Warning: this post includes possible triggers regarding rape, abuse and pornography
"When it comes to sex men have the need to dominate and women have the need to be dominated."
This is the idea at the heart of the blog post that exploded into an Internet atom bomb. "The Polluted Waters of 50 Shades of Grey Etc." by Jared C. Wilson that was posted on The Gospel Coalition's website. The post examined a passage and ideas in our own semi-local pastor Doug Wilson book "Fidelity: What It Means to be a One-Woman Man." His post has since been taken down and a retraction was made but the issues raised are still important matters to discuss.
The post referenced this passage from Doug Wilson's book:
"Because we have forgotten the biblical concepts of true authority and submission, or more accurately, have rebelled against them, we have created a climate in which caricatures of authority and submission intrude upon our lives with violence.
When we quarrel with the way the world is, we find that the world has ways of getting back at us. In other words, however we try, the sexual act cannot be made into an egalitarian pleasuring party. A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts (emphasis mine). This is of course offensive to all egalitarians, and so our culture has rebelled against the concept of authority and submission in marriage. This means that we have sought to suppress the concepts of authority and submission as they relate to the marriage bed.
But we cannot make gravity disappear just because we dislike it, and in the same way we find that our banished authority and submission comes back to us in pathological forms. This is what lies behind sexual “bondage and submission games,” along with very common rape fantasies. Men dream of being rapists, and women find themselves wistfully reading novels in which someone ravishes the “soon to be made willing” heroine. Those who deny they have any need for water at all will soon find themselves lusting after polluted water, but water nonetheless.
True authority and true submission are therefore an erotic necessity. When authority is honored according to the word of God it serves and protects — and gives enormous pleasure. When it is denied, the result is not “no authority,” but an authority which devours."
That post elicited a firestorm of comments, follow up posts, defenses and rebuttals, highlighting a deep division in thinking within religious circles about male and female roles in marriage, martial rape, the appetite for erotic sexuality and versions of sexist domineering religion. It also brought up the issue of pornography, eroticism and the popularity of that genre in our pop entertainment.
The Fifty Shades of Grey series has sold 31 million copies worldwide, with book rights having been sold in 37 countries,and set the record as the fastest-selling paperback of all time, surpassing the Harry Potter series.
Who knows if any sanity will arise from the tussle but at the root of the fumble and scramble for real truth, I hope we can discover meaningful discussion about sexuality/eroticism in marital sex, the popularity of 'softcore' porn books like "50 Shades of Grey" or almost hardcore porn books and TV shows like "Game of Thrones."
Our culture, and even our fellow Christians are reading, watching and forming or reforming their values and beliefs about sex, love and entertainment in the public square and even in some pulpits. If you don't agree with this vision of marriage, sex and entertainment being preached, taught and consumed, then it's time to engage the conversation.
What do you think are the roots of interest and need at the core of our consumption of these types of books and films and this kind of relational ideology? Is it simply sinful appetites, brokenness and warped human desires or are there other human needs at work?
Annette Fricke | Jul 21, 2012 | 12:34pm
I will not be dominated in ANY sphere of behavior or thinking or speaking. Equality on ALL levels of relationships is the ticket to a healthy society. That is the prime reason that my relationship with my ex did not work. He insisted on dominating everything and if he didn’t get his way, he would retreat to a corner of the house in silence and sulk.
Bruce | Jul 21, 2012 | 2:31pm
Game of Thrones is hardcore porn? So how would you define Judges 19 or Ezekiel 23? Is that hardcore or softcore porn?
josh R | Jul 21, 2012 | 4:17pm
Jarod Wilson took the post down for a reason. He took Doug Wilson’s words and put them into a context that the book explicitly disclaimed that they did not belong.
Without reading the whole book, and understanding Doug Wilson’s perspective and goals, these words are going to be misunderstood.
Kudos for Jarod for pulling the plug. He took the quote and placed it wrong context. This post is unhelpful. Repeating his error, and fanning the flames of a massive misunderstanding.
josh r | Jul 21, 2012 | 5:11pm
For the record, to answer your question, I think Doug Wilson is more or less on the right track.
