Is That Really in the Good Book?

I added a link in the right column of this blog. It's for a website called Biblical Sex. Maybe you don't consider the Bible an authority on matter of sex, but you probably interact with people who do. Some people try to base laws on it. We often hear people appeal to what they think the Bible says about sex, erotic media, erotic fantasies, and looking at the bodies of other people.

The Biblical Sex website tries to clear up what the Bible actually commands and doesn't command, in doing so, the website often disagrees with that is taught in certain conservative religious organizations and movements. I'm not saying I agree with everything the website says, just that it is worth reading the articles there.

Continue to read this entry if you have any interest.

The Reformed Ho

The Rational Male and others have been making much of what appears to be the trend of sex workers or de facto sex workers, and self-identified promiscuous women “finding Jesus” and becoming “born again” church girls.

Let me make something clear right away.

If someone has truly repented and embraced the true Jesus as Lord and Savior, that’s a beautiful thing, whoever they are and whatever they’ve done.

A problem arises in that only the Lord knows for sure what’s going on in someone’s heart. We can only make guesses based on behavior, experience, and time. After all, Judas Iscariot was one of the Twelve Disciples, appearing to be a follower of Jesus.

That a woman has appeared to have repented and is attending church, even been baptized right there in front of everyone, does not obligate any man to wife her up.

By the way, that goes both ways. No man is owed a wife.

I generally discourage men from legally marrying, and almost as strongly discourage men from socially/religiously marrying. But if you’re going to marry, a supposedly reformed “ho” is probably a bad choice, even more so if you’re a virgin or have little experience, or are a lackluster/“vanilla” lover/not well hung.

Consider…

1. Even if she never says it, she’s going to be comparing you to many other men. It is almost certain she has been with many men more skilled, more exciting than you. It’ll be even worse if she ever rubs that in.

2. You’re going to think about that from time to time, and realize she picked you as her retirement plan.

3. You’re going to resent that she had her fun, exciting, passionate, wild, varied experiences and you sacrificed and waited, going without. And you might feel bad for thinking that way.

4. Perhaps frequently, guys will look at her and/or you a certain way, or she will look at them a certain way, or they might look at each other a certain way, and you’ll know that guy has at least seen her naked, maybe he’s been inside her, and he didn’t have to sign away half of his earnings, pledge exclusivity, maybe didn’t even have to romance her or take her on an actual date.

5. If you have kids with her, the kids will likely have to endure taunting from other kids (if she was in erotic media or web camming). I don’t think it’s OK to do that, but it’s likely to happen anyway. Your kids are likely to see some of her old work.

I could go on, but I explained many concerns that apply in general  to “body count” and can apply to the more specific situation of a “reformed ho” here:

Does a Woman’s Body Count Matter?

What the critics and cynics think is that these women have aged out, maybe brushed up against the wall a bit, and are looking for a retirement plan. Women younger and hotter than them have hit the scene, and so it’s harder for these experienced women to get the attention and money they used to.

So the women turn to the reliable, dependable churchgoing guy whose experience with women and their manipulations is scant, who will be happy to be having sex at all no matter how infrequent or restrained, who likely won’t be cheating on her, who will be pressured to accept her as redeemed and forgiven, and who will believe or be told it’s all his fault if anything goes wrong in the marriage because he’s supposed to lead and serve her.

Heck, she never even has to feign a headache. She can brush him off by saying she’s having flashbacks to her past, which, of course involved her being “used and abused” no matter how much it appeared she was enjoying herself and no matter how much she said at the time it was all her choice.

In response to the discussions about these situations, I’ve seen what amounts to “But what about promiscuous men?” Formerly promiscuous men might be better matches for formerly promiscuous women, though such men are more likely to still want a lot of sex. But as far as criticizing such men…  fair or unfair, we can, for the sake of argument agree that men shouldn’t have been promiscuous but also maintain there’s a difference, because of biological and sociological realities. Except in very rare cases, women ingest or absorb more body fluids from men than the other way around. That’s just a part of the biological reality, as is the fact that it’s women who carry pregnancies, not men, making it problematic in the minds of some that she’s had the body parts and fluids of so many men in her.

