CTBHHM: Michael’s Meat, Sit Down and Shut Up and It’s All In Your Head

by Libby Anne cross posted from her blog Love Joy Feminism

Created To Be His Help Meet, pp. 72-73

Now that we’re finally finished with Debi’s scare tactics, we get another anecdote from the early years of Debi and Michael’s marriage.

I remember the night Michael and I married. My new husband decided we needed to go shopping and cook a meal before we went to bed.

Remember that Michael and Debi married on a Sunday night exactly eight days after Michael’s spontaneous and completely out-of-the-blue proposal (they hadn’t even been dating, if you recall). Going to the grocery store right after you get married is a bit odd, but people do crazier things all the time. I still remember the first time my husband and I went shopping together after our wedding—we were honeymooning and needed some more cereal. And swimsuits, which we’d forgotten and left behind. And cooking a meal together late at night can be quite romantic, so okay, go on…

I had no idea how much money he made, or how much he had for our honeymoon.


Maybe I’m just naive, but I thought money was something all engaged couples talk about—indeed, something many couples talk about long before they’re engaged. My husband and I do our finances together, and always have, and we definitely talked circles around money while preparing for our wedding and honeymoon. Marrying someone without knowing how much they make seems like a very bad idea indeed! So too, for that matter, does marrying someone before talking in general about how you as a couple plan to handle money. I mean, I grant that eight days is a very short engagement indeed, but eight days was at least long enough for Debi to ask Michael how much he earned!

But I suppose that’s no the point of this anecdote, and I probably shouldn’t get hung up on it. Let’s continue…

Yet, here we were in the grocery store at 10 P.M. on a Sunday night, having been married for less than an hour, when I first felt the critical spirit rise within me. He was picking out ground beef and was about to pay a very high price. I tried to reason with him. “Don’t you think that is priced too high, and wouldn’t it be better to buy a cheaper priced meet?” He was twenty-five years old and had never had a woman question him about how he was spending his money, and I will never forget the bewildered look on his face. It was as if he were trying to remember who I was and why he had put himself in a position to be criticized.

According to Debi, wives must never, never criticize husbands. And according to Debi, simply suggesting that buying cheaper meat rather than the expensive kind might save some money is criticism. And according to Debi, husbands can’t take criticism, and shouldn’t have to. Thing is, not being able to take input or criticism is not a sign of maturity. It’s a sign of immaturity. The fact that Michael went into shock because he wasn’t used to criticized—and come on, Debi’s comment was input, not even really criticism—doesn’t speak well for him.

Look, when you get married, you’re teaming up with someone else. That means you have to get used to taking input from another person before you make decisions. And that’s what Debi’s comment was—input. The trouble is that Debi’s version of marriage has nothing to do with being a team. It’s more of a master/servant relationship. What the master says goes, and it’s not the servant’s place to question the master’s judgement.

I must have sounded as though I was patronizing him, speaking to him as if he were a stupid kid, because that is how I felt about what he was doing. I was suddenly shocked at my attitude. What right did I have to treat him like a stupid jerk? How did I know how much money he had? I wasn’t his wife yet, in the biblical sense, yet here I was thinking, “You stupid nincompoop. I wouldn’t spend MY money like that!”

I’ve said this before, but Debi seems to be unable to imagine what an equal partnership actually looks like. In her world, one partner must always dominate, and if it’s not the husband it’ll be the wife. What she’s doing here is reinforcing that dichotomy.

Look, it’s possible to offer input—and even constructive criticism!—without treating someone like they’re a “stupid kid.” People do it all the time! I mean, it’s true that people sometimes (often?) offer input and/or criticism in ways that demean or put people down. I’ve done it myself, and I’ve had it done to me as well. It’s absolutely something to avoid, and I don’t want to negate that it happens. But offering input and advice can be about making truly cooperative decisions, and can be—and very frequently is!—done in perfectly healthy ways.

Debi knows exactly what she’s doing here, and she’s doing it well. With her anecdote, she is inferring that offering your husband input or wanting a say in decisions that affect both of you is automatically infantilizing him and treating him like “a stupid jerk.” I mean, note the exact wording of what she said to her husband! ”Don’t you think that is priced too high, and wouldn’t it be better to buy a cheaper priced meet?” That simple question, that simple suggestion, is portrayed as treating your husband like “a stupid jerk.” And apparently, it’s just too much for a man to take. I mean, really? How hard would it have been for Michael to say “Today is our wedding day, so I thought we were due for a treat” or “It’s okay, we can afford it on our budget”?

So, let’s see how Debi draws out the moral of her little story:

Satan didn’t even give me a chance to get properly bedded before he introduced himself to me, just as he did to Eve, and I, like my big sister Eve, fell for his line. I was amazed at my critical spirit. There, standing at that meat counter, I made up my mind that I would not allow this to be the story of my life. I would learn to be a woman of God, regardless of what my husband bought or how dumb he seemed to be in the way he spent money.