Anatomically sex is not egalitarian. Men cannot get pregnant. It isn’t fair. It just is.
Our culture does not like this fact, and ignores reality and creates a different ethic.
The problem with false realities is that they cannot overcome the real realities. No matter how much we pretend that it is all “egalitarian fun” when the chips fall where they may, there are real winners and losers in the game. Our culture is littered with the outcomes of this tragic lie— Single Moms, Fatherless kids, heartbreak and lies. Deadbeat men repeating the cycle to an exponential scale. It is all very ugly—and the kind of ethic that Doug Wilson is trying to discourage when he writes a book about “How to be a one women man”
When you are trying to explain the pain of such awful behavior it makes sense to describe it in the most clear and concise manner possible—And that is what Mr Wilson did. In a book written to men and thier sons, he explained the biological truth - An offensive one, granted—But not one that is shyed away from at all in young secular men. Unchecked masculine sexuality is a conquest. You hear it bragged about in the locker rooms and you see the consequences in our society. It is something worthy of being offended about, but be offended at the Spade, not the guy calling the spade a spade.
Instincts don’t go away because we have rejected the real reality and created our own. The books are selling because they fulfill a craving. They fulfill the craving in a poisonous way, but the fulfill a craving none the less, or they wouldn’t be selling.
A true marital relationship is the place to have an egalitarian love— one of mutual submission that satisfies the short term desires that tend to be strongest amongst men (or more accurately perhaps boys) with the long term desires that tend to be strongest amongst women. If our cravings are met in a healthy way, we are not going to crave poisonous counterfeits.
Eric Blauer | Jul 21, 2012 | 6:38pm
Josh, I disagree, I think Doug Wilson has a number of public positions that are extremely problematic. His support and praise of southern slavery is one of them.
Jared ended up being unable to fight off the issue of lifting up one position from a man who has some real controvertial positions to justify.
If someone always needs a reinterpretation to be made after one states something than I think there’s an issue there.
I’ve got my own concerns with the Moscow Movement, these issues are part of it. But the post and the subsequent posts are where the conversation is going and that convo is still important to have, regardless of the fact GC removed the post.
Doug’s book and Quotes are public domain and mature people can discuss issues without turning ugly.
Issues over personalities.
My post is reflection on public conversation and consumption, of which I think is very helpful to engage.
Josh R. | Jul 21, 2012 | 9:40pm
Eric,
The reason Jarod apologized for ignoring Doug’s preface—The one that said it was intended for men and included blunt language that some Christian women might find offensive. The fact that it can be misinterpreted is not the controversy. Doug Wilson warned against that13 years ago when he wrote the book. The issue is that people are intentionally misinterpreting it in spite of Doug’s warning for sport.
When you say “Josh, I disagree” I am just wondering what point I made you disagree with?
I didn’t make any arguments about slavery. There is lots of controversy about something he wrote 20 or more years ago.. But that has nothing to do with this quote, and it more of an ad hominem smear tactic than a real discussion of the topic at hand. The book in question says that racism is wrong, and that southern slavery was bad and needed to end. He just believes a war and 100 years of bitterness was a rather destructive way to end it. (A position that you would tend to sympathize with from what I have read of yours.) Have you read it? Have you heard Wilson’s explanation for it? He names the intended audience as “Eric Rudolph” who was corresponding with his co-author. It was intended to paint Rudolph’s hero, John Brown as a warmongering thug. I tend to think that when we look at institutional evil with no sympathy and just demonize it outright, we fail to understand, and we become evil ourselves. A more realistic understanding of the nuance is going to give us a better understanding— With that said, Anecdotal evidence can be deceptive, and we can go overboard. The fact that Wilson may have gone overboard once or twice does not justify slandering him into believing something that he expressly refutes in the very same text…
Do you disagree with my point about the anatomical issues with egalitarian sex? Do you disagree with the premise that our “egalitarian Fun” is leaving a wake of broken women and broken families? When you disagree, what are you disagreeing with?
josh R | Jul 21, 2012 | 10:50pm
I erred—It was not Eric Rudolph, but Paul Hill, another violent anti-abortionist that Wilson’s pamphlet was intended to dissuade: http://www.canonwired.com/featured/southern-slavery/
At any rate. Wilson’s quote about sexuality was a description of the way things are—People are treating him like it is his prescription for the way things ought to be. As typical, Wilson’s opponents accuse him of teaching something that he plainly and clearly doesn’t teach. He despises the BDSM behavior and the like (consensual or not)—It is Mark Driscoll that is a little mushy on sexual issues.
