Paul Stanley Puts the “Ass” in “Classy”

Gee, Paul, is there any woman you’ve slept with you won’t throw under the bus to make it look like what you did was only just as bad as what they’d done to you?

Hint: You know what really fucks up children of divorced people? When their high-profile dad airs their mom’s alleged dirty laundry in public in order to make himself look good.

18 thoughts on “Paul Stanley Puts the “Ass” in “Classy”

  1. Oh, man, I read “Paul Stanley” and thought “KISS”. Holy crap, I’m old.

    And I have no idea who THIS Paul Stanley is, but he lost me when he felt he had to explain what “above the fold” means. Douche.

  2. His post hits on something that I still have a hard time grasping about Christianity, hard as I try. It’s still difficult for me to believe that to atone for your sins, you don’t even have to apologize to the person you hurt. All you have to do is pray to God for forgiveness, and if the person you hurt doesn’t forgive you on their own, well then that’s THEIR problem, with you and with God.

    Maybe that is a function of being Jewish; they repeat several times in the Yom Kippur service that you are not fully atoned for your sins until you’ve apologized to the ones you’ve sinned against, God or fellow mortals. But it’s hard for me to grasp that he really believes he’s made everything ok without having to apologize to his wife.

  3. Well, I think that, at least in lay Christianity, we/they don’t think much about atonement. I mean, yeah, hypothetically, it would be great if a Christian sinner who sinned in a way that really hurt someone (like fucking around on your wife when she thinks you’re in a monogamous relationship) had in him the desire or urge to try to find some way to set things right with the person he wronged.

    But that isn’t considered, at all, a requirement for being forgiven for your sins by God. In that case, you sin against God (and all sins are considered sins against God) and you ask God for forgiveness and you get it and you try to go forth and sin no more, even though, of course, you’re going to.

    I’d have to ask my dad what he learned at seminary, but the idea that you can sin against another person doesn’t sound right to me. If Christians believe they can sin against another person, I failed to pick up on it.

    So, what’s going on is that you do something, perhaps something that hurts another person, you sin and it throws you out of whack with God. And the most important thing for you to do is to get back aligned with God, since your primary relationship is always with Him.

    Whether you ever get things square with the person you wronged, yeah, I don’t think that matters in whether Christians can be forgiven by God for their sins.

    Those are, weirdly enough, two separate things.

    Like I said, I don’t know if this is strict dogma, but it is clearly the folk belief. And, interestingly, as Stanley’s case indicates, you see more and more “I’ve sinned against God, but we’re cool now, so if you, the person I hurt, can’t get over it, you’re doing something wrong to me and God.” claims among people who have a lot of power over someone else and who can’t, for social structure reasons, even begin to fathom that they would need to apologize.

    In this case, I think Stanley understands women as being below him in the great hierarchy of life (with God above him) and since he’s their spiritual better, the head of the house, it’s his wife’s job to get right with him and his job to get right with God.

    I don’t think you see this kind of ridiculousness in more egalitarian Christian marriages, even ones steeped in traditional gender roles. Spouses who recognize each other as equally important tend to try to put things right with each other when they wrong each other, even if they don’t call that sinning against each other.

    So, the TLDR version is, yeah, he really believes he’s made everything okay WITH GOD without having to demonstrate real contriteness towards his ex-wife and, in fact, still acting like an asshole publicly towards her.

    I imagine that this strikes so many people–even most Christians–as almost incomprehensibly douchy that this is why he recommends people seek Christian counseling, so that the women (whether the cheater or the cheated upon) can be taught that she needs to make things okay with her husband.

    Because, please, Christianity is the majority religion. If you go to a therapist, especially in the South or Midwest, you’re bound to be going to a counselor who is a Christian. But he wants something specific to happen in those sessions he can’t say for certain would happen in a non-church directed setting.

  4. Jews are pretty clear on the idea that the fact that one hasn’t atoned to the person one wronged is a sign that one hasn’t atoned, period. So it’s impossible to put oneself right with any divine power without having first made amends to the person(s) affected; without the personal atonement one is still sinning. We are also told that we must forgive those who ask us for forgiveness — and sometimes that’s hard, but the fact that that person is trying to make amends to us goes a way towards making it possible.

  5. Yeah, it would be nice if Christianity had that. But the more I think about it, the more I’m sure that, in practice, we obviously don’t (we may have it in theory; I don’t know.) (And I know “Christian” and “we” is problematic for me, but I hope I can have some leeway.)

  6. Right, and I think most Christians (even very religions ones) I know would certainly say that you SHOULD try to apologize to the person you hurt, even if that’s not dogmatically required or considered “sinning” against that person. It’s the fundamentalists like Paul Stanley who go out and say that you can screw around, but it’s all cool as long as you’re right with the Lord. Unfortunately, they seem to be the ones who hold power.

  7. Well, yeah, exactly. Because Christians are taught that they’re not exactly supposed to be a part of the world and we’re supposed to be deeply suspicious of worldly power and the trappings thereof and the temptations those things bring.

