TLC’s “Virgin Diaries” to air on Dec. 4.

On Sunday, Dec. 4, cable network TLC (home of the Gosselins, Duggars, frumps who need makeovers, and little people) is going to air a one-hour special called Virgin Diaries.  This documentary fill focus on six virgins – a couple saving their first kiss for their wedding***, a 35-year-old redditor incel, and three 30-year-old female roommates (one of whom is a “reclaimed virgin”) who are blogging about their search for Mr. Right.

It’ll be interesting to see how TLC handles the subject, especially in light of the promo below.

***

Social experiment vote!

I’ve been thinking about trying a little matchmaking through the blog.  Chances are, if you’re reading this blog regularly, you’re single, intelligent, educated, and a Christian of some stripe.  You’re also more savvy to the realities of the SMP than the average Boundless reader, and you’re not a sensitive church hipster who likes to drink expensive coffee and say “awesome” a lot while trying to get your family members to buy tiny woven baskets made by women in third world countries.  And you’re trying to meet people of the opposite sex, at least a little.  When you think about it, you’re a part of a pretty select group.

Given that, I had this idea that we could do a sort of Secret Santa matchmaking thingy.  You would email me your answers to a list of questions to help customize the matching (such as age, location, denomination, interests), and I would make the matches and then email you your match and that person’s details.  Then it’s up to you to get in touch.  Think of it as the poor man’s eHarmz.  At the very least, you’ll have the opportunity to meet a new single person of the opposite sex.

Weigh in below – if there’s enough interest, we’ll move ahead. :)

How you like them apples?

Happy (American) Thanksgiving, HHalo readers!

On this federally sanctioned day of tryptophanic gluttony, take the time to thank God for at least one thing in your life, not the least of which is this very blog you are reading.  I’m definitely thankful for all of the visitors, readers, and commenters who make writing this blog that much more satisfying (and entertaining!).  Consider yourself blissfully side-hugged by Aunt Haley.

P.S.  Yes, I made the pie myself from scratch.  Marriage proposal line begins to the left.

Co-ed church softball league game?

Well, I’ve joined my church’s co-ed slow pitch softball team**, which plays in a league that is comprised entirely of churches.  Not sure yet if it’s a good place to meet people outside of your own church, given that you’re not there to mingle with the other team, plus you can’t really tell who’s married or not since most people are wearing gloves on their ring hand and most of the time you’re too far away to see anything, anyway.  Also, the male/female ratio is favorable to women, since most teams only have a few women.  Then again, softball isn’t really a sport that attracts shapely, slender women, so maybe it’s more of a draw.  Sorry, guys.

I did think the other team’s pitcher tonight was kind of cute, but then he walked me twice.  DLV?

**y81, your praise may now commence.

Stuff Christians like: Sign language.

If there’s one thing that Christians, especially evangelicals, LOVE, it’s other languages.  No one laps up African children’s choirs or a missionary on furlough opening his guest sermon in his missional language quite like Christians do.  Sometimes Christians even like to wear traditional clothing of other nations during Missions Week to show their solidarity with countries they went to once on a missions trip back in the ’90s.

However, there is one language that Christians love above nearly all others, probably because you don’t even have to be able to hear to enjoy it.  That language is SIGN LANGUAGE.

Despite the fact that I have never attended a service where a plural number of people was both hearing impaired and sign-language literate, Christians just LOVE LOVE LOVE singing with their hands.  “Jesus Loves Me”?  SIGNED.  “Awesome God”?  SIGNED.  Anything by Hillsong?  SIGNED.  And if you’ve grown up in church, chances are you performed at least one signed song with the kiddie choir.  Even my church got into the act not that long ago, with a small choir busting out the S.L. and the worship leader exhorting everyone to sing to God in “another language.”

I think the popularity of sign language stems from a couple of different places.  For conservative, non-charismatic Christians, this gives them the opportunity to raise their arms above their heads and not feel like a threatening Pentecostal.  Think of it as the White Christian’s Gospel Hands, or the White Christian’s Dancing From The Waist Up.  For more liberal Christians, sign language gives them the satisfaction of “reaching out” while placating lack-of-diversity guilt at the same time.  Basically, it’s all win from whatever angle you’re coming at it from.

