I am not a girl. I am a woman, dammit.

I hope you also raise them not to leave backhanded compliments on blogs.

OK, I see what you’re saying. And don’t get me wrong, I’m totally PRO light-hearted conversation. I LIKE humor!

But if you need a 5 point disclaimer to try and defend the point of the post? Something isn’t so lighthearted.

There are 300+ comments over there, but the ones I read seem particularly blind to the real point of offense here, which is:

Why are there “good girls” and “bad girls” in the first place?  Jesus never put women in the “you’re a saint or you’re a slut” dichotomy.  He saw them as people, individuals– just like He saw men.  It’s incredibly saddening to think that so many men still think women are “girls” — existing only in terms of how men see them– and that so many women still accept that paradigm. 
I don’t care whether my brother in Christ is “strangely attracted to ‘bad’ girls” — or more attacted to “good girls.”  I agree that the lists of which stereotypical behavior belongs to what group is silly and should be satirized– but not outside the contect that this dichotomy is wrong in and of itself and that women do not exist for the purpose of being attractive to men.

How can anyone call himself my “brother in Christ” if he thinks of me, not as his sister– his equal, a person in her own right, formed to glorify God and enjoy Him foreever– but as either a “good girl” or a “bad girl”?

Oh, this is soooo good. YESYESYES! Thank you, Kristen! you said it better than I did! YESYESYES

Some of the things that indicate “a girl with a past” are just ridiculous. A picture on your Facebook profile of you and a guy who is not your brother or boyfriend. Really? Guess what? I also drive! Without my burka! With my ankles showing! I’M SUCH A WHORE.

Thanks Elizabeth.  I had a hard time explaining what I found disturbing about this post.  I wasn’t offended exactly, I wasn’t thinking bad about John.  I just found the stereotypes ridiculous.  Women are more than these descriptions.  And men in my experience are more than capable of choosing women based on their character attributes, not their past (or present) behaviors.  It was just tiring and I didn’t find it even remotely relatable.  Thank God.

False stereotypes are pretty much the standard definition of sexism.

ba ha ha!

I agree, you know I agree, but can I also add this: it wasn’t that funny. It wasn’t very inspired satire. And somehow, that offends me more. If you’re going to make biting satire to make the move for grace to work, at least put some effort into originality and cleverness. It was trite, common, and essentially the same, dull jokes of a decade ago. Doesn’t cleverness count for something, or is it ok to be lazy because it’s for Jesus?

Great insight, P.

Lazy jokes for Jesus, indeed.

Bwahahaha!

I prefer certain forms of feminism over others.  Like Jesus, or Camille Paglia, to say, Gloria Steinem.  Apparently fish do need bicycles.  The most secure women I know are able to respect their husbands.  My girls are getting more secure with every passing year.  But I do strive for greater humility, and I think I have a long way to go.  I am going to listen carefully to you, and see what other logs I can remove from my own eye.  I hope that you can receive Crist and Acuff in the same spirit.

Maybe I am really confused. I remember when I was a kid growing up in church. There was an allure about the recently reformed addition to our youth group. They seemed exciting and slightly dangerous. They seemed interesting. This was human nature at play. The allure of the taboo. While we would never openly admit it, we were attracted and repulsed at the same time. I remember some kids expressing admiration while other whispered about the scandalous nature of the person’s past. This was a sign of our immaturity and more deeply it was evidence of our deeply rooted judgmental attitude. We professed a belief in forgiveness but still measured each other. Later, when I was the recently reformed girl with the past, I felt the other side of that coin. The strange responses of people. A morbid interest thinly veiled as concern. I remember some guys expressing interest but with a type of approach that was more reminiscent of the approach of men from my “past” then anything else. Others avoided me like a soiled cloth. Small children asked me how I could be pregnant if I didn’t have a husband. I even remember sitting in an informal gathering and having a man state to the group that he was asking God to give him a woman that had never even kissed a man. Ouch!As I grew up, I realized that an immature person would be the person that viewed me only for what I could offer them. A mature person had concern about me and approached with a more balanced view of whether we had common values and goals.So I think that guy was trying to point out that dichotomy of attraction to what they condemn as impure in a light manner but only ended up showing his own immaturity, his judgmental perspective and like other have stated, user attitude. With little concern for who the girl is and may be recovering from, he simply views her for what she could offer him – an exciting experience??? He sounds about 24 and without much life experience. 

That’d be a little like Jesus needing to defend His use of parables?

As a man who used to be single, and who counsels both men and women in relationships, I used to be in the intended audience.  I found it edifying.

Crist is attracted to them.  This was a compliment from him.

I don’t either.  I thought it was because I was old, married, employed, something weird.

Well, women are more educated than men now, so I would expect a whole lot more of this in the future.

Yes, men are dogs.  We get the women we deserve.  Some of us even get ones we don’t deserve.  I am one of those.

This was my primary complaint as well, Preston. I just thought that it failed as satire. 

And I’m saying that as someone who likes Beavis & Butt-head. ;-D

sure, this is the last one.  just an acknowledgement.  everyone else can have the last word but me.

Honestly, it was just poorly written. I never actually got his point. My own point is that it shouldn’t matter if you have a past … it’s Whose you are today, whom you are becoming through Christ. But he made points all over the board. And I love satire. It makes me laugh, it makes me think.

He crossed his wires all over the place. I think it probably could have, well-done, been about five separate posts. But perhaps he put all his thoughts in one post and couldn’t just pick one good thought to capitalize on. I never understood his final goal. And it came off badly to me, too … but I’m not sure he intended it that way … I just think he tried to put it all in at once.