Just part of the psychological and sociological consideration is her history of being abused, her relationship or lack thereof with her father, and her need for male attention. Those things, if present, can interfere with marital success.

Men who say that her redemption in Christ is what allows him to gladly take her as a bride despite her past likely have limits to that grace, even though Jesus can overcome anything.

“It doesn’t matter if she had hundreds of men.”

OK. But would you still say it doesn’t matter if she…

-had thousands of men

-had many women as lovers

-engaged in group sex

-was with many men married to her friends

-was with otherwise evil men, knowing they were evil

-was with 13 year-old boys

-was with dogs

-was with horses?

And yes, there are many women out there who’ve done one or more of those things.

Likely, there is some point at which the man says “Can’t be with a woman who did that.” Such men shouldn’t wag a finger at men who say they can’t be with a woman who has a three-figure body count, or even “just” a two-figure body count, even more so if those men have a low or zero body count.

Marriage is optional. And there are still men who want to marry (the poor saps!) who don’t want to be married enough to override the turnoff of a woman’s sordid past. That significantly reduces the pool of wife material women.

But if a man is running game instead of looking for a wife, her past is much less significant, other than the requirement she NOT be a virgin and not have children. A promiscuous woman is a good thing to guys running game.

The bottom line here, no pun intended, is that yes, Jesus can bring redemption and healing, but if a man is foolish enough to be looking for a wife, all other things being equal (which rarely happens), he should pick a woman who hasn’t ridden the “carousel” thousands of times; that’s the natural inclination of most men who want a wife.

When The Attention Thirsty Change Tactics

Does a Woman’s Body Count Matter?

Does Marriage Require A Bride, A Groom, and Jesus?

In discussions about marriage, divorce, and how to keep marriages together, there will often be comments from people who insist that for a marriage to work, it has to have three people: a bride, a groom, and Jesus. Sometimes they will be less specific and say "God" instead of "Jesus" (orthodox Christianity teaches that Jesus is God, as is the Father and the Holy Spirit).

Now, I'm a Christian. I wish it was true that being Christian would make marriages successful. And yet the divorce rate, including in "Evangelical" churches, indicates that isn't the case.

A good reply to that is "Well, not everyone who attends church is truly a Christian, and if people consistently applied Christian principles in their marriage, their marriage would last."

I can grant that.

There's still a problem though.

Don't we all know people who have been married for decades, some until one or both die, who aren't Christian? Even some who haven't placed God at the center of the marriage; indeed, neither may have any faith in God? And yet they've lasted.

The only possible answer to that I can think of is that the person who makes the original assertion would say that the marriage isn't real or isn't successful, no matter how cute or adorable the couple seems to be, how they treat each other in front of others, and how the children they raised together have turned out.

Things like that immediately diminish the credibility of such believers in the understanding of certain unbelievers.

Today's legal and social marriage have very little resemblance to the marriages in the Bible. But let's say applying Christian principles to marriage is one way that will make a marriage successful. The problem with this is that the only perfect practitioner of Christian principles is Jesus. No matter how devout, there will be times one or both spouses will screw things up. Then all it takes is for one of them to go to a divorce lawyer during a time of temporarily screwing things up, and the ball gets rolling downhill.

Also, we don't truly know someone else's heart and future, even a woman we date for years.

Men can have Jesus at the center of their life without signing a terrible state contract. Men can have Jesus at the center of their life without ever having a wedding ceremony, or living with a woman, or raising children with a woman.

Guys, being a Christian, no matter how faithfully, will not guarantee you a successful marriage. Sometimes, the only way to win is to not play.

And for anyone who says Christians are called to sacrifice - Yes we are, but not foolish sacrifice. Men can apply one of the ultimate Christian principles and stay unmarried, like Jesus.

Dennis Prager, Devout Christians, and Divorce

As I've pointed out before, Dennis Prager is not a hypocrite on divorce. His critics love to point out he's been divorced twice (so far), but Dennis has never said people shouldn't divorce. He does say people should marry and that if it is miserable or the contract, as he sees it, isn't being upheld, they should divorce (so they can marry someone else).

