Dillards 79: Sex Education on the Fly

[3KidsAndStopped]

On 8/27/2019 at 3:30 AM, bella8050 said:

So Derick shared that today was his 21st first day of school. Yeah he totally counts the number of times he and Jill have had sex.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

I now have a horrid premonition of Fundie Algebra being devised, calculating an intercourse to baby ratio & being included in the Wisdom booklet programme.

 

And I thought MY secondary school mathematics class was grim.

[Fundie Bunny]

1 hour ago, bella8050 said:

I've never counted college as "public school" myself. My student loans won't let me. I refer to my framed diploma as my "$40,000 piece of art".

And to think my degree costs less than 1000 euros a year, and even less if I weren't a fucking moron and didn't fail a thing

[bella8050]

That would be nice. I did a 5 year plan. Two at community college and then three living on campus. No big regrets, but still damn expensive.

Also I have been thinking...Derick's first day numbers are off cause college and now law school give him two semesters and first days per year.  

[Four is Enough]

So he was in seminary? When?

[Iamtheway]

On 8/26/2019 at 11:35 AM, JordynDarby5 said:

She'll tempt him because you know all women are temptresses. They all want your man.

I doubt this is a big problem for the woman married to Derrick Dillard. 

[Antipatriarch]

Sorry, I got way behind on this thread! Thanks for all the great discussion on the "Billy Graham Rule". I agree with everyone who talked about (1) someone choosing to leave a door open or be accompanied when their safety is concerned - the many stories of harassment and assault are heartbreaking, and of course you should take steps to be safe and feel safe. And (2) a professional making it a practice to leave a door open or have a 3rd party present, in situations like teacher-student, pastor-counselee, etc. - I can understand the danger of a false accusation (though rare, compared to true ones) and wanting interactions to be transparently above-board.

What I get angry about is when the "Billy Graham Rule" is invoked *between co-workers in the workplace* (or other professional situations like reporters and those they report on), as a rationale for men not treating women as equals, but instead treating them as sexually dangerous. I saw a perfect example today: A sheriff's deputy is now suing after losing his job when he refused to train a female deputy:

Quote

A Southern Baptist deacon who says he was fired as a deputy with the Lee County Sheriff’s Office in North Carolina for trying to practice the “Billy Graham Rule” on the job is now suing his former employers for more than $300,000 in damages for religious discrimination.

According to NBC News, it appears that it is the first time the rule has been the subject of a religious discrimination case.

The deacon, Manuel Torres, 51, who sometimes serves at East Sanford Baptist Church in Sanford, had worked as a deputy with Lee County for about five years when his boss asked him to train a female deputy in July 2017.

Torres reportedly asked for a religious accommodation, the lawsuit says, because of his belief in what has been dubbed the "Billy Graham Rule," a form of which is practiced by Vice President Mike Pence.

“Torres holds the strong and sincere religious belief that the Holy Bible prohibits him, as a married man, from being alone for extended periods with a female who is not his wife,” the suit states, according to The Charlotte Observer, which first reported on the case.

 

This is Kim Davis territory, and my view is: If you believe your religion says you can't do the damn job, then resign and get another one. Your freedom to practice your religion does not trump your coworkers' right to be treated equally, and not be harmed by you. (I wonder if we'll get to see Dwreck face this choice.)

@VelociRapture noted that for some fundies, the point is to push women out of the workplace. I'm sure for some it is, but to me it doesn't matter if that's the intent or not, because the *effect* is to deny women equal participation in the workplace. You can see it in this story: What if all the sheriff's deputies invoked the rule? Suddenly no women deputies can be trained, or serve. How about squad car partners, do we have to gender-segregate them all? This whole culture of sexualizing every workplace relationship has got to go.

And thanks also, @lumpentheologie, for pointing out that this only works if you have binary thinking, that there are only men, women, and heterosexual relationships. As LGBTQ continues (thankfully!) to become more mainstream, the "Billy Graham Rule" is shown to be completely unworkable.

Edited August 28, 2019 by Antipatriarch

[Audrey2]

So just out of curiosity, I wonder if that sheriff's deputy ever stops a female driving in a car or answers a call that's made by a female that may not have a male in the house.

[DarkAnts]

I have a bichon. He barks when he sees other dogs. He is quite social and always wants to say hi to them. He also barks when he sees neighbors he knows. Once again because he is social and wants to say hi. He talks a lot but it's not a bark it's just sounds. His other noise is strange. It's reserved for when he has too much energy and has to get it out. He goes into hyper dog mode. He runs circles around the house making this noise until he get his energy out. He goes to daycare full time, and he gets multiple walks each day. He is just a high energy 2 year old and sometimes needs to let a little extra energy off. 

