ATASCADERO, Calif. – A retired salesman alleged a stripper and her friend beat and robbed him in his home. John Skinner, 54, said he was on his way to Bible study on Jan. 23 when exotic dancer Maureen Murphy, 25, knocked on his door and offered him a free strip-o-gram.
Murphy said a friend had already paid for the show, police said.
When Skinner agreed to let her perform, knife wielding Richard Adam, 23, allegedly forced his way inside and told Skinner he owed Murphy, owner of Bikini Assassins, and another woman money for earlier services.
Skinner said he owed Talbert money for sex one time but not for a previous time when he said she fell asleep before they could have sex.
That’s “WTF” as in, “WTF is it about these Bible thumpers and sex?”
“Bikini Assassins”? What, are these Bond girl wannabes?
“When Skinner agreed to let her perform…”
“Sorry I’m late, everyone. I was on my way here when a pre-paid stripper accosted me at my door, and you know how I hate to waste money. Now, I believe tonight’s reading is from Acts?”
It is well known, of course, that a case study of 1 is enough to make sweeping generalisations about a population numbering millions.
It is also well known that only Bible thumpers have been known to ever resort to paying for sex or viewing strip acts.
IMO the WTF is justified referring to this one guy, but to imply in one fell swoop that Christians, or even fundamentalist Christians (of I which I am not one, by the way) have any particular association with being on the consuming end of the sex industry… please.
It isn’t so much a generalization from this single case as it is simply one more example of something we’ve long known to be true based on other evidence: the obsession of these godbags with controlling the personal sex lives of other people stems from the pathological repression of their own.
Anna, you must not be following the news. It’s full of Republicans and godbags being caught for sex crimes or in sex scandals. Republican Congressman tries to strangle his mistress. Preacher gets picked up for soliciting male prostitutes and claims he was ministering to them. Lots and lots of child molestation cases involving clergy (and not all Catholic). Porn consumption is higher per person in the Bible Belt than in the rest of the country.
The list goes on.
Wow, Zuzu. If the news reports the anecdotes, then surely that means you’re viewing data every night at 10.
Do you have any evidence or indication that the referenced crimes and moral offenses happen more often in the referenced populations than in the general population?
There’s all that stuff in your basement.
I like you, Zuzu. You post the funniest threads.
I often tell people nothing turns me off more about Christianity than Christians.
Maybe all the Christians and sex thing proves is that Christians, even fundies, are people too and can’t really live without sex of one form or another either, much as they’d like to pretend otherwise. I really think we’d all be happier if everyone admitted that sexual desire is a normal part of almost all people’s lives from adolescence on.
WWJD? He would spank it, baby. Don’t let ‘em tell you otherwise.
[...] e Into Lust”
Posted by Lauren @ 12:58 am
For everyone irritated that we [...]
Championing one right cause does not, of course, oblige you to be open-minded, fair and sensitive to other causes – although it does undermine the force of your position somewhat not to do so. I.e. it is possible for a feminist to be a racist who tortures little puppies for fun and supports oil drilling in Alaska.
But you may be interested in what you find looking into the mirror, if you substitute every instance of “Christian” for “feminist”, “godbag” for “feminazi” etc in the above text. And I genuinely do not understand why you have to be so hateful and bigoted – yes, I just typed bigoted -, and why exclude and insult so deeply people who are both feminists and Christians.
I appreciate that not being from the US I am not exposed as much to the right-wing lunatic wing of Christians which no doubt exist in large numbers in your fair country. Nevertheless, to extrapolate from the actions of a small (albeit vocal) part of the overall Christian population, who may happen to contain a large number of hypocrites, and to mindlessly insult people who are just as horrified at pretty much all the issues that bug you here on this site, is just sad.
Anna, the problem is that the very same people who preach that sex is dirty and evil and that women in particular are dirty and evil for enjoying sex always seem to be the ones who get caught with their hands in the kitty, so to speak.
I don’t particularly care what the sexual practices of others are, as long as they don’t involve animals or children, and as long as they don’t cling to the “fine for me but not for thee” philosophy. Or try to regulate my sex life.
So I take great delight in exposing the hypocrisy of the Bible-thumper crowd, especially when it comes to the very thing they’re trying to deny to others.