The problem is, the company for which Mr. Prager, a believing Jew, primarily works in radio, Salem, is a Christian company, quite aligned with Evangelicalism. While it still happens a lot, divorce is strongly discouraged in Evangelicalism and it is looked down upon. Mr. Prager says he doesn't understand why it is looked down upon and discouraged. Evangelicals and similar believers cite Jesus' words in the Bible (Matthew 5:32 and 19:9) that divorce is only permitted in the event of "marital unfaithfulness" or "sexual immorality" depending on which translation is being used. In this case, "marital unfaithfulness" is referring to sexual matters, not simply being a bad spouse. What exactly is entailed in "sexual immorality" is debated, although Evangelical leaders will usually (publicly, if not in personal behavior) define that as "having sex with anyone other than your spouse, including threesomes and swinging with your spouse, and looking at porn."

To Whom Does Your Body Belong?

What are the possible answers?

• God
• Your church or equivalent (NOT to be confused with God)
• The State (government)
• Your parents
• Your spouse/partner
• Your children
  
• Yourself
  

How you answer this question will influence how you live. And while I insist most men should never marry, they should definitely not marry a woman whose answer to this question isn't the same as his. Of course, like so many things, a woman can CLAIM to think the same way he does on this, but her actions might indicate different. People in general might switch back and forth on this.

Few people, especially those who aren't active duty military, will say that their body belongs to the state, but they often think and act like it does.

Many conservative Christian "influencers" will say that our bodies belong to God, but God delegates them to our spouse when we marry.

Think about this, and whether or not your actions line up with your thinking.

If you're married, and you believe your body belongs to your spouse, do you really act that way? Does your spouse think and act like their body belongs to you?

Faith

This entry is about my faith. If you have no interest in reading about that, then ignore this entry and read whichever entries here look interesting to you. Or, go do something else entirely.

Hold Those Hormones

I'm a follower of Christ, and I generally fall in line with the positions held by "conservative Christians" or "the Religious Right" (with a libertarian lean when it comes to government involvement), with a few notable exceptions, such as discouraging rather than encouraging men to legally marry, and not thinking that watching pixels of nude women and people appearing to have sex turns people into serial killers. I'm very familiar with the positions and reasoning used in these circles.

That brings me to something I find a bit frustrating, but I have to paint a detailed picture to explain it.

Here is a composite list of rules, based on what you can find in media featuring prominent leaders of this sort:

Christian Research Institute President Hank Hanegraaff Goes Eastern Orthodox

It's time to revisit a topic I only write about once every few years. So if unless you're interested in the inside politics of Christian ministries, this entry probably won't interest you. However, I'm getting hits for some of the old entries dealing with the Christian Research Institute (CRI) and the President thereof, Hank Hanegraaff, because of some recent events.

Itches and Scratch

The obsession in Evangelical circles about "porn" makes me cringe, because so many bad arguments are used, which discredit "our" side, and the disproportionate focus on it. I recently sat through a sermon (unfortunately one of my young kids was with me) from someone who was not the church's pastor, but had been doing a sermon series on "first things" when it comes to following Christ. This was supposed to be a sermon on Satan and his tactics. Yes, doctrine holds that Satan is a real, spiritual (not physical) being who interacts with human beings.

Despite supposedly being about Satan, it was more about porn than anything else. One must wonder what Satan was doing before the advent of photography.

Tom Leykis Doesn't Really Know All That Much About Religion

But then neither do a lot of religious people.

Tom Leykis is an Atheist.  He makes no pretense of being Agnostic or anything like that. He states that there is no God, not that there might not be a God. He does admit his Atheism is a belief, but he falsely claims he doesn't try to get people to adopt his belief system.

The first two hours of his Thursday, January 8 show was the topic "Religion: Stupid". It was inspired, it sounds like, by the Islamist terrorist attacks that just happened in France.

