With over 340,000 followers on TikTok, Cindy Smock, better known as Sister Cindy, amassed a crowd of an estimated 400 students, to whom she preached about how to become a “Ho No Mo” outside of Parks Library on Thursday.

According to previous reporting from the Daily, Sister Cindy is associated with Campus Ministry USA, a group led by her husband George Edward Smock, also known as “Brother Jed.” They together make up a group of evangelists who tour the country preaching to college students.

Sister Cindy was accompanied by Vijay Pisini and three other associates who chose not to disclose their names.

“Our mission is to call students to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ,” Cindy said.

When asked to define her slogan “Ho No Mo,” which is an abbreviation of “hoe no more,” Cindy said it is meant to refer to any type of sex outside of marriage. She cited the Bible and said that the Bible refers to it as “being a whore or a whoremonger.”

Sandra Marcu, director of the Margaret Sloss Center for Women and Gender Equity, said it is disappointing that Sister Cindy has a platform in regard to the size of the crowd she attracted. 

Marcu spoke on the dangers of platforming rhetoric like Cindy’s. She said that treating messages like Sister Cindy’s Slut Shaming Show as if they’re a comedic spectacle feeds into the narrative that slut-shaming is okay, which Marcu vehemently disavows. 

“It feeds this narrative that it’s okay to slut shame people, it’s okay to make homophobic remarks; that it’s all within the realm of comedy or fun, when it’s really not,” Marcu said.

When asked if slut-shaming is O.K., Cindy said, “Yes. Guilt is good. Guilt leads to repentance and faith, but you do need to get your guilt cleansed.”

“I’m all about freedom of expression on campus and I think it’s healthy to have dialogue, but I think it’s unfortunate that someone spouting such hateful rhetoric is getting such applause and platform,” Marcu said.

Sylas Walker, a freshman majoring in computer engineering, disagreed with Cindy’s message.

“I don’t think it’s O.K. to publicly slut-shame people, then get a massive following from it,” Walker said. “I’m here and a whole bunch of other people are here just to give her the rudeness she gives back.”

Walker said Iowa State endorses Cindy’s message of slut-shaming by having her on campus. He said that the university has a responsibility to police “extreme radical views,” and it isn’t acceptable to have Cindy slut-shaming on campus.

Vijay Pisini took over the preaching for Sister Cindy as she ate lunch.

Sister Cindy "Prepare to meet thy god" 1

Sister Cindy preaches to a large crowd of Iowa State students on Sept. 23.

As Pisini began to preach, the surrounding crowd became more turbulent, climaxing with Pisini asking a student who had lost his mother if she had known that he was stupid.

The comment was made in response to a student from the crowd who had asked Pisini if he prefers “ass or tits.” Pisini said his comment was made to illustrate the point that giving a right answer to a wrong question is always wrong.

Pisini said he did not mean the comment personally, and that it was purely made to illustrate his point, sharing his sorrow for the student’s passed mother, as well as sharing that he has lost his own. 

Rev. Jennifer Hibben, director of Vine Campus Ministry, was seen near Sister Cindy’s demonstration holding a sign with “nope” quoted by God on one side, and the words “you are all beautiful” on the other side.

Sister Cindy on Sept. 23

Sister Cindy visited Iowa State on Sept. 23. In addition to her usual spectacle, she offered autographs and selfies to students attending.

The Vine is an organization that seeks to be a place of worship, learning and fellowship between students and other members of Collegiate Presbyterian Church, according to the Iowa State Student Organization website.

“There is a religious presence here on campus that would not support this type of horrible, harmful anti-Christian rhetoric,” Hibben said. 

(7) comments

Facts and Logic

Regardless of agreeing or disagreeing with Sister Cindy's ideas, this article is awful. You may not know this, but in reporting journalism, the author is supposed to just report. If the journalist does well, you should come away from the article fairly informed and ready to form your own opinion. Ideally, you shouldn't even know (or care) about the journalist's personal opinion - because they are there to report the facts, not their opinion. So what do you think? Do you see any bias in this article? For their own sake, I hope this author isn't majoring in journalism - imagine spending a bunch of money at a college and not learning the basic tenets of your career!

The title - seriously? She isn't 'anti-sex' in any way, just anti-sex before marriage (at least from what I have heard). Those are two vastly, vastly different things, and you made no attempt to differentiate the two - in fact, you tried to conflate them! That's called deliberately misinforming people and is extremely dishonest.

Secondly, the complaints that she shouldn't be allowed to speak should both concern and anger you as a reader, regardless of your opinion on the topic. If you go outside Parks and look, there is a sign proclaiming the area the 'Agora' - literally a place designated for discussion and free speech. Regardless of what you think of the message, it is vital that she IS allowed to speak. It isn't violence or harming anyone for her to speak - she has an opinion and should be allowed to speak as long as she is not directly calling for violence. It is not Iowa State's job to protect you from other people's opinions and ideas - you came to college to further your education, right? Well, sometimes the things you learn challenge what you think. Sometimes opinions you come across rub you the wrong way. And guess what? That's life. You might as well get used to it now, because in the real world you won't be able to call 'hate speech' and 'microaggression' and stop someone else from sharing their views.

