#MeToo

The Weinstein Verdict Sets a Very Bad Precedent

/ biblicalgenderroles / 5 Comments

As far back as 3500 years ago, the Bible required that there be corroborating evidence in the form of at least two witnesses before someone could be convicted of any crime (Deuteronomy 19:15-20). In other words, you could not just accuse someone of a crime, whatever that may be. The burden was on the accuser to present corroborating evidence of the crime.

And about 250 years ago, Benjamin Franklin stated “That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved.”
But in our post-feminist and humanist society, it is feelings, not facts and logic, which have become the basis for economic and social policies. And the justice system is no exception to this rule. Before the women’s rights movements got rid of protections in the 1980’s, corroborating evidence was required to prove a man raped or sexually assaulted a woman just as you would have to have corroborating evidence to convict a person of any other crime. In other words, prior to the 1980’s the burden of proof was on the accuser of sexual assault, not the one being accused as it had been for thousands of years.

But from the 1980s onward, in any case of a sex crime, the burden of proof was transferred from the accuser to the accused. The only protection left for those accused of sex crimes without corroborating evidence was that most juries would still not convict people for sex crimes without corroborating evidence even though the law no longer required it for a conviction. This is why in most cases prosecutors would decline to prosecute people without corroborating evidence.

The Weinstein Verdict has now broken this legal precedent and many other precedents. Two women accused Weinstein of rapes than occurred more than a decade ago. The defense proved from emails they consented to meeting with Weinstein to have sex with him many times after the supposed rapes occurred. They said they only did so to further their careers.

Weinstein was convicted on two counts of rape, with absolutely no corroborating evidence. The real sad truth is that Weinstein had already been convicted in the court of public opinion and no one on this jury had the courage to stand up to the MeToo mob who wanted their piece of Harvey’s flesh no matter what horrible legal precedent this would set.

There is a Silver Lining in the Weinstein Verdict

In September of 2019, an article on Forbes.com made the following observations about the negative consequences of the MeToo movement on women in the workforce:

“The unintended consequences of #MeToo just seem to get worse and worse. Initially, there was evidence that men were shying away from one-on-one interactions with women at work, including mentoring, one-on-one work meetings and socializing. Now, new research reveals women may be less likely to be hired for jobs where they are required to interact with men…

Reluctance to hire women joins a long list of behaviors at work that have been negatively impacted by #MeToo. Research from LeanIn.org and SurveyMonkey last spring revealed that a whopping 60% of male managers were uncomfortable participating in common, job-related activities with women, such as mentoring, working alone together or socializing together. And the Pew Research Center found 51% of employees reported feeling that #MeToo made interactions with the opposite sex at work harder.”

Even the dating scene has taken a big hit thanks to the MeToo movement as an article from MarketWatch.com observed:

“The #MeToo movement seems to be exacerbating daters’ anxieties about sexual assault and hookup culture,” she said. “In years past, young people were extremely excited about discussions surrounding sex, online dating, sexuality, etc., but now they’re worried about political correctness.”

Ella Whelan wrote an article for Spiked-online.com entitled “#MeToo has ruined the office romance” where she stated the following:

“Companies are responding to the sexual-harassment panic by banning alcohol from office parties and instituting policies on how long and how close personal interactions should be…

The truth that no one seems willing to admit is that many heterosexual women, even today, expect men to make the first move in a relationship… But in the post-#MeToo office, unless you send a memo to the guy you fancy, signed with your consent at the bottom, it is understandable that he wouldn’t want to make the first move for fear of being hauled before human resources.”

So, let’s see. MeToo has made it harder for women to get hired, and for those women who already have jobs it has made it harder for them to get mentored by male coworkers and thus climb the corporate ladder. Metoo has also put a huge damper on office romances and on the hookup culture.

Sounds like a big win for those us who believe what the Bible says about women in 1 Timothy 5:14 that they should “marry, bear children, guide the house”. And also, anything that makes men have more fear about initiating sex outside of marriage is a good thing for society.

Conclusion

Could Harvey Weinstein have done exactly what these two women who accused of him of rape said? Yes. In fact, I think there is a good chance that he did. If Harvey Weinstein did indeed do these acts with these women and many others, he violated God’s law and God will hold him accountable one day at the judgement for all the wicked things he has done. But the same law of God which forbids fornication and forbids a man forcing himself sexually on a woman who is not his wife also requires corroborating evidence for any man to be convicted of such a crime. And that burden of proof was not met in this trial.

But the silver lining in MeToo’s corruption of our justice system is that it will be harder for women to get into the workforce and work their way up and it will help to discourage sex outside of marriage by keeping men cautious of being alone with women whom they are not married to.

And I am all for a man needing a document with a woman’s signed consent to have sex at the bottom of it and that document is a Marriage Certificate. Then he never has to worry about making a move on her again for the rest of his life! A man can freely do what the Bible not only allows husbands to do, but commands husbands to do and that is to “let her breasts satisfy thee at all times” (Proverbs 5:19) never “leaving the natural use of the woman” (Romans 1:27).

One final note to men in wake of this Weinstein verdict. If you follow the Pence and Graham rule and never allow yourself to be alone with a woman that is not your blood relative or your wife then you won’t have to worry about becoming the next Weinstein.

Beth Moore Has A Man Bow to the MeToo Movement

/ biblicalgenderroles / 9 Comments

This last weekend, Beth Moore, a prominent charismatic and feminist preacher, had her drummer come forward and kneel on the stage “asking their forgiveness for all hurts & harms they’ve ever received at the hands of men”.

I want to first give thanks to Snapper(one of my regular reader) who sent this my way and I also want to give credit to PulpitAndPen for their powerful rebuke of this wickedness where they stated:

“Moore started her career as a teacher for women, but now preaches to both genders. Evangelical leaders like John Piper have encouraged men to listen to her violations of 1 Timothy 2:12. Not deterred by Scriptural admonitions against women teaching doctrine or preaching to men, Moore has gradually become a chief proponent of evangelical feminism…
Of course, there is nothing in Scripture that suggests any individual can apologize for the sins of someone else, least alone an entire gender. The very notion is Biblically untenable. Neither is it wise to presume that every woman is a victim, but in Critical Race Theory (which is a Marxist political ideology that applies to gender, sexuality and other “identity groups” as well as race) and in the ideology of Marxist Intersectionality (the combining of two “victimized” identity group, in this case Native Americans and women), it is necessary to presume victimhood upon all.”

I say to PulpitAndPen- AMEN and AMEN. What wickedness our generation is now seeing before its very eyes.

Now let me add a few of my own thoughts to what PulpitAndPen said. Much of this error goes back to the roots of Methodism and Pentecostalism.

During the reformation, Protestants rejected both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox position that Church tradition was equally as authoritative as the Bible. Protestants also rejected the Catholic doctrine of Papal authority as well. The Protestants while having diverse opinions on many doctrines were united in the doctrine of “sola fide” meaning “justification by faith alone” against the Catholic Church’s position of faith plus works being necessary for salvation.

One of the main divisions within Protestantism was over the issue of whether the Scriptures alone formed the basis of faith and practice or whether they simply had higher authority than church tradition.

Some Protestants took the position of “prima scriptura” which held that the Scriptures were the “first” or “above all” source of divine revelation BUT not the only guide for faith and practice. The Anglicans believed in following church tradition as long it did not conflict with the Scriptures. The Methodists and the Pentecostal churches that grew out of the Methodists believed visions and other supernatural gifts were also to guide the churches.

And it was this error at the very root of Methodism and Pentecostalism which lead both groups to embrace feminism far before any other evangelical churches did.

Others Protestants like the Lutheran churches, Presbyterian churches and Baptist churches strongly held to the doctrine of “sola scriptura” which meant that the Bible alone was the sole infallible rule of faith and practice.

However, the Baptists were the strongest and loudest of all the Protestants in their preaching of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. The Baptists were heavily persecuted by other Protestants on the basis of another major division between Protestant groups and that is on the issue of infant baptism. Baptists were persecuted by other Protestant groups for rejecting infant baptism as unscriptural and instead preaching believer’s baptism by immersion.

This is why it should come as no surprise that the “Bible Belt” which is overwhelming populated by Baptist churches and located in the Southern United States has the highest concentration of conservative Bible believing Christians in the United States. It is in this place where we find the most Christians in America standing against feminism. That is not to say there are not outliers throughout the rest of the country. I do not live in the south but I can say where I live there are outposts of Christianity that are taking a stand against this apostasy as well.

The Church can never ever base its practices on either the traditions or feelings of men or women for that matter. Our sole source of faith, our rules for church conduct (including offices and those who preach or teach) and our rules for holy living must be founded upon the Word of God and the Word of God alone.

CBNNew reported on the following on this incident:

“Moore said tears began falling and that the Holy Spirit fell on the women. “How much more Christlike could this brother have been?” she asked. “He had committed no such sins against women. But he stood before them representing those who had. It was one of the most powerful things I’ve ever seen.”

The tears flowed like rain. I was told again & again that most of them had never EVER heard these things addressed & had certainly never heard anyone say I’m so sorry. Many hurts also come through other women & I addressed those next but this was when the Holy Spirit fell on us.

— Beth Moore (@BethMooreLPM) October 8, 2018 “

What this drummer did was not Christlike at all. We as Christian men bow before God. Christian men do not bow to the idols of feminism or the MeToo movement. Christian men stand firm in the faith.

“Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.”

1 Corinthians 16:13(NASB)

Better 100 Rapists Should Escape Than One Innocent Man Should Suffer

/ biblicalgenderroles / 4 Comments

Benjamin Franklin once famously stated “That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved.” And he was right in saying this. This principle was deeply interwoven into the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and all early American laws. It was based in English common law and before that Roman laws and before that Biblical law.

The MeToo Movement’s Assault on Justice

It is ironic that a movement that purports to fight for justice for women who have been sexually assaulted by men is itself guilty of an even more heinous assault on a bedrock principle of American, Western and Biblical justice.

On November 21st 2017, the Feminist Columnist Emily Lindin wrote the following statements on her twitter account:

“Here’s an unpopular opinion: I’m actually not at all concerned about innocent men losing their jobs over false sexual assault/harassment allegations.”

“First, false allegations VERY rarely happen, so even bringing it up borders on a derailment tactic. It’s a microscopic risk in comparison to the issue at hand (worldwide, systemic oppression of half the population).”

“Sorry. If some innocent men’s reputations have to take a hit in the process of undoing the patriarchy, that is a price I am absolutely willing to pay.”

And more recently a Christian woman emailed me yesterday and made the following statement:

“Your article about Kavanaugh really bothered me, and I have no doubt that a lot of victims of molestation will be highly offended.

Now I understand that false allegations do happen, and I understand that usually we have innocent until proven guilty rule. But I think with rape and molestation, it should be a false positive system, because we need to protect alleged victims, especially if they’re children, protected from the accused until there is proof that the allegations aren’t true. If victims are not believed it can have dire and tragic consequences. It does unthinkable harm to genuine rape/molestation victims, and it just makes it harder for victims to be believed. There are two sides to this. There is no proof that Kavanaugh is innocent.

I will flat-out say that I believe the women speaking against Kavanaugh. Also, there can’t always be proof that something happened because sexual predators are very smart in hiding their crimes.”

Do you see what these women are saying? The are literally reversing what Benjamin Franklin said and are basically saying this:

“Better 100 Innocent Men Should Suffer Than One Sexual Assaulter or Rapist Should Escape”

Now the women who take this position comfort themselves with some statistics on false reporting of rape and sexual assault. We will discuss this next.

Are Only 2 Percent of Rape Accusations False?

A common statement you will see being floated around many sites that want to proclaim all men accused of rape as guilty until proven innocent are statements like this:

“Only 2 percent of rape accusations are false according to the National Sexual Violence Resource Center”

First, we must understand the National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC) is not perfect in its information. It is an agenda driven organization so its numbers could be skewed to fit that agenda. But let’s take look at the NSVRC website to see the complete statement they made on this subject of false rape claims:

“The prevalence of false reporting is low between 2% and 10%. For example, a study of eight U.S. communities, which included 2,059 cases of sexual assault, found a 7.1% rate of false reports (i). A study of 136 sexual assault cases in Boston found a 5.9% rate of false reports (h). Researchers studied 812 reports of sexual assault from 2000-2003 and found a 2.1% rate of false reports (g).”