1) His lumping of all religions together is like someone lumping all audio content shows (radio, podcasts, etc.) together and saying something like "Stephanie Miller did something terrible, so all audio content shows are stupid!" If Leykis wants to debate whether philosophical naturalism or a belief that there is a supernatural existence makes more sense, that's one thing, or debating the benefit of religious community, or ritual, or whatever, fine. But to lump all "religions" (by which he seems to mean anything that isn't Atheism or Agnosticism), which are highly diverse in beliefs, practices, and historical behavior, and then demand that someone has to defend them all, is an invalid exercise. I'm not obligated to defend belief systems and practices that are often exactly opposite of mine.


2) He repeats the common falsehood that there has been more death and destruction in the name of religion than anything else. First of all, "religion" is too broad a term. See #1. I know he doesn't consider Atheism a religion and since Atheistic rulers have been the biggest mass murders in history, then no religion can be.

Letter Writer Didn't Get It

The woman who sent this recent E-mail of the Day to Dr. Laura misread/ignored a very important word said (written) by a man. Hard to believe, I know. I have no idea if Dr. Laura (who is on vacation) actually read this letter herself or not.

I know exactly where the man being quoted is coming from. Whether you, dear reader, agree or not, the man is operating under the very common understanding that men want sex, and women want attention, a bill-payer (at least to buy dinner/entertainment/gifts while dating), a bodyguard, a chauffeur, and a stronger/taller person to do her bidding.

The woman who sent the letter starts off:

Dr. Laura,

It's soooo hard being a woman who is waiting out there.

By "waiting" she means not having sex until married.

When the rest of the women give it up for free, the men won't even give me a chance.

The phrase "for free" implies she expects to get paid for sex. "Without commitment" might be a better phrase, but I could quibble with that one, too. She's right, though, that smart or even just lazy men are going to seek the path of least resistance to getting whatever it is they want.

Then again she might not be attractive.

The Church of Dear Abby?

SOMEWHERE IN THE U.S.A. wrote into Dear Abby:

My son came out of the closet last year.

I love him dearly and we're a close family. His brothers and sisters also accept and love him.

My husband and I are now struggling because we're not sure how God really views gays and lesbians.

To listen to some religious people, my son will go to hell.

I can't believe that God would create a person to be this way, then turn His back on him.

I tried reading the Bible, but the wording was hard to understand.

I don't want to talk to my pastor about it because, even though I have accepted my son for who he is, I still have trouble talking to people about it because I'm not sure how they'll react. Do you believe a gay person will go to heaven?

According to the Bible, sex is for marriage, and marriage unites a man and woman. Sex outside of marriage is a sin. There are many other sins. We all sin. We've all fallen short of the glory of God. The wages of sin is death. Jesus Christ provides reconciliation, dying for our sins in our place, exxchanging our sin for His righteousness so that followers of Christ have enternal fellowship with a holy God. Ultimately, it isn't about someone's feelings or whether or not they engage in homosexual behavior. Is Jesus Christ their Lord and Savior? Have they repented so that they say His will is right, even when it conflicts with their own feelings and desires?

Dear Abby responded:

I believe that entrance to heaven is based upon a person's character, not his or her sexual orientation.

Today, because of modern scientific studies, we know more about homosexuality than was known when the Bible was written, and that sexual orientation is not a "choice."

The bottom line is to be loving and polite towards your son. Being loving does not mean you have to abandon your moral convictions and beliefs; being loving should be part of your beliefs and morality. If he demands that you approve of his behavior and you don’t approve of it, say something like "I won’t let this come between us. Please show me the same love and respect."Behavior is a choice, and nobody knows more than the ultimate Author of the Bible.If it is based on our character, none of us make it. Jesus Christ's character is the only pefect human character. Dear Abby is basing her belief on... what... exactly?This is exactly the thing you should talk to your pastor about. Dear Abby doesn't determine who goes to heaven – God does.It's called... Bible study. There's no shortage of good information on how to read the Bible, even if you go to a church that doesn't teach it (if so, find a different church). It isn't like any other book you might find. There are many literary styles used, after all. Check out the resources listed on this page, and you might want to read this booklet.You are making the assumption that God created someone to be that way, and that God turns His back on people who go to Hell."Some religious people" You can find "some religious people" to say anything. "Some religious people" say that if you send them money, you will automatically get a hundreds of times as much money back. People can say all sorts of wrong things. Some religious people have people hand over their little daughters to be raped Some religious people fly airliners into skyscrapers. That someone claims to be "religious" tells me nothing about them.As people, since they are. But why would anyone write in to Dear Abby for insight into God?That's great. And it is great that you have other children to continue the family line, if you care about that.I'm sorry. Not that he came out of the closet, but that he identifies as a homosexual. That obviously isn't easy for him or for you.

