Bishop Donald Sanborn about #metoo

Bishop Donald Sanborn has opinion on Me Too movement.

I have an opinion on his opinion. It stinks.

He opens by saying that some men's conduct in the regard of women who have suffered from the sexual assaults of men is deplorable. "Some men"? So - there are men whose conduct in regard of sexually assaulting women isn't deplorable?

"it is also true that the conduct of some women is deplorable as well"
That sounds very much like you are blaming the victim of the assault... not cool. But, let's hear what you have to say. I fully acknowledge that there are women who sexually assault men and men who are victims of sexual assault, and none of that is OK. The conduct of EVERY SINGLE PERSON sexually assaulting another person is deplorable.
AND THERE ARE NO EXCUSES.
Really, the only "excuse" is "I am sorry, I misunderstood. Yes, it was incredibly stupid and wrong, you did nothing to deserve it, it was all my bad, and I will not do it again. I am seriously very sorry, how can I compensate for my deplorable conduct."

But, no, he is not talking about female sexual predators. He is talking about ordinary, normal, modern women. He thinks the deplorable conduct of women in case of being the object of a sexual assault is:
- dressing immodestly
- putting themselves in public room
- interacting with men

He proceeds to talk about women's fashion. I don't know where he got his ideas from, but it doesn't have much to do with the actual fashion.

"Never in the history of women’s dress, up to about 1918, did women wear skirts above their ankles."

Elbows, Ankles and Décolletage: Myths of 18th Century Women’s Fashion Part 1

"To show one’s bare arms was a sign of a prostitute."

This woman is not a prostitute.

"By the 1920s women’s clothing had undergone a radical transformation. So did their behavior. With the advent of the cinema, and especially that of Hollywood, the “glamor girl” look became fashionable, as well as the flirtatious activity which accompanied it."

Well... if you actually knew anything about fashion, you would know there was never anything radical about any of it. Every change was firmly anchored to what was going on.

The hemline started to rise when women were expected to work. In the peasant society, women always wore short skirts. You can't work well with a skirt that covers your feet. Long sleeves get caught up with everything and get wet and so on. Women who work have always rolled up their sleeves and (oh, immodesty!) revealed their elbows. So with the industrialisation and wars and all that going on in the end of 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, women's fashion responded to the times by becoming more practical. The men's fashion became more practical as well.

With industrialisation, ordinary, common people could get wealthy, even rich. Together with that, there were more young people who didn't need to work, and with the invention and popularisation of cars, the dresses become more free.
In the 20th century, the hemline covered the knees. It wasn't before WWII and lack of material, when the hemline started to rise again.
The 50s fashion is a reaction to the 40s "unfeminine fashion". In the 40s nobody wore a corset. In the 50s everybody did. In the 40s, fashion was very practical. In the 50s, it was all about looks.
In the 60s, the corset was gone, once again, and the clothes weren't tight. Yes, miniskirt was invented, but the fashion icon was Twiggy, who had very straight body. 60s dress was basically a sack with holes for head and arms. Then in the 70s we were back to covering everything.

When it comes to sexual revolution, one only needs to read erotic literature to know that the women of 20s weren't more flirtatious than their mothers and grandmothers, nor more liberal with their sexuality. The 60s sexual revolution was basically two things.
1) the development of contraceptives and women's healthcare
and
2) the radical idea of women being human beings

Women's sexuality is not in any way different from men's. We all have sexual desires, we all get attracted, we all enjoy sex. Women are not more virtuous or fidelitous than men, men are not more slaves to their animal urges and desires.
The temptation is the same.
The difficulty to withstand the temptation is the same.
The sin is the same.
The moral standard should be the same.
A man who has slept with 10 women is not less a slut than a woman who has slept with 10 men. (The average sexual partners normal people, men and women, have IN THEIR LIFETIME is 4.)
Virginity is a myth that has absolutely NOTHING to do with reality.