    So, yeah, almost be definition, you’re not going to get Christians who haven’t made deep compromises with their beliefs in positions of great wealth and/or power. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, but, if they’re bragging about being Christian and they’re very wealthy or have a lot of power, I’m always very suspicious.

  8. If I may interject the opinion of a practising Christian:

    It is an erroneous belief that one needn’t apologise to those one has wronged. Christianity’s path to salvation is often mischaracterised that way, as people mistake the doctrine of sacrificial atonement and free grace to be a sort of “well, you’re forgiven by God so you’ve got a free pass.”

    In all actuality we have several passages which teach that atonement with those we have wronged is essential to living a Christian life. To oversimplify:

    1. The acceptance of sacrificial atonement reopens the individual soul’s direct dialog with God.

    2. Once in communion with God, the Christian is to work the rest of her life on
    a) becoming more Christlike
    b) reflecting the glory of God to the world
    c) Sharing the story of sacrificial atonement and mystical relationship with God

    Now, points 2a and 2b fall the many things people who misunderstand us overlook. Outsiders and glib snakeoil salesmen will say that Christianity stops at point 1. And we all go to Heaven, yay! But points 2a and 2b are the real roadwork of being a Christian. Under these points fall individual atonement with those whom we have wronged; forgiveness of those whom we believe to have wronged us; stewardship of our worldly goods; charity; mercy; constant study of the scriptures and prayer.

    That is true Christianity. I do not have scriptural references simply because the bulk of the Christian scriptures addresses these points. If you have questions particular attention should be paid to the books of James, Romans, 1 & 2 Peter, Phillippians, Galatians, Ephesians and the Acts of the Apostles.

    As for Stanley’s poorly-written, poorly thought-out piece:

    While he is correct in talking about the dangers of emotional affairs, he has absolutely no business exposing his wife’s alleged sin. That is in itself several sins (pride, abandonment of vows, emotional abuse). He should stop “writing his memoirs” (why? what has he contributed to the world worthy of remembrance?) and begin approaching others with humility and asking forgiveness.

    I am sorry that the picture of Christianity most of you have is an incomplete and incorrect one.

  9. Again Coble beat me to the punch. Asking forgiveness from the person you wronged (and yes, sinned against) is a major component of the process. That’s the part that takes humility and contrition because you actually have to look someone face to face and own up to what you did.

    Not, you know, blab someone else’s indiscretion in a blog post, ahem, Paul.

    And what’s most unfortunate about Paul and other so-called Christian mouthpieces is that it’s easy to think all or the vast majority of Christians think like they do.

    Well, I’m glad Southern Beale let him have it.

  10. Well, Southern Beale did let him have it, I guess, but not on very solid ground. Seems to me that Aunt B. zeroed in on the real problem with that post. his bit about his wife’s “emotional affairs” was bad enough on substance, but the wishy-washy, “sideswipe-y” way he did it made it even worse.

    Although…hey! If they’re the same things maybe he can get her a writing gig too. That would be nice of him.

  11. I would just like to ask that we are all clear that we are talking about alleged indiscretions on the part of Stanley’s wife, since the unveiler of these alleged indiscretions is the very person who most stands to benefit from a “hey, I might have cheated, this once, with a girl who I only succumbed to because someone had helped her target me, but my wife had already emotionally checked out of our marriage, thus causing me to be susceptible to the machinations of that tart and whoever helped her” narrative. I don’t think we can believe anything he has to say about his exwife except that she’s his exwife and the mother of their children together.

    Ha, Roger, I somehow don’t think “I had close male friends because my husband seemed very distracted in Nashville with the legislating and the affair-having and the being blackmailed, but it was really wrong of me to have male friends” is flying off the shelves as fast as “My wife had close male friends she never had sex with while I was busy having sex with an intern and getting blackmailed by her and her real boyfriend.”

  12. Don’t forget it was on the front of the AOL!

    Which means someone’s Grandma read about what a douche this guy is.

  13. A semi-serious tip on getting juices flowing: Do NOT try to do it by reading, watching or even thinking about stuff in your immediate subject area. Do other things.

    See good movies or even plays in other genres. Read other books. Inter-relate with non-fictional people out there somewhere. Some cross-correlation spark will happen; something will make you think of something because, as you’ve already found–it happens.

    I am reminded–not by your situation Aunt B. necessarily, but just by this question of getting the juices flowing– of one teacher I had in film school years ago, who got sick of younger students making movies about making movies. “Cut it out!” she’d yell. “Have an affair. Break it up. Get happy. Get sad. Have a kid. Have someone die. Read something, fergodzsakes. Get out of the screening room! It;s your only hope!”

    But then, this same advisor said a lot of things!

  14. “I would just like to ask that we are all clear that we are talking about alleged indiscretions on the part of Stanley’s wife…”

    Good point.

  15. Nope, doesn’t look like it. But I think it’s cool. Paul Stanley could clearly also use some advice on how to write, maybe give him some ideas for how not to toss his poor ex-wife under the bus while exploring his own journey.

Comments are closed.