My guesses are that he meant to say (because any reasonable person would … like me! lol)

- being attracted to a “bad” girl based on the “virtue” of her sinfulness is lame
- being attracted to a girl who has her own interests is good

Somehow, he came off as saying that being currently a “bad” girl, (yet, while mixing up his “bad girl” points … so many things he mentioned were fine, while others are clearly NOT fine) is right up his alley.

What does that have to do with anything?  No one’s saying you can’t talk about these things.  We’re saying tasteless jokes are not edifying or helpful.  I never noticed Paul making any.

I agree with Sarah and you as well, I am SURE their motives weren’t to offend, and I agree totally with you Elizabeth…Acuff does owe an apology and then we can all move on.  I’m like you, I’ve messed up often and BIG, so I can certainly forgive, but you are right that wisdom is being willing to admit when you’ve crossed the line.  
And, by the way, you made me laugh out loud and snort, YES, snort in your post today! Thanks for keepin it real.

Amen and Amen. 

I cant even figure out what they mean by “girl”. Are they judging 16 year old young ladies by these “satirical” standards? 

If social drinking is a plus then I think not, so the “girls” then are over 21, Im assuming. I was married at 21 and did not consider myself a “girl”.  I don’t think a 21 year old Christian male  would think it were funny to call him a “boy” . 

It seemed so easy to toss that “girl” word around in these tacky and insulting stereotypes…Im wondering if those who wrote this piece used the word “woman” (as in people like their moms)  they wouldn’t have been so judgmental and harsh. 

If this humor had as its goal to reassure me that young Christian men were wise and mature, it failed. 

My message to them: Guys, if you are single and there are age appropriate single females in your midst, either date them and marry them or dont, but you need not parse them onto pieces based on shallow observations you think are funny.

That was what just floored me…. the whole concept of the post was insulting, but then what was considered a “bad girl” seemed to be any woman who was not living like the Amish.

As a “good girl” who was attracted to the “bad” boys but thankfully married one of the “good guys”, I was not offended by the post. I don’t think they were making jokes about women that were meant to be funny, but rather that the post was intended to point out the hypocrisy regarding male/female relationships that CAN occur in Christian circles.

I was a total “good” girl, but when I was younger, I LOVED the “bad” boys….smokers, bikers, rebels.

I really thought the whole point of the post was that there are NO “good” or “bad” anyones, but that SOME Christians categorize others in this way, and this attitude/practice should NOT be happening in Christian churches because really, Who loved the “bad” people the most? JESUS

Please don”t even compare Acuff’s post to Jesus telling spiritual truths through parables!  None of the parables included tasteless jokes at the expense of the dignity of half the human race.  You can’t be serious.

I am thoroughly enjoying your need to reply to every. single. comment creating increasingly jesus-juked threads. You must have a horse in this race, and the only thing I can figure is that you are an extreme boy without a past a little disappointed in your girl with a past.

I’d rather have Crist be attracted to me than to a “bad girl” that he thinks is me.  How shallow is that?

His continuous, sanctimonious remarks make me never want to read Jon’s blog again.  Thank God Elizabeth asked him to leave here.  He’s not doing Jon any favors that’s for sure.

Good job, Liz.

I personally do not like any of those stere type sites or posts that say “what —- this type of person likes”. I have agree that many are just plan tacky. However, the sad truth is they may call that post a joke, but they do have some guys who are like that. So it is clearly not full satire. I suppose the author feels the need to call it that to keep it up. I do also want to point out, that not every woman fits either of his stereotypes. 

Yes – THAT’s what bugged me.   It wasn’t satire at all, it was one of those “Lighten up, nerds!” pieces which just don’t add anything meaningful to the conversation.  I thought it was pretty disrespectful to both “categories” of women.  To call certain women “colourful” and others “boring” when really that’s all they ever hear from the outside world anyway…where’s the help in that?  

Here’s what hurts. I would NEVER go around making jokes about the derogatory things that women supposedly think about men (especially the old, worn-down, stereotypical ones – because they sting the most), because it seems like a rebuke and a failure to acknowledge all the good that men out there actually do.  ”Hur hur, all women think all men are stupid and ineffectual, hur hur…”  No we don’t!  And to make decidedly unsatirical lazy jokes about that kind of thing would probably discourage the heck out of the nice men of strong character.  Just like many of us ladies are feeling discouraged right now.  :-(

PANTIES??? Good girls only wear modest briefs!!! Are they Victoria’s Secret panties? 500 SLUT POINTS!!!!!

Umm, last time I read the Bible, we’re ALL bad girls.  I was cringing at some of the “funny” things on the list . . . I volunteer with an outreach to commercially sexually exploited women who would feel so shamed by this kind of “humor.”  They would be even more dismayed to find out that apparently many Christian men don’t think about them any differently than their customers do.  God help us. 

His post embodies my very reason for leaving my assembly/ Legalists go on and on about about grace but it’s your ‘works’ they judge you by…both past and present… #sickened

I’ve never been a fan of Acuff’s blog, but this particular post was just gross.  From the scorecard to the fact that apparently it’s just common accepted knowledge that Christian men prefer (formerly?  currently?) promiscuous-ish women?  How horrible to be reduced to what you wear and where you’ve been and to be scrutinized by men at church…EW!  Makes me glad I’m married with 7 kids–something tells me that’s a pretty good buffer.     

I have to agree with Cara here. I read the post and thought it was pretty funny simply because it points out the flawed way that so many guys in the church look at women. Taken out of context, I completely understand the way some people here feel, but when you look at the article in the totality of circumstances, I see the point Jon was trying to make. He makes sure to say that he’s posting this to call out guys who tend to think of women in this categorical and offensive manner. I’ve met guys who use arbitrary and quite frankly, stupid criteria to judge women, and I think Jon and John do a good job of pointing out just how hypocritical and superficial those standards are.