So if you know signing, or even just one song that you learned at another church, don’t be shy.  Let your worship leader know.  Ten bucks says you’ll be doing a solo on Sunday morning in no time flat, or even teaching the choir to sign, and then just watch the hearts be blessed by your rare and special talent.

So SIGN ON, BRETHREN.  SIGN ON.

P.S.  It is not very easy to find videos of men signing while singing.

Whatever else He has in store for you could be a lot of waiting.

In his post “Boundless Is Their Foolishness,” Dalrock calls out women who treat every goal in their lives like a job – except getting married.  He writes:

When it comes to her real priorities in life, she is all about the plan.  But when it comes down to becoming a wife and mother, she is sitting around waiting for God to deliver a beta provider.  This seems to fit both with the general advice Haley relays from the church, as well as what I hear many Christians discussing.  If I’m understanding the general Christian message to young women correctly, it is:

Don’t worry, God will guide your heart.

A recent Boundless post encapsulates this exact attitude.  In “A Moment of Reflection,” blogger Emma just passed the six-month mark in her ChristianCafe.com membership and has Learned Things.  She says:

The most surprising thing I’ve learned is how I really feel about marriage. Before I started on this journey, I wanted to get married. But I don’t think I realized how much I actually desired it. In a strange way, it was difficult to admit that I want marriage. (Kind of silly, huh?) On the other hand, it was freeing. Going to Jesus, being honest about those desires and laying them before Him continues to be an exercise in faith. I have also been convicted about the fantasy I’ve built up about how meeting my future spouse is going to happen. The picture I’ve had in my head about how my life would turn out has differed vastly from how it’s actually happened. While I’ve had to work on accepting what God is doing with my life in general, the area of dating and marriage is one place where I’ve held on to my own plan tightly. Slowly I’ve become aware of the need to relinquish control.

So that’s where things stand now. I know that there are many more lessons to be learned. And while the journey has been unexpected, I know that I’m right where the Lord wants me to be. I’m looking forward to whatever else He has in store for me.

I think the whole idea behind this way of thinking is that women are too invested in finding a spouse “their way.”  By being too invested in “their way,” they are not open to other (read: GOD’S) ways.  This is unbiblical because it demonstrates closed-mindedness and lack of faith (remember, God is so great that He can accomplish anything He wants however and whenever He wants! so it’s really not up to you and you should therefore stop trying to make it up to you! Let go and let God!), so women must give up “their way” and only be open to “God’s way.”  And however things happen must be “God’s way,” so there’s really no effective way of dissuading a woman from her current method of husband-hunting so long as she’s convinced she is doing it “God’s way.”

Also, I think the other, not-really-acknowledged part of it is that for all the admonishments for young, Christian women to look forward to the day God brings them to the special man God has picked out Just For Them, a lot of young, Christian women just don’t possess the suite of wifely skills that would increase their marital prospects.  Sure, there are hyper-organized young women whose idea of heaven is The Container Store, but there are just as many, if not more, slobby girls out there whose rooms look like hurricanes blew through them.  A lot of girls don’t know the basics of cooking.  A lot of girls don’t clean…much.  They don’t iron, they don’t decorate, they don’t know how to look for bargains or budget, they don’t know how to dress themselves with both dignity and style.  Some of these skills come with time and experience, but a lot of girls can only offer their youth and their love for Jesus.  That’s just not enough when it comes to marriage, but so much churchly advice does these girls wrong by teaching them that Mr. Right will be identifiable by his love for her good heart alone and that he will arrive in God’s Perfect Timing.  So just keep on being frumpy and praying, because God can see your beautiful heart even if those sin-blinded men out there who are probably addicted to porn and as a result can’t see your true beauty can’t.  Is this really the best way to offer hope to unmarried women?

Alpha body language.

I’m a big fan of the Just Dance games, and when I saw these two dances from the most recent edition, it struck me that they are pretty good examples of what is and what isn’t alpha body language.  Both dancers are very good (and the routines are exhausting just watching them), but one displays a lot of swagger, and the other one…doesn’t.  (Not that the songs themselves aren’t really obvious giveaways.)