Revisiting Hank Hanegraaff and the Bible Answer Man

This entry may be of no interest to my readers who aren't "evangelical" Christians. Sorry.

Should Christians Marry Younger?

This entry is very long may be of no interest to my readers who are not Theists.

I usually catch some of Frank Pastore's show in the Los Angeles radio market. Pastore has a great show and I generally think he’s awesome. (Long story short: Pastore had a horrible childhood, was an atheist who scoffed at believers, became an MLB pitcher, had a career-ending injury, and became a Christian after being challenged by teammates. He got formal education that equipped him to talk intelligently about religion, philosophy, and politics.) On Tuesday's show, he was again talking about a concept I've heard him discuss before, because Dr. Al Mohler had been on "Focus on the Family" talking about it.

Here's the concept:

Christians should be raising children from birth with the expectation that they will marry at about ages 18-20, and the Church (Christians) should support such young newlyweds as they "grow into adulthood together".

Why? Because what we're doing now, which is telling our young people to complete their education, mature, and establish their careers before marrying at about ages 25 to 30, while we also are telling people to save sex for marriage (wink, wink) isn’t "working". It isn't working as evidenced by all of the shacking up, fornication, unwed pregnancies, and multiple "failed" relationships going on with "Christians"… which may, possibly, unthinkably, lead to the horrible abomination of.... men admiring pictures of nude women.

Okay, so I added that last part, but "porn use" is one of the problems cited with having people who are feeling raging hormones by age 13 wait 12 to 17 years to marry.

Mohler presents marriage as the expected norm in a way so as to portray the "gift of celibacy" that would allow a good Christian to stay unmarried as extremely rare. (Unfortunately, some men find that the "gift" of celibacy isn’t so rare in wives.) It could be taken in a way so that unmarried people are made to feel like something is wrong with them and they aren’t being good Christians, even if they aren’t fornicating.

Even lowering the age most Christians marry to 18 isn't going to eliminate the problem. As Mohler himself notes, people are growing physically/sexually mature at younger ages – currently by 13. Even if people do marry by 18, that still leaves five years of raging hormones. How many "Christian" children lose their virginity before 18? Would that number go down if they know they'll likely only have to wait until 18 rather than 25?

Desperate Housewife, Dear Margo, and the Bible

There was a letter to Dear Margo that I wanted to note because it has some of the same issues I recently wrote about analyzing a letter to Dear Abby. But first I wanted to address Margo’s response to the other letter in that edition of her column.

The first letter in the column was from a bisexual woman who was complaing about negative feelings towards bisexuals from some gay men and lesbians. But Dear Margo took the opportunity to bash the Bible:

Things have greatly improved, to be sure, but there will always be people who are narrow-minded, bigoted, judgmental or influenced by a literal reading of the Bible … even though the "good book" contradicts itself in many instances.

Really? Lesbians and gays are giving bisexuals a hard time because of the Bible? Ah yes, it is right there in 1st Illusions 3:16 - "Thou shalt engage in homosexual sex or heterosexual sex, but thou must pick only one."

In regards to "a literal reading of the Bible" – people have a misconception about what it means to take something lierally. It means reading literature as the kind of literature it is – history as history, satire as satire, metaphor as metaphor. However, using various literary forms, the Bible does consistently portrays sex as something for marriage, and marriage as between a man and a woman. Look it up. It is there in the first and last books and many between – a consistent message. (However, as a matter of law, I think homosexual and bisexual people should be free to do what they want as far as relationships, sex, etc.)

