Erika Shupe *glower pout* Large Families on Purpose Part 5

[Runningfromreality]

3 hours ago, THERetroGamerNY said:

I suffer from dizzy spells due to extremely low blood pressure. I put extra salt on stuff and use Ericka's bad parenting as a medical supplement.

Me too! I start my morning with a midodrine, a gatorade, and the Shupe thread to get my blood pressure up high enough to go about my day  My headship doesn't understand, because fundies make him too mad to even hear about, but I always tell him that being mad at fundies is good for my health!

[iweartanktops]

2 hours ago, THERetroGamerNY said:

 

I mean... I honestly do NOT find myself target-locked on my own wife's crotch (yes, I had to go here lol) every second of the day...

 

I wish I could, with a straight face, ask my fiancé if my jeans make my crotch stand out too much! 

[pnwgypsy]

Not done reading her new post, but I have to say this before I go any further....

 

"Being a man is an interesting business. " - Bob Shupe

[pnwgypsy]

2 hours ago, THERetroGamerNY said:

Yeah, this whole crotch-shield ... er, sorry, SKIRT, obsession seems to be some Freudian-level thing that is just deeply rooted in Fundies like Erika ... I remember when my mom had my older sister suddenly wearing long skirts as the de facto standard, and it was because of "eye traps" and all that Gothard crap...

Here's the thing that puzzles me: You clearly didn't obsess about your crotch beforehand, right?!

I mean ... you were just a normal woman beforehand, and now - thanks to Fundyism - an obsession with crotches is all around you.

I don't get it. I just cannot make the full connection in my male head.

I mean ... WTF?!

I mean... I honestly do NOT find myself target-locked on my own wife's crotch (yes, I had to go here lol) every second of the day...

Reminds me of that wonderful comment a page or so ago about somebody more Fundy than Ericka requesting a crotch-check at the bathroom. I stumbled across a new blog on Wordpress (thanks to a commenter on the hilarious Defaming the Duggars blog) and the blog is this bizarre New Age-Girly-Girly-Quiverfull thing (I guess this is a thing?!) Anyways, that blogger mentioned all her girls wearing skirts because of romantic notions about fashion. Crotches were never mentioned.

Sooooo... get that New Age-Fundy-Lite woman in the room, with Erika, and the uber-Fundie ... it would be a Pay Per View event. ONE of these women would eventually hit a breaking point and scream "Why are you so obsessed with my crotch?!"

I would pay cold cash, and make a good tub of popcorn with a frosty cold soda to watch that.

Post count title?  target-locked on my own wife's crotch

WA state (where Erika & I live, among others) had a bill proposed that would require people to use the restroom that matched their genitals...so a male to female transgender without bottom surgery, though dressed & appearing female would have to use the male restroom.  This came about because it was affirmed that WA's existing laws support & allow transgender folks to use whatever restroom they want.  Obviously Erika would have an opinion on this & she has shared some articles on her facebook page in regards to not supporting WA's current laws on transgender bathroom access.  My friend is quite involved in the transgender community and attended one of the legislative hearings.  They told me they could barely sit through the ridiculousness.  Nothing disgusts me more than people who insists transgender = pedophilia & sexual deviance.

[THERetroGamerNY]

Didn't Michelle Duggar also have a hysterical robocall about transgenders in a gym bathroom??

[Koala]

This comment (and Erika's response) is very troubling to me:

Reader:

Quote

And if your children are homeschooled, why would they be restricted to wearing skirts at home, even the barely walking? Is it a concern that your sons or husband may look at your female children in a lustful manner? Please do not take offense, I am just confused on wearing them at home. Thank you

I was really hoping Erika would respond with a firm "No!", but unfortunately she didn't:

Quote

And we dress consistently pretty much always. Sometimes we wear pajama bottoms at home because that's warm. But other than that we just try to make the lives of all men easier and more relaxed by dressing modestly. Period. =) And the girls look and feel and behave all the more feminine in dresses. Our crawlers were totally find in darling dresses, it doesn't hinder their play at all.

 

[older than allosaurs]

2 hours ago, pnwgypsy said:

 

"Being a man is an interesting business. " - Bob Shupe

Bob's post, if indeed he wrote it and I confess I have my doubts, raises a question for me. What is the headship equivalent of "twinkle" and "beam"?

"throat clear"? "clench"? "assert"?

I'm struggling here.

 

 

 

[iweartanktops]

41 minutes ago, Koala said:

This comment (and Erika's response) is very troubling to me:

Reader:

I was really hoping Erika would respond with a firm "No!", but unfortunately she didn't:

 

This is scary! 

