Ken Ham Teaches Ladies About Sex

There is no end to the subjects mastered by Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. He just posted this at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), his creationist ministry: Sacred: Embracing God’s Design for Sexuality. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Here at Answers in Genesis, we don’t like to address controversial topics or hot button issues. [What? ] (I say this tongue-in-cheek, of course!) [Oh.] That’s why the theme for this spring’s Answers for Women’s conference is Sacred: Embracing God’s Design for Sexuality.

Isn’t that wonderful? Hambo is going to share his vast knowledge of sex with the ladies. He says:

We’re never afraid to speak to the issues of our day, starting with God’s Word as the foundation. We want women at this year’s conference to walk away with a newfound boldness to share the truth of God’s Word with their family and friends.

What an opportunity! He tells us:

This conference, taking place April 5–6, 2019, at the Ark Encounter [Where else?], will apply God’s Word to some of the major issues of our day regarding sexuality: transgenderism, homosexuality, pornography, premarital sex, and other important topics.

Fascinating (as Spock would say). Hambo continues:

These are issues that many individuals and families are struggling with—possibly someone you know, you yourself, or your own family. [Or you, dear reader.] It’s vital that our thinking and our practical response be rooted in God’s Word, not in the thinking and attitudes of our culture.

Yes, it’s vital! Let’s read on:

We live in a sex-drenched culture that is completely unhinged from God’s Word. [Gasp!] Rather than recognizing biblical principles regarding God’s good gift of sexuality, our culture has distorted it. We must be equipped to lovingly and truthfully confront false thinking, directing people to the gospel.

It’s quite a challenge to “lovingly and truthfully” tell people that they’re doing it all wrong. This is going to be an amazing conference. Another excerpt:

Speaking with me at the conference will be … [We don’t care]. You can see a full list of speakers on the event page.

For your assistance, here’s the link to Sacred: Answers for Women 2019. The whole package costs $129. How can you resist?

Here’s our last excerpt:

I strongly encourage women of all ages — including teenagers — to attend this conference.

Your Curmudgeon also encourages you to attend. If all women did things Hambo’s way, life would be wonderful!

Copyright © 2018. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

18 responses to “Ken Ham Teaches Ladies About Sex

  1. Hmmm…. shall we start listing Biblical passages about women and sex?

  2. Michael Fugate

    Unhinged – that is AiG in a nutshell

  3. I wonder how old Hambo feels about asexuals and their inherent unwillingness to be fruitful and multiply? Sinners and pure damnation right?

  4. Michael Fugate

    Masculine fear is driving all this – it is comic how many men are so insecure that they need to everyone else to conform to some standard so they feel comfortable. Kwame Anthony Appiah is someone they should read, but won’t.

  5. Theodore Lawry

    Why is this conference for women only? Ham wants to deal with “transgenderism, homosexuality, pornography, premarital sex,” Homosexuals, by definition are men, and I believe most transgendered started as men. Pornography mostly appeals to men, and premarital sex also involves men. So why only women?

    I suspect Ham’s “solution” is “just say no” and he figures he has a better chance selling it to women.

  6. Why only women? ‘Cause god made them second, for the man. What I really want to know is why god made sex damned so pleasurable that he/she/it punishes people for doing it. The OT isn’t a good sex manual, and in the NT Paul seems horrified of it. And all those old popes — they had lots of kids.

  7. “Is sex dirty? Only if it’s done right.”

    — Woody Allen

  8. @Scientist
    My guess is that Ham would not defend popes. Anyway, Wikipedia has a List of sexually active popes.

  9. Karl Goldsmith (@KarlGoldsmith)

    Hey book now and it’s only $104 and that includes a combo ticket for Ark and museum. Looks like Kens talk is AiG speak for How to be a bigot.

  10. Theodore Lawry mars his otherwise sound post with a popular but egregious false etymology:

    Homosexuals, by definition are men

    The root here is not the Latin noun ‘homo‘, as in Homo sapiens, but the Greek adjective homos (‘ομως), meaning ‘same‘; it’s the antonym of ‘heteros‘, meaning ‘other‘. Hence our terms, ‘homosexual’ and ‘heterosexual’.

    To confuse Latin ‘homo’ with Greek ‘homo’ is a common error, but it conceals a further mistake: Latin ‘homo’ does not mean ‘man’ in the exclusive sense of ‘male’ (the Latin for that would be ‘vir‘) but in the sense of ‘a person, a human’ (just as in English ‘mankind’).

    If the word ‘homosexual’ were actually derived from the Latin, it would merely indicate someone who was sexually attracted to people, and which would thereby be applicable (mercifully) to the vast majority of our species–though Olivia has her doubts about our Curmudgeon

    In the UK, homosexuality was not decriminalised until 1967, but prior to that time only male homosexuality was proscribed–but not, apparently, because female homosexuality was tolerated but because it was too outrageous a notion for Victorian legislators to believe that it even existed.

    One last potential source of confusion: someone sexually attracted to Greek food could be described as a houmousexual; one must hope that such a deviation is passing rare…

  11. Olivia (who was once an involuntary researcher into our Curmudgeon’s dark side) has asked me to further point out that the current neologism ‘pansexual‘, which has some currency as a more inclusive replacement for ‘bisexual‘, is firmly to be eschewed on the grounds it should be reserved to mean the extremely rare disorder of ‘sexual attraction to members of the genus Pan

  12. I follow biblical teaching on sex. I am married to two sisters, and have in addition had children, as my wives’ urging, with their chambermaids. (I’m not sure what the chambermaids thought of this arrangement.) My grandad, by the way, had three wives.

    I have never actually conquered a city, but if I do, I will scrupulously follows the instructions in Deuteronomy and allow the captured women a month to adjust to their new situation before raping them.

    But I will refrain from having too many wives, in case they lead me into idolatry like what happened to Solomon. You can’t be too careful about such things

  13. Dave Luckett

    The British “Criminal Law Amendment Act” of 1885 prohibited “gross indecency” between males in England and Wales. There was, however, no similar provision about women. It is said that the Prime Minister, Mr Gladstone, absolutely declined to include it because it would oblige him to explain it to Queen Victoria. But this was the Act under which Oscar Wilde was prosecuted.

  14. @PaulB:

    Groucho: “I’ll marry the both of you!”
    Lady in furs: “But that’s bigamy!”
    Groucho: “Yes, and it’s big ‘a me, too! It’s big of all of us! Let’s be big for a change!”

  15. Megalonyx, as a Neanderthal, often fails to understand the subtleties of Sapiens ways. In an otherwise surprisingly informative comment, he made an oblique reference my relationship with Olivia. Gentleman that I am, all I can say is that she, like others fortunate enough to know me in that regard, has referred to the experience as transcendent.

  16. …and the second time you pull the string in the back of our Curmudgeon’s inflatable ‘Olivia’, it says, “Math class is tough”

  17. @curmie – I hear that Real Doll ™ will do custom faces for you…. 🙂

  18. Michael Fugate

    And this shows the sexes are less different than we might have thought
    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06999-6

Make a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s