"But the 1960’s saw the miniskirt, something that the human race had never seen on decent women since the dawn of mankind. "

"human race", huh... These are Himba women. They belong to an isolated tribe in Southern Africa, where rape outside the marriage is rare. (Now, inside the marriage... they practice sort of wife swapping, where the husband can offer his wife to any man he likes, and she has no say to it. This practice has nothing to do with their "immodest" clothes. Now... if a "black African savage" can control his male urges, why can't a "civilized white man"?)

"Hollywood became extremely immodest in both dress and behavior in the 1950s. It was the prelude of the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Marilyn Monroe was a typical example of this degenerate tendency."

Jean Harlow was the first "blonde bombshell" in the 30s. It was actually the sexual liberation of 60s and feminism that killed this "trend". All the sex bomb movies were created by men. It was a male fantasy. All the pinups and "men's magazines" and sexy bimbos is male fantasy and a male image of what women should be. Marilyn Monroe didn't dress up as she did and didn't behave as we think is typical for her when she was in control of her clothes and behavior. She was playing a role, given to her by men. All the "degenerate tendency" of Hollywood you lament is 100% men's responsibility. All the sexual abuse and exploitation in Hollywood is 100% men's responsibility. Men have the power, men are responsible.

"Most of the “victim” ladies in these cases look like lascivious women, and probably did much to cause the assault."

They probably did nothing to cause the assault. Assault is ALWAYS the responsibility of the assaulter, never the victim. How ever the victim teases, provokes, instigates, invites, challenges, signals aso, because a good person, a decent person DOES NOT ASSAULT PEOPLE. Not sexually, not any other way, not women, not men, not children, elderly, animals or any other living creature.

People don't generally want to offend their employer, and definitely not a person they want to employ them. Most of the Hollywood sexual assaults happened to young women (or men) by a man in power. A man who was taking advantage of her innocence, her uncertainty, her ignorance and her wishes and dreams. She was trying to get a job and to play the role she thought he wanted he to play, so she was doing her best to look as pretty and sexy as the society keeps still telling women we have to be.
(Come on, just look around. How many ads for makeup, cosmetics, clothes, diets and exercise do you see? How many of them are directed to women and how many to men? What other ads do you see directed to women? Are you aware of that the advertisement industry uses only 40% of resources to ads directed to women, even though 80% of purchases are done by women? And women buy half of all the high-tech and cars, whereas all the ads are directed to men?)
So, when women manage to be what is expected of them, you sexually assault them and tell them it's their own fault. Evil.

Women left their homes and went to work, not because of the birth control pill, but because the world wars taught women that they can do the job just as well as men, and because the wars decimated the amount of future husbands. After the wars, there were a lot more women than men who could marry. If you didn't get a husband, who would support you? One has to live somehow. So, women went to work. Their daughters and nieces found out that there are other options for a girl than becoming a housewife or an old maid needing to live on someone else's charity. One could actually earn one's own money, get one's own apartment and support oneself. One's worth no longer depended on marriageability.

Especially, when the moral environment was what it was. The "French Postcards" existed long before the 50s. Nude calendars were produced in the 19th century. Pin-up picture was coined in the 40s. The Playboy magazine was founded 1953. The Apartment came out 1960.

Prostitution has been legal in Europe since forever. It was only after WWII when it became illegal and brothels were forced shut. This was mostly done by women. One could assume, the 50s ultrasexualism in USA was a reaction to this. Men who had been at war were used to having loose relationships, and wanted to keep getting the milk without buying a cow, and as it has always been possible to say to a girl who got pregnant "it's not mine" and not take any responsibility of the child, they wouldn't marry. Now, when the men weren't doing their part in raising children, why would the women stay at home?

No, we have always had - and still have - women who want to be moms and take care of the home and children. If they find husbands and their husbands find jobs good enough to support their families, wonderful. If not - you would want them to become a burden to their families, and if they had no families, what then? Go live on the street and die? Become a prostitute? Have 5-6 children or more and no roof over their heads, no food on their plates, no clothes on their bodies...?
No. Birth control pills and other contraceptives were developed because they were needed, not so that people (women) could have freely sex without consequences.

And when you have been independent, you don't want to go back to slavery.