Eric Blauer | Jul 21, 2012 | 11:09pm
My concerns with the Moscow folks is the Theonomist foundation for the cultural engagement. This background ideology and view of theology informs and fuels the other branches of issues like slavery, law, men/women matters, abortion and homosexuality. God’s law is preeminent and the proposed consequences are very problematic to me.
Christianity Today article, 2009:
Christian Reconstructionists are controversial, to put it mildly. The brainchild of Rousas John Rushdoony, an Armenian-American pastor and disciple of Presbyterian theologian Cornelius Van Til, Christian Reconstructionism’s core is the application of every jot and tittle of Mosaic Law to modern Christian life, and a postmillennialism that borders on a call for outright theocracy.
Wilson says he rejects the Reconstructionists’ political tactics and distances himself from the label, claiming that his view of Old Testament law is more subtle than theirs. But when I asked what he thought of the death penalty for homosexual acts suggested in Leviticus 20:13, he did not shy away from the theonomic hard line that disturbs many Christians. “You can’t apply Scripture woodenly,” he says. “You might exile some homosexuals, depending on the circumstances and the age of the victim. There are circumstances where I’d be in favor of execution for adultery. … I’m not proposing legislation. All I’m doing is refusing to apologize for certain parts of the Bible.”
Although he believes that “the South was right on all the essential constitutional and cultural issues surrounding the war,” Wilson has repeatedly declared that he is no neo-Confederate. He prefers the label paleo-Confederate. “You’re not going to scare me away from the word Confederate like you just said ‘Boo!’ ” Wilson says. “I would define a neo-Confederate as someone who thinks we are still fighting that war. Instead, I would say we’re fighting in a long war, and that [the Civil War] was one battle that we lost.” (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/april/24.42.html?paging=off)
Doug Wilson on his view of Southern Slavery:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y0fTaMBESs&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Eric Blauer | Jul 21, 2012 | 11:10pm
This article digs I to the impact of his slavery booklet and views in Moscow ID.
The Late Unpleasantness in Idaho: Southern Slavery and the Culture Wars
http://hnn.us/articles/9142.html
Eric Blauer | Jul 21, 2012 | 11:19pm
Bruce, I think you are misreading my intent on discussing the issues being raised, it’s not to lambast sexual material but discuss what is the driving motive or need for it. I’ve not read anything but reviews of TGOT books but I watched one episode of The Game of Thrones and was seriously shocked at the level of what I called “almost” hardcore porn. the bible does describe graphic sexual images, situations and acts as historical fact and prophetic shock but I would argue it does so for a purpose related to exposing the ugliness of sin or to shame unrepentant behavior but not to be scintillating. One seeks to arouse, engage and degrade the other is more about moral provoking.
Amos 2:6-7 CEB
The LORD proclaims:
For three crimes of Israel,
and for four,
I won’t hold back the punishment,
because they have sold the innocent
for silver,
and those in need
for a pair of sandals.
They crush the head of the poor
into the dust of the earth,
and push the afflicted
out of the way.
Father and son have intercourse
with the same young woman,
degrading my holy name.
Josh R | Jul 22, 2012 | 12:16am
I personally am much more interested in what Mr. Wilson says and does than what people say about him and who they try to associate him with. Did you watch his lectures, Q&A and the protests at Indiana University? I thought he handled it all quite well, and gave rather good answers… One of which clearly stated that the whole Theonomy idea is wrongheaded, and that change has to happen one heart at a time at the worship level.