 

 

The costume choices and background settings also highlight the differences.  “Pump It” guy is wearing a vest that conjures military uniform associations (masculine!) while Scissor Sisters guy is wearing sparkling pants and a cropped, fur-trimmed jacket.  “Pump It” guy’s background setting is stark and bold and has magenta rock formations bursting out of the ground, while Scissor Sisters guy is dancing in front of a cute igloo (that transforms into a glittering disco ball) while it is snowing (and has a cartoon penguin pop out of the ice occasionally – there are igloos in Antarctica?!).

It’s worth noting that in the comments of various uploads of these dances that “Pump It” guy is considered very attractive by female commenters, whereas Scissor Sisters guy’s maleness is sometimes questioned.

Of course, all this is about a cartoony game where everyone is dressed in neon.

Translation: she’s not hot enough for him.

Boundless, how I hate hate to love love thee.  Thou art truly the gift that keeps giving.  Without thee, this blog would not have nearly as much reason to exist.

John Thomas has a new column up today called “Wondering Eyes,” in which he advises a male reader on what to do about his girlfriend:  namely, that he intellectually recognizes her as quality but his heart’s not in it anymore.  Reader self-castigates this as “pride.”

In his response, Thomas spends a lot of words telling Reader how he needs to have God’s Spirit transform his mind and examine the why of his desire to see what other girls are out there.  (Does it really require examination and prayer to explain a man’s desire for variety?!?!)  Says Thomas:

You’ve got to come to a place where you are grateful, excited and entirely content with the gift of another person in your life.** But where pride is blooming in the heart, there is no room for true gratefulness.

(**Insert manosphere railing against Thomas’s underlying pedestalization of “the gift of another person,” i.e., women.)

But really, Thomas could have saved himself a lot of virtual ink, because the problem is evident in Reader’s first two sentences:

I’ve been dating a wonderful girl. She is witty, intelligent, adventurous, talented, and above all she loves God in a way that I really see as a gift. She has a true passion for Him.

Notice how he NEVER MENTIONS THAT SHE IS GOOD-LOOKING TO HIM.  And he KNOWS she is below his SMV, because later he says:

I’m a good-looking, guitar-playing, God-loving man.

Right on, bro.  Jacob Fink approves.

But more seriously – Where Thomas sees Reader’s problem as an issue of lack of gratefulness, the real issue is a very simple one:  she’s not hot enough for him.  At least Thomas correctly advised Reader to break up with his girlfriend.

ETA:  On further reflection, I’ve also concluded that Thomas is wrong that Reader is immature and is not ready for marriage.  I think, based on Reader’s comments, that he WOULD be ready to move forward toward marriage IF the girl in question met his physical attractiveness requirements.  But she doesn’t, hence Reader’s gut telling him to bail.  And now I’m REALLY hating John Thomas for criticizing this kid for both immaturity as a man and as a believer.

Another example of how feminist sexual dogma lets women down.

I found the following on one of the message boards I like to lurk on.  The typical poster is a lower-to-middle middle-class woman in her 20s or 30s, unmarried, trying to get started in her profession, and desperately wanting love if not in a long-term relationship with a boyfriend.  She tends to be non-religious, or nominally so, and believes in the usual feminist dogma about sex and sexuality.  All of these characteristics come to the fore in this thread, which aptly chronicles how feminist ideas about sex and sexuality just end up hurting women far more than helping them.

In a post entitled “Tell me to freaking get over it. Tell me to let it go.”, OP writes that she went on four dates with an alpha she REALLY REALLY liked, had sex with him on the fourth date, and – surprise, surprise! – now he’s dropped off the face of the planet.  She says:

He hasn’t responded. I know. I KNOW. Drop it. I should get over it. I shouldn’t press for details. It’s pretty obvious that he’s not interested.

I guess I just wanted to vent. I’m cool with rejection; really, I am. I’m used to it. But I wish he would have at least told me he wasn’t interested instead of dropping off the face of the planet.

I’m sad that I rock in every other aspect of my life (well…career-wise, at least), but I can’t do the relationship thing at all. I’m just super bummed and down in the dumps about this. I feel like such a stupid freaking whore.

So she’s cool with rejection and is actually used to being rejected, but super bummed at the same time.  Poor hamster.  Women conditioned to believe in sex equality (or whatever you want to call it) constantly find themselves fighting their natures, as OP is here.

The responses read like a recitation of feminist sisterhood catechisms.

