Posted on 05/17/2024 11:04:22 PM PDT by Morgana
The dating app Bumble issued an apology this week for its recent advertisements that appeared to insult the idea of women choosing not to have sex or date. The company was criticized as being disrespectful of women.
According to the BBC, Bumble’s new ad campaign (targeted towards women) included taglines such as, “A vow of celibacy is not the answer” and “Thou shalt not give up on dating and become a nun.” Bumble said the ads were supposed to be funny amidst the frustrations of modern dating, but many people did not find them to be humorous.
Fast Company reported that the “backlash was swift” and social media users accused Bumble of using language that “invalidated women’s sexual autonomy, the experiences of asexual people, and restrictions on reproductive rights.”
One Instagram user wrote, “Why doesn’t your next campaign focus on men changing their bad behavior instead of telling women to lower their standards and boundaries?”
Another commented on X, “Wild to me that in 2024, a dating app founded by a woman is shaming women.”
Another wrote, “Hey women! Have you thought about lowering your standards? To the gutter?”
And one woman suggested, “What if the billboard gave men tips on how to be less awful?”
Bumble issued an apology stating, “We made a mistake. Our ads referencing celibacy were an attempt to lean into a community frustrated by modern dating, and instead of bringing joy and humor, we unintentionally did the opposite.”
It continued, “Some of the perspectives we heard were: from those who shared that celibacy is the only answer when reproductive rights are continuously restricted; from others for who [sic] celibacy is a choice, one that we respect…”
A new sexual revolution
Live Action recently launched a new groundbreaking series called “The Truth About Sex” with its first video: “The Sexual Revolution of the Roman Empire.”
In the video, Live Action founder and president Lila Rose juxtaposes the poor sexual ethics present during the Roman empire with the sexual ethics that were formed when the first Christians initiated a sort of ‘sexual revolution’ that changed the world.
As previously explained by Live Action News, the video highlights the lack of sexual morality that existed during the Roman Empire, noting that social status often dictated what was permitted sexually. A free man of high status could, for example, engage in sex with anyone he chose from a lower class. Slaves and children were often treated as sexual objects to the men who wanted to abuse them. Abortion and infanticide were also practiced.
When Christianity entered the picture, it introduced the teaching that all human beings are made in the image and likeness of God, and it normalized a freely chosen monogamous relationship between one man and one woman. A monogamous marriage, explained Rose, became “the only acceptable context for any sexual activity” among Christians. Christianity ushered in a counter-cultural sexual revolution of fidelity and respect within the Roman Empire. People were no longer to be viewed as sexual objects or babies as problems to be eliminated.
“Far from imposing an oppressive patriarchy, Christian sexual ethics elevated virtually everyone in society,” Rose explains. “The value of slaves, women, and children were no longer based on their social status, but on their status as children of God. Freely chosen, faithful marriage, not social status, became the measure for sexual morality.”
Christianity didn’t expect women to become as morally unethical regarding sex as men were. Instead, men were expected to correct their abusive behaviors. The sexual revolution of the 1960s and 70s, however, failed to hold men to a high standard and instead encouraged women to lower their standards.
Bumble’s ads are an example of this. Shaming women for not engaging in casual sex is a red flag that it’s time to consider a different kind of sexual ethic.
Celibacy and abortion
A concerning response to the Bumble ads is the idea that women are being forced into celibacy by pro-life laws. As Bumble stated, people commented that “celibacy is the only answer when reproductive rights are continuously restricted…” In other words, ‘if we can’t kill babies we won’t have sex at all.’ This is not a new sentiment. Ever since the reversal of Roe v. Wade, news outlets have published the grievances of those who say they will have to become more sexually responsible without the option to kill their preborn children without restrictions. Live Action created a satire video reflecting these sentiments:
This signifies that if killing children in the womb is prohibited, then young, unmarried women seem less willing to engage in casual sex. But in truth, it isn’t bad for people to take a different and emotionally (and physically) healthier approach to their relationships. Sex, which has the potential to create new human life, is never a casual act. It is too powerful for that. Reserving sex for marriage was part of the Christian sexual revolution of the 6th century and should be a part of a new, monogamous sexual revolution for modern times.
According to Rose, it was a combination of toxic ideologies that contributed to the breakdown of the Christian sexual ethics that stood for 2,000 years, including Marxism, second-wave feminism, and hedonistic post-relativism. While the sexual revolution of the 1960s and 70s promised equality for women by convincing them to take on the sexual behaviors of unethical men, it ultimately led to an increase in broken families and the legalization and widespread use of abortion.
It’s a serious problem if a person believes sex cannot take place without the option of killing the children created and that access to casual sex is more important than the lives of children. Much like the early Christians began rescuing babies who had been abandoned in the Roman empire, pro-life laws, policies, individuals, and organizations are working to save babies from being murdered by abortion in the name of the sexual ‘freedom’ of today’s society.