Which brings me to the other point. Consistency. Dear Margo says the Bible "contradicts itself in many instances." But I notice she did not name an instance. Some of my readers don't care much for the Bible, or don't treat is authoritative. Fine. I can respect sincere and informed differences from my own beliefs. I actually discussing those differences. But Dear Margo does what so many people do, and dismisses any authority for the Bible by simply asserting it is filled with contradictions. Most people who do this can't name a single one.

Yes, there are websites that will list alleged contradictions for you. But when you study the Bible and note the literary genres, to whom the various books were written, etc. – then the alleged contradictions disappear. From what I remember, there is a place or two where numbers don't match, likely because of an error in transmission. There are websites that examine each alleged contraction and show them to be nonexistent or insignificant. Not that it matters... if every alleged contradiction that folks like Dear Margo brought up was explained to them to their satisfaction, they wouldn't suddenly believe the Bible. It is a red herring. If you outright deny the possibilty of the supernatural and thus deny the Bible, then fine. But don't claim the problem with the Bible is that, say, God gave certain commands to Jewish people while living in a theocracy and gave different commands to gentiles living in Rome.

But on to sex stuff.

The letter I wanted to note, which, as I said, had similar themes to one to Dear Abby, was from "Frustrated in Texas":

I'm in my late 30s, married 10 years to my hubby who is in his early 40s. He's a great guy and a wonderful father to our two children. Our marriage is good on all fronts but one. While my libido appears to be growing, his appears to be slowing - noticeably.

This is not unsual given the ages and the children.

In addition, my sense of adventure in the bedroom is expanding, and I find myself interested in other types of play.

Sounds great!

Yet he has decided that missionary is it and that a "lady" should not have these desires.

He's wrong,and not only shortchanging you, he's shortchanging himself. He should seek to please you, as long as what you want to do isn't destructive.

This means our infrequent liaisons are less than satisfying.

I can honestly say that every other aspect of our relationship is really good.

Well that's good. But without good sex, it is like saying that my car is great in every way but barely runs.

I think we're both too young to spend the rest of our years like this, but I don’t know what to do about it.

Any advice, ladies or gentlemen? I'm stumped because I identify more with her than him in this case.

To make matters worse, I recently had an online chat with someone in another country that grew quite steamy. While I have never done anything of that nature before, I found it thrilled me.

It's not right, but it is better than physically taking on a lover.

People should eat at home. But if the kitchen is bare, people tend to go elsewhere to eat. That's human nature. Does he believe in the Bible? (See, here's advice that Dear Margo can't give.) There are books and websites that are Bible-based that explain that spouses are supposed to enjoy sexual variety together. That might be the way to go. And seeing if his doctor can find a problem and offer a solution.

I remember reading that, contrary to popular modern perceptions of Puritans, if a wife went to her friends with complaints like this, the friends would tell their husbands and the husbands would get together and tell guys like this woman's husband that it was his Christian duty to make love with his wife often and keep her satisfied.

Dear Margo tells her to quit the cybersex and and get some therapy involved.

A Big Question About Sex, Marriage, and Morality

I now believe sex is for marriage. I have written about many of the instances and relationships of my years before marriage in which I fornicated – had sex outside of marriage. Although I do think that fornication is wrong, I generally don't look at is as the end of the world. Compromising relationships, bonding with the wrong person, catching/spreading sexually transmitted diseases, and making a baby out of wedlock who you're not prepared to raise – those are problems in increasingly serious order that result from fornication. The last one is especially bad if it results in a slaughtered baby. And guys – that is always a possibility with fornication... that your sex partner will kill your baby. Actually, it is a possibility with married sex, too, but not as likely. (Note: the most important reason a believer has to not fornicate is that the Bible and other authorities say sex is for marriage.)

So there are good reasons to avoid fornication, especially intercourse.

But we have to be honest – there are reasons to fornicate. It often feels good (for men, almost always), even in the instances that bring negative feelings later. The reasons seem good at the time. And I can't say I didn't enjoy my immoral behavior. But I also know that it was a tradeoff. There were things I lost as a result of my sin.

