It’s sad that so many men and women both have such a messed up view of what sex is, what it means and the importance of it in a monogamous relationship.  Take the case of Samantha Pugsley who through an unhealthy mix of her apparent hardcore Christian upbringing and her belief in radical feminism maintained her virginity until she married and now has a very unhealthy attitude about sex and especially sex in marriage.

Since pictures can tell a story by themselves this is her a few years ago and her now after her full indoctrination into feminism, colored short boy haircut included.  Her transformation validates that wedding cake is very fattening indeed.

She was able to convince an obviously very beta or omega boyfriend to remain celibate and wait for her throughout 6 years of dating.  What happens in these cases is that she turned her virginity into not only a big part of her identity but an idol.  The end result for these young women who have this attitude is that they often remain unmarried and become old spinsters who are still virgins, which is bad for men and women both.  The 463 point checklists these women create are also a big roadblock for them in their quest for the perfect feminist Christ like husband.  The whole virginity game that religious women and beta men play is harmful and can have lasting negative repercussions throughout their lives.  We see this game played out in celebrating virginity for virginity’s sake with purity balls, rings, and other such unbiblical nonsense.  These women’s virginity ends up being narcissistically all about them and not about the gift of their body to their future husband, as is apparent what happened in Pugsley’s case.

Although this seems far more common in virgin women than men, many of these people end of with unhealthy attitudes about their sexuality which creates sexual dysfunctions as seen in Pugsley’s article and throughout the comment section with women who adopted virgin game ended up disappointed because they failed to realize their unrealistic expectations about sex.  I follow a fellow blogger who also saved herself for her husband, but she was taught by her mother the proper attitude about virginity and about the importance of sex in her marriage and now her and her husband experience the wonders of sex as God truly meant for it to be.  A lot of poor teachings come from the parents of these young men and women.  The fathers of these girls essentially go super white knight and pedestalize their daughter which in turn just gives her unrealistic expectations because no man would live up to the fantasy that she created in her mind with her parents encouragement.  The boys on the other hand are also taught harmful attitudes.  One such thing is even remaining a virgin to begin with.  Unless a young man quickly courts and marries and has sex (which is biblical) he should be experiencing other women.  He should not become promiscuous per se, but a man does benefit from having experiences, sexual and otherwise, with other women.  A young man should never remain celibate just for the sake of waiting but only a short time in order to marry particular woman.  It’s also important to note for those men with moral hang-ups regarding sex, that nowhere in the bible does it instruct men to remain virgins prior to marriage.  I am of course challenged to raise up my 2 daughters with the proper attitude about sex so they will make their future husbands happy and have lifelong happy marriages.

The church is extremely schizophrenic when it comes to sex in general, and especially sex in marriage.  Deti’s comment stood out to me and nailed the point quite well:

From Pugsley’s article:

“When he did, I obliged. I wanted nothing more than to make him happy because I loved him so much and because I’d been taught it was my duty to fulfill his needs. But I hated sex.

“My feminist husband was horrified that I’d let him touch me when I didn’t want him to. He made me promise I’d never do anything I didn’t want to do ever again. We stopped having sex. He encouraged me to see a therapist and I did. It was the first step on a long journey to healing.

“When I have sex with my husband, I make sure it’s because I have a sexual need and not because I feel I’m required to fulfill his desires.

There is always a horribly distorted view of sex and a woman’s sexual role in marriage whenever these discussions are had. A wife is supposed to be sexually available to her husband at all times. She is supposed to give her husband sex when he wants it. Look at it this way: Would a wife put up with a husband who said “well, I’ll work when I feel like it. I’ll give you money to take care of the family when I feel like it, or I think it’s a good idea, or when I decide you need it”. Would a wife put up with that? Didn’t think so. So it is with sex and a husband’s view of it.** But women don’t want this. They don’t want to be totally sexually available to their husbands, for many reasons, chief among them are that most wives just do not desire their husbands sexually. This is a problem because most women are having sex with men who are more sexually desirable than they can get for marriage.

The other prime reason that women don’t want to be sexually available to their husbands is if they are, then they cede a lot of control in the marriage to the husband. A woman before marriage is able to control men by using sex and sexual access. Sex, sex appeal and sexual access are the greatest measures of a woman’s power, and if she gives them completely and totally to one man, she has given up most of her power. She doesn’t want to do this, of course, because that would require her to submit and trust, and what if he screws it up?