I still don’t understand what your point is in including the Fidelity excerpt. I think your summary that you open with is inaccurate. You like most of the critics treat Wilson’s text like it is prescriptive, when in fact it is diagnostic. For the most part, what I see is stirring controversy for the sake of stirring controversy where there needs to be no controversy. 50 shades of Gray has very little to do with Doug Wilson. Dominance and submission is a symptom of what is wrong with the world, Not something that Doug Wilson comes close to prescribing. So long as we bury our head in a lie, and build a sexual reality that denies the obvious, we are going to have all kinds of weird ideas come mainstream as fads. Fads that devour and destroy. Like the idea that Sex is fun and everybody should do it unless they are a prude.. And that is the cultural lie that is selling lots of books and leaving a wake of devastation throughout our society.
Josh R | Jul 22, 2012 | 1:13am
2 Peter 3:16
The fact that people misunderstand or distort does not necessarily make something wrong or unhelpful.
Doug ain’t the apostle Paul. But he isn’t who the distorters of his words say he is either. Not by any stretch of the imagination. But if you look for what you want to see, you will find what you are wanting to find.
Eric Blauer | Jul 22, 2012 | 7:54am
My inclusion of Jared’s post was because I wrote the piece when the article was on the gospel coalition site, then I had to change my article because they took the post off the site. I felt the overall discussion was over the top bit at its core was well worth having. The book excerpt connects our culture issues with what Duog says are needs amd desires found in complemntarian marriage. I think that’s a point worth dealing with, especially since that implication begs a response from those who are egalitarians. I’m not sure why you seem to paint a different view of marriage as source of many ills of our society. I also think that connecting rape, both the act against someone and the fantasies for it to the whole complemntarian vs egalitarian debate is highly controversial and should be debated and discussed. Which was going on rough all that original post and is going on via other sites. Good discussions are happening, not just slander and misrepresentation.
I posted Doug’s own words regrading slavery/south.
The Chrostianity Today article is a fair amd balanced magazine and contained his own words.
I don’t agree with you about the reasons Jared took down the article.
I don’t agree with you on saying that my original post was “unhelpful”. If something is wrong in the post than discussion and debate can help me clarify the matter. I’m not opposed to being wrong about issues. If Doug is antisavery, not a Reconstructionist than I’m open to reading or hearing a rebuttal of those positions. I’m not saying that one can’t be a Christian and hold theonomy views but I personally disagree with them, as I’ve encountered them.
I don’t think egalitarians are heretics. Nor do I hold the views of the ultra-reformed, hardline compemntarians.
Im not in agreement with the idea of withdrawing from culture and schools and promtomg a one view only option for Christian parents in matters of education and raising families.
I think many of issues become legalistic measuring rods in fundamentalist like circles. It can become oppressive, divisive and produce a law based community instead of a Christ based community.
I dont understand your ‘egalatarian fun’ comments about sex? You seem antagonistic regrading egalitarian views. I’m sure there’s backstory there, which we all have but if you are in disagreement that’s fine but I’m not sure why you need to disparage the position.
I think many people from abusive or abused backgrounds will find a lot of trouble with a theological and sociological framework that leans to heavy into law. The new creation is not like the old.
I’m for freedom, conscience, love, purity, fidelity, peace, hope and mutuality in matters of home, marriage, sex and out working of life roles and duties.
Against such things there is no law.
Galatians 5
“It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery…22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.”
I’m a fan of Doug’s work with atheists, particularly Hitchens but I’m concerned about a number of other positions and directions that group is moving towards. I can peaceful disagree and hold contrary opinions without demonizing.
Josh R | Jul 22, 2012 | 9:07am
I used the “egalitarian fun” instead of Doug’s more Graphic “Egalitarian Pleasure parties” Basically our culture trivializes sex into something that is equally fun for both parites, and should be encouraged and enjoyed. We have “Needs” that should be met..
My understanding of Doug’s text is that anatomically men do things to women that a woman just cannot do to a man. We do not like this truth, so we build a reality where she enjoys it just as much and in the same ways as He does. This idea ignores the obvious—and leads to the social ills that I am speaking of.
