This is an ad that appeared in the august pages of Christianity Today: It is no longer there, because Christianity Today has taken the bold stand that it's reall y gross for daddies to sell their unfucked daughters in the want ads. OR, to be more specific, it's really gross for daddies to put ads in the "jobs" section of Christianity Today offering to "hire" dudes to fuck their daughters in the marital way.
Really? It seems legit to you that a man is advertising for a husband for his grown-up daughter? I'll grant you that it's less creepy than if he had placed a similar ad advertising her then-approaching 18th birthday, but only insofar as she would have had even less say in the matter.
Had the daughter composed and placed a personal ad as you did, we really wouldn't have a leg to stand on, but this is a man treating his adult daughter as a commodity he possesses. Reading her statement of long-suffering because she has to *put up* with his behavior as somehow being equivalent to her being on board with things is a stretch, to say the least. It calls into question your own attitude toward women's rights of self-determination. Not in a way you've likely ever given any thought to, of course, but no one could make the comment you posted here without seriously questionable attitudes toward women's rights and consent.
That's a bold and baseless judgement you have made about me, and you know almost nothing about me. Would you like to get to know me a little more before making broad assumptions? My FB page is Colin Naughtin
I am merely making the observation that we have very little information. What little info we do have COULD be interpreted to indicate that they are reasonably intelligent people and that perhaps they are approaching the issue with some sense of humor.
There is a tendency on this site to look down on those of faith with some contempt. I am guilty of this also. I am not traditionally faithful, but I am working on avoiding the assumption that many non-Christians tend to make - that Christians are stupid, bigoted, totalitarianistic, etc. That is nothing but a foolish oversimplification on our part.
The truth of the matter is that the truth is seldom simple. Seriously - no one in America is selling their daughter in 2016. It's not happening. Let's try to be smarter than that.
My judgment about you is based on what you've written here. It's little wonder that you find it bold since your standards appear to be so weak. You're free to do your best to dress them up as the enlightened view, but your prior statements betray a staggering degree of ignorance—or, worse, complacency. Either would ensure your complicity.
Based on your reply to my comment above, one hopes that you know little to nothing about purity culture in fundamentalist Christianity. Otherwise, you've just proven my assessment of your attitudes toward women's rights and consent to be accurate. Simply because *you* are unaware that within purity culture: 1) A daughter is groomed from earliest childhood to pledge herself to her father until the day he hands her over to a husband whom he has approved; 2) Her value prior to marriage is based on whether or not she has managed to maintain her virginity (generally without regard to whether or not her consent was given in losing it); and, 3) Her value after marriage is based upon whether she bears enough children while keeping her husband from straying by being sexually available, it does not then follow that such is not the case. If you wish to conflate that very specific feature of a variant of Christianity with the whole of Christianity, that's your choice, but it's a misrepresentation of the case I and others are making against it.
The daughter being placed on the block in the ad featured in this post is firmly embedded in purity culture, and her father's conduct is differentiated from others within purity culture only by its conspicuousness. It's not particularly brazen in that setting. Until you understand what you're defending, kindly keep your knee-jerk liberalism in check, and you can choke on your condescension. Perhaps doing so will manage to keep your mouth shut long enough to allow you to learn something.
I haven't worn a wench costume in years!
I would upfist you, but official, internet feud rules prohibit that.
That's ok, Suttree can upfist me for you
Lol, you're making it VERY difficult for me to feud with you!!!!!
Really? It seems legit to you that a man is advertising for a husband for his grown-up daughter? I'll grant you that it's less creepy than if he had placed a similar ad advertising her then-approaching 18th birthday, but only insofar as she would have had even less say in the matter.
Had the daughter composed and placed a personal ad as you did, we really wouldn't have a leg to stand on, but this is a man treating his adult daughter as a commodity he possesses. Reading her statement of long-suffering because she has to *put up* with his behavior as somehow being equivalent to her being on board with things is a stretch, to say the least. It calls into question your own attitude toward women's rights of self-determination. Not in a way you've likely ever given any thought to, of course, but no one could make the comment you posted here without seriously questionable attitudes toward women's rights and consent.
I'm always excited to celebrate my 'purty balls'.
That's a bold and baseless judgement you have made about me, and you know almost nothing about me. Would you like to get to know me a little more before making broad assumptions? My FB page is Colin Naughtin
I am merely making the observation that we have very little information. What little info we do have COULD be interpreted to indicate that they are reasonably intelligent people and that perhaps they are approaching the issue with some sense of humor.
There is a tendency on this site to look down on those of faith with some contempt. I am guilty of this also. I am not traditionally faithful, but I am working on avoiding the assumption that many non-Christians tend to make - that Christians are stupid, bigoted, totalitarianistic, etc. That is nothing but a foolish oversimplification on our part.
The truth of the matter is that the truth is seldom simple. Seriously - no one in America is selling their daughter in 2016. It's not happening. Let's try to be smarter than that.
I think they were just worried you would not enslave their daughters *forever*, as the Bible instructs you to do...http://biblehub.com/exodus/...
Can you imagine the shame on having to accept "damaged goods" back into their house? HORRIBLE.
I have a waist coat, the problem is finding a shirt to go with it. And no it's not sexy without one.
I occasionally check the web for good corset/waist coat shirts. No dice.
The Pussypower Posse.
The writin' folks who writ teh bybull. And all them other religious fun books.
Wow, she is a tyrant! I will still be your virtual girlfriend. She can't quench our internet love.
My judgment about you is based on what you've written here. It's little wonder that you find it bold since your standards appear to be so weak. You're free to do your best to dress them up as the enlightened view, but your prior statements betray a staggering degree of ignorance—or, worse, complacency. Either would ensure your complicity.
Based on your reply to my comment above, one hopes that you know little to nothing about purity culture in fundamentalist Christianity. Otherwise, you've just proven my assessment of your attitudes toward women's rights and consent to be accurate. Simply because *you* are unaware that within purity culture: 1) A daughter is groomed from earliest childhood to pledge herself to her father until the day he hands her over to a husband whom he has approved; 2) Her value prior to marriage is based on whether or not she has managed to maintain her virginity (generally without regard to whether or not her consent was given in losing it); and, 3) Her value after marriage is based upon whether she bears enough children while keeping her husband from straying by being sexually available, it does not then follow that such is not the case. If you wish to conflate that very specific feature of a variant of Christianity with the whole of Christianity, that's your choice, but it's a misrepresentation of the case I and others are making against it.
The daughter being placed on the block in the ad featured in this post is firmly embedded in purity culture, and her father's conduct is differentiated from others within purity culture only by its conspicuousness. It's not particularly brazen in that setting. Until you understand what you're defending, kindly keep your knee-jerk liberalism in check, and you can choke on your condescension. Perhaps doing so will manage to keep your mouth shut long enough to allow you to learn something.
which in return made me immediately think of this:https://www.youtube.com/wat...
"Hi, men!"