I don’t particularly care what the sexual practices of others are, as long as they don’t involve animals or children, and as long as they don’t…try to regulate my sex life.
So you also believe in regulating other people’s sex lives, but you draw the line at a different point. And the conceptual difference is…?
Being able to give informed consent.
Mocking people’s hypocrisy is not regulation. Passing laws affecting contraception, abortion, sex toys and sex education is regulation.
“I don’t believe in regulating other people’s sex lives, as long as they don’t violate the principle of informed consent.”
vs.
“I don’t believe in regulating other people’s sex lives, as long as they don’t violate Biblical principles of sexual morality.”
The difference is in the criteria chosen for regulation. Both of these people are regulating sexual behavior.
Oh, so you’re all for sex with children and animals?
Yes, Zuzu. You have a logical fallacy in your condemnation of “Bible-thumpers”, and that means that I must like buggering sheep.
Or we could be grownups. Your call.
Why don’t you lay out what you were trying to say rather than just trying to insinuate that I’m some kind of regulation-happy hypocrite, hm?
Robert, everyone believes in regulating others’ behavior, of all kinds. The exception is adherents to various species of nihilism (emotivism, etc.) Since we know that you’re not one of those, you also believe in regulating people’s behavior, including sexual behavior.
I’m sure this is not the first time you’ve seen someone argue from an assumed common ethical principle: say, something deeply rooted in the Enlightenment tradition, that folks who call themselves libertarians tend to support, like the idea that we all ought to be free to decide what’s best for us, given accurate information and in the absence of forcible compulsion. Most folks don’t extend that assumption to children, because as one examines younger children it quickly becomes manifestly false. So, unless you’re a cheerleader for child molestation, you agree in part with Zuzu. Right?
I don’t know if you’re regulation happy. Your position is hypocritical.
Both you, and the fundamentalists, believe in regulating sexual conduct. In fact, everyone, with the exception of some psychopaths and truly hardcore libertarians, believes in regulating sexual conduct.
Criticizing fundamentalists for “try[ing] to regulate my sex life” is thus hypocritical. You “try to regulate [the] sex life” of people who want sex with children and animals (and so do most of the rest of us, thank God.)
Robert, did you miss where I made an exception for sex with children and animals?
You see?
Tell me exactly where I’m being hypocritical here. Because I’m not a child, I’m not an animal, and I don’t have sex with children, animals, shrubbery or unconsenting adults. So tell me how I’m being hypocritical when I say that I don’t care what others do as long as they don’t have sex with children or animals or try to regulate my relations with consenting adults.
Hmm?
Zuzu, I believe that Robert is saying you’re a hypocrite for implying, rather than simply stating, that fundamentalists seek to regulate our sex lives in ways that are manifestly inconsistent with the concept of adults as autonomous individuals free to interact with other adults in the absence of misrepresentation or coersion. I myself find the phrase unwieldy, and therefore omit it more often than not.
Robert, equating the ethical stance of “people are free to be who they are/do what they want so long as they don’t hurt others” and Christian moralizing that says “you can’t do that because god says it’s gross” is rather, well, I was going to say “disingenuous”, but let’s just go with “wrong”.
Zuzu isn’t being the least bit hypocritical. I don’t believe she said anywhere that she was against regulations, or even regulations regarding sexual conduct, but even if she did, what you’re so blithely ignoring about “consent” is that it is the determining factor of sexual conduct.
Rape, pedophilia, and beastilaity lack consent. They are not sexual conduct, but acts of violence that mimic physical sexual activity. Zuzu (nor the law in this case) is not regulating sexual activity, or anyone’s sex life. The law prohibits assault, of which this is merely a type. You will notice that consensual activity such as BDSM is legal (so long as it doesn’t cross into something the government has a controlling stake in, such as murder). That’s the difference between Zuzu’s Enlightenment ethics and Christianity’s morality.
Zuzu’s stance is quite consistent. “Rape, pedophilia and bestiality are wrong and should be prohibited” is completely compatible with “People can do what they want as long as they’re not harming someone else”. No hypocrisy.