They don’t realize that the only group you can shame fordeciding not to date or have sex, are straight men.
How can women get utility and resources from men if the men won’t date and have sex with the women?
I am so glad I met my husband when I did.
Strong, smart, godly, handsome, honest, hardworking...best of all, he didn’t realize how amazing he was just being him. Others didn’t see it, but I did. He was the one I saved myself for.
Surprisingly, he thought I was the catch. My looks drew him in, but my brains kept him there.
It really helped that we had our own hobbies and interests, we had our own complementary strengths, and we respected each other’s alone time. Thirty four years later, we are still in love.
Too many young women want a wallet with a man attached while personally bringing nothing to the party. There are lots of great guys out there; they are too stupid to see them. Their loss. Buy a cat and die alone.
All I know it that they literally lived up to their name. Any woman looking for a husband should probably steer clear of the men who sign up for Bumble’s services.
I’m glad for both of you.
Good for you guys!
I think it’s true that “It takes a mighty good husband to be better than none.”
I looked it up.Oddly enough Bumble claims it's not a 'hookup' app but its users focused on marriage - so their mockery of sexually inactive women makes even less sense. Perhaps its users lied because they didn't want acquaintances looking through the app to see them advertising themselves for hookups? And then they use the app for hookups privately?
https://bumble.com/the-buzz/survey-results-show-users-are-over-hookups
“Fast Company reported that the “backlash was swift” and social media users accused Bumble of using language that “invalidated women’s sexual autonomy, the experiences of asexual people, and restrictions on reproductive rights.” “
Oh brother! These people are insufferable.
In fact, they would have garnered copious praise from "progressives," "leftists," and "feminists."
At the same time, traditional Christians would probably have ignored them (as a "lost cause anyway").
A "win-win" situation for Bumble.
But, as John Belushi was wont to say: No-ooo! No!
They had to go and (very slightly) mock their target audience - which is entirely devoid of humor (at least, when it comes to self-deprecation).
Regards,
So you're saying that the option of no husband would be better than the option of "only moderately good husband?!" That if, faced with only those two alternatives, women should choose spinsterhood and childlessness - i.e., self-extinction?
Is that what you are saying?
Regards,
I didn’t make it up — just something I saw on a greeting card once. But I agree.
“Mighty good” doesn’t mean great, excellent, or perfect. Mighty good is the best you can hope for; anything less is worse than spinsterhood and childlessness. Anything better is gravy.
Yeah... I’ll just take any ol’ husband, no matter how mean and nasty he is, as long as he can impregnate me, and so I don’t have to live alone. That’s some great plan. No husband definitely would be better, IMO. Others, I’m sure, feel differently, and that’s an option for them. Free will.
And I decided in the ‘70s that I didn’t want kids, so a “childlessness” argument doesn’t touch me.
You are making an "Appeal to Extremes" ("...any ol’ husband, no matter how mean and nasty he is, as long as he can impregnate me..."); it was certainly never suggested that women should marry "mean and nasty" men.
You are also "Moving the Goal Posts" ("...“Mighty good” doesn’t mean great, excellent, or perfect. Mighty good is the best you can hope for...").
Any reasonable FReeper would agree that, generally speaking, "mighty good" means "above average." Perhaps in some vernaculars (like in the South, where hyperbolic courtesy is popular), it might mean "adequate."
To be satisfied only with "the best you can hope for" is a recipe for failure in life.
Regards,
My daughter and her fiancé just sent a letter to the Christian dating site that matched them.
The letter was angry. They both had put in a 100-mile radius for the search. The match put them together even though they live over 200 miles apart. They upbraided the agency for making such a huge mistake and making such a perfect match.
The women who founded Bumble likely have an enormous body count.
I've never heard of it before this post. I don't do social media apps.
I have no idea as I sit here and post this from the cell in my Convent.
Send me a map to your convent and I will break you out and we'll have a wild week of drunken debauchery. I'll make sure to catch you up for lost time.
, “What if the billboard gave men tips on how to be less awful?”
Be a straight regular guy, and be dismissed as desirable. That’s less awful?
A regular guy has to be lower HIS standards to navigate a path in today’s dating world. With little chance of success in finding a life partner spouse.
want a wallet with a man attached
Sadly describing my longtime spouse’s evolution. On the list of things she finds important, at the bottom, I’m even paying for the cats. Wasn’t always this way.
When i die, i will get to stop working. If i could hear the next phrase after my passing, I’m certain it will be, “Well that’s inconvenient.”
While the world has gone to online and viral advertising, Bumble is chasing women of the streets on the actual streets.
option of no husband would be better
Divorced professional daughter seems to have made that lonely choice. Has a good dog thst she hikes/camps with, but the cat died. (The ex was a masshole liberal that could have grown up but didn’t have a work ethic. “Obamacare should be free”.)
It is a website that facilitates people copulating with random strangers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