So we can see that the 2 percent number that all the MeToo folks give us for false rape claims is actually on the low end of the estimate.  It could actually be as high as 10 percent.

Crying “Rape”!

Cathy Young wrote an article for Slate.com back in 2014 entitled “Crying Rape”. In it she made some interesting observations what she called the “serious problem” of false accusations of rape against men. Here are some excerpts from that article:

“How frequent are false accusations? A commonly cited estimate, which may have originated with feminist author Susan Brownmiller in the 1970s, is that they account for only about 2 percent of rape reports. After the Oberst fiasco, feminist blogger Rebecca Watson posted a video asserting that, statistically, you will be wrong two out of 100 times if you presume a rape accusation to be true and 98 out of 100 times if you presume it to be false.

In fact, as Emily Bazelon and Rachael Larimore wrote in Slate five years ago, official data on what law enforcement terms “unfounded” rape reports (that is, ones in which the police determine that no crime occurred) yield conflicting numbers, depending on local policies and procedures—averaging 8 percent to 10 percent of all reported rapes.

…
In challenging “the myth of the lying woman,” feminists have been creating their own counter-myth: that of the woman who never lies.

…

Our focus on getting justice for women who are sexually assaulted is necessary and right. We are still far from the day when every woman who makes a rape accusation gets a proper police investigation and a fair hearing. But seeking justice for female victims should make us more sensitive, not less, to justice for unfairly accused men. In practical terms, that means finding ways to show support for victims of sexual violence without equating accusation and guilt, and recognizing that the wrongly accused are real victims too. It means not assuming that only a conviction is a fair outcome for an alleged sex crime. It means, finally, rejecting laws and policies rooted in the assumption that wrongful accusations are so vanishingly rare they needn’t be a cause for concern. To put it simply, we need to stop presuming guilt.”

Even NSVRC recognizes that incidents of false rape claims could be as high as 10 percent. The higher number of 10 percent is backed up by other groups outside the NSVRC  as well.

Putting a Human Face on the Victims of False Rape Claims

In 2002, Brian Banks was a football star at the age of 17 destined for college football was accused of rape and kidnapping after what he said was consensual sexual encounter with Wanetta Gibson. And the encounter actually left no trace DNA on Gibson’s clothing. Brian Bank’s attorneys told him he was facing 41 years in prison if the jury believed her so he plead no-contest to get a reduced sentence of 6 years. Wanetta Gibson sued Long Beach Schools and received a 1.5-million-dollar settlement for her supposed rape. After Banks served a little over 5 years in prison and was released Gibson met him and later prosecutors and admitted she lied. He sued her and won in June of 2013.

In 2003, James Grissom was convicted of the raping Sara Ylen. She had picked him out of a page of mug shots presented to her by the police. Later she would admit she had been looking at pictures of men from sex offender registries before seeing his mugshot. After serving almost 10 years of a 15 to 35-year sentence, James Grissom was released from prison after the District Attorney in St. Clair County Michigan asked the court to vacate his conviction and dismiss all charges. It turned out that Sara Ylen would later go on to make many more false rape claims. In December 2013, Sara Ylen was sentenced to serve 5 to 10 years in prison for making false rape accusation claims against two men.

In 2005, William McCaffrey was accused by Biurny Peguero of raping her. With no DNA evidence a Manhattan jury convicted the man of rape. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison. After he had served 2 years of his 20 year sentence a DNA test showed the bite mark on the woman’s arm did not even come from a man – it came from a woman. She would later admit to a Priest and the Prosecutors that she had lied about the whole event. He was exonerated and released by a judge in 2009.

In 2006, three white college students on the Duke Lacrosse team were accused of raping a black stripper they hired for a party. It would later turn out that an ambitious DA who was using this case to help with his re-election bid violated many codes of legal ethics and in the end based his entire case on false evidence. The three young men were exonerated at trial.

In 2009, an 18-year-old Black student named Danmell Ndonye accused 5 fellow students of gang raping her in a dormitory bathroom at Hofstra University. This case quickly fell apart when within 72 hours of her claim when police obtained cell phone videos from someone in the bathroom filming the whole event. Slate writer Emily Bazelon in her article “Smeary Lines” wrote regarding this case that “The weird lesson for men who have group sex in bathrooms: Film it on your cell phone”.

In 2013, Joanie Faircloth made a false claim that the singer Connor Oberst had raped her a decade earlier when she was a 16-year-old teen. A year later she issued a public statement recanting and saying she made it up to get attention.

In 2016, Nikki Yovino accused two college football players of raping her. She later admitted she made the story up. She was sentenced in August of 2018 to 1 year in prison for making false rape allegations.

What a MeToo America Would Look Like

Socialists and Liberals often don’t fully think through the consequences of their actions.

Imagine if we passed the following as the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution:
“The presumption of innocence is hereby suspended for men accused of sexually related crimes against women. All women are to be presumed as credible and truthful in their accusations against men for sexually related crimes. Men are to be presumed guilty of any sexually related crime they are accused of by a woman and bear the burden of proving themselves innocent in such cases. Even if a woman’s claims are proven to be false or even if she admits they are false at some future point she may not be prosecuted in civil or criminal courts for this action. Men accused of sexually related crimes may be immediately terminated from by their employers with no recourse to sue for wrongful discharge in these cases.”

A person with an ounce of common sense and awareness of human nature knows if you give any group of people a blank check to do a certain thing – that thing will be abused. Such an amendment which follows the proposed ideals of the MeToo movement would cause the 2 to 10 percent incidents of false rape and sexual assault allegations to sky rocket.

Imagine how many women would use this as black mail to get any position they wanted at a company? “If you don’t give me the promotion I will say you raped me or sexually assaulted me”. If a man goes to break up with woman she could say “I will say you raped me if you leave me”. When women get divorced they cold just blackmail their soon to be ex-husbands with false rape charges so they could take all their money and get full custody of the children. When women have consensual sex with men and are ashamed of their choices they can just re-frame it as rape. Just imagine the wicked abuses that could take place in such a system.

Better 100 Rapists Should Escape Than One Innocent Man Should Suffer

This brings us to the conclusion of this matter. On one side we have MeToo advocates arguing that men have been sexually assaulting women since the beginning of recorded history and now its time for men and the patriarchy to pay for its past and continuing abuses of women.

But you know what else has been occurring since the beginning of the human history? Murder, theft and all other types of non-sexual abuses of men against men, women against women and men against women. Human beings are and always have been sinful and wicked since the Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden.

The question is how we deal with the wrongs that people commit against one another. Should we throw out innocent until proven guilty for sexual assault crimes? The answer from the Bible is a resounding NO!

The Bible shows us that God is far more concerned with the innocent being falsely punished than the wicked escaping justice:
“15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.
16 If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong;
17 Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days; 18 And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother;
19 Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. 20 And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you.”
Deuteronomy 19:15-20 (KJV)

It would be absolutely Biblical to say that in God’s eyes it would be better that 100 rapists should escape justice than one innocent man should suffer by a false or uncorroborated accusation.

Look at what God says should be done to the one who brings a false accusation? They should get the same sentence that the one they falsely accused would have received.

There are many MeToo and other women’s rights advocates who would like to see our legal system get rid of prosecution or civil lawsuits for false rape claims by women. They say such mechanisms discourage women from coming forward with real rape claims. But as I have shown here from the Bible – our punishments for false rape claims don’t go far enough! Women who make false rape claims get sentenced to a tiny fraction of the time that the men they accused of rape would have received if they had been found guilty. We should follow God’s law in this and give the same sentence to women who falsely accuse men of rape as what the men would receive if they were convicted of rape.

What If It Were Your Father, Your Husband, Your Brother, Your Son?

Judge Brett Kavanagh, now thanks to God Justice Brett Kavanagh, made a statement that I believe will be long remembered in American history. He made this statement at the close of his opening remarks on September 27 while defending himself against the false rape allegations of Dr. Christine Blasely Ford.

“We live in a country devoted to due process and the rule of law. That means taking allegations seriously, but if the mere allegation, the mere assertion of an allegation, a refuted allegation from 36 years ago, is enough to destroy a person’s life and career, we will have abandoned the basic principles of fairness and due process that define our legal system in our country. I ask you to judge me by the standard that you would want applied to your father. Your husband. Your brother. Or your son.”

While others had previously made this contention against the MeToo movement’s assault on due process and the presumption of innocence – this was different. This was a national stage. It is estimated that nearly 20 million Americans watched this hearing and heard Brett Kavanagh’s words. To those in the MeToo movement it probably did little to move them to rethink their assault on due process and the presumption of innocent until proven guilty.

But what it did do is awaken millions of other Americans to the dangers that the MeToo movement poses to justice and due process in America. And the tired argument of Democrats and MeToo advocates that “this was not a court of law but just a job interview” did not hold water with millions of Americans who were infuriated at what happened to Brett Kavanaugh.

You can still destroy a man’s life with unproven accusations without ever trying him in a court of law or sending him to prison. One of the writers for CBS’s “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert”, Ariel Dumas, made this statement on twitter before making her account private after a huge backlash:

“Whatever happens, I’m just glad we ruined Brett Kavanaugh’s life”

In the last week, millions of Americans woke up to the reality that their fathers, their husbands, their brothers and their sons could have their lives ruined in the same way that Ariel Dumas was so happy about. Their careers and livelihoods could be destroyed by the MeToo movement and some could lose their freedom and be imprisoned for many years if the MeToo movement is successful in its assault on the American justice system, men and the patriarchy.

In article for Slate.com entitled “The Kavanaugh Hearings Have Women Fired Up … to Vote Republican” Ruth Graham writes:

“the Kavanaugh spectacle seems to have evaporated the Democrats’ enthusiasm edge, according to a poll conducted Monday by NPR, PBS NewsHour, and Marist. In July Democrats were likelier, by 10 percentage points, to say the November elections were “very important.” That gap has now narrowed to a statistical tie. “The result of the hearings, at least in the short run, is the Republican base was awakened,” Marist head Lee Miringoff told NPR.

…

Atlantic reporter Emma Green talked with about a dozen female conservative leaders across the country for a story this week that puts flesh on the Marist poll’s finding: that the Kavanaugh hearings have electrified conservative women too. “I’ve got women in my church who were not politically active at all who were incensed with this,” the chairwoman of the West Virginia Republican Party told Green. The Indiana state director for the anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List, Jodi Smith, told Green that “people in Indiana are angry.” In her view, the hearings are “one of the best things that could happen to us” as she looks forward to a hotly contested Senate election in the state in November.”

I can say that all but two liberal women amongst my extended relatives and friends thought the way Brett Kavanaugh was treated was truly “a national disgrace” as he stated in his hearing. And his line about would this be the standard that you would want your “your father. Your husband. Your brother. Or your son” judged by rings true for millions of women across the country.

A Final Word to Women Who Have Been Victims of Sexual Assault

I previously revealed here that my mother was the victim of rape by her own grandfather. I have also known other women personally in my life that were raped or otherwise sexually assaulted. I myself was molested by a 17-year-old boy at a church I attended when I was 14. But I would never compare what happened to me to what happened to my mother. It still gives me chills when I think of her account of what happened and the effect that she told me it had her relationship with my father years after it happened.

When I and millions of other Americans stand up for the rule of law, due process and the presumption of innocence this does not mean we care nothing for the true victims of sexual assault. But we cannot do evil that good may result. We cannot tear down the justice system, and destroy men’s lives in order to get justice for female victims of sexual assault.

Rape and other forms of sexual assault have existed as long as murder, theft and all other types of crimes have existed. We will no more eliminate rape and sexual assault than we will any of these other crimes. All we can do is try to protect ourselves against these crimes and when they do occur report them right away to the proper authorities with as much evidence as we can muster.