However, someone who says lap dancing is wrong (for himself, and for others), but gets a lap dance anyway is being a big fat hypocrite.
So tell me how I’m being hypocritical when I say that I don’t care what others do as long as they don’t have sex with children or animals or try to regulate my relations with consenting adults.
You criticize Christians for desiring to regulate sex.
You also desire to regulate sex.
Thus, hypocrisy.
The defense “but my regulation of sex is reasonable/logical/sound, whereas THEIR regulation is insane!” is void – Christians think the same thing.
Everybody wants sex to be regulated. The only difference is what they want the regulations to say. People who accuse others of being sex-regulators are intrinsically hypocritical.
Can’t make it any simpler than that.
Robert,
So I take it, then, that you do not consider consent to be important when it comes to defining sex.
No, Robert. I criticize Christians for desiring to regulate MY sex life — i.e., the sex life of a consenting adult.
Rather a big distinction. Unless, again, you find it perfectly peachy to have sex with children, animals and unconsenting adults.
So I take it, then, that you do not consider consent to be important when it comes to defining sex.
I’ve no idea why you would take that. Perhaps you can explain it to me.
No, Robert. I criticize Christians for desiring to regulate MY sex life — i.e., the sex life of a consenting adult.
If you were suddenly struck by a desire to have sex with an animal or a child, would you stop yourself?
Hopefully, the answer is yes.
Congratulations, you just regulated the sex life of a consenting adult. You may counter that the animal or the child wasn’t consenting – and that’s true. But the animal wasn’t regulated at all. Zuzu – the human adult – was regulated, and told to knock it off with the Leviticus-breaking.
Christians want to tell Zuzu what to do with her special bits. Zuzu wants to tell Zuzu what to do with her special bits. That you each have different instructions isn’t conceptually relevant.
Just when I thought you couldn’t get any dishonest, Robert.
If you think there is no difference between internal and external regulation, you’re simply beyond hope.
OK, there’s a difference between internal and external regulation. Adjusting my argument to account for that takes three seconds and changes nothing.
Your neighbor comes over and says “you know, I’ve been struck by the desire to have sex with your dog.” You persuade them not to, and failing that, stop them.
Now you’ve regulated the sex life of a consenting adult. You may counter that the animal or the child wasn’t consenting – and that’s true. But the animal wasn’t regulated at all. The neighbor – the human adult – was regulated, and told to knock it off with the Leviticus-breaking.
Christians want to tell the neighbor what to do with his/her special bits. Zuzu wants to tell the neighbor what to do with his/her special bits. That you each have different instructions isn’t conceptually relevant.
Again, Robert, tell me how this is at all equivalent to some godbag getting a law passed that limits my contraception options for having sex with consenting adults, or prevents me from having anal or oral sex with other consenting adults. And tell me how this is at all inconsistent with my statement excluding sex with children or animals from sex that I care about other people having.
Your logic is very, very poor and frankly, smells of desperation.
Because, as I thought I rather clearly pointed out in my initial post, prohibiting rape, pedophilia, and bestiality is not regulating sex. It is regulating assault. That that assault copies the actions of sex is irrelevant. It is not sex.
Since you continue to claim that prohibiting rape, et.al is “regulating sex”, I can only assume that you do not incude consent in you definition of what constitutes sex.
How can he be a “consenting adult” if the other person (or dog, or whatever) is incapable of providing consent?
Consent is permission from another. You can’t say “I consent to have sex with this person who doesn’t want to have sex with me” and call it consensual sex.
If you want to get into an argument on the validity of animal rights, I would suggest that that’s a topic for another time. You can still make the same argument with reference to humane treatment.
Robert, the framework that Zuzu is using to derive her regulation is embedded in our system of ordered liberties. The Constitution specifically forbids wholesale adoption of the fundamentalists’ framework. As I said above, I think Zuzu is not at all being hypocritical, but rather assuming that all of us right-thinking, non-fundamentalist people operate from shared Enlightenment-based assumptions and bristle at those who wish to upend them and supplant them with Levitican proscriptions and such.
And the day I see fundamentalists boycotting Red Lobster and refusing to wear polyester blends is the day I’ll believe they take Leviticus seriously.