[pnwgypsy]

50 minutes ago, Koala said:

This comment (and Erika's response) is very troubling to me:

Reader:

I was really hoping Erika would respond with a firm "No!", but unfortunately she didn't:

 

 

9 minutes ago, iweartanktops6 said:

This is scary! 

Do fundies not understand that it is NEVER okay for an adult to have lustful thoughts about a minor, regardless of how they're dressed?

[AliceInFundyland]

Am I the only female who attracts more attention when I wear skirts or dresses of any sort? Perhaps it's just the uber casualness of Portland... we don't get fancy much.  I feel like even a sweater dress and leggings or maxi skirt/dress in the summer can be compelling (because I've been told so) 

....semi-relatedly... awhile back I made a comment about teen boys looking at girls. Someone (pretty sure it was RosyDaisy  ) retorted  "we don't look at men?" Now I was just thinking  (at the time) that boys figured out boobs a bit earlier in life than we figure out (the relative importance of) penis size. Since then, I have to admit, when I am on the train (so everyday), and bored, it is often....well, at eye-level.  Target locking indeed.

 

[Vex]

4 hours ago, DarkAnts said:

I lost my faith in high school. I went to an LCMS school and was flabbergasted that people could have a small world view. I boycotted theology class for a while because there was too much hate being spread towards other religions. Luckily my pasture was supportive of my views. I just could not believe in a God that would send an innocent child to hell simply because they have not been exposed to Christianity or were given a change to be baptized. 

I lost my faith in high school too. What's interesting is that I went to Christian schools my whole life and have always been fascinated by religion. I'd always asked questions I wasn't 'supposed' to ask about Christianity but I'd had a wonderful and supportive priest who was happy to patiently answer my questions. It wasn't until I went to a conservative Lutheran school that I lost my faith entirely. It was all the preaching and forcing of religion on me that made me realise I had stopped believing I actually found organised religion repugnant. It was driven home permanently when the archbishop came to tell us that 'atheists are tools of the devil, sent to lead good Christians astray'.

It seems to me that a good portion of fundies must stay in because of pressure to conform. It's the most natural thing in the world to ask questions and form your own beliefs, even when you try your best to beat that out of a kid.

[December]

57 minutes ago, AliceInFundyland said:

Am I the only female who attracts more attention when I wear skirts or dresses of any sort? Perhaps it's just the uber casualness of Portland... we don't get fancy much.  I feel like even a sweater dress and leggings or maxi skirt/dress in the summer can be compelling (because I've been told so) 

....semi-relatedly... awhile back I made a comment about teen boys looking at girls. Someone (pretty sure it was RosyDaisy  ) retorted  "we don't look at men?" Now I was just thinking  (at the time) that boys figured out boobs a bit earlier in life than we figure out (the relative importance of) penis size. Since then, I have to admit, when I am on the train (so everyday), and bored, it is often....well, at eye-level.  Target locking indeed.

Yeah, I was thinking as I read the comments section on her post... wouldn't men wearing pants be more distracting? Unless a woman's wearing pants that are super tight (and therefore a poor fit and probably uncomfortable), it's generally not super revealing. But many types of pants can be fairly revealing on men (especially well endowed men). 

Oh, wait, I forgot that my lady parts preclude those terrible sexual desires that we must protect the poor men from 

[Foudeb]

Women in countries where the social norm is to cover up completely in loose garments (long skirts, saris, burqas etc) are also the women who suffer the most street harassment. Just putting that out there.

[19 cats and counting]

I've been slowly phasing pants out of my wardrobe (only jeans at this point).  But having been street harassed, I can tell you it would have happened if I was wearing a 3 sizes too big t-shirt and sweats.   

[usmcmom]

From Bob's part of the post:

Quote

This situation is compounded by expectations of those around us (real or perceived) which are actually quite low, not high. If you look at TV, movies, advertising and even your average Sunday sermon, men are not typically held to a very high standard.

And yet, these people continue those extremely low expectations by insisting that men cannot control themselves around a woman in pants. (side note: self control is part of the Fruit of the Spirit, Erika!!) Why haven't these fundies come up with some sort of reinforced crotch for men's pants? Clearly it is necessary to contain the perpetually aroused state in which they exist. 

As far as Erika's claim that men and boys need to be kept safe from their sisters and mothers wearing "revealing" clothes; that is just disgusting!! I can't even imagine having such a low opinion of my husband and son that I had to think that way while we raised a daughter.  In the dresses-only families we know, all the females wear pants around the house and they put their baby/toddler girls in pants - and not just under a dress.   There was a time where I called one of these friends and asked if we could stop by real quickly to drop something off for school. She was very aware that my husband would be with me and she STILL greeted us at the door in sweat pants.  GASP!  My husband did not fall all over her in a drooling mess, nor did he pounce on me in the car because of some irresistible desire she stirred up in him.  But I don't think he's received the memo that he's supposed to stare at a woman's crotch to be a real man.  I better go tell him. 