As Christians we know that a crucial way to help protect women from sexual assault or rape is to follow the rules that most societies had for their women for thousands of years. Women were not left alone with men who were not their male relatives. Now I know that some will immediately say that sometimes relatives molest their own. I could not agree more based on what happened to my mother on the part of her own grandfather.

But we must do our best to take all the precautions we can. We can’t say just because we can’t stop all rape and sexual assault that we should not take all the precautions we can. I lock my doors at night but that does not mean someone could not find another way into my home by breaking a window.

Finally, if you are a woman like my mother who was raped I am going to give you a piece of advice my mother had to learn. You have two choices. You can choose to allow the sexual assault or rape you experienced to distort your view of men and sex and cause you to want to tear down the entire justice system to get your revenge on men or the patriarchy. Or you can take a different path. You can choose to give your pain and hurt to Christ. You can choose to have Christ restore in you a healthy view of men, sex and marriage and a respect for the concept of innocent until proven guilty.
“For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.” – 1 John 5:4

You can either live your life as a victim or as victor, the choice is yours.

Sometimes Women DO Sit Around Making These Things Up

/ biblicalgenderroles / 7 Comments

According to Senator Mazie Hirono during her interview on “MSNBC Live” yesterday, the new standard of justice when it comes to sex crimes in America is that “Women do not sit around making these things up”.  She made this statement regarding the sexual assault accusations of Christine Blasey Ford against Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh.

Christine Blasey Ford’s Story

So here is Christine Blasey Ford’s story in a nutshell.

A woman claims that a man attempted to rape her 36 years ago.  She claimed to have repressed the memory and only recovered it during a 2012 couples’ therapy session with her husband whom she married in 2002.  Brett Kavanaugh’s name was never mentioned in the therapy session notes.

She has offered no physical evidence of the attempted rape.

She does not remember where the house was.

She does not remember what day or month it was in.

She said she received medical treatment but does not remember where or when.

Every person she has put forward as witness denies any knowledge of such an event.

There is No Evidence of a Crime According to American or Biblical Law

Whether this attack happened 36 years ago, or 36 weeks ago there is no evidence according to our legal system that a crime ever took place.  An accusation by the alleged victim of a crime is not evidence. There must be physical evidence, circumstantial evidence or witnesses to a crime to convict someone of a crime.

One of our American founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin, stated this about how our justice system should work:

“That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved.”

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, letter to Benjamin Vaughan, March 14, 1785.—The Writings of Benjamin Franklin, ed. Albert H. Smyth, vol. 9, p. 293 (1906)

The concept of “innocent until proven guilty” is not just the bedrock of American justice, but it was also the concept of Biblical justice as well. The Bible required multiple witnesses to establish the guilt or innocence of a person accused of a crime in Israel:

“One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.”

Deuteronomy 19:15 (KJV)

In other words – you can’t accuse someone of a crime, including assault, simply based on your own witness of the event.  Where are the other witnesses, where is the physical evidence?

Yet many in our court of public opinion have already assassinated the character of Brett M. Kavanaugh based on these allegations by Ford.

Sometimes Women DO sit around making these things up

Contrary to the assertions of Senator Mazie Hirono, sometimes women do sit around making these things up for a variety of reasons.   It can be for reasons of pride, fame, spite, revenge or other political motivations. In the Bible we find a famous story of a woman “making these things up”:

“11 One day he went into the house to attend to his duties, and none of the household servants was inside. 12 She caught him by his cloak and said, “Come to bed with me!” But he left his cloak in her hand and ran out of the house.  13 When she saw that he had left his cloak in her hand and had run out of the house, 14 she called her household servants. “Look,” she said to them, “this Hebrew has been brought to us to make sport of us! He came in here to sleep with me, but I screamed. 15 When he heard me scream for help, he left his cloak beside me and ran out of the house.”

Genesis 39:11-15 (KJV)

Women making up claims of sexual assault is as old as men committing sexual assault itself.  Both of these sins have occurred throughout history and our legal systems must recognize the very real possibility of both of these things occurring.

A lot of Ford’s defenders will say “Well she talked about him doing this way back in 2012 in a therapy session long before he became a nominee and there is documented proof of her making this claim to a therapist.  Why would she make up the lie before ever knowing who would be President in four years or that he would nominate Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court?”

Well first and foremost there is no documented proof of her making a claim that Brett Kavanaugh attempted to rape her.  She never gave the therapist any names.  Her husband alleges she told him afterwards that it was Brett Kavanaugh but spouses lie for each other so he is not a reliable witness.

So, this leaves us with two other likely possibilities of what actually happened.  Ford could have been sexually assaulted by someone other than Brett Kavanaugh and she may not even remember who it was.  But she chose to put Kavanaugh’s name in as her attacker when she saw him announced as Trump’s nominee because she wanted to stop him from being nominated.

An even worse scenario would be and could be that she made the entire event up in therapy as an excuse to deal with problems in her own marriage and then filled in Brett Kavanaugh’s name as the attacker as an added bonus. And of course, her loving husband supports her in her lies.  This is a very real possibility as well.

But what about the second or third woman?

A second woman, Deborah Ramirez, has claimed that Brett Kavanaugh exposed himself in her face when he was Yale University. So, if we have two women accusing him then both these claims must true right? That is the sad standard for many in our society.  If you can’t take the man down with one flawed accuser, just throw in another for good measure.

This second woman even admitted to not being sure it was Brett Kavanaugh who exposed himself to her until after a democratic lawyer helped coach her and convince her that it was.

Then of course we have the trashy lawyer Michael Avenatti claiming he has yet another woman making claims against Brett Kavanaugh.

Conclusion

Senator Mazie Hirono was partially right in some advice she gave to men the other night when she stated:

“I just want to say to the men in this country: Just shut up and step up. Do the right thing for a change.”

The only part of her advice that was wrong was when she said “shut up”.  I would simply change this part of her statement and give this advice to all men including Brett Kavanaugh in the face of the rampant misandry going on in American culture today:

“I just want to say to the men in this country: Speak up and step up. Do the right thing for a change.”

The Bible gives us as men this admonition:

“Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.”

1 Corinthians 16:13

I was so pleased to see Brett Kavanaugh make the forceful defense he did in his interview with Martha MacCallum from Fox News.  I was pleased to see him speak up and step up to the corrupt political forces that would see him step down.

I pray that God will give the Republican senators the wisdom to see that this is truly a smear campaign against a good man and a good judge and I hope they will have the courage to help him win this nomination.

A Defense of Paige Patterson and Men Saying Women Are “Fine” and “Built”

/ biblicalgenderroles / 7 Comments

Paige Patterson was ousted yesterday by a version of the MeToo which has formed within the Southern Baptist Convention.  After a group of approximately 2500 SBC women sent a letter to the board of trustees for the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary where Paige Patterson was President the board voted to remove him as President.

Scott Neuman, writing for NPR.Org in his article entitled “Southern Baptist Leader Removed Over Remarks On Rape, Abuse Of Women” summarizes the events that lead to Patterson’s dismissal today:

“As NPR’s Tom Gjelten reported earlier this month, in an interview Patterson gave in 2000, the religious leader recounted how he had told one woman, who had been assaulted by her husband, to simply pray for her spouse:

“Returning some days later with two black eyes, the woman said, ‘I hope you’re happy,’ [Patterson said].

” ‘I said, ‘Yes, ma’am, I am happy,’ Patterson quoted himself as telling the woman. ‘What she didn’t know when we sat in church that morning,’ he said, ‘was that her husband had come in and was standing in back, first time he ever came.’ ”

Patterson had also been criticized for a sermon he gave in 2014 in which he said women were created by God “beautifully and artistically.”

Tom adds:

“He related a conversation he had with a woman while her son and a friend were standing alongside. As they talked, a teenage girl whom Patterson described as ‘very attractive’ walked by, and one of the boys said, ‘Man, is she built.’

“The woman immediately scolded him, but Patterson said he interjected in the boy’s defense.

” ‘I said, ‘Ma’am, leave him alone,’ Patterson recounted. ‘He’s just being biblical. That is exactly what the Bible says.’ ”

Hearing Patterson tell that story, Karen Swallow Prior, a professor of English at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., was outraged. She and about 30 other women immediately drafted the open letter addressed to the Board of Trustees of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.”

The full letter can be found at a petition page here.

The letter from Karen Swallow Prior and her cohorts begins with this introduction:

“Over the past week Southern Baptist women have been grappling with the video of Dr. Paige Patterson preaching at the Awaken Conference in 2014, the audio of his counsel to domestic abuse victims in 2000, and his response this week to the Southern Baptist concerns over these matters and all that has subsequently come to light. These one on one conversations between women who are grieved by the comments and concerned for the poor gospel witness they reflect has resulted in the following plea for SWBTS trustees to take decisive action.”

What were Paige Patterson’s Crimes According to SBC MeToo Women?

Supposedly he allegedly told a rape victim not to report her rape to the police but to date there is no hard evidence supporting this claim. This is something both he and the Seminary are denying. Another one of his “crimes” according to the MeToo Southern Baptist women was his statements regarding women staying with abusive husbands.  The truth is that he was fighting against divorce and later clarified his statement saying he believes women who are in danger from true physical abuse can seek separation for themselves and their children.

I have already laid out my position on what kind of “abuse” a woman can leave for Biblically and what kind she cannot leave for in my recent article “Why God Wants You To Stay in An Abusive Relationship”.  When we remember that to “abuse” someone is to “mistreat” someone then you could say your spouse is abusing you if they call you a bad name or are crabby with you.  To say that God’s word allows for women to leave their husband over such things flies in the face of the Scriptures.  It is not saying men are right in doing these things, but the Bible does not allow a woman to divorce her husband for just any sin he commits against her. It strictly limits the types of sin for which a woman may be free from her husband in divorce.

Today we have people comparing a husband calling his wife a bad name with him punching her in the face saying it is the same thing.  This is the absurdity of the world we live in now.

But what I really want to focus on here is the utterly ridiculousness of the attack on Paige Patterson for comments he and a teenage boy made about a teenage girl and how he corrected the mother for scolding her son for saying it.

In the letter from the SBC MeToo Women they write the following concerning these comments:

“His recent remarks of clarification do not repudiate his unwise counsel in the past; nor has he offered explanation or repentance for inappropriate comments regarding a teenage girl, the unbiblical teaching he offered on the biblical meaning of womanhood in that objectification, and the inappropriate nature of his own observations of her body.

This pattern of discourse is unbefitting the sober, wise, and sound character required of an elder, pastor, and leader. It fails in the call to protect the helpless, the call of Christ to love our neighbor as ourselves, and the biblical standard of sexual purity. These comments are damaging, sinful, and necessitate a decisive response. It seems inevitable, for instance, that a youth pastor in any of our churches would be removed from his position if he made the comments that Dr. Patterson made at the Awaken Conference in 2014.

The world is watching us all, brothers. They wonder how we could possibly be part of a denomination that counts Dr. Patterson as a leader. They wonder if all Southern Baptist men believe that the biblical view of a sixteen-year-old girl is that she is “built” and “fine” —an object to be viewed sexually.”

The Bible says Women are “Built” and “Fine”!

In the Scriptures we are told that Jacob loved Rachel, “the beautiful and well favored” of two sisters.

“17 Leah was tender eyed; but Rachel was beautiful and well favoured.

18 And Jacob loved Rachel; and said, I will serve thee seven years for Rachel thy younger daughter.

Genesis 29:17-18 (KJV)

The Hebrew phrase that is translated as “beautiful and well favoured” in the KJV is not as literal to Hebrew text.  In the Hebrew it reads yâpheh[beautiful,lovely,fair] tô’ar [form, figure, shape] yâpheh[beautiful,lovely,fair] mar’eh[sight, vision, appearance].  So when we take this phrase together it said Rachel had “a beautiful figure and was lovely to look at”.  In modern terms we might say “Rachel was built and was fine to the eyes”.

In the Song of Solomon we are told:

“How beautiful are your feet in sandals, O prince’s daughter!

The curves of your hips are like jewels, The work of the hands of an artist.”

