The Sir Edmund Hillary Theory of Cheating

The moron-driven life:

It’s lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, the pride of life, and you
have to know the antidotes, and you have to set up the parameters that
keep you from even being tempted in those areas, which means for
instance, I’m never alone, ever, ever alone with a woman, or even my
myself when I’m traveling.

Jesse takes this to mean, natch, that Rick Warren is his cock to such an extent (and by the way you can all thank me now for making you think of Little Rick) that he cannot be alone with a woman without cheating on his wife. And I get that, I do, but I also get misplaced hostility and fear from what he’s saying. There’s something really hostile about a man who views women as having the sole purpose of tempting him into having sex. He’s in a room with them, they’re there for sex, and not just for sex but to maliciously drive him from the decent and upstanding path he’s chosen. That’s their purpose, to him. I mean, eww.

John’speeps theorize he was trying to talk about the importance of appearing aboveboard, which I don’t necessarily think makes things better, just smaller and slightly less sordid. I can see the argument that he’s saying it’s important not to repeatedly put yourself in situations you know could lead to bad behavior, like not hanging out in bars if you’re in AA or something? Still, I don’t know, I’ve been alone with tons of dudes not my husband and have managed not to screw them, and not solely by virtue of there being nobody else around. Is Warren really advancing the theory that if a chick shows up in a room with you, you pretty much have no choice?

I see this as just the latest utterance of a power structure bent on making women responsible for all that is evil in the world, with men as their helpless victims. The temptation for Warren here is being alone with a woman, and she barely exists, except as his gateway to sin.


14 thoughts on “The Sir Edmund Hillary Theory of Cheating

  1. Well, there’s also the “those evil wimmins will accuse you of having sex with them if you’re ever alone without witnesses” idea.

  2. Thank you, St. Ambrose, for that lovely “Sex is sinny, and sin is sexy” legacy you gave us. Only through abstinence do we achieve godliness, right? Sweet barhopping Jeebus. Of all the stupid things Christianity has foisted on us over the centuries, that has to be the most pernicious.
    In a similar vein, I had to restrain myself from commenting violently on Facebook to a post by one of my former students complaining about Obama saying that America wasn’t a Christian nation “when it…well, IS!” I really liked this girl, and she was one of the more thoughtful students I’ve had, so I know she’s not actively trying to piss me off but…well, she DID! As a non-Christian, I really resent being told that my nation doesn’t embrace me. So I’m posting here so as not to poison my relationship with this very nice girl: “Dear ********…*ahem*: BITE ME!”

  3. also, it’s “you have to.” As in, “I do this, so you should to and for the same reasons. I think sexual urges should be reined in, so that’s what everyone should think, because I’m what’s normal. If you don’t think and act that way, then you are suspect/wrong.” (not unlike the stupid Alex Baldwin thing in Huffpo yesterday- “I read the newspaper. I like it better than computers, and I think more people should do what I do.”)
    I mean, that’s a basic human trait, I know, to suspect those different from you. We all have those thoughts but we also, if we’re grown ups living in a complex world, come to learn that differences in behaviors and values are part of that complex reality, and where to draw the line between simply not agreeing with or not understanding and outright condemnation. Warren apparently draws that line 2 inches away from himself.

  4. I think it’s even simpler than that.
    I think Rick Warren wants to be absolutely positively sure no eebil womyn could ever, you know, blackmail him.
    (He’s *married?* poor girl. Beyond that … eeeuuww.)

  5. … she barely exists, except as his gateway to sin.
    It’s remarkable how fundamentalists of all stripes come to the same conclusion. This is precisely the argument the Taliban use to justify the burqa.

  6. Notice how he very carefully doesn’t say that he’s never alone with a man. Hmmmmm.

  7. With views like that, Mr. Warren would fit in nicely as a member of the Taliban. Wonder if he ever thinks about that? The whole reason some Muslim women cover is to remain pure and to not tempt the menfolk. I asked one of my Muslim friends about that and there was a lot of hemming and hawing…and a lot of “it’s to protect EVERYONE from temptation!” Yeah, okay.

  8. It’s even worse than that. I grew up among whacko Christian funnymentalist loons, and I can pretty much tell you that they’renever alone. They’re never allowed to be alone, pretty much from birth. Either they’re being forced to be social by their parents, or they’re chaperoned (even by a friend or group of friends) pretty much at all times. It’s not just that the men consider women to be responsible for men’s sin (which they do), but they consider being alone to be a condition in which one is vulnerable to sin. They basically consider the interior monologue to be the Voice of Satan, so they wind up crazy as overcrowded rats from trying to get away from it. About the only times they’re ever actually alone is when they’re in the bathroom (trying frantically to think ofnot masturbating) or sleeping anxiously with their handsoutside the covers, because their parentscheck.
    They are, all of them, trained from birth to hate and fear their own thoughts and their own bodies. I used to know a girl in high school who’d get antsy if anyone around her would fold their hands in their laps, because “You shouldn’t do that; you might touch your parts.”
    I cannot express in words the depths to which this sort of upbringing makes people paranoid and prudish, which gives them the perfect priming to grow up to want to supervise the manners and morals of other people. It’s creepy.
    And to answer BuggyQ’s point, it’s not Ambrose, it’s the Greek philosphers by way of Paul and their notion that everything physical is evil and everything spiritual is good. Ifdualism would disappear tomorrow, a lot of this stuff would go away, including a whole lot of sexism, I think.

  9. Paul is dead. And I ain’t talking about a Beatle.
    St. Paul did more to radicalize Christianity than any other leader to that point. His teachings paved the way to almost two thousand years of bloodshed and pain in Christ’s name. If he had simply stayed on that horse that day, rather than falling off and hitting his head on a rock, Christianity would have remained a quaint little Jewish sect and we wouldn’t have lost more than 1500 years of social and scientific development to fear and ignorance.
    A question was asked if you could go back in time and shoot one person to change history, who would it be? Paul would be my first pick, long before his cerebral hemorrhage.
    America is a Christian nation like cotton candy is a health food.

  10. I’ve had a soft spot for a certainreduction ad absurdum of the anti-choicers’ beliefs, that if they really believe that not giving birth to the fetus amounts to murder in the way they say, so does not having sex, right this moment, with whoever possible (it’s been better phrased, probably even by me). But it sounds like Rick is coming dangerously close to actually considering thatabsurdum as a serious issue.
    *shakes head sadly*

  11. Thanks, A.! I saw this yesterday on other blogs and I couldn’t quite put into words what was truly disturbing me — but you did it! The whole idea that women are there simply to tempt and bring sin and evil. We are objects — bad objects — with naughty bits. That’s how the Taliban and crazy mullahs see us, too!

Comments are closed.