** NOTE TO liberals, feminists and other dipshits: I AM NOT SAYING THAT A WIFE IS CONSENTING TO RAPE. I am not saying a wife must have sex when sick or injured or recovering from childbirth. No loving husband would demand sex under those circumstances. I AM, however, saying that a lot of wives unreasonably withhold and limit sexual access. No wife is too busy that she can’t take 20 minutes out of her schedule to take care of her husband’s need. And if she is, then her priorities are screwed up. I am also saying that if a woman doesn’t consent to having sex with a particular man when HE wants to and NOT just when SHE wants to, then she should not marry that man and should not marry at all, because she has a distorted and improper view of marriage.

It is likely she was only a technical virgin and not one in fact.  She states in her bio she is bisexual and so one may deduce that not only do other women join her and her husband in bed, but she likely engaged in certain woman on woman activities prior to marriage.  That said, she was not a virgin and whatever waiting she forced upon her husband was not done in any biblical or moral sense, but as a way to satisfy her own warped view of controlling her own sexuality and sexual morality.  This is evident in her disgusting attitude of “my body my choice”.  All you have to do is read how she hates her husband so much she cannot stand the thought of being impregnated by him and goes ahead and terminates her pregnancy.  I just wonder what the story is behind her husband who waited 6 years in order to have sex with this average looking obviously mentally unstable woman who’s motivations are fueled by radical feminism.  Regardless of one’s religious convictions this man was nuts to remain celibate for 6 years while he waited for this woman.

  1. Knight Artorias says:

    What is forced celibacy? what does that even mean?

    Anyway. God wasn’t exactly shy about his hatred of sexual immorality, and Paul explicitly stated that sex for both men and women can only be moral if done so in the context of marriage. Even then, Paul said, you should only resort to marriage if you can’t control your sinful sex bits. It was one of the few things on which the Bible was perfectly clear, so I don’t know where you’re getting this idea that premarital sex and onanism are not hellworthy trespasses in the eyes of God, especially considering that nearly everything else is.

  2. monkeywerks says:

    No where in the NT is masterbation and coitus interuptus prohibited. As for the fornication or sexual immorality issue, those doctrines are often subjectively enforced and adhered to.

    So the question is is it wrong to make love in a committed monogamous relationship without being married. Modern marriage is a state run and created institution and the risks for a man marrying is often higher than the reward.

    As much as religious people complain about sex outside of marriage they are silent on the divorce epidemic and gyno-centric teachings that permeate the modern church. So what is more moral and what is more harmful?

    So when the church quits with all the “man up and marry those sluts” sermons, teaches and enforces wifely submission and the laws change, there is no point for a man to ever marry.

    Now to the point of the essay. This woman was indoctrinated to believe that sex was inherently sinful and dirty and should only benefit the female. These beliefs were made worse by her feminist beliefs that, not surprisingly, are the same.

    […] “you should only resort to marriage if you can’t control your sinful sex bits.”

    As humans we are designed to want and enjoy sex. We are not designed to be celibate, especially when young. That is why young men and women should marry as soon as they feel the burn in their loins. In fact it would be biblically consistent to be as freaky as you want within the confines of marriage. Meaning nothing is prohibited between a husband and wife. Making sex dirty or putting man made restriction on certain sexual acts does nothing but create shame overall about something that is quite wonderful.

    • Knight Artorias says:

      The woman was right, at least from a Biblical perspective. You can’t dismiss Old Testament simply because Jesus came back. Jesus even said you can’t, and he’s The Son.

      Not that it matters because the verses to which I was referring are in the New Testament (except onanism).

      Being a Christian is a lot like being a vegan. You can’t call yourself a vegan and still eat chicken nuggets on the weekend. And if you want to be a Christian and go to Heaven, you can’t only follow the rules that benefit you. You have to follow all of God’s rules, or at least try your very hardest and beg for forgiveness when you inevitably fail. Otherwise you’ll go to Hell with me.