Song of Solomon 7:1 (NASB)

The KJV calls a woman’s body “the work of the hands of a cunning workman” and the NASB translation I showed above calls a woman’s body “The work of the hands of an artist”.

Therefore we can rightly conclude based on the Scriptures that there is no sin in a man calling a woman “built”, “fine” or saying that God made women “beautifully and artistically”.

So to my SBC MeToo lady friends YES I believe “the biblical view of a sixteen-year-old girl is that she is “built” and “fine” —an object to be viewed sexually”.  AMEN and AMEN!

And Paige Patterson was absolutely right in calling out that mother for shaming her son’s God given masculinity.  God created him to derive pleasure from female beauty just as he designed Paige Patterson and every other man to derive pleasure from female beauty.

This false notion that God wants men to have this “off and on” switch that women want is lubricious, stupid, absurd and unbiblical.   What I mean is a lot of women want men to only derive pleasure from the beauty of a woman if he is either dating her, or married to her.  Otherwise if a man has no relationship with a woman and especially if he far older than her there is this magic off switch that must be installed in his mind that all of a sudden makes him not derive pleasure from her beauty.

This belief of this mother and far too many Christians today is founded in a complete and utter misunderstanding of what the Bible actually says about lust.

Most Christians Today Don’t Have a Clue What Real Lust Is

This mother that Patterson scolded, like many Christians today, would probably defend her shaming of her son’s expression of his God given male sexuality with this verse:

“27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”

Matthew 5:27-28 (KJV)

This mother might think to herself – “the Bible says a man should not lust after a woman or else it is just like committing adultery with her”.  How many sermons have you heard that in?  But you know what you won’t hear in those same sermons? You won’t hear how the Bible defines lust for us:

“What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.”

Romans 7:7 (KJV)

The Bible tells us exactly what lust is – it is covetousness. So now let’s go to the 10th commandment to find out what covetousness is:

“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.”

Exodus 21:17 (KJV)

Let me ask a question to all you ladies out there.  Have ever admired your neighbor’s house? In fact have you ever gone over to a neighbor lady’s house hoping to get invited in to see the inside? And if you did get invited in to see the inside did you ever find it beautiful and desirable? I am willing to bet that a lot of women could answer these questions with “Yes”.

So were you coveting your neighbor’s house because you found it desirable and wondered what it looked like on the inside? The answer is NO.  Covetousness is when you have an unlawful desire to possess someone or something.  So maybe your neighbor lady had a nice piece of jewelry laying on a table as you walk through her house.  If you have the desire to unlawfully possess that jewelry and you start to think of how you could swipe it when your neighbor was not looking that is covetousness.  That is lust.  Covetousness always proceeds theft of some kind.

But yet so many women would scold their husbands for thinking the neighbor’s wife is desirable.

Listen up ladies.  I am going to lay down some logic for you.

A man thinking his neighbor’s wife is desirable is EXACTLY the same as a woman thinking her neighbor’s house is desirable.

A man wondering what his neighbor’s wife looks like under her clothes is EXACTLY the same thing as a woman wondering what her neighbor’s house looks like on the inside.

A man imaging how great it would be to have sex with his neighbor’s wife is EXACTLY the same as a woman imaging how great it would be to live in her neighbor’s house.

So we can rightly say that when Christ said that a man commits adultery in his heart when he “looketh on a woman to lust after her” he was talking about a man coveting a woman. In other words, he is having the desire to seduce her into sex outside of marriage.  Christ in no way is condemning a man for being sexually attracted to a woman or him noticing her beauty or him even imaging what it would be like to be with her sexually. He is condemning a man thinking about adultery or fornication which is the act of a man unlawfully possessing a woman.

I highly encourage Christian women and Christian men to truly reconsider their views on masculine sexuality and lust.

Let us stop condemning our young men for noticing female beauty.  Let us also stop condemning our older men such as Paige Patterson for still noticing it too.  Ladies let me tell you something – just because we men get older does not mean we don’t still find young women attractive.  There is no “age” switch that says we can find a young lady even her teens attractive.  You may not like it, but that is how God made man.

Time and Place

I want to give a final word about “time and place”. The Bible says in Ecclesiastes 3:1 “To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven”.  For example we would all agree as Christian that sexual relations between a husband and his wife are a beautiful thing in marriage.  But even in marriage there is a time and place for sexual relations.  I am not going to have sex with my wife in the middle of the living room with my children or my parents present.  That would not be the time and place for this activity even though the activity itself is not sinful.

In the same way I am not saying it would be right for a youth pastor or a pastor or even this young man to just walk up to a young woman or older woman and say to them “You are built” or “You are fine”.  It’s not good manners. It’s not the right way to go about it.

However if a couple of young men say quietly after a teenage girl passes to each other “Man, is she built” there is no sin in this.  Or if they leave the restaurant and were driving home and they mention this there is no sin in this.  Even if a Pastor like Paige Patterson talks about a random girl in a restaurant and says she was “fine” there is no sin that.  It is exactly as he said – “Biblical” for a man to do so.  It is how God created us as men to notice female beauty.

But let’s say a youth pastor goes up to one of the teen girls in his youth group and says “Man you are built” would that be inappropriate? Of course it would be inappropriate.  Because it is not the time or place for him to express such a thought.

But our SBC MeToo women and many other women in our culture today would have us believe that it is wrong for a man to ever have such a thought about a woman unless he is married to the woman.  The problem with such thinking is that is utterly unbiblical.  Ladies you might not like how God made men and you might not like that God did not put an off switch in men’s head when it comes to sexual attraction to women.  But that is how he created men.

Ladies, I encourage you to study the Scriptures I have presented here and ask God to help you accept men as he created them and accept your place in his creation.  I encourage you to stop shaming men for how God designed them.

And Christian men – I encourage to do the same and study out these passages I have given.  Stop engaging in self-flagellation over your own God given sexuality.  The pleasure you get from seeing the beauty of women around you or on TV or online is not sinful. Sexual desire toward a woman is not sinful. It is lust, which is the desire to fornicate with a woman (have sex outside of marriage) that is sinful.

I also hope and pray that some of our Christian leaders will grow spines and start standing up to all this man-shaming and character assassination that is rampant across our nation.  We need to start standing up to the feminism that has poisoned our homes, churches and country.

I encourage to read more on how male sexuality actually works and the way God designed it these other articles:

Why it is NOT Wrong for Men to See Women as Sex Objects

Why Christian men should NOT be ashamed of “locker-room talk”

How should Christian women respond to their men looking at other women? Part 1

How should Christian women respond to their men looking at other women? Part 2

How should Christian women respond to their men looking at other women? Part 3

It is Not a Woman’s Consent That Matters, It is God’s

/ biblicalgenderroles / 55 Comments

The Bible’s teachings on when sexual relations may occur between a man and a woman are in direct conflict with the American Sexual Consent ideology that sadly even many Christians believe in. Some Christians are simply ignorant about what the Bible says regarding when sexual relations may occur.  Other Christians actually know what the Bible says about when sexual relations may occur and they choose to ignore such passages or explain them away as being irrelevant for our society.

If you are a Christian who knows what the Bible says about when sexual relations may occur between a man and woman and choose to ignore it or explain it away this article may do little to change your mind.  I pray that you will repent – but it is in God’s hands and not mine.

But my primary focus in this article is to talk to Christians, especially young Christians, who have grown up in Churches that have abandoned the teachings of the Bible.  I hope that when you are exposed to the teachings of God’s Word regarding sexual relations between a man and a woman you will open your heart and mind to what God has to say and let it change your life.

It is interesting to watch the civil war in feminism caused by the MeToo movement play itself out in feminist circles. On one side we have feminists like Christina Cauterucci at Slate.com arguing that MeToo has made “little progress” since its inception and much more needs to be done.  But on the other side we have feminist writers like Daphne Merkin at the New York Times that admit to having “misgivings” about the MeToo movement and its impact on male female relationships and especially on things like flirting and how men and women enter into sexual relationships with one another.

Daphne Merkin makes the following statement in her article entitled “Publicly, We Say #MeToo. Privately, We Have Misgivings.”:

“What happened to women’s agency? That’s what I find myself wondering as I hear story after story of adult women who helplessly acquiesce to sexual demands. I find it especially curious given that a majority of women I know have been in situations in which men have come on to them — at work or otherwise. They have routinely said, “I’m not interested” or “Get your hands off me right now.” And they’ve taken the risk that comes with it.

The fact that such unwelcome advances persist, and often in the office, is, yes, evidence of sexism and the abusive power of the patriarchy. But I don’t believe that scattershot, life-destroying denunciations are the way to upend it. In our current climate, to be accused is to be convicted. Due process is nowhere to be found.

And what exactly are men being accused of? What is the difference between harassment and assault and “inappropriate conduct”? There is a disturbing lack of clarity about the terms being thrown around and a lack of distinction regarding what the spectrum of objectionable behavior really is. Shouldn’t sexual harassment, for instance, imply a degree of hostility? Is kissing someone in affection, however inappropriately, or showing someone a photo of a nude male torso necessarily predatory behavior?

I think this confusion reflects a deeper ambivalence about how we want and expect people to behave. Expressing sexual interest is inherently messy and, frankly, nonconsensual — one person, typically the man, bites the bullet by expressing interest in the other, typically the woman — whether it happens at work or at a bar. Some are now suggesting that come-ons need to be constricted to a repressive degree. Asking for oral consent before proceeding with a sexual advance seems both innately clumsy and retrograde, like going back to the childhood game of “Mother, May I?” We are witnessing the re-moralization of sex, not via the Judeo-Christian ethos but via a legalistic, corporate consensus.”

While Daphne Merkin raises many good points in the above article the point I wanted to zoom in on is her statement that “Expressing sexual interest is inherently messy…”.

And why is expressing sexual interest a “messy” endeavor today? I submit to you the reason for the messiness of expressing sexual interest lies squarely at the feet of the Free Love movement in America that begin in the mid-19th century as a theory that eventually became an American cultural reality in the 1960s’.

The majority of this article will be spent showing how the whole “sexual consent” philosophy in America finds its roots in rebellion against God.  I will also show how it directly conflicts with the Biblical view of how men and women are to enter into sexual relations with one another.  At the end of this article I will show why God’s appointed way for men and women to express sexual interest in one another is not “messy” like methods of showing sexual interest are today. In fact God’s way in this regard is far less complicated.

The Roots of “Sexual Consent” ideology and the Free Love Movement in America

One of the founding fathers of Feminism as well as the Sexual Consent and Free Love ideologies in America was a man named Moses Harman (1830-1910).

William Lemore West penned an article entitled “The Moses Harman Story” for the Kansas Historical Society on Mr. Harman’s life and his accomplishments.

In that article he states of Moses Harman that he “not only denounced all forms of government and religion, but added a new dimension in reform by advocating that women be freed from sexual slavery by abolishing the institution of marriage. Harman did not develop these views until comparatively late in his life.”

West also alludes to Harman’s name change on the publication he would later gain fame for:

“The publication changed title again in 1883. Harman maintained that subscribers objected to the term “Kansas” in the paper’s title because the name was local in character. His subscribers also opposed the term “liberal” since so many newspapers and journals used the term in their titles. For these reasons he changed the publication’s title to Lucifer the Light Bearer (hereafter called Lucifer). The title was selected, stated Harman, because it expressed the paper’s mission. Lucifer, the name given the morning star by the people of the ancient world, served as the symbol of the publication and represented the ushering in of a new day. He declared that freethinkers had sought to redeem and glorify the name Lucifer while theologians cursed him as the prince of the fallen angels. Harman suggested that Lucifer would take on the role of an educator. “The god of the Bible doomed mankind to perpetual ignorance,” wrote Harman, “and [people] would never have known Good from Evil if Lucifer had not told them how to become as wise as the gods themselves.”