When you are freed from the responsibility of having and raising children - A FREEDOM MEN HAVE HAD SINCE THE BEGINNING OF MANKIND - you only have children you know you can raise.

"Little by little decent people were asked to tolerate more and more immodesty."
By whom?
Men.
Men were film producers, television producers, advertisers, men owned the companies, men hired the people, men wrote the manuscripts, men chose how to portray the women, men designed the fashion, men set the expectations on women. Men created the nude calendars and pin-up pictures and men's magazines, men owned the stores and paper stands that sold them, men made women into objects of their sexual lusts. Men created the sex objects, not women.
Most women in sex industry are there trying to do what they are told to by men, or what they think is expected of them by men, or because they believe their sexuality is their only worth. A lot of women are there against their will. Most women in sex industry - if not all - have been raped at least once in their lifetime, and quite a lot before their 15th birthday. By a man.

"men and women have been thrown together into situations which are very dangerous. Women are daily interacting with men in the workplace. In many cases they are dressed in such a way as to be immodestly attractive to men. The inevitable result is that, unless the men in the office are very vigilant about the virtue of chastity and fidelity to their wives, some very bad things take place."

Interacting with people in the workplace shouldn't be in any way dangerous. If you can interact with a man without trying to rape him or without thinking nasty thoughts, you can interact with a woman without seeing her as a sex object. It's not what she is wearing or that she's a woman, it's your own mind, it's the thoughts you allow yourself to think. It is your own programming that makes you think that it's OK to look at another human being and reduce her into an object.

I confront you, Donald, and Saint John Chrysostom with Jesus's words.

“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her (covets a woman) has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Matthew 5:27-28

SHE hasn't committed adultery with you. YOU are the only guilty one here.

Also, THIS is normal work clothes for women today. There's nothing immodest there. Nothing everyone doesn't see all the time. Nothing not one adult today hasn't seen every day of his life. You are not saying you have a hard-on 24/7 because you have to interact with women dressed up like this. If you do, you need to see a doctor. And a psychiatrist.

Also, "unless the men in the office are very vigilant about the virtue of chastity and fidelity to their wives, some very bad things take place."

You don't steal everything you lay your eyes on, even if you want it, because you know it's wrong. There are situations when this can be hard, but in most situation you don't even need to think about it. 

You don't go murdering people, not even slapping them, just because you'd like to, because you know it's wrong. Again, there are situation where this is really hard, but in most cases it's just a fleeting thought.
You don't do a lot of things you might want to, because you know it is wrong, and it doesn't take much extra vigilance or effort. I do it every day quite effortlessly.
GET INTO YOUR THICK HEAD THAT SEXUALLY ASSAULTING WOMEN IS WRONG.

You might need to "steal" food because otherwise you would die of hunger.
You might need to hurt another person, even kill them, in self-defense.
BUT YOU DO NOT NEED TO SEXUALLY ASSAULT ANYONE FOR ANY REASON.

If you need to be "very vigilant about the virtue of chastity and fidelity to their wives" to not do things you know are wrong, there's something very, very wrong going on. WITH YOU.

"The reason why there was, in past times, so much modesty in women’s dress, and the reason why women stayed mostly in the home, is precisely that men have a very hard time controlling their sexual desires."
No. That's just a very bad excuse.

A man sexually assaulting a woman is more like a dog biting a human. When this dog bites the people and refuses to obey, it's not enough to keep it on a leash and putting a muzzle on it. No, this dog is put down. And you are telling me a man has less self-control than a dog and I am supposed to see him as a respectable human being?

"Although men are principally guilty, the women are partially if not equally guilty. In many if not most cases their dress is sexually enticing, and their conduct with men often invites sexual advances."

Temptation and Sin

If you cannot resist the temptation, if you cannot avert your eyes and flee the temptation, then you are not a man.

"Most of the “victim” ladies in these cases look like lascivious women, and probably did much to cause the assault."