I think people are keying off of “Egalitarian” and assuming the Doug’s target is Presbyterians, Episcopals and the like, but in fact he is speaking about anatomy and the fact that women tend to be the one who bears the “receiving end” of the consequences of sexuality. Men and women enjoy sex differently and for different reasons. Until 1968 or so with the invention of the pill and abortion on demand, this truth was indisputable. But today, we can ignore the obvious and pretend otherwise—And by and large that is what our culture does.
I would suspect that many girls have sex earlier and more often than they would and with more partners because of the culture of “Egalitarian fun” and the lies and societal expectations that come with it.. This is where the wake of societal devastation has come. A one night stand isn’t the same thing for a man and a women. To be blunt, She has been penetrated, conquered, colonized, and planted. That has a psychological effect, and it is not good.
In a long term relationship, it is different. Anatomically the act is the same, but there is the mutual submission of a long term romantic captivation and submission on the part of the man.
When we substitute our way for God’s way, We tend to find that all good things have a poisonous counterpart. Lust in place of love. Greed in place of content. Domination instead of leadership etc etc etc.
This quote comes from a chapter on Rape - in a book about how and why to be a one woman man. Wilson is using provocative and graphic language because it is important for men to understand that it is not all fun and games. Sex does something to a woman other than straight (Short term) pleasure a promiscuous man may enjoy.
When it is read out of context and people are offended, it is because Doug called it right. That is how a woman feels, and that is why men should abstain from the Sexual fun and games that our culture endorses, and it is why they ought to be a one woman man. if you ignore his greater point and just bold and italicize what is going to be misunderstood, You deserve the blame for people being offended.
Josh R | Jul 22, 2012 | 10:38am
What offended you about the civil war quote you provided?
Seems like something that somebody bolded and italicized to me. It doesn’t really provide enough context to discern any meaning unless you place your own meaning into the words. Doug’s position is discussed at length and unedited in the link I provided.
Strong central federal government does invert the founders intent and it makes it impossible for the states to govern as they see fit on issues like abortion, It also builds the foundation for the military industrial complex. It set up a one stop shop for bribery and lobbying. There are plenty of reasons to sympathize with states rights and decentralized government. None of these reasons make you inherently a racist.
Eric Blauer | Jul 22, 2012 | 12:13pm
Doug Wilson’s response to the whole subject.
http://www.dougwils.com/Sex-and-Culture/the-politics-of-outrage.html
I think that speaks for itself for me.
Josh R. | Jul 22, 2012 | 12:34pm
I wouldn’t call that “Doug Wilson’s response to the whole subject” It is about the 5 blog post on the topic, not to count the numerous comments and discussions on other sites. He addressed the issues at the root of the quote, and was dismissed ignored mischaracterized and mocked.
The simple fact of the matter is that he didn’t look for this fight—It came to him. And when he tries to engage and discuss, everyone ignores what he says and insists that he means what THEY say he means in spite of the fact that his words don’t say that and he doesn’t teach that. At a certain point you have to throw in the towel and call it what it is. Orchestrated outrage for the sake of outrage.
Do you still maintain that his words where prescriptive? Are you for a minute suggesting that Wilson prescribes domination in the bedroom? Have your read any of his responses to Driscoll’s book?
josh R | Jul 22, 2012 | 12:45pm
For the record, in a post written well before this explosion Wilson expressly taught that authority was mutual in the bedroom.. http://www.dougwils.com/Grace-and-Peace/sexual-reciprocity.html
Josh R | Jul 22, 2012 | 1:09pm
From Doug Wilson’s teaching: “The wife does not own her own body, but the authority over it (exousia) belongs to her husband. This by itself would reduce marriage to a lower form of concubinage, but Paul does not stop there. The same authority that a man has over a woman sexually is an authority that she may wield over him. Sexual authority is reciprocal”.
Your summary of what he believes: “When it comes to sex men have the need to dominate and women have the need to be dominated.”