West shows us Harman’s defining belief in “equal freedom”:

“”Yes, I believe in Freedom — equal freedom. I want no freedom for myself that all others may not equally enjoy. Freedom that is not equal is not freedom. It is, or may easily become, invasion, and invasion is the denial or the death of freedom. The Spencerian formula — ‘Each has the right to do as he pleases so long as he does not invade the equal right of others,’ tells what freedom means. It is equivalent to saying that liberty, wedded to responsibility for one’s acts, is the true and only basis of good conduct, or of morality.” — From a “Free Man’s Creed,” by Moses Harman. The picture and quotation were copied from the Memorial of Moses Harman.”

West shows Harman’s animosity toward religion and “particularly Christianity”:

“Religion, particularly Christianity, came under heavy verbal attack by Harman. He contended that religion was based on ignorance of nature’s methods and fear of the unseen powers that were supposedly warring over human destiny. Religion was dangerous, declared Harman, because “fear begets hate, and hate results in oppression, war, and bloodshed.” [55] Later he suggested:

Cling not to the cross of a dead god for help in time of trouble, but stand erect like a man and resolutely meet the consequences of your acts, whatever they may be. . . . Every man [and woman] must be his own physician, his own priest, his own god and savior, if he is ever healed, purified, and saved. [56]”

West speaks to Harman’s hatred of the institution of marriage below:

“Harman opposed the institution of marriage because he considered it an unequal yoke. [65] He maintained that marital rights were limited to the rights of the husband, with the wife being but a slave to her master husband. [66] The promises of marriage to “love, obey, and honor,” said Harman, were immoral because there was no reasonable assurance that the two persons would be able to carry out the promises. [67] Love and freedom were supposedly destroyed by marriage. “If love survives marriage,” alleged Harman, “it is not because of it but in spite of it.” [68]”

West presents Harman’s vision of a “rational” family:

“He believed that the abolition of marriage would result in the birth of fewer children since children would be welcomed and cared for by mutual affection. He looked forward to the emergence of a new “rational” family where each member would “drop to his place like stones in an arch when artificial props are removed.” [72] This new family would be under the domination of the mother. [73]”

West shows Harman’s view that women needed financial independence from men:

“On another occasion he stressed that women would never have political independence until they earned enough money to command respect. This was not possible, said Harman, because women spend most of their good years bearing and rearing children. [75]”

David S. D’Amato in his article “Free Love: Moses Harman” for Libertarianism.org writes that Harman’s views formed the basis of a “lexicon” for the values that Americans now hold today:

“Moses Harman was a dauntless and pioneering early voice for feminism, sexual and reproductive freedoms, and free expression. His periodical Lucifer was arguably the most important publication of the free love movement, so important a part of latter nineteenth century American radicalism. Harman’s work anticipates much of a lexicon we now take for granted in the public conversation on women’s rights and family planning.

Fighting censorship and the oppression of women, Harman finds victory today through the strength of his ideas and their legacy, even if he often lost to the forces of reaction and authority in his own time. Harman thus offers a glimmer of hope to libertarians, to a group that looks forward to a freer and more tolerant society, yet realizes that it likely waits far off, beyond the horizon. For while Harman was widely considered an insane old crank in his lifetime, he is vindicated in the present.”

 

Moses Harman And the Invention of Marital Rape

Wendy McElroy wrote an article for Foxnews.com entitled “Spousal Rape Case Sparks Old Debate” arguing against the historical marital rape exception that has existed in Western law until recent decades. In this article she alludes to who was responsible for first nationwide discussion of the possibility of marital rape:

“Western jurisprudence has a long tradition of absolving husbands from the possibility of rape. The first significant discussion in America of forced sex within marriage being categorized as rape, and of the need for a legal remedy, may well have been “The Markland Letter,” which was published in 1887 in a Kansas newspaper.

The letter read, “About a year ago F——— gave birth to a baby, and was severely torn by the instruments in incompetent hands. She has gone through three operations and all failed…last night when her husband came down, forced himself into her bed, and the stitches were torn from her healing flesh, leaving her in worse condition than ever...”

The Markland letter became nationally notorious largely because its graphic description of violence left little doubt that the husband was a rapist despite the law.”

 

The “Kansas newspaper” she alludes to was Moses Harman’s “Lucifer the Light Bearer”.

Merril D. Smith in her book “Sex Without Consent: Rape and Sexual Coercion in America” gives us some more detail on the Markland letter:

“A good example is provided by Dr. W.G. Markland who sent Moses Harman, the editor of Lucifer, Light Bearer a letter from a close female friend which described the experiences of a woman who had recently given birth. Because of the incompetence of her attending physicians she suffered lacerations and subsequently endured several painful operations to correct her condition. While she was recuperating from her latest experience under the surgeon’s knife, Markland reported, her husband “forced himself into her bed and the stitches were torn from her healing flesh, leaving her in a worse condition than ever.” Incensed by this behavior, Markland was even more irate that the wife had no legal recourse to punish her attacker. “Will you point to a law that will punish this brute?” he rhetorically asked is reader. “If a man stabs his wife to death with a knife,” he continued, “does not the law hold him for murder?” But if he “murders her with his penis, what does the law do?”” – page 214

And from this letter from Dr. Markland published in Harman’s Lucifer the Light Bearer publication a national debate was started about the possibility of marital rape. Harman would quickly receive many letters from others that would claim there was an epidemic of women across America dying as a result for forced sex from their husbands.  Merril D. Smith concedes that there were many who doubted the accounts and many who believed the Free Lovers contention that “thousands” of these events were happening across the nation were exaggerations:

“Throughout the nineteenth century critics of the Free Lovers were quick to deny their claims of the prevalence of marital sexual abuse in the Victorian bedroom. In 1854, for example, Adin Ballou Argued that these sexual radicals “are prone to exaggerate the evils of dual marriage. They seem to think the best half of their battle is won, if they can only make these evils appear sufficiently dreadful. Accordingly, they harp incessantly on this string.” As part of their project to eliminate marriage, the Free Lovers clearly had a stake in publicizing these incidents of abuse.  They did not, however, make them up.” – page 218

The problem with the Markland Letter case was not with its condemnation of the husband’s behavior. I think the vast majority of Christians would agree both then and now that what he did to his wife was wrong.

As a Bible believing Christian and a firm believer in God’s institution of marriage and a husband’ sexual rights to his wife’s body I can easily show that God condemned the behavior of the husband in the Markland Letter based on the Biblical principle that husbands are to care for the needs of their wife’s bodies as they do their own.

“28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church”

Ephesians 5:28-29 (KJV)

Would the advocates of the false proposition of marital rape agree with us as Bible believing Christians that what the husband in the Markland Letter did was physical abuse even to the point of possibly endangering his wife’s life? Of course, they would.

But from a Biblical perspective it is absolutely impossible for a man to rape his wife because a man can only rape a woman he is not married to.  

In other words, from a Biblical perspective forced sex within the confines of marriage is not and cannot ever be classified as rape, but only forced sex outside of the confines of marriage can rightly be considered rape.

Also I need to point out something very important for Christians to understand about rape.  The world says rape is immoral because it violates a woman’s consent to sexual relations but the Bible shows us rape is wrong because it violates God’s consent for a man to have sexual relations with a woman.  God only consents to a man having sexual relations with a woman if he has entered into a covenant of marriage with her and then he may have sex with her “at all times” as Proverbs 5:19 commands.

However, Ephesians 5:28-29’s command for men to care for the needs of their wife’s body is a Biblical caveat to Proverbs 5:19’s exhortation for men to sexually satisfy themselves with their wife’s body at all times.   

While we as Christians should reject the false construct of marital rape we should certainly recognize the possibility of a husband physically abusing his wife and this Markland Letter case shows the husband did just that.  A woman’s genitals need time to heal after giving birth.  Even if the surgery was for something different than complications after child birth – if a husband forces himself on his wife with complete disregard for the damage it may cause her after surgery this is a clear violation of the Ephesians 5:28-29 principle that he is to care for the welfare of his wife’s body.

The truth is that free love advocates and feminists had (and still have today) a more insidious agenda.  They did not want to simply condemn physical abuses which occurred in this marriage situation or others.  They wanted to condemn the entire concept of Christian marriage itself with the husband as the head of the wife as an abusive relational construct and they wanted to eliminate traditional marriage from American society.

Now that we have shown the evil roots and true agenda of the Free Love and Sexual Consent ideologies we will now look at the fruit of these wicked movements in the form of modern “Sexual Consent” teachings.

The Biblical View of Sex Vs the Sexual Consent Ideology

Planned Parenthood has an article on their website entitled “Sexual Consent” which I think is a good representation of the tenets of modern Sexual Consent Ideology.  Below I will take several of those tenets they list and compare these tenets to what the Bible says about sexual relations between men and women.

Marriage is in Agreement to Sexual Activity

Sexual Consent Ideology says “Sexual consent is an agreement to participate in a sexual activity” but the Bible says Marriage IS an agreement to participate in a sexual activity:

“Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.”

I Corinthians 7:3 (KJV)

“If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.”

Exodus 21:10 (KJV)

Before You Can Be Sexual With Someone You Must Marry Them

Sexual Consent Ideology says “Before being sexual with someone, you need to know if they want to be sexual with you too” but the Bible says before being sexual with someone you need to be married to them first:

“Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.”

Hebrews 13:4 (KJV)

The Only Sexual Consent Required in Marriage is Consent to NOT have Sex

Sexual Consent Ideology says “Both people must agree to sex — every single time — for it to be consensual.” But the Bible says both people within a covenant of marriage must agree to NOT have sex.  Yes, sir and Yes mam you read that right.  The only mutual agreement regarding sex the Bible speaks to is the cessation of sex for short periods of mutually agreed time and then the couple is admonished to come back together in sexual union again:

“Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.”

I Corinthians 7:5 (KJV)

A Man Has God’s Consent to Have Sex with His Wife at All Times

Sexual Consent Ideology says “Without consent, sexual activity (including oral sex, genital touching, and vaginal or anal penetration) is sexual assault or rape” but the Bible says God has given a man his consent to have sex with his wife “at all times” regardless of her consent:

“18 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. 19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.”

Proverbs 5:18-19 (KJV)

Sex in Marriage is a Duty, NOT a Choice

Sexual Consent Ideology says “Consenting is a choice you make without pressure, manipulation, or under the influence of drugs or alcohol” but the Bible says sexual relations within marriage are a duty that the spouses have towards each other, not a choice (Exodus 21:10, I Corinthians 7:3).

Wives are to Sexually Submit to Their Husbands in Everything

Sexual Consent Ideology says “When it comes to sex, you should only do stuff you WANT to do, not things that you feel you’re expected to do” but the Bible commands wives to be in subjection to their husbands in everything:

“Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.”

Ephesians 5:24 (KJV)

The only exception to “every thing” is Acts 5:24’s exception that “We ought to obey God rather than man”.  That means if a woman’s husband asks her to participate in a threesome with another man she can rightly refuse his request because that would be a sin against God.  If, however he as her husband asks her to manually stimulate him, perform oral sex on him or have intercourse or other types of sexual activity with him this would fall under Ephesians 5:24’s “every thing” clause.

The Implicit Sexual Consent of the Marriage Covenant is Non-reversible

Sexual Consent Ideology says “Anyone can change their mind about what they feel like doing, anytime. Even if you’ve done it before, and even if you’re both naked in bed” but God says sexual consent which is given in the marriage covenant is NOT reversible but rather is a lifelong commitment:

“For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.”

Romans 7:2 (KJV)

You Don’t Get the Final Say Over Your Body, God Does

Sexual Consent Ideology says “You get the final say over what happens with your body” but God says your body belongs to him and in marriage he has given your body to your spouse for their sexual use:

“The earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.”
Psalm 24:1 (KJV)

“What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?”

1 Corinthians 6:19 (KJV)

“The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.”

I Corinthians 7:4 (KJV)

The entire American concept of “It’s my body I can do what I want with it” flies directly in the face of a central tenet of Biblical Christianity that the world and all of us who live in it or have ever lived belong to God.  This false philosophy of bodily autonomy was a foundational building block of the Sexual Revolution and also formed the basis of heinous so called “abortion rights”.

I am fine with God having authority over my life and body, but no man is going to tell me what to do!

Many Christian women have this attitude toward male headship in marriage and they refuse to see the utter contradiction such an attitude is with the clear teachings of the Scriptures.