It's like saying "most of the "victim" gentlemen in these cases look like wealthy men, and probably did much to cause the mugging". "Most of the "victim" homes in these cases look like wealthy homes, and probably did much to cause the burglary". "Most of the "victim" gentlemen in these cases look like... what? what do people look like to warrant them being beaten and murdered?

Also, "victim"? You are practically questioning their story. You are saying they weren't sexually assaulted. You are saying they are lying.

"Other cases of assault occur in situations in which men enjoy much power and influence. Sports figures are often guilty of this as well as politicians. There seems to be an aggression that occurs in men as they advance in power and/or fame. Women should not be close to any environments such as these."

No. If there is an aggression that occurs in men as they advance in power and/or fame, they should very vigilant when advancing in power and/or fame, or preferably not be close to any environment where such things might happen. One could even question why any man would want to advance in power and/or fame, as it seems to make them all sexual predators.
No. There are men in power and fame who aren't sexual predators, who do not sexually assault women, or assault anyone in any way, form or manner. Which means that this "aggression" is not real. It is just another excuse. Men are still 100% responsible of their own choices and actions and sins and crimes.
The solution is not for women to stay clear of these men, but for the men to CONTROL THEMSELVES.

"While women should not look odd by returning the mode of dress in 1912, they should nonetheless take all the steps necessary, even difficult, expensive, and inconvenient, in order to avoid being an occasion of sin to men, and thereby inviting upon themselves outrages by unscrupulous males."

No. It is not women's duty to try to stop men from sinning, IT IS EVERYONE'S PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY TO NOT DO BAD THINGS.

God will not ask you if you were tempted. God knows you were.
God will ask you why you gave in to the temptation. Why you didn't resist.
God knows you knew it was wrong and you still did it, and even accused the victim of your sin for it.
And God will not be happy. No, sir, God will not be happy with you.

Confessions for the holidays

confessions for the holidays


I was with him until " I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period."

I believe in God and I have never been pushed around. Of course there are people who think I'm an idiot for believing in God. I don't care. I don't think my God cares either. I don't find it in any way offensive that people wish me "happy holidays" (in fact, it feels nice, inclusive), or "merry Christmas" (it feels nice, too. :-D) I like it when people wish me well. I don't mind it when people curse me, threaten me and tell me I'll go to hell. I know those people have nothing to do with my relation to God.

I don't mind it if people tell me to keep my exercising my religion to myself. I believe one's religion is a thing between oneself and one's God. Now, people yapping about my pentagram, the way I dress, or my usage of words, that's not OK, but - I know it's not me, it's them. They are just being rude and intolerant. So - I don't care much. I won't stop wearing my pentagram. I am a proud Pagan and I'm not afraid to show it.

I do mind when people don't keep their exercising of their religion to themselves. I do mind when my education is interrupted with prayers to a God I don't believe in. I especially mind when my space is invaded by a culture that has harmed me.

I shouldn't need to tolerate a Nazi flag, and I shouldn't need to tolerate the symbols of people who has been persecuted my people for centuries.
And I really don't care that to you the Federation Flag doesn't stand for racism and persecution of Black people. Proudly display it in your own home.
And, yes, the Christian symbols are really as strongly negative as these symbols to some people.

Now, I don't mind nativity scenes and plays and angels and all that. I have some objections to some Christmas songs, but what irks me most is "Jesus is the reason for the season". It is offensive. It is ignorant, it is selfish, self-centered and callous. It is also wrong. Solstice is the reason for the season. MY religion, faith and spiritual beliefs, MY people are the reason we celebrate Midwinter.

So, sure, there's a war on Christmas, but it was the Christians who started it some 1700 years ago. It is OUR party. You MAY celebrate it because WE are kind and generous, but you MAY NOT hog it!
Infuse your holiday celebrations with any symbolism and meaning you wish to, but don't assume that's the actual meaning. Only 200 years ago people celebrated Christmas by fasting the day and going to church. The Pagans celebrated Midwinter with lavish foods and fun and games, coming together and partying, and even the gift giving is Pagan. The Pagans decorated their homes with evergreens and decorating trees with beautiful things is so Pagan it's a wonder any Christian ever thought it wasn't. But - that's one of my pet peeves.