[MadameOvary]

10 hours ago, Antipatriarch said:

And thanks also, @lumpentheologie, for pointing out that this only works if you have binary thinking, that there are only men, women, and heterosexual relationships. As LGBTQ continues (thankfully!) to become more mainstream, the "Billy Graham Rule" is shown to be completely unworkable.

This. I share an office with my female boss who happens to be gay. Should I insist on leaving the door open at all times?

[lumpentheologie]

It absolutely assumes only straight men and women exist.  One of my very best friends is a gay man, and he and I have traveled alone around Germany, the UK, the Netherlands, and India.  Next we want to go to Uzbekistan.  We always share a hotel room and usually a bed.  There's nothing sexual about it whatsoever, and my husband and my friend's partner are never jealous. 

[front hugs > duggs]

I know I've said this before, but I work in a finance oriented field. My department is roughly 65 people. I'm one of 8 women in the department (not because we don't hire women, because we get way more men that apply than women). I happen not to be super close to any of the other women, so my work friends are all men. I share an office with two men. I often go out to lunch with several men, me being the only woman. I have on multiple occasions gone out to lunch with just one other (male) friend because of who else is or isn't available to go out to eat lunch that day. When I talk to my husband about my day, I happen to drop several men's names. I've gone to several weddings of my male colleagues, something that apparently my dad found strange ("wait a minute....you mean to tell me your friends with the groom!?!?!?!?"). I honestly don't get it. Maybe I'm just really fortunate with my work environment? It's never even come up in my work life or in my marriage as a "thing" that I"m constantly surrounded by men.

I can't imagine being told that it would make my husband uncomfortable or that he doesn't trust me. I would feel so incredibly isolated at work if it wasn't appropriate to have (professional) working relationships with men.

 

ETA: I've been at my job for about 5 years now and the environment hasn't changed. So in almost 5 years worth of private one-on-one meetings, one-on-one lunches with men, driving alone in cars with men, it's actually quite amazing....I have never once cheated on my husband!

Edited August 29, 2019 by front hugs > duggs

[nolongerIFBx]

On 8/24/2019 at 1:03 PM, VelociRapture said:

I have no issue with people protecting themselves from situations they feel could be genuinely dangerous to them for whatever reason. If you genuinely don’t feel safe or comfortable being alone with someone then you should take what steps you can to keep yourself comfortable and safe.

That doesn’t seem to be why Fundies are following the Billy Graham rule though. They seem to follow it because it’s an easy and convenient way to limit the way women are able to participate in the workplace and how they’re able to act in the home too. It’s not really about keeping people safe or protecting reputations - it’s about control. 

 

I was taught that if I went to enter a room and there was a male already in there, I was to wait outside the room until someone else arrived. Alternatively, if I was alone in the room and someone of the opposite sex came in, I was to get up and go wait outside the door until someone else arrived.

I was told that the purpose for the rule is two-fold. I agree, one is what we're talking about here, although they wouldn't phrase it "wouldn't be able to stop myself from climbing on top of the nearest unchaperoned woman," but they would say that they are avoiding the temptation to commit adultery. It may be semantics since it still essentially boils down to the same thing, although you can be tempted without taking action. Remember, though, to a fundie, even the temptation is a sin.

The second is "avoiding the appearance of evil" and "being above reproach." If you are never alone with the opposite sex, you always have a witness/es should you be accused of inappropriate behavior. My argument to that is that it shouldn't be only for the opposite sex then. We're all aware that homosexuality exists so really to truly be above suspicion, you could never be alone with anyone. But then, what if you are into three-some or four-somes? How many chaperones would make you safe from suspicion? 

Edited August 29, 2019 by nolongerIFBx
I see others have already pointed out that the Billy Geaham rule shouldn't only apply to the opposite sex

[Antipatriarch]

46 minutes ago, nolongerIFBx said:

I was taught that if I went to enter a room and there was a male already in there, I was to wait outside the room until someone else arrived. Alternatively, if I was alone in the room and someone of the opposite sex came in, I was to get up and go wait outside the door until someone else arrived.

I note these "rules" say the woman has to do the accommodating in both cases.