It is absolutely true that the Bible says “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty” (II Corinthians 3:17) and there is no doubt in my mind that the spirit of the Lord was present at the founding of the United States of America.

On June 28, 1813 America’s second president John Adams wrote these words in a letter to America’s third president Thomas Jefferson:

“The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”

The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Washington D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XIII, p. 292-294.

As we previously pointed out, one of the general principles of Christianity is that we are not our own and that God has authority over our person and our bodies (Psalm 24:1, 1 Corinthians 6:19).   But many Christians reject the fact that God as our owner can and does delegate authority over us to other human beings.

Yes – God has made us free, both men and women, but we are warned not to use our freedom to serve our own selfish and sinful desires:

“For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.”

Galatians 5:13 (KJV)

God has not freed us so that we can serve our own selfish desires, but he has freed us to serve him. King David spoke of the relationship between the freedom God wants his people to have and the service to his law:

“And I will walk at liberty: for I seek thy precepts.”

Psalm 119:45 (KJV)

What this means is – we are free to serve God and live our lives within the bounds of his law. Moses Harman’s ideology that “Freedom that is not equal is not freedom” does not match up with the Biblical teaching of what freedom actually is.  Sadly a lot of American Christians over the last century or so have bought into Harman’s false philosophy that everyone must have equal rights or they are being treated as less than human or in an unjust manner.

The Bible actually teaches that there are several classes of people to whom God gives different rights.  The slave class was the lowest social class and contrary to assertions otherwise God did give slaves rights(Exodus 20:10, Exodus 21:26-28, Job 31:13-15 & Colossians 4:1) .

The Bible teaches that slaves were to be taken care of and treated justly and fairly by their masters.  It tells masters that just as they came from their mother’s womb, so too did their slaves reminding them to treat them as fellow human beings. The Bible condemned masters who killed their slaves and if they seriously injured their slaves they were required by God to grant freedom to those slaves.

So in this way the slave class of the Bible actually formulates basic human rights under God’s law.  Every social class above the slave class has these same rights and then more rights. Other Biblical social classes include indentured male and female servants, children, slave wives(concubines), free wives and finally free men.  Free men had the most rights of any social class under God’s order.

Even in the New Testament slaves are still commanded to obey their masters and the Apostle Paul even returned a runaway slave(Philemon 1:10-18). Wives are still commanded to submit to their husbands(Ephesians 5:22-24) and children are still commanded to obey their parents(Ephesians 6:1-3) clearly proving that these social classes remain as part of God’s order.

The point is that the Bible in direct contradiction to Moses Harman and the modern American philosophy that “Freedom that is not equal is not freedom” shows us that freedom is not in fact based in equality.

God calls slaves “freedmen” in the sense that they were spiritually free but yet he told them to accept their earthly position as slaves while if they could be free to take that opportunity.

“20 Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called. 21 Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that. 22 For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord’s freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ’s slave. 23 You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. 24 Brethren, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called.”

I Corinthians 7:20-24 (NASB)

For more on what the Bible actually says about slavery see my article “Why Christians should not be ashamed of slavery in the Bible“.

But in the context of the discussion of this article – men and women do not have the same rights and freedoms under God’s law yet they are both considered to be free.  God does not base our human value on our equal rights and freedoms with one another – but instead he bases it on the fact that we were created for his honor and glory and our value comes from fulfilling the role he has given us to play.

Isn’t it Selfish For a Man to Have Sex With His Wife When She is Not in The Mood?

Now some Christians at this point may be asking “Even though men and women have different rights under God’s law, isn’t it a selfish desire for a man to want sex with his wife when she tells him she is not in the mood?”  One of the most popular articles I ever wrote on the blog addresses that topic and it is entitled “Is a husband selfish for having sex with his wife when she is not the mood?” I hope you will take the time to read it with an open heart and an open mind. The answer I show from the Scriptures in that article is NO it is not selfish for a man to desire sex with his wife when she is not in the mood.

The Giving and Taking of Women in Marriage

Now I will demonstrate from the Scriptures that God’s law regarding a woman’s consent to sexual activity does not resolve around her choice, but rather it is based in God’s consent and the consent of the men whom he has placed in authority over women.

We start with the fact that God has granted ownership to a father over his daughter. Under God’s law, a father could sell his daughter as an indentured servant (Exodus 21:7-11) with the possibility that his daughter could become a wife to the man or a son of the man she was sold to.

In fact, in the Scriptures there is a consistent teaching that women are GIVEN in marriage (mostly by their fathers) and TAKEN in marriage by their husbands.

God commanded men to take wives for themselves and to give their daughters in marriage and take wives for their sons as well:

“Take ye wives, and beget sons and daughters; and take wives for your sons, and give your daughters to husbands, that they may bear sons and daughters; that ye may be increased there, and not diminished.”

Jeremiah 29:6 (KJV)

Jesus recognizing this principle of men taking women in marriage and women being given in marriage stated:

“For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.”

Matthew 22:30 (KJV)

So yes ladies – that cute tradition of a father walking his daughter down the isle and giving his daughter away in marriage is not just tradition – it is by the command of God and has been practiced in one form or another since the beginning of creation.

Now that we have shown the ownership of the father over his daughter we will now discuss the ownership of a husband over his wife.

The sad fact is many Christians in American society refuse to accept that the Bible is crystal clear in its language that marriage is in fact a transfer of ownership of a daughter from her father to her husband.

The Hebrew Word ‘baal’ meaning “owner/master” in noun form or “to be owned” in verb form is often used when referring to a woman’s husband and it is always used when speaking of marriage occurring between a man and woman. While there are many Old Testament examples that prove this the follow passage from the book of Deuteronomy demonstrates the noun and verb uses of ‘baal’ and the ownership of a husband over his wife:

“If a man be found lying with a woman married [‘baal’ verb “owned by”] to an husband[‘baal’ noun “owner”], then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.”

Deuteronomy 22:22 (KJV)

Ephesians 5:22-31 clearly states that God created marriage to be a model of the relationship of God to his people with man representing God and woman representing the people of God. In the Old Testament this was pictured in God’s marriage to Israel and in the New Testament this is pictured in Christ’s relationship to his Church.

The fact is that even in Christ’s relationship to his Church it is clear that he “purchased” his bride (Acts 20:28) as all other husbands had since the beginning of creation.

Many Christian feminists while proudly claiming that men should follow Ephesians 5:25’s admonition for husbands to love their wives AS Christ loved the Church then in the same breath deny what the verses in front of it just said that the husband is the head of the wife AS Christ is the head of the Church and that wives are to submit to their husbands AS the Church submits to Christ.   Ladies – you can’t have your cake and eat it too.  You can’t take one part of what God says about his design for marriage in Ephesians chapter 5 while rejecting the other parts of it.  You take it all or you reject it all.

A Biblical Case Study in Sexual Consent

In the book of Exodus, we find a very interesting case study into the mind of God regarding the issue of sexual consent.

“16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. 17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.”

Exodus 22:16-17 (KJV)

In verse 16 we are told that if a man entices a virgin (literally he seduces her) into having sexual relations with him we are told he has an obligation to make her his wife which would require him to enter into a covenant of marriage with her.  But then in verse 17 we read that God allows the father to “utterly refuse to give her unto him”.

When you look closely these two verses handle two different situations.  The first verse covers “Casanovas” or what we today would call “players”.  The second verse covers the “forbidden love” scenario.

God Condemns the Scheming Ways of Casanovas and Players

When the Bible commanded that the man must make the woman he enticed into extramarital relations his wife this was civil punishment and restitution that had to be made for his breaking of God’s moral law. This covers the Casanova who tries to have that “one-night stand” with a woman.  This covers the playboy who thinks he can seduce women into having sex with him outside of a covenant of marriage.

So, in this first scenario the man had no intention of marrying the woman – he just wanted to get some and he may have used all kinds of emotional trickery on the woman to convince her into having sex with him.  He may even have told her he loved her and wanted to ask her father’s hand in marriage.  He just wants a “taste” of the goods and then he will ask her father – or so he told her.

The next day after she naively gives herself to him he acts as if it never happened leaving her with the loss of her virginity and ruining her for other men.   This is the situation God was meaning to address by forcing the man to marry the woman he had just enticed.

Most men and women would call this first man I have just described a pig.  We would all be equally disgusted by his deceitful actions toward these young virgins while at the same time we must recognize these women also sinned by allowing him to entice them into sexual relations outside of a marriage covenant.

God Also Condemns Forbidden Love

But in verse 17 we see another scenario God is addressing.   This is a scenario that has played out in many “romance” stories over the years. Perhaps a daughter comes to her father and tells him of a cute young man that she wishes for him to arrange marriage for her to.  Her father refuses.  His reason might be character issues with the man or it might simply be economic issues.   The father may have told his daughter that he had a few other men in mind that were wealthier and could care for her better than this man she is attracted to.  Perhaps her marriage to one of these other men will provide a political or business alliance that will benefit her father. She tells her father “but I am not attracted to any of those men and I love this other man”.

Her father puts his foot down and tells his daughter “Enough! You are not marrying that man and I will hear no more of it.  I will let you know which of these other men I have chosen for you shortly.”  So, the daughter decides to take things into her own hands.  She decides she will go and have sex with the man she loves (lusts after) believing her father will be forced to give her to him in marriage.  Perhaps this man who also wants her for his wife has planted the idea in her head that her father will give her to him rather than refuse and risk her never marrying.

So, she comes to the man whom her father has refused and gives herself to the man who has so desperately wanted her.  At this point in the story most women and even a lot of men – Christian men and women would be rooting for the poor girl as she should have been able to chose the man she wanted right? WRONG.  The young virgin woman had absolutely NO right under God’s law to consent to sexual relations with that man. This entire scheme would be wicked before God.

This is why God grants father’s the right of refusal even if a man entices their daughter into sexual relations which means she has freely given herself to him (she was not forced).  This part of God’s law would work as deterrent to women who thought they could control their own sexuality or control what man they would marry.

This law taught women “If you give yourself to a man outside of lawfully approved marriage by your father – you might end up an old maid that never marries”.  So, a woman would be faced with this scenario – “Do I want to risk my father saying no because I sinned against him and God and risk being single the rest of my life or will I simply follow my father’s wishes and marry a man I am not attracted to but at least I will not be alone and I will have a husband and children?”

Men Can Make Women’s Virginity Precious Again

The sad commentary on our time is that a woman’s virginity is no longer the precious commodity to our culture that God declared it to be in the Scriptures.  Women have no fear that losing their virginity could relegate them to a lonely life with no marriage and no children as the women in the Bible feared.

We as Christians and especially young men and have allowed this to occur.  In the same way we men allowed feminism to rise we gave up the preciousness of a woman’s virginity by dating women who are not virgins.  Imagine if every Christian man made a commitment that he would never date or marry a woman who was not virgin unless her virginity was lost under these conditions:

  1. It was lost to her husband who died.
  2. It was lost to her husband from whom she was divorced (and she was the innocent party).
  3. It was lost because she was raped.

Would this not motivate young women to greatly guard their sexual purity? And yes, I know what all the egalitarians are saying – “what about the men?” Could these same rules be applied to men in order to promote sexual purity among young men as well? I think the answer is yes with the caveat that under Biblical law men may not be virgins when they marry a woman because they can have more than one wife.  But that is part of a larger discussion on polygamy which I have had elsewhere.  Another caveat in applying this to men is that as we have discussed in regard to young virgins living in their father’s home it is not the daughter that sets criteria for potential spouses but the father.

And just to be clear on this passage from Exodus – the man being forced to marry the woman he enticed to have sex with him and also the payment of the bride price even if the father refused were part of the civil laws of Israel.  These were restitutions that had to be made for breaking God’s moral law in either of the two scenarios we just described.

That’s just the Old Testament!

There are many Christians right now that have completely tuned out everything I have just written with the following thought in their head:

“Well that is just Old Testament and we as Christians are no longer under the Old Testament so Christian fathers have no right over their daughters sexual or marriage choices! Do you still stone people for adultery and do you still eat pork? If you don’t do these things then don’t talk to me about fathers control over their daughter’s decisions with their own bodies and their own lives. These decisions are between women and God.”