      • I cannot believe you spout so much of the NT in your comments, and yet you also say, “The woman was right, at least from a Biblical perspective…”

        This woman is more than likely deranged – and I’m saying that in a clinical way, trying to be objective about her history. She and her husband were apparently very into erotic horror when teenagers, violence paired with sex, satanic demonstrations, and even have photographic “art” pieces of her being sacrificed in her wedding dress. How is she biblically based and “right?”

        She fears getting pregnant after their condom broke and takes matters into her own hands to purchase and use Plan B – a pill that causes a potential abortion at home in very early stages. Again… how is this biblically based and “right?”

        She hates sex in marriage (and later decides she likes women sexually as well), and decide together with her husband that they will be celibate even in marriage. How is that biblically based and “right” when Paul himself gave the command for married couples to have regular sex with each other, and not to deprive each other of sex?

        Trolling much?

  3. monkeywerks says:

    I was never promoting Christian morals, nor would I do so in its modern flavor for that matter. I only promote common sense provable morality or pragmatic morality if you will. Just because some marginally attractive woman managed to remain a virgin until she was married does not make her either a hero or role model. As taught by the modern church, at least 50% of their moral code is irrelevant and even harmful because they have an incorrect premise.

    I was pointing out that 10 this woman is the typical church going female, 2) her doctrine is all screwed up, and 3) it is unbiblical to have a 6 year engagement and forced celibacy. I will disagree and reiterate that she was not acting biblically or even morally.

    I support women marrying young as virgins with a minimal engagement period as supervised by both youngsters parents. That is a premise that worked back in the day and works now. However the church rejects this biblical approach to marriage and instead caters to women’s gina tingles. And if any man goes against supporting women;s gina tingles and refuses to look past a woman’s previous sexual immorality, he is considered worse than a heretic by the white knights that populate 99% of Christendom.

    I know people will disagree with me on this, but I think that being naturally celibate, not celibate because you cannot get laid, is very rare. These naturally celibate people is who Paul was referring to. He was not telling the other 99.8% of humanity to stifle their natural urges for sex. He simply instructed them to marry.

  4. Knight Artorias says:

    There’s that “forced celibacy” phrase again.

    I was referring to your bit about men having carnal knowledge of women outside of the marital bed. This is not Godly, nor is it even feasible for it to be. Firstly, Paul was not talking about “natural celibates.” I know most parts of the Bible can be interpreted about as freely as a daily horoscope, but “natural celibates”? Really?

    7 Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”
    8 Now to the unmarried[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

    I don’t see anything that would resemble “natural celibates.”

    Even if we ignore Paul’s suggestions on sexual morality, what you’re proposing couldn’t even work practically. If men were allowed to experiment with members of the opposite sex outside of the context of marriage and if the same actions would be considered sinful for women, it would simply be impossible for a man to know a woman without leading her to sin. And leading one’s neighbor to sin would be like spitting in the face of God.

    It is my opinion that you’re merely using the teachings of the Bible to support your own “provable morality” and occasionally twisting the teachings to fit your views. I don’t know Jesus personally, but I imagine this makes him unhappy.

    If you’d like, I can reserve you a seat in Hell.

  5. monkeywerks says:

    Natural celibates are men and women who have no desire to have sex. They do exist and are quite normal otherwise, ie: no abuse, etc. This could be natural or spiritual. I have seen both, but probably more secular people have this issue by far. Forced celibacy is simply not getting sex and wanting it. Is that too hard to understand?

    In the context of my essay and the supporting articles, a woman who was a professing Christian and a virgin who was also bisexual mind you, forced her BF into celibacy with the common line of “if you love me you will wait”. Waiting for a short (maybe 6 months) is biblical, waiting 6 years is not and it is manipulation, as Pugsley admitted to in her article because she didn’t like sex and felt shame even after she was married. So yes her BF was forced into celibacy as so many young and older Christian men are these days.

    I believe if you’re going to live according the bible directives, you live by all of it. In that we are in agreement. However, without going all progressive in interpretations there is a fair amount of implying in regards to certain directives. The Catholics do this by prohibiting masturbation and certain sex acts even if done in marriage. The Baptists say if married, keep the marriage bed hot and let er’ rip. Nothing sexual in marriage is prohibited. Now the bible leaves a lot of details out, but I would think the Baptists are right on their views more so than the Catholics on that issue. Alternatively, I like the Catholics stand on divorce and abortion more so than the Protestant views.
    You’re picking one phrase out of context to the entire premise and point of the essay and attacking it and ignoring the other 99% of the essay and my comments to you. You are doing this because to acknowledge and debate the points and questions I presented you will have to admit that yes, the young Christian women nowadays are actually pretty screwed up, and that knocks these women right off of their pedestals.