Separation of State and Religion:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."- Thomas Jefferson, 1802

If you can't find anything in the constitution about the separation of the state and religion, it's because you don't understand the text.

I believe in the separation of state and religion. Why?
I believe a Christian shouldn't need to hear Pagan prayers and shouldn't need to see Pagan idols in their everyday environment, and especially not in the environment they must visit. Pagan idols belong to Pagan homes and temples.
AS I BELIEVE IN THE GOLDEN RULE, I, A PAGAN, SHOULDN'T NEED TO DEAL WITH YOUR RELIGION.
I shouldn't need to see Christian (or Jewish or Muslim or any other) idols, icons and attributes in the public area (churches, temples etc. should, of course, exist, and should be accessible and respected), I shouldn't need to remove myself from the common rooms if I wish to not listen to Christian prayers, Holy Book being read, etc. etc. The only place for religion in schools is the classes where religion is being taught and in private clubs and so on. If the Christians in school wish to have a prayer circle and Jesus club, that's fine. But it may not interfere with the regular, general, equal education, just as the other clubs and leisure time activities may not. You are not excused from biology class because you need to pray.

ESPECIALLY WHEN YOUR HOLY BOOK TELLS YOU TO PRAY IN SECRET AND NOT MAKE YOUR FAITH AND RELIGION THE BUSINESS OF OTHER PEOPLE.

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocritesare: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues andin the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men.Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.Matthew 6:5

"where did the idea come from that we should worship celebrities and we aren't allowed to worship God?"
Who says you aren't allowed to worship God?
We are saying you need to do that in private, in your places of worship, in your homes, not that you may not do that. Why do you need to display your worship in public for you to feel you "may"? Why do you need to flaunt it?

And who says you should worship celebrities? Is there some... er... Britney-Spears-mass or George-Clooney-day in USA? Where symbols for these celebrities are displayed in public places and people are forced to listen to the teacher or mayor or some other authority talk about their adoration of these people? Because there sure aren't any such days or celebrations in Sweden. The people who worship celebrities are generally regarded as more or less silly, like "Twihards" or "beliebers". They at least keep their worship for themselves and just intensely hate the haters. They aren't forcing everyone to listen their songs, scriptures or discussions with their idols, or watching the movies or what ever their celebrity idol does.
In Finland there's always a lot of Christian things in public television on Christmas and Good Friday. They will always broadcast at least one nativity movie on Christmas and at least one Jesus' life and death movie on Easter. As I said, Good Friday was even more so, because EVERYTHING broadcast on that day was built around Good Friday. Just think of a religion you don't much care about (like, I don't know, Satanism?), and think there's a day when everything around you, in television, in public, in stores, on the streets, everywhere, is about that religion and some single event important to that religion. Do you still think it is OK and people are overreacting when they tell you to keep your faith out of the public, general, common environment? It really is a question of consideration and "doing unto others".

So, this is not OK: "'I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives.And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?'"

I have not told God once to get out of my life. I have told the Christians to get their religion out of OUR schools and government. Why aren't the Christians "gentlemen"?
Hurricanes, earth quakes, tsunamis, all the natural catastrophes happened even when the state and religion were inherently bound. You are not blaming non-Christians and people who wish to keep the state and religion separated for natural catastrophes!

If Madalyn Murray O'Hair was murdered because God didn't protect her, because she didn't want God to, why are "good Christians" and "good Jews" murdered?
Madalyn Murray O'Hair's kidnapping and murder was a horrifying piece of history that had nothing to do with her beliefs, and shouldn't be used as some sort of rhetoric point. That's really not speaking well of the author's morals.

The secular humanist and atheist morality says "do not murder people, do not take things that belong to other people, do not do to others what you don't want to be done to you". That's basic human morality we learn in the kindergarten. It has always been "it's good to do things I like when done to me, and bad when things are done I don't want to happen". I don't want to be killed, I don't want my loved ones to be killed, so I don't kill. It has nothing to do with religion, Christianity, the Bible or any Holy Scriptures. This is human morality. People who can't read follow this.
Also, when prayers and Bible reading was a habit in schools, people were still hurting others, murdering people, stealing their things and what not.