If you actually want to understand how the Bible works and the difference between the moral, ceremonial and civil laws of Israel and the fact that the Jesus Christ himself asserted the moral laws of the Old Testament I encourage you to read these articles I have written on the subject.

What is the distinction between the Moral, Ceremonial and Civil laws of the Old Testament?

What are the Moral Laws of God in the Old Testament?

Conclusion

The sad commentary on our time is that David S. D’Amato is absolutely right that our society has almost completely embraced the ideologies of Moses Harman with the big exception of his anarchist views. Feminists and Free Lovers actually went the opposite way on government and used the power of government to impose their views on American society.

Harman’s views of Christianity, men and women, gender roles and marriage which were considered “insane” a little more than a century ago are now “taken for granted” as truths that may no longer be questioned.

In the beginning of this article I alluded to Daphne Merkin’s statement in her New York Times article that “Expressing sexual interest is inherently messy…” in our modern American culture and I said I would explain at the end of this article why God’s appointed method of men and women expressing sexual interest is not messy at all but actually it is very easy when we do things his way.

Previously I alluded to several important passages of the Scriptures that directly speak to sex in marriage and they are Exodus 21:10, Proverbs 5:18-19, I Corinthians 7:2-5 and Ephesians 5:22-24.

Proverbs 5:18-19 teaches that a husband is commanded by God to sexually satisfy himself with his wife’s body at all times. Exodus 21:10 teaches that a husband has an obligation to provide his wife sexual access to his body.  I Corinthians 7:2-5 teaches that in marriage sex is both a right and responsibility for both the husband and the wife. Ephesians 5:22-24 teaches that wives are to submit to their husbands in everything and that includes their husband’s sexual preferences as long as he does not ask them to engage in sinful sexual acts (I gave the example a husband asking his wife to have sex with another man as an example of a sinful sexual request).

I also talked about God’s process for how men and women are to enter into sexual relations.  I showed how God only consents to a man and woman having sexual relations in the covenant of marriage.  I also showed God’s process for men and women entering into marriage after which they are allowed and are in fact commanded to have sexual relations with one another.

In modern America men have to flirt with women, flatter women or otherwise try and romance them to even have a chance of having having sex with them.  It is actually a very risky proposition for men and in the advent of the MeToo era it is even riskier as it might cost you your job. It truly is a “messy” process as Daphne Merkin calls it.

But in God’s design men did not have to flirt with women, flatter women or romance them to get them to have sex with them but rather they purchased the women they desired as Christ purchased his Church in Acts 20:28.

This was the process under normal conditions.  A man went to the woman’s father and expressed his interest in his daughter.  If he agreed to give his daughter to the man the man would return and present the bride price at which time the father would give his daughter to the man and he would then consummate the marriage by taking her sexually as his wife. From that point on he would take his wife sexually anytime he pleased and the wife would also have sexual access to his body as well.

A little note on the bride price.  While a man did not literally have to die to purchase his wife as Christ did to acquire his Church many men often had to save a half a years wages to purchase a wife.  That could take them several years to save. The Bible tells us of Jacob that he purchased Rachel by giving sevens years of labor to her father:

“And Jacob served seven years for Rachel; and they seemed unto him but a few days, for the love he had to her.”

Genesis 29:20 (KJV)

The Bible tells us that Rachel was a beautiful woman and her sister was something other than “beautiful and well favoured”.

“Leah was tender eyed; but Rachel was beautiful and well favoured.“

Genesis 29:17 (KJV)

The Hebrew phrase that is translated as “beautiful and well favoured” in the KJV is not as literal to Hebrew text.  In the Hebrew it it reads yâpheh[beautiful,lovely,fair] tô’ar [form, figure, shape] yâpheh[beautiful,lovely,fair] mar’eh[sight, vision, appearance].  So when we take this phrase together it said Rachel had “a beautiful figure and was lovely to look at”.  In modern terms we would say “Rachel had a hot body and was easy on the eyes”.

So apparently Rachel was so hot that Jacob served not one year or two years but seven years to purchase her as his wife!

But as we can see with God’s method of men and women entering into sexual relations with one another there is no mess, no fuss and no games. Some might argue that there was in fact a game that was played by Laban when he tricked Jacob into taking Leah as his wife first.  But that was a false contract and was sin before God. Regardless though Jacob being a noble man still kept Leah as his wife.

The point is it is a lot less complicated than what Daphne Merkin described as the MeToo movement’s goal of sex as “the childhood game of “Mother, May I?”.

What that means in practical terms is since I married my wife I can come touch her sexually any time I want.  If I want to come up behind her in the kitchen and cup her breasts in my hands as she washes the dishes I can do that.  I don’t have to ask her permission to do so.  If I want to slide my hands down her thighs and touch her groin area I don’t have to ask her permission to do so. If I want to slap her on the rear end as I walk by her, again I don’t have to ask her permission to do so. And finally, if I want to initiate sexual relations with her I don’t have to ask her permission before doing so.

In the same way if my wife wants to come by and grab my groin she has every right to do so as my wife.  If she wants to come by and slap me on the rear end she has every right to do so.   If while I am sleeping in the morning my wife decides to get on top of me and start having sex with me she has every right to do so as God has given her sexual access to my body.

Now we also understand that there is a Biblical caveat to our sexual access to our spouse’s body in that we are to care for the wellbeing of our spouse (Ephesians 5:28-29).  That means as Christians we can rightly condemn the actions of the husband who forces himself on his wife after surgery or child birth and thus endangers her by do so but at the same time we can uphold a husband’s right to have sex with his wife even if she may simply not be in the mood.

My point is if we enter into sexual relations following God’s design there is absolutely no chance of sexual harassment ever happening.  It is impossible for me to grope my wife (because she belongs to me) or for her to grope me (because God has given her sexual access to my body).  There is no messiness to sex in marriage when we remove the world’s evil ideas about sexual consent.

It is only when we bring the tenets of sexual consent ideology into sexual relations in marriage that sexual initiation then becomes “messy”.  If a husband has his hand slapped away by his wife she is sinfully making sexual initiation “messy” for her husband and sadly many women do that today.  If a husband would rather look at porn and masturbate than have sex when his wife reaches for him that makes sexual initiation “messy” for his wife.

And finally, on this topic of sexual consent – I have demonstrated here with conclusive proof that both in their origins and their agendas that the Sexual Consent and Free Love movements were founded in evil philosophies that were directly opposed to the God of the Bible and God’s institution of marriage.

God does not consent to two men or two women having sexual relations with one another even if they have given their “free” and “enthusiastic” consent to one another.

God does not give his consent to a man and woman having sexual relations with one another because they have both freely and enthusiastically given consent to one another.

God ONLY gives his consent to a man and woman having sexual relations when they have lawfully entered into a marriage covenant according the Scriptures.  Once a man and woman have entered into the covenant of marriage, not only does God consent to them having sexual relations but he commands it.

As Christians we would agree with the MeToo movement that men should not be making unwanted sexual advances in the work place or implying that their female coworkers or subordinates need to perform sexual acts to get promotions or keep their jobs.

But while we agree with MeToo that these actions by men are wrong – we very much disagree as to WHY these actions are wrong.  MeToo following the false Sexual Consent ideology says these unwanted sexual advances are wrong because they violate a woman’s consent.  For MeToo – if the woman expressed clear consent to having sexual relations with a coworker or even her boss then there is no wrong committed by the man in responding to her.

However, for us as Bible believing Christians a man making unwanted sexual advances toward a woman he is not married to whether in the workplace or elsewhere is wrong not because it violates the woman’s consent, but because it violates God’s consent to him having sexual relations with that woman.

We can all agree that physical abuse does occur in some marriages even if we might debate what actually constitutes physical abuse. Also as Christians we can agree that Ephesians 5:28-29 condemns husbands physically abusing their wives.  But as Christians we may never classify any physical abuse in marriage as rape because the false construct of marital rape implies that a wife may reject her husband’s sexual advances.

The Scriptures show that a woman may only resist a man’s sexual advances if she is not married to him and in the case of the man not being married to her she is required to resist his advances. That is why from a Biblical perspective a woman’s consent to sexual relations is really an oxymoron. Before marriage she has no choice but to say NO and after marriage she has no choice but to say YES.

It is not the woman’s consent that matters, it is Gods.

 

Do Christian Values Cause Sexual Harassment?

/ biblicalgenderroles / 36 Comments

With the revelations of famous men acting badly toward women and the rise of the MeToo# movement we are having a national conversation about the causes of sexual harassment.  Some have made a startling accusation that it is the “toxic” system of Christian values which is at the root of this evil behavior. The sad part is many Christians in America have been so indoctrinated by feminism that they would not even recognize that Christian values are being attacked.

In an article he wrote for Inc.com entitled “Yes, We Can Defeat Sexual Harassment in the Workplace. Here Are 6 Powerful Ways to Do It” Marcel Schwantes says the fight against sexual harassment is “about deconstructing false values embedded in toxic systemic thinking”:

“Both men and women of good conscience are fearlessly acknowledging the elephant in the room — the disturbing, age-old trend of men in power taking advantage of their status to prey on women (and other men) working below them.

Therefore, the fight is just as much about deconstructing false values embedded in toxic systemic thinking, and the thinking of sick minds. In the BBC article, Eden King exposes a root cause of sexual harassment: “A belief that women are inferior to men, the belief that men should have power over women,” and, she adds, a belief that “men should be aggressors and women should be gatekeepers.” The process of shifting mindsets doesn’t start in training rooms. King says it should begin in the earliest days of childhood education and development.”

Do Christians believe in “toxic” and “false” values that lead to sexual harassment?

Eden King lists these 4 values that she believes are false and Marcel Schwantes calls “toxic” ways of thinking that actually lead to the sexual harassment of women:

  1. “A belief that women are inferior to men”
  2. “the belief that men should have power over women”
  3. “men should be aggressors”
  4. “women should be gatekeepers”

So let’s now examine each of these beliefs as to their whether they are true or false and whether they lead to sexual harassment or actually would help to prevent it.

“A belief that women are inferior to men”

“Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.”

I Peter 3:7 (KJV)

Women are equal to men in their humanity as we all have the blood of Adam (both men and women).  But women are not equal to men in strength and many other attributes. Women were designed to be weaker than men so that they would need men as mankind needs God.  Believing women are inferior to men does not mean we do not honor women.  But as the Scriptures tell us we give honor to women as the weaker vessels God designed them to be.

So, this first supposed “false value” is not false based on the Word of God.  This means this value that has been held by civilizations even without the Bible for thousands of years is actually a TRUE value and a righteous value. Accepting this truth has not lead most men to prey on women, but rather it leads men to protect women.

“the belief that men should have power over women”

“3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God…

10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.”

I Corinthians 11:3 & 10 (KJV)

The Bible tells that God’s order in this world is God the father is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of man and man is the head of woman and that woman should have a sign of authority or a sign that there is a power over her head which is man.

Again, this second supposed “false value” is not false based on the Word of God.  This means this value that has been held by civilizations even without the Bible for thousands of years is actually a TRUE value and a righteous value. Accepting this truth has not lead most men to prey on women, but rather it leads men to desire to lead women.

“men should be aggressors”

“Blessed be the Lord my strength which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight”

Psalm 144:1 (KJV)

“10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, 11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; 12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;

13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.”

Deuteronomy 21:10-14 (KJV)

This third supposed “false value” is not false based on the Word of God.  The Bible tells us that God has made men aggressive by nature.  Man’s aggressive nature when it is used for sinful purposes can cause great destruction and evil.  But when man channels his aggressive nature toward godly purposes this helps him to accomplish great things – including taking a wife.

Accepting this truth that men are aggressors or initiators in life is not something that should cause men to harass women or otherwise act badly toward them.  Instead this truth that men are aggressors should lead men to channel their aggression into their work so they can be successful in their business endeavors to be able to provide a home for a future wife. It should also cause them to aggressively seek out a godly woman who wants to fulfill her God given purpose as a wife and mother.