[Anonymousguest]

On 2/13/2016 at 2:38 PM, THERetroGamerNY said:

Gay-homosexual...?!

As opposed to a non-gay-homosexual?!

No, the grumpy ones.

17 hours ago, December said:

Yeah, I was thinking as I read the comments section on her post... wouldn't men wearing pants be more distracting? Unless a woman's wearing pants that are super tight (and therefore a poor fit and probably uncomfortable), it's generally not super revealing. But many types of pants can be fairly revealing on men (especially well endowed men). 

Oh, wait, I forgot that my lady parts preclude those terrible sexual desires that we must protect the poor men from 

Women are not visual and therefore don't struggle with seeing men in any sort of clothing. Tight jeans, bare well built chest, big guns, washboard abs. We are impervious to it all. ALL of us. That's why they don't bother to have sexy half naked men in advertising and movies. Women don't find men sexy. We don't even like sex. except maybe a few over sexualized females. No doubt the result of the media. 

[church_of_dog]

On February 14, 2016 at 4:25 PM, pnwgypsy said:

WA state (where Erika & I live, among others) had a bill proposed that would require people to use the restroom that matched their genitals...so a male to female transgender without bottom surgery, though dressed & appearing female would have to use the male restroom.  This came about because it was affirmed that WA's existing laws support & allow transgender folks to use whatever restroom they want.  Obviously Erika would have an opinion on this & she has shared some articles on her facebook page in regards to not supporting WA's current laws on transgender bathroom access.  My friend is quite involved in the transgender community and attended one of the legislative hearings.  They told me they could barely sit through the ridiculousness.  Nothing disgusts me more than people who insists transgender = pedophilia & sexual deviance.

What's especially bizarre about this is that she's got her own opinion on backwards -- if someone is dressed and presenting as a male, she wants that person to use the men's room, not the women's room.  If someone is dressed and presenting as a female, she wants them in the women's room.

Well, for the most part, that's what everyone wants (presuming that people present as they identify -- which I recognize doesn't include absolutely everyone, but it includes most cis folks and most trans folks, so -- more or less, happy happy all around, right?)

What she's not admitting is that she wants genitally-male people to only dress/present as men and genitally-female people to only dress/present as women.  So sorry, Erika, that's not something you get to choose for anyone other than yourself.

It's just so odd to me because, in the women's rooms at least, it's just not usual to see anyone's genitals.  All you see is how people present.  And if we can agree that only penis-holders (actual or simulated) should use the urinal, and there are only urinals in the men's room, so she's ok with that, there's really not any other situation I can think of where one would reasonably expect to see genitals in a public restroom.

Am I missing something here?

[mango_fandango]

Erika seems to follow a pattern on the LFOP FB page. She's been relatively quiet.. then POOF POOF POOF has linked to a gazillion blog posts/shared pictures. All the usual guff like "why homeschooling is amazing" and "when you're feeling down, remember Jesus/God loves you" blah de fucking blah.

Oh, and the 2015 slide show is up on the blog. 

[elliha]

I personally think that gender separated toilets should be done away with. Here in Sweden we mostly have separate toilets for all genders and that takes away most of these problems. There are usually 2-5 smaller toilets, one disabled toilet and either that doubles as a changing room or there is one disabled and one changing room toilet. What your genitals look like becomes completely irrelevant. I have also seen some bigger toilets with a "urinal room" and the rest are stalls. The urinal room has a door that closes but are not labelled as a "men's room" so I could technically go in there but I assume it would be creepy as I wouldn't be able to use it. 

[Hisey]

6 hours ago, Anonymousguest said:

No, the grumpy ones.

Women are not visual and therefore don't struggle with seeing men in any sort of clothing. Tight jeans, bare well built chest, big guns, washboard abs. We are impervious to it all. ALL of us. That's why they don't bother to have sexy half naked men in advertising and movies. Women don't find men sexy. We don't even like sex. except maybe a few over sexualized females. No doubt the result of the media. 

It's true. Sex and sexy things are really just for men. Women are more emotional and care about relationships, and that has nothing to do with sex! Basically, sex is something you "give" to men in exchange for room and board. Good, godly women, anyway. It's a totally different story for slutty women.