Dr. Benjamin Spock was 100% correct about his views about spanking. I was not spanked and I am not a murderous a-hole. The prisons are full of people who were physically punished. Frankly, if you cannot solve a problem without violence, you shouldn't be responsible of anyone's well-being. Spanking parents are despicable. Yes, spanking teaches kids that "might is right". And just look at the USonian general attitude today. "If you don't do as I tell you, I'm going to force you to!" "I'll kill you if you don't!" "I'll start a war!" "I'll punch you on the nose if you don't shut up!"
I have a strong conscience, more so, because my parents were intelligent and kind people, who taught me to use my own intellect to separate the right from wrong, who spoke with me about my errors and wrong-doings, who made me understand the consequences of my choices. My siblings brought up their children with the same principles, and they are all good people.
In Sweden, spanking is illegal, and the Swedes are less murderous people than the USonians.
So, no, spanking is not the reason why people get a conscience. Spanking is the reason why people think might is right and if you don't get caught, you can do anything.

Dr Spock's son didn't commit suicide. His grandson did. The boy had mental health problems. BUT YOU WILL NOT USE SOMEONE'S SUICIDE TO MAKE A POINT. That's despicable as well.

"Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell."
Funny how easy it is for some people to equate themselves with God.
Separation of the state and the religion is not trashing God. It's separating the state and the religion.
The world isn't going to hell. The general morality of people is better than it was 300 years ago, when the whole Western world was Christian. Secular humanists are among the most moral people in the world. You don't need God to be good. If you do, you are not good. If you do what you think God wants you to do (and that that is revealed to you in a book or by some authority), and think godless people are bad people and immoral people, you don't know the difference between what's good and what is bad.
Besides, if God can't take some trashing, God isn't worth to be considered a God. REAL God isn't petty.

"Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says."
The newspapers should be reporting facts and if a newspaper is found out to report not facts, they are being reprimanded and if it happens more than once, people won't believe what that newspaper says.
Now, what one holy scripture says is often something different from what another holy scripture says, and when it comes to the Bible, it contradicts itself often. There is no instance one could complain about the errors and non-facts and no responsibility. Every man and his dog has their own interpretation of what the words mean, and it was written in several languages, by several people, during a very long period of time, a very long time ago. Holy Scriptures - ALL OF THEM - are to be considered fiction and philosophical ponderings, and one should question what the Bible says.

"Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire, but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing".
In my experience people share political outrage more than jokes or religious thoughts. I wish I share most often good news and calls for action to make the world a better place. I'll try to get better with this.
But... if there is a Bible in every home and people are supposed to read that, why would they resend messages regarding the Lord?
Also, please, don't send me messages regarding your God. I really think that's between you two, and I wish to be left out of your relationship. Jokes I'd like to receive. I like laughing. I believe God likes laughing as well.

"Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace."
Public discussion of God passes also freely through cyberspace, and lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene discussions are suppressed in the school and workplace.
Also, do not discuss God at a workplace! I have nothing against people wanting to discuss their God with people, because I can say "no" and expect my borders to be respected, but the only workplaces where it's appropriate to discuss God are churches and other such places. Do not try to introduce prayers to people's work and school. That is disrespectful and intrusive, and totally unnecessary. Discuss God with your friends and family at your leisure time, and pray in secrecy, AS YOUR GOD TOLD YOU TO DO.

"If you discard this thought process, don’t sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in" is very bad logic and effort to manipulate and emotionally blackmail people, and that, my dear, is highly immoral. "This though process" should be discarded, because it's illogical, based on stupid and faulty assumptions and it is whiny, blaming others for things that are not their fault nor responsibility. Sharing this little piece of crap doesn't warrant you to sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in, because it doesn't do anything to improve the shape of the world. It suggests that the world would be better place if there weren't separation of state and religion and if children were hurt as a "punishment" for some imagined grievances. We were there for some 1000 years, and the world was not a better place!