First response:

Totally been there, like 100 times. It sucks, but yeah – you’ve already given yourself the best advice you can: let it go.

“Like 100 times?”?????????

Second response:

I think its typical people sleep together on the 3 or 4 date so you’re not a whore. Don’t feel that way.

Everyone knows you need to go on three or four dates with someone to prevent accusations of whore-dom.  Two dates = WHORE.  Three dates = NOT A WHORE.  Those extra three hours you spent consuming carbs with a guy make all the difference.

Still, OP’s hamster is really torn up:

I just really want to know WHY. I want to know exactly what it is I did wrong so I won’t make the same mistake with the next guy. If there is a next guy.

Thanks to feminism and the sexual revolution, women honestly don’t know why having sex with a very attractive man they’re not married to or even “in a committed relationship with” (whatever that means) generally tends to result in the man’s vanishing.  In the olden days, mothers and grandmothers would warn their daughters about being fast.  But I guess in an age where that kind of advice is the unjust repression of the patriarchy and three dates is enough to qualify as not-a-whore, such male behavior is truly, genuinely baffling to women and is completely inexplicable based on their understanding of reality.  Which, as the regulars of this blog know, is not really reality.

In true feminist fashion, the next three responders blame the man:

You didn’t do anything wrong. You liked a guy, you slept with him. That’s normal. He’s just an ass to act this way. He’s the one that’s done something wrong. I think every girl has been there at least once so don’t be so hard on yourself.

—–

It’s nothing you did. There’s nothing wrong with you.

He’s just an asshole for not responding.

Let it go and don’t beat yourself up over it.

—–

Feel happy that you avoided being stuck with a little coward pansy of a man.

Not that what the guy in this scenario did was right, but these responses just illuminates the cognitive dissonance of feminism.  Women are strong and fierce and independent, except when those dastardly men enter the picture and destroy all that strength, fierceness, and independence.

Another responder tries the hamster:

I’m not trying to encourage or anything but is it possible he’s stuck at work? Something might have come up?

Another man-blamer:

He’s a coward at the end of the day, he should have been straight up with you. Don’t be too hard on yourself. Live and learn.

Finally, on post #17, someone states the obvious:

Guys like a challenge and I’m sure he figures if you did it that fast with him you probably have with other guys and guys are weird about that. THEY can do it but a girl is a whore if she does

I think, though, that the most significant aspect of this thread demonstrating the widespread absorption of feminist doctrine on sex and sexuality is that not a single poster advised OP not to have sex and that she could secure the highest-quality man that she could by withholding.  Instead, thanks to feminist sexuality, women are now tasked with finding a sexy man who will commit to her because she gives him sex.  I’m pretty sure success at a unicorn hunt is more likely.  So what we have on college campuses and in teachers’ lounges and in office cubicles is women who are encouraged to have sex because they want it, but who must somehow try to divine that a sexy man will give them commitment even as the women are giving him sex, and fight all her feelings that she’s being a whore.  What a recipe for happiness and contentment!

When I read stuff like this, it just reminds me that God knew what he was doing when He made rules for sex.

Women and the pressure to be thin.

One of Boundless’s bloggers, Chelsey, recently became engaged and is now thinking about writing a series for the blog entitled “Bridal Battles.”  In Bridal Battles: Part I, Chelsey talks about all of the stresses she now has due to becoming engaged.  Among these stresses is one that she considers completely unnecessary:  losing weight.

In support of this opinion, she cites her friend’s advice to her:

Before I was even engaged, one of my best friends gave me some awesome advice: “Chelsey, just never forget that he loves you for who you are. Promise me you won’t be one of those crazy brides who tries to lose 20 pounds and order your dress four sizes smaller.”

But that attitude definitely does not permeate the bridal industry, as she experienced:

Last week I tried on a dress that was a little too small. Logically, I turned to the attendant and said I would probably need the next size up. She stared at me like I was the bride from Mars. “Well, what do you plan on doing for the next eight months? You could probably lose a few pounds and get this one.” I stared at her, took the dress and hung it back on the rack. Then, the next day I received an email from theknot.com: “Dear Chelsey, congratulations! Your wedding is only eight months away! Now it is time to get in shape….”

