg. But if he, banned from trees, must spend all his time reading edifying literature, he will be a pantywaist.

I pretty much spent most of my earlier years reading edifying books. And I never really climed trees. But then I ran a bike into a guard rail at 76mph and, in addition to a leg, broke six vertebrae and a few ribs. Does this mean I'm no longer a pantywaist?
posted by c13 at 10:07 PM on May 13, 2005

funny that "climbing trees" is considered the antithesis to the "pantywaist". As outdoor activities go, it's a pretty pantywaisty one, isn't it? I always loved climbing trees as a kid, but I was not a sporty athletic type (always last for the kickball team, etc). Climbing trees is solitary and contemplative, and you get to sit up high above everything, alone with nature, and just enjoy the beauty of the world, and all that. (consider the hobbies I listed on my friendster profile) I mean, I liked exploring old barns and railroad tracks and digging through creeks and stuff, too, but I hated team sports.

Yeah, but 300 years ago a female magician would have been a witch.

A female into magick (not tricks at birthday parties, but casting spells) is still a witch... and the fundies still don't like witchcraft.

You don't have to believe that we should live as if the past 2000 years never happened just because you want to use the Bible as a justification for not-dating.

a) I'm not talking about the justification for not-dating; I'm talking about the justification of a woman never being an individual agent but only belonging either to her father or to her husband;
b) if you're going to claim that (what the bible says on x) is still literally true, then it is hypocritical to quietly accept the changes that were specifically made by fighting (what the bible had to say on x).

I'm not saying you can't personally pick and choose, but if you think the bible's right about a woman's place, then what the hell are you doing living life as a modern woman?
posted by mdn at 10:03 AM on May 14, 2005

I like my women like coffee as well, I'm still deciding on the grind though.
posted by filchyboy at 2:59 PM on May 14, 2005

can y'all who don't see the hypocrisy here at least admit that if she had been a banker 100 years ago, she'd have been a feminist? Isn't it clear that her modern lifestyle is thanks to an active change in the roles of women in our culture, which was not endorsed by the church or bible?

Yes and yes. And I do see hypocrisy in her statements versus her actions. If she truly practiced as she preached, she would be home taking care of her "daddy" while waiting for the right man to ask his permission to marry her.

I just wanted to take a couple cracks at the banking industry.
posted by jennyb at 3:12 PM on May 14, 2005

There are actually some sites out there that say women should not go into the workplace at all, whether single or married, or go off to college.

I think housewifery is an ancient and honorable profession, to be respected, but the above scares the crap outta me. Life does not always go as planned, and having a job skill is pretty doggone important.
posted by konolia at 3:42 PM on May 14, 2005

filchyboy: As in "thick as mud"?
posted by five fresh fish at 3:43 PM on May 14, 2005

There are actually some sites out there that say women should not go into the workplace at all, whether single or married, or go off to college.

I heard rumors of a fellow at my first college (non-denominational evangelical college, fairly liberal as Christian schools go) who didn't think women should vote. ::shudder::
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:25 PM on May 14, 2005 [1 favorite]

I can't access the link, I get HTTP 403.6 - Forbidden: IP address rejected... I've had to use the google cache
posted by Jerub at 5:33 PM on May 16, 2005