Zuzu, you’ve given me an excuse to toss in my favorite gratuitous shot at Leviticus:
God Hates Shrimp
That that assault copies the actions of sex is irrelevant. It is not sex.
The rapist, pedophile, and doggie fan all think they’re having sex. I understand the point you’re making, but “sexual assault” is pretty clearly related to “sex” – even if it isn’t the same emotional experience for the participants. The dogmatic it-isn’t-sex position doesn’t stand up.
Zuzu, you are entirely correct that wanting to regulate (say) birth control isn’t equivalent to wanting to regulate (say) interspecies love. They’re different forms of regulation.
But they’re each regulation. Your original stated criticism of the “godbags” wasn’t that you didn’t like the sexual regulations they wanted, it was that you didn’t like the fact that they wanted sexual regulations at all.
That’s where the hypocrisy comes in, because everyone wants some sexual regulations. If you actually intended to say that your dislike was the type of regulation desired by Christians, rather than regulation itself, then fine. Nothing hypocritical there.
Robert, I’m done arguing this with you. You’re deliberately misreading my statement and twisting my words. I’m thisclose to putting you on moderation for trolling.
Robert,
No where in this thread do I read Zuzu saying that her gripe with fundamentalists was that they wanted regulations at all. She has consistently and repeatedly said that fundamentalists want to regulate consensual sex, and that is waht she is against.
You seem completely unable or unwilling to discuss why you think consent is irrelevant to the discussion, and your latest statement
is not only wrong, but squicks me the fuck out about you.
Honestly? You really think that because the assaulters “think” they’re having sex that it makes it sex? Last I checked “I thought forcing myself on an unwilling person was OK” does not constitute a valid legal defense. I might “think” that by whacking you on the head with a hammer I will free your immortal soul, but the fact remains that this wuold be murder, not “witnesing”.
I didn’t say assault was unrelated to sex, I said it was violence in the shape of sex. Every study I’m aware of says that rape is about violence and power. The fact that the guy gets off on it doesn’t make it sex.
I find it telling/reprehensible that you qualify the position that rape is not sex as “dogmatic”.
You’re deliberately misreading my statement and twisting my words. I’m thisclose to putting you on moderation for trolling.
Well, that’s your prerogative of course. But I’m not intending to troll; your statement seemed pretty plain, and your restatements of it appear to go back to the same general theme. I’m not sure what I’ve misrepresented or twisted.
Mothworm, squick away. I used to believe exactly as you believe. Further life experience, the testimony of sex offense survivors, working as an assistant to a psychologist with a sex offender practice, and so forth, and I’ve moved away from that position. I don’t think it holds up; sorry if that offends.
And yeah, the fact that the assaulter thinks it’s sex has something to do with whether it is or not. What the victim of the assault thinks is at least as relevant. There are a hell of a lot of rape victims out there who think it was sex – nonconsensual sex. Maybe they’re wrong to think that, but I’m not comfortable invalidating their belief about their own life experience in the name of a theory. YMMV.
(I’ve been away a while – not sure if this thread is still active but I’ll post anyway if I may)
“Anna, the problem is that the very same people who preach that sex is dirty and evil and that women in particular are dirty and evil for enjoying sex always seem to be the ones who get caught with their hands in the kitty, so to speak.”
Zuzu, you seem to be saying that the kind of people you describe above = Bible-thumper crowd = Christians, and this is incorrect and offensive.
Every single one of my Christian friends thinks that sex is beautiful and precious, and that women should be enjoying it just as much as men. These are practicing Christians with a deep faith, and the position they hold is the one that is consistent with the scripture they look to. Go look at Hugo Schweizer’s blog if you haven’t yet done so for just one example of such a person. The behaviour you describe is entirely antithetical to what Christianity is (should be) about.
Once again, I am not contesting that there are many hypocrites out there who call themselves Christians while holding the position you describe. I am very hotly contesting, however, that that position has anything to do with Christianity itself, as well as that anything close to a majority of self-professed Christians behave in that way.
Dude’s a regular over here, actually.
Contest away. You’re still responding to a position I’ve neither articulated nor taken. You’re the one conflating anti-sex Bible thumpers with the rest of Christianity, not me.