Something is amiss. Namely that the passage you quoted is about RAPE, not Marriage. Rape is evil, and it does exactly what Doug said it does. One night stands and other sexual conquests also do exactly that. That’s why he is teaching men to seek the Godly model rather than the world’s counterfeit.
josh r | Jul 22, 2012 | 1:30pm
Doug Wilson answers the very same question in Fidelity, the book the excerpt came from; http://books.google.com/books?id=sou32aLhcxgC&lpg=PP1&ots=b3qFYhuw7v&dq=fidelity doug wilson&pg=PA151#v=onepage&q=fidelity doug wilson&f=false
Diane Kipp | Jul 24, 2012 | 10:54pm
The quote above by Doug Wilson is garbage and there is not any context that could make it anything other than garbage. It is also false. Likewise, the quote that begins the article above is equally both garbage and false. People may choose to make “dominance,” “authority,” and “submission” part of their sex lives, but those qualities are not inherently part of a normal, healthy sex life. And to pretend that dominance/submission in marital sex is Biblically based is, I have to believe, offensive to God. Anyone who preaches those concepts is giving a sad view into his/her own sex life but is not reflecting anything normal, healthy, or desirable.
Josh R. | Jul 24, 2012 | 11:30pm
Wow, Diane. Who taught BDSM was okay in marriage? That is 180 degrees the opposite of what Doug Wilson teaches. Doug’s quote was talking about the nature of sex outside of marriage, (In a Chapter about RAPE) Based on what I hear from young men in the locker rooms and taverns he is right on. Based on what I hear from women who have been seduced, used and dumped. He is right. He argues that within a marriage is the only place where Sex is NOT likely to leave women with those feelings. Because he teaches that Authority is Reciprocal in the Marriage. 1 Cor 7.
This is all SLANDER. Nobody seems to care about the facts.. Lets just keep claiming the guy believes what they want to be outraged about in spite of the fact that we took his Quote 180 degrees out of context and ignoring that he has a 30 year track record of teaching otherwise.
By the way, This is what is wrong with American Politics too— Everyone wants to debate a Strawman of their own making, and nobody really debates the issues. It is pathetic, and the Church ought to be ashamed to be playing the same games as our secular leaders..
Eric Blauer | Jul 25, 2012 | 8:59am
Josh, I think you’ve made your case.
I’m sorry that you are upset with the way I wrote my article, I wish the original blog post that started this whole response would of been kept up for readers to reference both the article and the subsequent defense but they removed it and it hamgstrung the impact and value of the conversation.
My post is about more than Doug Wilson, the parts that reference him, also reference a way of thinking about marriage, sexuality and gender roles. That issue is at the heart of much of the ongoing debate. Complementarian vs Egalitarian views of marriage and male/female interaction, roles and freedoms etc…and the issues of 50 Shades of Grey.
There is a wide spectrum of practice represented in both those camps. Both are worth hearing from and wrestling through philosophically and theologically.
Your anger at the characterization of Doug Wilson is valid, but I can’t hear every sermon or read all his books…and quite frankly after reading his blog response that I posted….I probably won’t.
His own words, we’re enough for me. I don’t believe that such acerbic vitriol represents charity in the matters discussed and debated.
You disagree. I agree to disagree amiably.
Diane Kipp | Jul 25, 2012 | 11:26am
Josh, as I read the quote above, Mr. Wilson is saying that “sexual bondage and submission” games are a perverted form of a legitimate concept, and that he believes in “authority and submission” in marriage, and in the marriage bed. Referencing this quote: “True authority and true submission are therefore an erotic necessity. When authority is honored according to the word of God it serves and protects — and gives enormous pleasure.” - is Mr. Wilson not saying that authority and submission are part of a married, sexual relationship? I believe that is a perverted concept, and I would guess that the author is pretending God countenances that concept in order to legitimize his own interests/desires. Of course, that’s just a guess, but the concept is still garbage, and still false. Where would the author even come up with such a bizarre concept unless he himself has a personal interest in it? I have been happily married for 35 years, and I can assure you, “submission” has never entered my relationship with my husband. I realize there are many women who read novels about ravished/willing heroines, but their interest in that topic is not a perversion of a legitimate desire, it’s just plain a perversion.