What brings all of this up again? Well, for the most part I find that my worldview clearly "works". But one of those tough areas I hadn't resolved is found in this problem:

How do you know you are marrying someone with whom you are sexually compatible unless you have some amount/level of sex with them before marrying them?

This isn't merely academic for me, since these are issues my children will be facing. There's just got to be good material out there that isn't written by wrinkly old people who’ve been married for 40 years and forget what it was like to be young, tempted, unsure, seeking, and hormonal – or by some beautiful, sexy couple who both enjoy sex and married at age 19. There's got to be some material that is helpful and realistic and not entirely hypothetical, but based on someone with real life experience in dealing with the issues. Someone with a sex drive who has dealt with today's culture and avoided fornication at least into his or her late twenties, and if married now, has a good lovemaking life.

Also, a reader of mine endured a marriage to a closeted homosexual man. I'm sure this happens in churches more that most people realize. Someone with homosexual feelings tries to follow the Biblical model for sex and marriage by marrying someone of the opposite sex, and that person and their intended don't have sex before marriage – they may even marry as virgins. And everyone in the church and their families applauds and says "Wow, they did things the right way." They may consummate their marriage that night or not. Troubles consummating the marriage or a lack of newlywed lovemaking frequency may be blamed on it all being so new to them or even having suppressed their libido for years. But then the days turn into weeks, the weeks into months, and the months into years. Frustration and feelings of inadequacy, rejection, and bitterness build, and one or both will likely engage in adultery. Sometimes, the homosexual person isn't aware when they agree to marry that they won't be able to carry on a normal, mutually satisfying lovemaking life with their intended spouse; other times, it is a matter of wishful thinking or something intentionally more selfish.

Other people have little or no sex drive and are unwilling to do anything to change that, or were abused and traumatized and are unwilling to get the help they need to overcome that to have a normal and mutually satisfying lovemaking life with a spouse.

Perhaps a smaller problem but still an issue is incompatibility between two normal, healthy spouses. Sure, a heterosexual man and a heterosexual woman are sexually compatible in the most basic physical sense, but if both spouses will only engage in intercourse if they are on top, that's going to be a problem. If a woman can't orgasm through intercourse but the husband refuses to pleasure her through oral sex or manual sex (with or without an aid) and won't let her masturbate (with or without an aid), then she's only going to be able to have an orgasm when she's hiding from him or he's not around. And that's a problem. There are many examples like this... men wanting fellatio and women who refuse to do it, so on and so forth.

As I think I've written before, one of my girlfriends told me her mother had told her to never marry someone without having taken the test drive. But neither of them had religious or moral beliefs that said such behavior was wrong.

I wrote to my reader:

Halloween

I’m somewhat familiar with the history of Halloween, Samhain, All Saints Day, and All Saints Eve. I'm a Christian. I don't believe there is anything special, spiritually, about October 31 as opposed to any other day.

I don't see costume-wearing as a way to honor or confuse evil spirits. I see it as a chance to be creative. Trick-or-treating can be a way to get kids away from the games and television and meet the neighbors, things that lacking these days.

Growing up, I enjoyed choosing something to "be" for the day/evening, usually something that was homemade – and I liked trick-or-treating. (Pranks or any kind of vandalism were never a part of it.) As I got older, I enjoyed expressing myself by applying gory special effects makeup to myself and setting up a lightly scary scene with a theme inside the front of my family's house so I could entertain the trick-or-treaters as I passed out candy.

I've also enjoyed "haunts" of various sorts – commercial scare mazes or homemade front-yard eerie displays, things of that sort, and participated in a couple over the years.

I don't see modern-day Halloween as some sort of plot to instill Satanism or Wicca in our kids. It certainly has become massively commercialized and having the kids pig out on candy can be questionable given the obesity rates among Amerians these days, but the problem isn't October 31 – it is what the kids are eating and doing most of the 364 other days of the year.