Chelsey writes:

As if there isn’t a big enough pressure on women to be thin on an average day of their life, why not pressure them into losing even more weight for one of the most important days, right?

Okay, why is it that I always feel like churchly arguments about looks always tend toward the extreme when citing rebuttals to “the world’s view” of beauty?  If you put yourself on a diet, you’re going to have an eating disorder, or you don’t value God’s beautiful creation, or whatever.  (Similarly, if you drink alcohol, you’ll become a divorced, homeless bum.  If you see a picture of a naked lady, you’re going to destroy your marriage with a porn addiction.  If you smoke, you’ll get lung cancer.  Etc.)

Yes, there is pressure on women to look good, and there always has been.  These days the bar has been raised very high due to increased wealth of the average person and improvements in and affordability of diet, exercise techniques, and plastic surgery/rejuvenation treatments.  And we all know what we could possibly look like due to constant exposure to pictures of beautiful people in magazines, TV, film, and advertisements.  So I get that there is a perception that there is an “unrealistic standard of beauty.”

However, unless you live in a mecca of beautiful people, such as Los Angeles (and even here the homely are not exactly nonexistent), genuinely highly physically attractive people are more the exception than the rule.  It’s kind of like when you get older and then you look back at your high school yearbook and wonder how everyone could have thought so-and-so was so devastatingly gorgeous, when in reality she was just a big fish in a small pond.  The truth is that Hollywood levels of beauty are really only found in…Hollywood.  (You will never find a place with more attractive waiters.)  So in my opinion, all the wah-wahing about unrealistic standards is a hamsterism for possibly more unpleasant actualities.

Going back to Chelsey’s beef about the pressure on women to be thin…welllllll…there might be pressure on women to be thin, but how many of them are pro-actively dealing with that pressure by keeping themselves in shape?  Some people are just naturally thin, but any cruising around the average mall on a Saturday reveals a lot of women for whom the pressure to be thin doesn’t seem to be registering.  So do we laud those women for their nonconformity, or do we ascribe to them even more pressure because they’re obviously incapable of attaining a Hollywood body despite their wishes to be thin and beautiful?  I see both responses being used by the “I’m beautiful just as I am” crowd.

And then Chelsey regurgitates the standard evangelicalisms about looks:

Sisters, please don’t believe the hype. I’m not saying you can’t try to look great on your wedding day; I’m just asking that you don’t let society convince you to be someone you are not. No. 1, you are a daughter of the King and, therefore, made in His majestic image. And No. 2 (for those who are engaged) your fiancé should love you for you.

There are so many other important things that should be done during engagement, and it breaks my heart to see how our culture eats up all that time with improving physical appearance. I challenge all the engaged couples out there to step back today and remember what this stage is all about. Ask yourself, “What would God want me to prepare for right now?”

Regarding the first point:  Okay, seriously, how many women are killing themselves trying to be unrealistically thin for their weddings, versus how many women are buying plus-size dresses for their weddings?  (Has anyone seen Say Yes to the Dress?  That show regularly features plus-size brides-to-be and has even devoted an episode exclusively to plus-size women.)  How many women are REALLY spending the majority of their engagements exercising and eating bird seed instead of doing all of the other prep work that goes into putting on a contemporary $25,000 wedding?  And does God’s majestic image really include, say, a size 22?

Regarding the second point:  Yes, obviously the man loves you if he’s willing to marry you, but that isn’t a license to ignore your body ’cause it just isn’t your thing.  If you’re a size 6, and he’s marrying you, then it’s not important to him that you become a size 2.  So you can stop worrying about that.  But if you’re a size 12 on your wedding day and you blossom into a size 24 by your tenth anniversary, are you really doing right by the man who loves you for you?

I just think that in this culture, people have lost grip on reality and realistic standards of attainability.  The self-esteem culture has really seeped into the church, and now we strive to equalize the beauty of every woman.  But the truth is that some women are just more beautiful than others, and no amount of “you’re beautiful at any size and shape” or “God sees your beautiful heart” is going to give a 4 and a 9 the same standing.  I think if we were more willing to accept our limitations and work to make what we do have the best it can be within realistically attainable standards, there would be so much more happiness and contentment among women.  Ironically, in trying to bolster women’s self-esteem, the whole “everyone’s beautiful” movement just makes it harder for women to have any self-esteem.