Come on Iowa State Daily, is this as 'objective' as you can be? Truly embarrassing... time to defund this waste of money and replace it with something that can at least do a better job of pretending to be objective.

Benito Moeckly

That's cool and all, but who asked?

Jake Modely

so true 🤓

Reddit User

To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Rick and Morty. The humor is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics most of the jokes will go over a typical viewer's head. There's also Rick's nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation - his personal philosophy draws heavily fromNarodnaya Volya literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these jokes, to realize that they're not just funny- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Rick and Morty truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour in Rick's existencial catchphrase "Wubba Lubba Dub Dub," which itself is a cryptic reference to Turgenev's Russian epic Fathers and Sons I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Dan Harmon's genius unfolds itself on their television screens. What fools... how I pity them. 😂

^ This you?

Ethan Spradlin

Where exactly do you see bias? I think the author did a good job at collecting quotes and viewpoints from people on both sides of the argument. The only disingenuous thing I can find is, like you mentioned, the conflation of "anti-sex" and "anti-sex-before-marriage." However, I think this is such a small thing to be caught up on.

In our world today, I would be willing to bet that a good majority of sex occurs outside of wedlock. People's thoughts and feelings about sex have changed and it is no longer so rigid in when and how it should occur. The question, now, is this: if two people consent to do something with each other, why should it be anyone else's issue. Many people have sex outside of wedlock. So yes, I think Sister Cindy's message is "anti-sex" also.

This begs another question, though. There isn't really any bias in this article, so why exactly are you so willing to die on this hill? Is it because you truly think the article is poorly written? Or do you just feel that your beliefs are in the minority and that they are under attack? Like I said, I think the article is unbiased and written fine. You seem to be the only one holding the opposite opinion. In fact, a brief look at your comment history shows that you claim many articles are poorly written when, in fact, they just cover left-wing topics. The only article you've commented in support of was an article defending the Texas abortion ban. So, again, I ask: are these articles really poorly written, or are you projecting your feelings about your own standpoints onto them?

Jake Modely

Regardless of agreeing or disagreeing with Sister Cindy's ideas, this article is awful. You may not know this, but in reporting journalism, the author is supposed to just report. If the journalist does well, you should come away from the article fairly informed and ready to form your own opinion. Ideally, you shouldn't even know (or care) about the journalist's personal opinion - because they are there to report the facts, not their opinion. So what do you think? Do you see any bias in this article? For their own sake, I hope this author isn't majoring in journalism - imagine spending a bunch of money at a college and not learning the basic tenets of your career!

The title - seriously? She isn't 'anti-sex' in any way, just anti-sex before marriage (at least from what I have heard). Those are two vastly, vastly different things, and you made no attempt to differentiate the two - in fact, you tried to conflate them! That's called deliberately misinforming people and is extremely dishonest.

Secondly, the complaints that she shouldn't be allowed to speak should both concern and anger you as a reader, regardless of your opinion on the topic. If you go outside Parks and look, there is a sign proclaiming the area the 'Agora' - literally a place designated for discussion and free speech. Regardless of what you think of the message, it is vital that she IS allowed to speak. It isn't violence or harming anyone for her to speak - she has an opinion and should be allowed to speak as long as she is not directly calling for violence. It is not Iowa State's job to protect you from other people's opinions and ideas - you came to college to further your education, right? Well, sometimes the things you learn challenge what you think. Sometimes opinions you come across rub you the wrong way. And guess what? That's life. You might as well get used to it now, because in the real world you won't be able to call 'hate speech' and 'microaggression' and stop someone else from sharing their views.

Come on Iowa State Daily, is this as 'objective' as you can be? Truly embarrassing... time to defund this waste of money and replace it with something that can at least do a better job of pretending to be objective.

Chronically Correct Contrarian

I agree with commenter Facts and Logic. This article IS awful and I, too, hope that the author is not majoring in journalism. A journalist's main goal should always be to report clearly and unambiguously to avoid confusion. The author of this article clearly did not accomplish that.

In the phrase "...seeks to be a place of worship, learning and fellowship...," the author neglected to put an Oxford Comma after the word "learning" to clearly indicate that this is a list of things The Vine strives to be. Without the comma, it becomes a garden path sentence since it is unclear if The Vine is solely a place of worship and the phrase "learning and worship" is the beginning of another related thought, or if The Vine is all three things: a place of worship, learning, and fellowship. Reading the article, I had to return to the beginning of the sentence in order to parse what I had read and determine the true meaning which was the latter interpretation.

I have the utmost confidence that commenter Facts and Logic would never make a mistake like this. His dedication to The Daily is evident through his consistent complaining in comment sections while refusing to join the team and make an actual change. He truly is a champion of intellectual thought, logic, and good-faith reporting. If I were the author of this article, I would be honored to have someone so profound giving me advice.

As for the rest of the article: it was good. I didn't think it was biased.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.