Diane Kipp | Jul 25, 2012 | 11:41am
BTW, out of a desire for fairness, and because I do understand the whole “out of context” concept, I would be willing to read the book, or at least browse through it, but the public library doesn’t have it, and I’m not going to pay for it.
I’m curious, Josh - your quote, “Anatomically sex is not egalitarian. Men cannot get pregnant. It isn’t fair. It just is.” - which way are you saying the unfairness lies? Do you believe men would like to be able to be pregnant? Or are you saying it’s unfair that women can be impregnated?
Josh R | Jul 25, 2012 | 11:29pm
Diane,
I am saying that today’s serial monogamy, and promiscuity usually hits women much harder than men. When our culture sells sex as something that is “fun for all” and that everyone should do—Or an “Egalitarian pleasure party” in Mr. Wilson’s words, Women get the pain while men tend to keep on partying. It is ugly..
The reason the quote is so offensive and painful is that all of those things are exactly what many men are out there doing. Wilson knew they where painful that’s why he included a disclaimer.
Eric, I have enjoyed the discussion. I too think I made a good case. ;-) I can understand your reaction to his sarcasm. I think he lost his cool. I sympathize with him losing his cool — I think he tried the high road for quite a while before he threw up his hands and assumed that it was a no-win situation.. He isn’t the kind of guy who will ever try to be popular. I will grant to you that some of his sarcasm is over the top and out of line.
Ernesto Tinajero | Jul 26, 2012 | 12:03pm
Eric,
Good post. I think it helps us try to sort out the various issues. I think you raise the right questions within our society and how we have to navigate those waters as Christians.
Josh,
“When our culture sells sex as something that is “fun for all” and that everyone should do—Or an “Egalitarian pleasure party” in Mr. Wilson’s words, Women get the pain while men tend to keep on partying. It is ugly.”
I agree that our consumeristic society uses sex to sell and woman have had suffer more in Madison Avenue’s culture of all for a buck. Where I and reality part ways with Doug is where he points to “Egalitarian” as the source and gives the marketing guys a pass. It is like blaming the mugging on
Then he makes a statement in one of his recent blog post: http://www.dougwils.com/Sex-and-Culture/the-politics-of-outrage.html “Pretty simple, actually. I would tell them all that inerrancy makes my scalp itch. Don’t quote Gal. 3:28 at me, sister. I have had a grudge against the apostle Paul ever since he wrote those misbegotten words. Two can play at pick n’ choose.”
So for him, if the Bible supports his view, then great, but if it doesn’t, then they are “misbegotten” Which of course means that his judgement is above the Bible. What do theologians call that?
Hollywood and Madison Ave have used sex to sell their wares. Doug does not mention this but blames egalitarianism for the consumerism that forces us to look at others as products. Really?
Diane Kipp | Jul 26, 2012 | 6:25pm
Josh, in the short term, women definitely do suffer more in consequence of today’s sexual standards and attitudes, but I believe in the long run, both sexes suffer equally. It just takes men longer to figure it out. I believe in abstinance before marriage and total fidelity after marriage, but within a marriage, I believe in “egalitarian fun” for both parties (though I would never have thought to describe it that way previous to reading the above article) but it seems to me that Doug Wilson is saying that authority and submission are a legitimate part of a married sex life, which still gives me the creeps.
I regret that in my earlier comments I implied that Mr. Wilson must be reflecting his personal life in his stated beliefs. I have no way of knowing that, it’s none of my business, and I shouldn’t have gone there. My reason (not excuse) is that my writing was influenced by my emotional state of being highly offended by the quote. But I was not offended because “many men are out there doing that.” Many men are, but not my husband, and not most of the men I associate with. I’m offended by the concept of authority/submission IN MARRIAGE.
Tracy Simmons | Nov 19, 2012 | 4:44pm
The Assemblies of God released this statement today (Nov. 19):
Christian women are warned about reading erotic novels, such as
“Fifty Shades of Grey,” which promote purely physical and
violent sexual relationships and do not reflect what God has
intended for sexual intimacy. Expert says that porn is
something women need to guard their hearts from.
Add Your Comment