    If we had biblical marriage as the norm, I would promote it. Seeing as we do not, I cannot in good conscience endorse an act that is potentially and statistically harmful to my fellow men.
    There have always been a number of promiscuous women throughout history for men to have sex with and not marry. Instead of in days of old where only a small percent of the female population were sluts and whores, we now have a significant majority of women who can be considered sluts and whores.

    Please quote 1 scriptural reference that states a man must be a virgin when he marries. I know there are numerous ones directing women to be virgins, but I have yet to find 1 that states that a man must be.

    There is no double standard in regards to male and female promiscuity. There are 2 different standards and biologically and morally they are valid. A man cannot cuckold his wife, yet it has been shown that upwards of 10-20% of all men are raising children not their own, yet they believe the children to be theirs. That’s why we have 2 standards.

  6. Knight Artorias says:

    Okay, fine. I’ll try one last time to break this down in the simplest way I can.

    These premises are according to you, not the Bible, which explicitly states that sex outside of marriage is immoral for both men and women: 1 Corinthians 7, which I’ve already posted parts of.

    Premise 1: A man can have sex outside of marriage and not offend God.
    Premise 2: A woman who has sex outside of marriage offends God and is, as you so tactfully put it, a “slut” and/or “whore”.
    Biblical truth: Should a person (man or woman) lead their neighbor (man or woman) to offend God, they are also offending God.
    Conclusion 1: A man who has sex with a woman outside of marriage is leading her to offend God.
    Conclusion 2: The man is offending God.

    If you have sex with a whore outside of marriage, you’re leading her to further offend God, and by doing so, you are also offending God.

    Just face it. You’re going to Hell. I wanted to let you know so that you can stay out of my side of Hell where I encourage whore behavior because sex.

    • monkeywerks says:

      People make their own decisions. Banging a woman out of wedlock may have repercussions for the believer, but for the woman, no. If a woman is already damaged, another penis will not damage her anymore. Pugsley is a damaged and probably even a deranged woman, and somehow she remained a virgin, although I am pretty skeptical about that. I have known a few otherwise decent women with, let’s say quite colorful pasts. In both cases neither woman is marriage material. At least with the promiscuous woman her husband could in all certainty expect to not have blue balls at least.

      Most men would love to find a virgin woman to wife up. Tell us where to find all of the good virgin women who don’t have 463 point lists so men out there who want to have sanctified sex and children can wife them up. They sure as hell are not found in any modern church, whatever the denomination. Oh wait, the real good girls are an endangered species in the US. When women stop chasing the alpha’s and the bad boys, which I totally admit I am one of, then maybe, just maybe, men will come back to the table. Good men don’t want damaged women or repentant sluts. God may have forgiven them but that does not mean men have too. Until women collectively change, the biblical standard about unmarried sex is made irrelevant. It’s hard to play a game when only one side plays by the rules. I think God will not be too bothered if a man engages in sex with a limited amount of partners in loving and committed relationships.

      Knowing her story, Dragonfly is probably the standard of what men should look for in a potential wife. It’s just that women like her are kind of like a needle in a haystack.

      And you still never responded to the real issue. I’ll buy you a drink when we meet. Loolzzzlolzz

      • Knight Artorias says:

        “I think God will not be too bothered if a man engages in sex with a limited amount of partners in loving and committed relationships.”

        You are, once again, woefully mistaken, unless you can point out the story of Jesus banging Mary Magdelene because she was already a whore anyway.

        Romans 14:13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister.

        Your “real” issue is stupid, so I’ve elected to ignore it. Also because I’m not obsessed with whatever women decide to do with their sex parts.

        I don’t want to drink with you. Like I said, you stay in your corner of Hell, and I’ll stay in mine.

  7. monkeywerks says:

    You have gotten to be tedious.

  8. […] to nothing but the chaos we see every day in the SMP and MMP.   You see men and women having unhealthy and damaging attitudes about not only sex but love and what it means to be in a healthy productive […]

Leave a Reply to monkeywerks Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s