From another page of that website - "Since a daughter is, by the grace of God, always under authority--there being a transfer at marriage from a father's to a husband's--daughters are "Daddy's" uniquely. While he must raise his sons to be loving husbands and fathers who make houses possible, he raises his daughters to be submissive, godly wives and wise mothers, to make houses homes. He raises a son to be a provider; he raises a daughter to be provided for."
That section is particularly spectacular, alright.
I am also intrigued by the fact that the illustration for the "why you shouldn't have one-on-one relationships before marriage" shows the heathen couple in question ON ROLLERSKATES.
Perhaps the rollerskates are a metaphor for being "footloose and fancy-free"? Or for not having a firm foundation in Christ?
From the same page: For example, only a flaming feminist would challenge the Jewish practice of the woman adopting the name of her husband ( Isa. 4:1 ).
Now, I first encountered that particular essay on another page (http://www.patriarchspath.org/Articles/Docs/Daddys_Girl.htm) (linked by daegaer), and it had the following illuminating postscript:
"Sarah Faith Schlissel, 19, is pursuing her MBA at Pace University in New York while working full-time as an analyst at a well known financial institution. She is the administrator of The Courtship Ring, an Internet ministry of Messiah's Congregation (write to SFSchliss@aol.com for info). Prospective suitors with $100,000 or more on hand may contact her Daddy."
(I apologise in advance for any head injuries, or indeed wall damage, that reading the above may cause...)
Prospective suitors with $100,000 or more on hand may contact her Daddy
The tinkling sound you hear is my eyeballs popping out from the boggling and rolling gently across my desk.
I actually had to check the website to see if it was taking the piss, but it doesn't seem to be. It has lots of helpful articles on obeying one's husband, why feminism is BAD, and the evils of immodest clothing:
"You see, you don't want to have a "lust" relationship with your husband, so if you're choosing clothes that will "turn him on" then chances are they're going to "turn someone else on" too!"
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-24 11:47 am (UTC)*wipes eyes*
What the hell is a pantywaist, anyway?
Sigh
Date: 2005-05-24 11:53 am (UTC)Re: Sigh
Date: 2005-05-24 12:00 pm (UTC)Re: Sigh
Date: 2005-05-24 12:09 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-24 12:29 pm (UTC)Speechless. Abso-fucking-lutely speechless.
*goes away to beat head against wall*
(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-24 12:55 pm (UTC)I am also intrigued by the fact that the illustration for the "why you shouldn't have one-on-one relationships before marriage" shows the heathen couple in question ON ROLLERSKATES.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-24 01:05 pm (UTC)From the same page: For example, only a flaming feminist would challenge the Jewish practice of the woman adopting the name of her husband ( Isa. 4:1 ).
... *flames*
(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-24 01:06 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-24 01:14 pm (UTC)Now, I first encountered that particular essay on another page (http://www.patriarchspath.org/Articles/Docs/Daddys_Girl.htm) (linked by
"Sarah Faith Schlissel, 19, is pursuing her MBA at Pace University in New York while working full-time as an analyst at a well known financial institution. She is the administrator of The Courtship Ring, an Internet ministry of Messiah's Congregation (write to SFSchliss@aol.com for info). Prospective suitors with $100,000 or more on hand may contact her Daddy."
(I apologise in advance for any head injuries, or indeed wall damage, that reading the above may cause...)
(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-24 01:29 pm (UTC)The tinkling sound you hear is my eyeballs popping out from the boggling and rolling gently across my desk.
I actually had to check the website to see if it was taking the piss, but it doesn't seem to be. It has lots of helpful articles on obeying one's husband, why feminism is BAD, and the evils of immodest clothing:
"You see, you don't want to have a "lust" relationship with your husband, so if you're choosing clothes that will "turn him on" then chances are they're going to "turn someone else on" too!"
(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-24 03:02 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-24 02:49 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-05-24 04:16 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-01 01:22 pm (UTC)