“women should be gatekeepers”

“20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:

21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.”

Deuteronomy 22:20-22 (KJV)

Finally, this fourth supposed “false value” is not false based on the Word of God.  The Bible tells us that God has in fact assigned the role of gatekeeper to women regarding their sexual purity. In the Scriptures if a woman lost her virginity before marriage it could relegate her to a life of celibacy and if she hid the loss of her virginity it could cost her life.

While we are no longer under the civil penalties of the Old Testament law – the moral law remains.  God has given women a serious and lifelong task to protect their bodies and keep them only for their future or current husbands.  Her husband is the only one that she may and in fact must allow through the gate to access the pleasures of her body.

Accepting this truth that women are tasked by God to be gatekeepers of their sexual purity does not excuse men from acting badly toward woman. But this is why God created woman’s sexual nature to be so different than man’s. Men are designed by God to be primarily physically driven toward sex and only secondarily relationally driven.  Because of this a man can very easily have sex with a woman regardless of their relational status.  But God in his perfect design of woman for man created her with a relational    sexual nature that causes her to only desire to give herself to one man and one man only – her husband.  She is literally built with a self-protection mechanism that protects her for her man.

Conclusion

I could not agree more with Marcel Schwantes that returning to values would help to greatly reduce sexual harassment in the workplace.  However, I completely disagree with him as to what values we need to return to.  The values he and Eden King calls “false” and places as the root of the evils of sexual harassment are in fact the values that could greatly reduce the sexual harassment of women if we as a society returned them.

The “values” Schwantes and King believe we should return to do not find their basis in the Word of God, but rather in Second Wave Feminism and the Sexual Revolution which brought us these destructive changes to society:

  1. Women leaving their gatekeeper role and engaging in extramarital sex
  2. Women seeking higher education while delaying marriage
  3. Women putting off having children even after marriage
  4. Women having financial independence from men
  5. Women rebelling against their subordinate role in marriage and society

The truth is, it is not Biblical values that have lead us to the sexual harassment crisis our culture finds itself in today, but rather it is the values of Second Wave Feminism and the Sexual Revolution which are the true root of the problem.

How men can protect themselves from being accused of sexual harassment

/ biblicalgenderroles / 6 Comments

In the wake of a flood of sexual harassment charges that have been waged against famous men in recent months and the resulting #MeToo movement men need to truly examine how they can guard themselves from being accused of sexual harassment.

I am not against women coming forward to let people know about men who have sexually assaulted them.  If my 15-year-old daughter was sexually assaulted I would want to know and I would want her to report this to the police.

But I also have two older sons who are young adult men and I have two younger sons that will one day be men. I worry for both my daughter and my sons.  I don’t want my daughter to put herself in a position where a man could assault her but I equally don’t want my sons to put themselves in a position where they could be falsely accused by a woman of sexual assault.

This is Personal for Me

This issue of sexual harassment hits very close to home for me.  And no for all my detractors I have never ever sexually harassed or abused any person. I have never been accused of sexual harassment.   But the reason this hits close to home for me is because of three events that happened in my life. One of these events I have previously shared a little information on before but the other two I have not.  All of these are deeply personal to me but I feel in light of recent events it is time to share them.

When I was 9 years old my two 13 year old sisters(they are twins) falsely accused my father of sexual abuse.   They did this as part of a broad set of claims they brought against my mother and father about being physically abused. I along with my brother who was 8 at the time were removed from our parents home along with our sisters by social services. I spent several months in foster care while my parents were thoroughly investigated by social workers.

Just a little background on my parents.  They were strict fundamental baptists and they did spank us sometimes with a belt and other times with a paddle. But they did not abuse us.  They loved us and they were raising as they thought was right before God.

The social workers interviewed me, my brother and my sisters many times over several months.  My brother and I were pretty consistent about what we experienced and we did not report anything besides normal spankings from our parents.  My sisters on the other hand kept having inconsistencies in their stories.  Their stories would change every time they were interviewed.  Eventually they admitted that they lied about my father sexually abusing them and my mother physically abusing them because they thought my parents were “strict religious nuts”.   They just wanted out of my parents house.  It was also determined that my sisters had bipolar and schizophrenia disorders.

My brother and I were allowed to come back home to our parents and my sisters stayed in foster care until they were adults. The decision was mutual as they did not want to come home and my parents did not want them to come back home after they ripped our family apart and accused my father and mother of such horrible things.  Years later when they were adults they apologized to my parents and restored their relationship with them.

When I was 14 years old I was molested by a 17 year old boy in our youth group. He befriended me and I thought he was really cool. We would talk about video games that he and I both liked.  He would drive me to the Burger King at the corner near our church and buy me food. We used to sit up in the balcony of our baptist church where not a lot of people sat and at first it was just him slapping my thighs with his hands.  Then he would just put his hand on my thigh without slapping it and I would move away from him.  And finally one Sunday during church he actually grabbed my crotch. That was it.  I got up and never spoke to him again.  He knew what he did and I knew what he did.

Why didn’t I tell anyone? Was it because I was ashamed?  No – although I was very disgusted by the homosexual aspect of it.   I did not tell anyone because I felt despite him being a few years older than me that he was my peer.  It was not as though he was a teacher at my school or my boss at the restaurant I worked for. I did not want to ruin his life.  I felt him loosing my friendship was punishment enough and perhaps it would teach him not to do that again.

Another reason I did not try to get him in trouble was because I knew that if he were a 17 year old girl that I was friends with and a 17 year old girl touched me on the crotch I would not have been bothered by it.  Yes – I was a normal heterosexual 14 year old boy and no I was not sinless and most 14 year old boys would have to fight every instinct in their body to push a 17 year old girl’s hand off their crotch.

One other thing I want to say about what happened to me when I was 14.  I know I would have felt differently if I felt trapped or held down by that 17 year old boy or if he would have been someone much older than me such as a parent or teacher.  So I do not mean to diminish others who have been touched in similar ways under different situations.

When I was a young adult man in my early twenties my mom felt it was time to finally share with me a painful event that happened to her as a young teenage girl.  She was raped by her own grandfather. It so traumatized her and warped her view of men and sexuality that for the first few years of her marriage to my Dad they had a very dysfunctional sex life.  She gave my Dad sex anytime he wanted – but she did not enjoy it and she did her best to hide it from him.  It took time for her to finally be able to enjoy sex with my father knowing how much he loved and care for her and to move past the hurt and trauma of what happened to her with her grandfather.

The reason I have shared these three major events in my life is to show that I understand sexual molestation from a personal perspective, the effects of sexual assault from my mother’s perspective and the effects of being falsely accused of sexual assault from my father’s perspective.

And do you know which one these three events in my life grieved me the most of all? It was what I saw it do to my mother and father – especially my father when my sisters lied about them.  It tore him up. It tore me up. I did not really know or understand the sexual aspect of the charges until a few later when I was a teenager and my Dad told me.  I remember having supervised visitation with him and my mom when I was in foster care and it was some of the only times in my life I saw tears in my father’s eyes.

This is why I can honestly say I understand both sides of this issue.  It is why I am passionate about protecting my daughter from sexual predators and my sons from women who would lie to hurt them.

The Evil in Men’s Hearts Cannot be Legislated or Taught Away

The Bible says:

“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?”

Jeremiah 17:9 (KJV)

This is why if we as Christians truly understand what the Bible says about human nature when we hear of murder, mass murder, rape and molestation we know that no law and no education program will eliminate this behavior in mankind.

What we can do is protect ourselves against the inevitability of man’s evil nature – including our own.  In Romans 13:1-5 we see that the primary purpose which God has assigned to human government is to protect the people and punish evil doers.  In Nehemiah 4:14 men are encouraged to “fight for your brethren, your sons, and your daughters, your wives, and your houses”.

So from a Biblical perspective, both the government and husbands and fathers have a responsibility to protect our families from those who would harm them.

This is why the answer to stopping mass shootings is not to outlaw guns or making more “gun free zones”.  This just makes it easier for evil men to kill more people. The answer is to account for evil men by having MORE citizens carry guns, not less.  This means we should have trained and armed citizens at every church and school in America and every other place that might be a considered a “soft target” for evil men.  You can’t have a mass shooting if the shooter gets shot after the first few bullets.  But when everyone in the building has no guns they are just sitting ducks waiting to be killed.

This same concept applies to sexual sin.

The “Romans 13:14 Rule” Protects us From Sexual Sin

An important thing that we must remember as Christians is sexual harassment, rape, molestation and sex outside of marriage between a man and woman are all forms of fornication.  It is all sexual immorality in God’s eyes and we must guard against it both in our hearts as well as from others.

Vice President Pence took a beating in the press a while back for his rule that he will not dine alone with other women unless his wife is present.  Billy Graham had a similar rule in that he would never allow himself to be alone with a woman that was not his blood relative.

The “Pence Rule” and the “Graham Rule” are actually based on a much older rule found in the Scriptures:

 “But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof”

Romans 13:14 (KJV)

The phrase “and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof” means “Do not put yourself in a position where you might be tempted to sin”.  I would even expand that principle further and a say we should not put ourselves in any position that would allow us to be tempted to sin against God or someone else OR put ourselves in a position that might allow someone else to sin against us.

In my article “12 Ways to transform modern dating into Biblical dating” I argued against the modern practice of dating and instead for the traditional practice of courting.  A large part of my argument for going back to courting is that dating makes “provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof”. It puts men and women alone together for various lengths of time and over time it will inevitably lead to sexual temptation. On the other hand, courting ensures that a woman always has family members with her when she is with a man to ensure her safety as well as to help keep her and the man she is courting from sexual temptation.

If we as men were to practice the Romans 13:14 rule or what has been called “The Graham Rule” and most recently “The Pence Rule” it would protect us against our own sinful natures as well as those of the women around us.  It would protect us from being tempted to sin with women who are not our wives and it would protect us from false allegations of sexual assault by women.

The “Pence Rule” Actually Hurts Women?

Tara Isabella Burton wrote an article for Vox.com entitled “Former Trump adviser says the “Pence rule” would have protected women from Weinstein. He’s wrong” asserting that the “Pence rule” actually hurts women:

“Likewise, the Pence/Graham rule can effectively ensure that the men who make a public point of following it are likewise “above suspicion.” The rule preserves their reputation, not so-called female virtue, and functions on appearances, not fact.

But we shouldn’t mistake the rule’s efficacy for unselfishness. It is a completely self-serving maxim, designed to protect men against women, and not the other way around. It does little for the women whose careers are stymied by a lack of access to good mentors and peers. A system in which private male-female interaction is treated as an automatic “red flag” is one that penalizes women for existing. In these scenarios, women may be more protected from harassment — just as their male counterparts are more protected from the specter of spurious allegations — but they are likewise barred from interactions that might benefit them professionally. Meanwhile, their male colleagues and superiors would suffer no such professional backlash, especially since men in the entertainment industry already tend to have powerful positions.”

Burton displays for us what the real problem is with our society – the worship of education and equality and the total denial of the reality of human nature and the differences between men and women.

Three Truths We Must Acknowledge About the #MeToo Movement

#1 – We must acknowledge the possibility that some of the sexual harassment and assault allegations we are hearing about in the news are true.
#2 – We must equally acknowledge the possibility that some of these sexual assault allegations are false.
#3 – This wave of allegations across industries and the political world will hinder women’s career advancements

Burton and other women may not like the third truth about this actually hindering women in their career advancements.  But there is a law of nature that applies to what is happening with the #MeToo movement and the flood of sexual assault allegations that are coming out.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. 

With all the allegations of sexual harassment coming out it will definitely have an impact on women’s careers.  Many men whether in Hollywood, the business world or the political world will think twice about hiring  female subordinates. Corporations may put polices in place that forbid men and women from working alone together.

It is ironic that the #MeeToo movement and all the allegations of sexual assault against men may actually move us closer toward implementing the “Romans 13:14 rule” as a society for our own protection.  And from a Biblical gender roles perspective this is one good thing that will come out of this entire mess.