Revealing, isn't it, how fundies will use a woman's supposed weakness as an excuse to limit what women can do... and use a man's supposed weakness (as in this case) as an excuse to also limit what women can do. I remember what Golda Meir said, in response to orthodox Jews proposing a curfew for women because they were being assaulted: "The men are doing the assaulting? Then the curfew should be for the men."

[Gnomewizard]

On 8/28/2019 at 9:24 AM, church_of_dog said:

Can you describe or summarize how you approached this?

I've always been a bit mystified about training a dog to *not* do something.

Praising/rewarding them when they *stop* doing something like barking doesn't seem specific enough as to what behavior it's rewarding.

Also any hints about training cats?  

By always saying the same phrases in the same voice at suppertime or treat-time, I've gotten them familiar with the routine, which leads to somewhat consistent behavior but certainly not always.  And something that happens at random times and when I'm not right on the spot (such as fighting that happens when I am in another room) is hard for me to figure out how to respond to in a useful way.

Thank you in advance!

Neighbors dog: Positive reinforcement. Aka food. I fed them treats every time we saw them for a long time plus one of the Gnomes mowed their lawn so we had access and permission to interact with the dogs while they were at work so they chiled out when they saw us. Had we not had permission I would have had to do something different and it would have taken longer.

Cats. Check out youtube for adorable videos on how people taught their cats to do various things from riding their bikes with them, to riding on a backpack while they hike, to walking on a leash. Cats are awesome. If I wasn't at a point in life where I didn't want another animal I would get a kitten and train it to ride my bike with me.

Kittens become what they are socialized as. The keys is to be consistent. If you want them to ride in a pack on the handle bars of the bike, you have to do it almost daily, treats help as does making a place for them to sleep and letting them nap while you pedal when they are tiny.

It works both ways. If for example you think it is adorable for your kitten to eat food off of your plate as you are eating every meal you will soon have a full grown cat trying to eat off of every plate.

I taught one badly behaved Gnome cat to stop eating my food by leaving my food on the table and reacting in a way that made it clear that I didn't approve when he tried. Said cat still steals food, he just does not touch my food. That is a disadvantage of cats, they are smart enough to know that one person's food is off limits (and he always knows which plate is mine even when I sit in a different spot) and which are fair game (Gnome Spouse). I borrowed a webcam and set it up to watch while I was in the other room. I could make the "bad cat" noise (not sure what else to call it, cats knew I was mad and near) without having to move towards the room, which the cat would hear and know it was time to leave and pretend nothing happened.

[nolongerIFBx]

3 hours ago, Antipatriarch said:

I note these "rules" say the woman has to do the accommodating in both cases.

Revealing, isn't it, how fundies will use a woman's supposed weakness as an excuse to limit what women can do... and use a man's supposed weakness (as in this case) as an excuse to also limit what women can do. I remember what Golda Meir said, in response to orthodox Jews proposing a curfew for women because they were being assaulted: "The men are doing the assaulting? Then the curfew should be for the men."

My apologies- it did work both ways.

[lumpentheologie]

17 hours ago, nolongerIFBx said:

I was told that the purpose for the rule is two-fold. I agree, one is what we're talking about here, although they wouldn't phrase it "wouldn't be able to stop myself from climbing on top of the nearest unchaperoned woman," but they would say that they are avoiding the temptation to commit adultery. It may be semantics since it still essentially boils down to the same thing, although you can be tempted without taking action. Remember, though, to a fundie, even the temptation is a sin.

I think fundies probably have a much more expansive definition of temptation than most people do.  For me, being tempted to have sex with someone means that I actually considered doing it (or trying to do it) but decided not to.  So simply finding someone sexually attractive, or even getting aroused by someone or fantasizing about them doesn't constitute temptation. I've totally had sexy thoughts about Sam Heughan as Jamie Fraser, but there's no way I'd actually consider sleeping with a movie star. 

Even in a world where everyone is cis and straight, the Billy Graham rule just seems like such overkill because:

1) most people are not going to find whoever they happen to be in a room with sexually attractive

2) even if they do find them attractive, they're probably not going to have sexy fantasies about them

3) and even if they do have those fantasies, it's pretty unlikely that someone in a satisfying monogamous relationship would want to act on them. 

The whole thing just makes it seem like fundies are thinking about sex constantly, don't find it gross to sexually objectify people, and have basically no higher order desires that would keep them from wanting to do something inappropriate. 