[Hane]

4 hours ago, Hisey said:

It's true. Sex and sexy things are really just for men. Women are more emotional and care about relationships, and that has nothing to do with sex! Basically, sex is something you "give" to men in exchange for room and board. Good, godly women, anyway. It's a totally different story for slutty women.

This reminds me of an old Onion article about a woman involved in a scandalous sex-for-pay scheme. For decades, this woman had lived in the home of a man rent-free. In return for housing, food, clothing, and a monetary allowance, she agreed to have an exclusive sexual relationship with him, cared for the home and did household chores, and even went so far as to bear his children. Shockingly, legal authorities were never involved.

[samira_catlover]

On 2/14/2016 at 5:25 AM, Foudeb said:

Women in countries where the social norm is to cover up completely in loose garments (long skirts, saris, burqas etc) are also the women who suffer the most street harassment. Just putting that out there.

Now you're being all kinds of fussy! Save the facts, please: we don't need them when they conflict with what is Right and Twoo0.

[pnwgypsy]

15 hours ago, church_of_dog said:

What's especially bizarre about this is that she's got her own opinion on backwards -- if someone is dressed and presenting as a male, she wants that person to use the men's room, not the women's room.  If someone is dressed and presenting as a female, she wants them in the women's room.

Well, for the most part, that's what everyone wants (presuming that people present as they identify -- which I recognize doesn't include absolutely everyone, but it includes most cis folks and most trans folks, so -- more or less, happy happy all around, right?)

What she's not admitting is that she wants genitally-male people to only dress/present as men and genitally-female people to only dress/present as women.  So sorry, Erika, that's not something you get to choose for anyone other than yourself.

It's just so odd to me because, in the women's rooms at least, it's just not usual to see anyone's genitals.  All you see is how people present.  And if we can agree that only penis-holders (actual or simulated) should use the urinal, and there are only urinals in the men's room, so she's ok with that, there's really not any other situation I can think of where one would reasonably expect to see genitals in a public restroom.

Am I missing something here?

You're pretty much in line with what reasonable Washingtonians support.  Just let people pee!

However, the current argument in WA is, Erika (& those w/ similar thoughts) want anyone with a penis to use the men's room, regardless of how they present.  Hence it being called a genital check bill.  Apparently conservatives want/need to know what's in everyone's pants before they undertake their private business.  [I would like to see Erika's reaction to running into someone presenting very masculine in the lady's room...]

Late last year the WA Human Rights Commission asserted that current WA law allows people to use whatever restroom/locker room they feel comfortable with.  The proposed bills came about to counteract that & force people to use segregated facilities matching their genitals regardless of how they present.

[church_of_dog]

1 hour ago, pnwgypsy said:

You're pretty much in line with what reasonable Washingtonians support.  Just let people pee!

However, the current argument in WA is, Erika (& those w/ similar thoughts) want anyone with a penis to use the men's room, regardless of how they present.  Hence it being called a genital check bill.  Apparently conservatives want/need to know what's in everyone's pants before they undertake their private business.  [I would like to see Erika's reaction to running into someone presenting very masculine in the lady's room...]

Late last year the WA Human Rights Commission asserted that current WA law allows people to use whatever restroom/locker room they feel comfortable with.  The proposed bills came about to counteract that & force people to use segregated facilities matching their genitals regardless of how they present.

The bolded is what I was trying to get at; you said it much more cleanly -- if a F-t-M transman who didn't [perhaps yet, perhaps ongoingly] have male genitals were to go into the ladies' room, which is ostensibly what Erika wants, she actually wouldn't approve of that at all!

Just let people pee!

[December]

1 hour ago, pnwgypsy said:

You're pretty much in line with what reasonable Washingtonians support.  Just let people pee!

However, the current argument in WA is, Erika (& those w/ similar thoughts) want anyone with a penis to use the men's room, regardless of how they present.  Hence it being called a genital check bill.  Apparently conservatives want/need to know what's in everyone's pants before they undertake their private business.  [I would like to see Erika's reaction to running into someone presenting very masculine in the lady's room...]

Late last year the WA Human Rights Commission asserted that current WA law allows people to use whatever restroom/locker room they feel comfortable with.  The proposed bills came about to counteract that & force people to use segregated facilities matching their genitals regardless of how they present.

Another WA resident here who can't believe they're trying to push this ridiculous bill. It's a blatant ploy to make trans people uncomfortable and to stir up baseless discrimination. Normal people just want to pee, wash their hands, and leave. I asked my dad what he thought about trans people using the men's room. He said he didn't give a f--- and that the only thing that weirded him out about restrooms was being forced to use urinals out in the open instead of having all private stalls.