Response to "Men Prefer Debt Free Virgins without Tattoos"

     This is, without a doubt, the post that must be addressed by any blog responding to The Transformed Wife. There have been countless responses to it already, so I'll try my best not to be redundant. I also want to take into account some of the responses that have already been made, both by Lori and others. 

   Let's begin with the obvious question: on what basis does Lori make this claim? In a follow-up post ("Rack Up Debt, Sleep Around, and Get Tattoos"), Lori says she came to this conclusion with nothing but "common sense", but then claims to have researched the matter and come to the same conclusion. But, of course, she doesn't share any of this research. I'm not going to spend much time disputing this, as certainly many men do have these preferences (although, more importantly, each individual has their own preferences and it's hasty to generalize), but I would like to point out something I find interesting. When defending these standards for women, inevitably she refers to the Bible. And this makes me wonder why she didn't simply title the post something like "God wants you to be a debt-free, a virgin, and avoid tattoos"? 

     But, of course, this runs into the obvious problems pointed out by so many others who have responded. The supposed prohibition against tattoos is found in Leviticus 19:28: "Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the Lord." It has been pointed out that this was a prohibition not against tattoos in general, but against tattoos that were for the purpose of worshiping the dead. Still, even if this were not true, does she not realize we are no longer under the Old Testament law? If she uses this verse to prohibit tattoos today, does she also avoid wearing clothing made of multiple types of fabric (Lev. 19:19)? What is the justification for cherry-picking this particular verse?     

     The most any opponent of debt can come up with from the Bible is Prov. 22:7: "The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender." This is nothing more than a description of the relationship between two people (borrower and lender). It is not a universal prohibition against debt. If it were, I suppose being poor would have to be considered sinful too? 

     Finally, the point about being virgins was seldom in dispute by those who did not appreciate this post, and yet those defending it insist on bringing the discussion back to this point. Most criticisms were met with the accusation that that person was suggesting everyone ought to be promiscuous or that there would be no consequences for doing so. But this was nothing more than an intentional distraction from the main objections. 

     It must be said that a godly man will judge a woman based on who she is on the inside, not whether she has tattoos or debt. And virginity is important to many, but we should be judged based on who we are now, not who we were or what we did in the past. At least two of these three criteria are superficial and focus on what is external rather than what is internal. Why is it that Lori considered these the most important ones to feature in her blog? 

     But let's set that discussion aside and focus on some of the more subtle points in the blog that I think may have been the most offensive. For example, there is more of Lori's extraordinary claims about colleges: 

"Secular universities teach against the God of the Bible and his ways. It's far from what God calls women to be and do: it teaches them to be independent, loud, sexually available, and immodest instead of having meek and quiet spirits." 

I don't know what kind of university Lori attended that taught her to be sexually available and immodest, but she should not assume all the other universities are like that. But the word that stands out to me the most is "independent." I may focus on this point in more detail in another blog, but for now, Lori believes it's wrong for women to be independent (able to take care of themselves). She prefers women to be entirely dependent on men, as if somehow this was God's design (got any scriptural reference for that, or is it just another opinion?). It is simply shocking to see the word "independent" in a list of what she considers to be negative traits. 

"The husband will need to take years teaching his wife the correct way to act, think, and live since college taught them every possible way that is wrong." 

The underlying assumption here is what, exactly? Assuming for a moment that colleges really are servants of Satan that exist for no other purpose than to turn away young women from God and homemaking, the husband needs to teach his wife the correct way to act? Is she too stupid to know the right way to act on her own? Or is it simply not her place to make such a judgment for herself based on her own relationship with God? I'm not even sure which is worse, but either way, Lori has set up women as mere children who must be disciplined by their fathers- I mean, uh, husbands. There's something very creepy about that. 

"'They will start having babies later in life. That is if they can still conceive naturally.' Is college worth having fewer children? I will never understand how women prefer careers over having warm, cuddly babies. Never take your fertility for granted, young women! Children are gifts from the Lord that keep on giving." 

I have no doubt Lori doesn't understand why someone would want to do anything with their life other than have babies. But God made women to be more than simply baby factories, and for those who do wish (or feel called) to have a family, fortunately, college degrees have no impact on fertility. And if her concern is that women who go to college will have fewer children, is she suggesting that the goal ought to be to simply push out as many babies as possible? If that's the case, does she think the legal marriage age should be reduced to the earliest a young woman is able to conceive? (I'm not making this assumption, I simply truly wonder). 

"'they lost a handful of years of experience learning to cook large meals and learning how to work in the garden. College kids don't cook. If they do, it's typically for themselves.' Young women learn nothing about biblical womanhood nor what it takes to run a home when they go to college. They don't learn to serve others, either. They learn the ways of the world, selfishness, and feminism instead; all which make a good marriage unattainable." 

This is an unfair generalization. People who attended college don't know how to cook? Again, where does she get this idea? We all know plenty of college graduates who are excellent cooks, and who are not selfish either. And that's okay, no one goes to college to learn how to run a home or work in the garden anyway, so no loss there (I don't know why it takes years to learn these things anyway). 

"It's actually protection for young women to live under their father's roof (if he is a good father) until they get married, if they are able, and there's nothing wrong with doing this. Universities are definitely not safe places for women!"

  Protection from what? Bears??? "Protection" is a euphemism for sheltering and infantilization. If you can convince women that you're doing them a favor by protecting them from the big scary world with all those opposing ideas (that apparently they're too dumb to process and evaluate on their own), it's easier to control them. 

     Lori concludes with the (by now) redundant reminder: "Stay virgins until marriage, out of debt, and don't get tattoos!" Sadly, I suspect Lori believes this is all it takes to find a worthy marriage partner and have a long, happy, productive marriage. Thankfully, God sees women as more than simply a list of these three criteria. And a man worth marrying will as well. He will look for traits such as intelligence, maturity, wisdom, and, yes, even independence. 


Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/men-prefer-debt-free-virgins-without-tattoos/