I do believe, as a Christian parent, it is my responsibility to teach my kids to discern good from evil, wasteful folly from light-hearted recreation, etc.

I think "Hell Houses" can be a good idea if done right. Really, they aren't new. Martyr plays from long ago used gory stuff to spread the message. Way too often, Christian attempts to be "hip" are all too hokey or otherwise lacking in execution, so I want a Hell House to be done right.

I actually do believe that demons, including Satan, exist. I believe angels exist, and demons are simply fallen angels. I think people assign blame to demons that quite often belongs on themselves, or they think of demons doing things or having powers that they likely don't. Someone doesn't become demon possessed because they wore a mask on October 31. They may become demon possessed if they engage in occultic practices and aren't indwelt by the Holy Spirit (as all Christians are).

The biggest issue with Halloween these days, by far, is immodesty. Females of all ages fulfill the role of attention whores by dressing to call attention to their sexuality and certain parts of their bodies. They can be slutty and trashy with a supposed "free pass" because – it's Halloween! (Kind of like how cheating on vacation doesn’t count.) And being what we are, we guys are reluctant to object - unless it means our intended or wife is getting leers from other men, or our daughters are letting it all hang out.

Concerned (conservative) mother Rebecca Hagelin had a column about this.

Princesses look different these days. The pre-teen and teenage girls who show up are likely to be wearing trampy costumes that say “s-e-x,” rather than “trick or treat.” We all know that girls are being sexualized by the culture at younger and younger ages in their daily wear. But Halloween costumes have taken things to a new low, making our little girls into sex objects even midst what is supposed to be an evening of childhood fun. The sad reality is that we live in a pop culture that is obsessed with trying to make our boys and girls think about sex all the time.

The boys are going to think about it all of the time anyway, if they are anywhere near puberty. But if they are, they should be thinking about the unobtainable models and starlets of the day, not pre- or barely-pubescent girls who live nearby.

The "top costumes" for tween girls on one popular costume website showed a slew of vampy options, including the highly offensive "teen girls prisoner costume" as seen on a young model wearing thigh-high boots and 6 inch heels, and showing lots of flesh under her prison-striped mini-dress.

Do you have plans for Halloween? Or if you are reading this afterwards, what did you do? Have you been bothered by the trend of slutty costumes, especially for young girls?

Part of the Problem

I'm taking this opportunity to remind any reader of this blog that I am a sinner. In my words, thoughts, and deeds, I often miss the mark big time, falling shorter from the holiness of God than a stepladder at the bottom of the Grand Canyon is from reaching the Moon.

When analyzing things here, I often pass judgment on the ideas and actions of others. This is not to say I don't mess up – I don't want to give the impression that I think I couldn't be torn apart in a similar fashion. But I am not the standard, and while I often will refer to my own experience, I do not hold myself up as the standard. There is an objective right and wrong, and we should all strive (myself included) to do right and not wrong.

As a follower of Christ, I am convinced that my sins are forgiven and that I fellowship with Him. I throw myself upon the mercy of God, knowing I can never "make up" for all of the wrong I have done and all of the right I have failed to do. The bad news is that I have committed moral crimes against God, and there should be punishment for moral crimes. I have been part of the problem. The Good News is that Jesus is my Lord and Savior – and He provides the solution. His solutions are bigger than all of the problems, thank God.

In the Lion's Den?

I've read about XXX Church (which reaches out to porn workers and users) before, and I haven't seen red flags in regard to their teachings or tactics, but then I haven't looked too hard. They did a great job of getting themselves portrayed well in a place that can be somewhat hostile to their message – an LATimes.com blog. Blogger Richard Abowitz caught up with them at the annual Adult Entertainment Expo in Las Vegas.

Notice that when the blogger asks Gross if he thinks the porn workers and fans are going to Hell, he replies:

It is not my call to make. I screw up everyday in the things I do, and I am not a porn star. And I don't feel better than someone who is in porn.

Later, he says:

You can't blame the dark for being dark, you need to blame the light for not shining on the dark.

I hope their ministry is being used by God to bear good fruit, and that they are able to be "in, but not of" in this case.