Opinions on faith and life

Excuses, Excuses


I was reading today some comments about Tiger Woods’ recent “apology” and just had to share one. Please note that while the language used is not technically vulgar, the topic requires terminology that some might find offensive or impolite.

Women get all wound around the axle of male infidelity, but that’s because they see it only from a woman’s point of view. Very, very few women view sex the way men do. A roll in the hay to a man is just that; his goal is to get his rocks off. A woman, on the other hand, invests her entire being into sex. When a man plays around, it’s just playing around and seldom means he wants to divorce. When a woman plays around, she’s ready to change her life drastically by cutting her husband out of it altogether.

Men and women are wired differently. It’s biological. For this reason women whose husbands have strayed ought only push the point if they wanted a divorce anyway, in which case his infidelity would be only one of several factors affecting her decision. Tiger Woods is putting on an act because his kids, and prolly his wife, matter to him; but it IS an act, not something he feels deep in his vitals.

Nor, IMO, is this “sexual addiction” silliness to be taken seriously. Men like to hump and that’s all there is to it. It has nothing to do with addiction. There aren’t many men who can’t get it off during sex, while there are plenty of women who have a great deal of trouble ever achieving orgasm. This is another reason, IMO, that many women simply cannot understand what it is about sex that men like so much. They literally don’t understand and can NOT understand it.

Sex for most isn’t complex. Men like it because it feels so wonderful. In my guesstimate about a third of all women like it the same way men do. About a third never do get it and the remaining third may or may never get to where it’s as fun for them as for their male partner. This is so for at least a couple of reasons: First, a woman’s major function is to have kids. For that to happen it isn’t necessary that she enjoy sex; it only matters that she have sex. Second, a man wouldn’t put up with the hassles of marriage were it not for the gigantic pleasure that sex provides. Hence it’s vital that HE enjoy sex even if SHE does not.

This is just wrong on so many levels. This guy seems to be actually saying that a woman shouldn’t get upset about her husband’s cheating! I don’t know whether the guy claims to be a Christian or not, but I do know that a growing number of men claiming Christ would agree with him.

Infidelity is not something only women have a problem with, but God. The very word means UNfaithful, and it is not a good thing but a sin. It matters not why someone sins, but whether. People always enjoy their sin, but God has never said anything close to “Well, that’s the way I made you guys, so since you don’t think of it as anything more than scratching an itch, it’s okay. You’re just having fun.”

I seriously doubt that this guy or any other would tolerate the same attitude in that alleged minority of women who feel the same way about sex as the alleged majority of men. Would he really think nothing of a woman being promiscuous? Somehow I think instead guys like this one would call such a woman a whore. Why don’t men get the same treatment, the same condemnation? Because men should be allowed to sin?

This is the standard attitude through history and across cultural lines: men are allowed to fornicate, but not women. Men prove their masculinity via sexual prowess and power, but women prove their femininity via restriction and submission. And most do not see the inherent double standard in that. Even among professing believers, there is a growing belief that men should not be sexually restricted but women who have more than one man are to be shunned and discarded. And where do these “good” guys get these “bad” girls, if they expect their wives to remain faithful? Is it okay for single women to have many men?

This guy also seems to think that it isn’t wrong if there’s no emotional attachment involved. But think of serial killers who have no attachment to their victims; does that make it okay? Of course not, and some would try to claim that this example is “extreme”. But the analogy fits, if it’s really about emotional attachment and not a divine moral standard. And what about homosexuality? Is it okay if the people have no emotional attachment? Why not?

As for “a woman’s major function is to have kids”, some in the “Christian” Patriarchy movement have told me that it’s insulting to say it teaches that women are merely incubators, yet here’s a guy considering it the view of most men. Of course only women can have kids, but this has exactly nothing to do with the sin of adultery or fornication. Nothing. Again, as long as she enjoys it, would this or any other guy approve if Mrs. Tiger had a gazillion boyfriends?

But this guy saved the worst for last: “a man wouldn’t put up with the hassles of marriage were it not for the gigantic pleasure that sex provides”. Wow. Marriage for men is only something they tolerate in order to get free sex, and women are the cause of all marital “hassles”. And since men can have all the “gigantic pleasure” they want through hookers, they must only get married so they can get it for free, and to have children bearing their name.

THIS, not “feminism”, is the culture, and many men professing Christ are bowing to it in spades. Lip service to the contrary notwithstanding, they act and believe as if women exist only for their pleasure and progeny, and that the “hassles” of marriage are the price they pay for continuing the species.

And in spite of all this, many men express shock and indignation at the very idea of “uppity women” who don’t buy it. The nerve of these women, not liking being seen as incubators and sex objects! How dare they object to “the natural order”! Why can’t they just keep their place and let the boys do what they want, when they want? It’s all women’s fault! And any woman who doesn’t play along is a Jezebel or a whore or a witch.

If Christian men today truly want to “step up to the plate”, they need to stand against these sinful excuses and bogus biological pop psychology. They need to see women as independent adults and souls for whom Christ died, and give them the honor they’d give to any man. “Be holy, because I am holy” is a command from God, and men are not exempt.



You got it. This is the natural order according to comps. Of course they will deny this but if you peel away all the silly adjectives, this is what you are left with: Roles.

The guy you quote understands "roles" perfectly.

Paula Fether

I’ve often wondered if it had been women instead of male pastors who have been scandalizing the SBC, whether the offenders would have been excused as making mistakes or being under grace, and moved to another church. Somehow I think they’d have handled it quite differently. :-P


Well, one SBC pastor preached about Jezebel’s in the church but has daughters who dress very sleazy all the time. While he was preaching this one person was sending these daughters own posed pics around with Daddy preacher in them. Talk about tight and low cut.

the pastor is Steve Gaines at BBC.

So see, it depends on who you are.

Paula Fether

Yep! Just as only certain privileged women can teach men, work a business, run for office...


Whether the person who wrote the words you’re addressing is a Christian or not, who knows for sure? But this I know. His view is non-christian if not anti-christian according to Paul in Ephesians 5:25-33.

I’m reminded of the fact that Paul was writing to a group of men [The Ephesian Christian men] who were redeemed out of that very philosopy of life and were directed to view their wife as an equal in a relationship where he was privilaged to treat her as the only one worthy of his total giving and serving in marriage.

But why am I telling you this? You know and speak of it better than most people I know. Good for you.

Paula Fether

Thanks Anon, and welcome! :-)

Yes, I keep trying to emphasize that the overall message of the gospel is that "the old is gone, the new has come" (2 Cor. 5:17), and that "you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28). Male supremacy is the old, the worldly, that which caters to the flesh, and Jesus came to "turn the world upside down".

paul burleson


Sorry for the ’Anonymous’ of my comment above. I don’t usually post such and that one was accidental.

Paul Burleson

Paula Fether

No prob, Paul. :-)