The saddest thing is that these things may actually be the case. Constantly repressing any sexual desires + policing what is sexually appropriate can totally lead to thinking about sex all the time.  It's ridiculous to expect women to not do their jobs because these men don't want to masturbate, have sex, or get divorced. And fundies are also not taught to respect personal boundaries or trust their own decision-making processes, just to do what Jesus/the pastor wants. This basically grooms men to be potential sexual predators, and then their ideas that all sins are equally bad and everyone has to forgive you if you're saved mean that usually there aren't any consequences if they do act out.  It's horrifying. 

[samurai_sarah]

20 hours ago, nolongerIFBx said:

(snip)The second is "avoiding the appearance of evil" and "being above reproach." If you are never alone with the opposite sex, you always have a witness/es should you be accused of inappropriate behavior.(snip)

Honi soit qui mal y pense- "May he be shamed who thinks badly of it".

[Four is Enough]

4 hours ago, lumpentheologie said:

. I've totally had sexy thoughts about Sam Heughan as Jamie Fraser, but there's no way I'd actually consider sleeping with a movie star. 

It's Richard Rankin as Roger Mackenzie Wakefield that floats my boat, but yeah...

And let's just say I'd love to try to "turn" Lord John Grey.... David Berry...

[Beermeet]

On 8/28/2019 at 6:07 PM, Audrey2 said:

So just out of curiosity, I wonder if that sheriff's deputy ever stops a female driving in a car or answers a call that's made by a female that may not have a male in the house.

I wonder if I can get out of a ticket using this *logic*.   Sorry officer, you can't give me a ticket without my husband here, as a married woman and all, you understand.   Sorry, gotta go cook dinner or something.  Byeeeee!

[sixcatatty]

1 hour ago, Four is Enough said:

It's Richard Rankin as Roger Mackenzie Wakefield that floats my boat, but yeah...

And let's just say I'd love to try to "turn" Lord John Grey.... David Berry...

I'd love to be in the middle of Captain Flint and Thomas Hamilton in Black Sails. Just call me Miranda......

I also admit to a couple of really steamy dreams about my gyn-oncologist.

[acheronbeach]

It's incredible and sort of baffling that we're now on page seven of dog behaviour discussion.  On the FundieSnark subreddit, someone recently called this thread, "I Once Met a Noisy Dog."  

On a Dillard note, Jill posted some pictures of the boys playing with painting supplies, on their toy Jeep and on a little skateboard.  Shockingly, the little skateboarder has a HELMET!  Jill actually considered safety!  Yet another improvement on the Dillard front!  Sam is adorable.  The pictures of Israel are... not flattering, poor kid. He's not the cutest kid, but Jill also picked really strange photos to post. 

[Sonic the Whoredgehog]

I know I'm late to the party on this one, but I saw it touched on earlier in the discussion of the Billy Graham rule and thought it was worth bringing up. The most rabid proponents of it that I've ever seen have been MGTOWers who are ostensibly trying to protect themselves from allegations of sexual misconduct. Whether or not that's valid is kind of a can of worms, but I can't help wondering if that's part of Mr. D's motivation, especially given Jill's history- it would look really bad if he were to be accused. But then again, he doesn't seem to care much about looking bad so maybe I'm just way off base here.

Also, I'm consistently amused by men who paint themselves as martyrs for "needing" to do that, because honestly I don't think it even compares in terms of effort to what many women do on a daily basis to protect themselves from being victimized.

[sixcatatty]

2 hours ago, acheronbeach said:

It's incredible and sort of baffling that we're now on page seven of dog behaviour discussion.  On the FundieSnark subreddit, someone recently called this thread, "I Once Met a Noisy Dog."  

 

I'll add mine. Our Lilly (the yellow) Lab will be 17 in November. She's always been protective of us, especially me when I was home for four months after having shoulder surgery.

She was diagnosed with Laryngeal Paralysis about 18 months ago. Between age and the LP, she's slowed down a lot and is sleeping more. The one thing she has not quit doing is walk our fence row every time we let her out.

Our vet, who breeds Labs, has never had one of his dogs live to almost 17. He told us that while she's on borrowed time, as long as she's interested in life to leave her be and enjoy our time with her. She's still front and center for her share (or more) of corn muffins, breadsticks or Saturday biscuits and Daddy love.

[PennySycamore]

@sixcatatty, your Lilly is beautiful!  Our Lab lived to be 13 which is pretty old for a Lab, but 17 is just unheard of.  She does deserve to live the rest of her life to the fullest.   

[FleeJanaFree]

Jill's gotten much better at staging food photos on instagram. Those last two were great, actually. She's learning!