Again, I absolutely admit that having a “critical spirit” is toxic and can mess up relationships. But there is such thing as balance. Debi is suggesting that the alternative to having a “critical spirit” is to just let her husband do whatever he wants. No, really. Look at her last sentence—she concludes that resisting Satan’s temptation (i.e. a critical spirit) means keeping her mouth shut and letting her husband spend money however he likes, even if his financial decisions look disastrous. Debi honestly doesn’t see any middle ground of input and constructive criticism, of treating your husband as a partner and working together with him to make collaborative decisions. It’s either be overly critical of everything your husband does and treat him like he’s a child, or just shut up and sit down. It’s like a middle ground doesn’t even exist!

Having told this anecdote, Debi makes a couple of additional points. First, there’s this:

Were you mad at your husband this week over something he did, like being late, speaking to you rudely, or yelling at the kids? Did you seethe with bitterness and intentionally avoid looking into his eyes so as to express your disdain? … Yes, your husband deserved it. Yes, it is your right. But is there any satisfaction in your punishing responses? … He practices his faults, and you practice your bitterness. You are both practicing for divorce. Your children watch and are practicing being poor future mothers and fathers.

He has faults . . . you’re annoyed by those faults . . . I could have sworn I knew some way to solve this problem. Something about communication, maybe?

Look, I will be the first to say that my marriage isn’t perfect. No one’s is. We have our differences just like anyone else. But if I get mad over something my husband is doing (or isn’t doing), I talk to him about it. And we work it out, you know, like two adults. Debi’s solution is to ignore the husband’s faults and ignore the root of the wife’s bitterness and instead . . . drum roll please . . . state that the wife should just stop being bitter. That is so stunted and backwards I’m having troubles finding words for it. Also, let’s cut this gendering. Husbands grow bitter at their wives’ faults too. It’s not a gender thing. It cuts both ways. Husbands and wives—like men and women in general—both have faults, and sometimes those faults grate on each other, and if that’s not addressed it can lead to bitterness. And again, the solution is to communicate about it and work it out rather than just letting it build up.

Let me give an example. There was a time in my marriage when I was really bothered by Sean playing computer games, something he did a lot. They seemed wasteful and purposeless to me, and when he was playing them everything—kids, dishes, what have you—would fall to me. For a while, I just got upset and bitter about it, and then I realized that was completely pointless. So I told him my concerns and how I felt. He listened to what I had to say, and then told me that computer games help him relieve stress, and relax after a long day. After we talked, I no longer saw computer games as completely wasteful, and Sean understood that it was hard for me when he played computer games when there were things that needed doing. So we found a compromise—he would still play computer games, but would let me know before he started in case there were things that needed doing that he was unaware of. But if Debi had her way, I would be keeping my mouth shut while Sean played computer games willy nilly, and would see my ensuing bitterness as a personal fault to be overcome.

I want to make one more point regarding the way Debi ignores actually addressing the husband’s faults. What if Michael was looking at the expensive meat because he had never learned how to handle money? Wouldn’t it be a good idea for Debi to help spur him to learn good financial skills, rather than letting him recklessly spend his way into debt? And let’s look at the other examples she gives here. If a man is constantly late, wouldn’t it be a good idea for his wife to help him learn some time management skills? If a man is constantly rude to his wife, wouldn’t it help for her to let him know that that is not appropriate? If a man yells at his kids, wouldn’t it be a good idea for a wife to help him learn to better manage his anxiety or frustration around the children, or to gain some better parenting skills? But Debi’s solution leaves these men with these very real problems, and prevents their wives from helping them correct them.

Debi’s “sit down and shut up” formula doesn’t fix anything whatsoever. In the ensuing paragraphs, Debi talks about habits, and about how you need to set good mental habits, and about how bitterness is the result of giving in to bad thought processes. In other words, it’s all in your head.

Anxiety attacks, depression, somber moods, feelings of not being in control of your mind, unfounded fears, and bursts of anger all start in the mind. They are what you have allowed yourself to become through your 40,000 daily thoughts. By reacting the same way repeatedly, you establish habits that become so much a part of you that they may seem to be organic—a part of your physical make-up.

Debi makes any mental issue—be it depression or bitterness or anxiety—a person’s own fault. It’s all in your head. The solution isn’t to address the root cause of bitterness, or anxiety, or to see whether there is an actual medical issue going on that needs treatment. The solution is to just change your thought patterns, because you’re doing it to yourself. As Debi points out, God tells us to “guard our minds.”

I don’t think I really need to say how insidious this is, but I will anyway. You think you should offer your husband input on a decision, or—God forbid!—criticism? Think again! Just shut up and let your husband keep doing whatever it is that’s bothering you! He’s spending you into poverty? He’s yelling at the kids? Anything’s better than you—God forbid!—correcting him! Oh, now you’re growing bitter over your situation and your husband’s faults, which have been left unaddressed? How could you let this happen? You’ve created this bitterness yourself in your own head and need to exercise your mental energy to break this terrible habit! What, now you’re feeling depressed, and like your life isn’t worth living? It’s all in your head! You’ve done this to yourself! Repent! Debi talks over and over about creating a “heavenly marriage,” but the marriage she’s describing sounds more like a terrible, dysfunctional hell hole.

Ironically, Debi finishes by quoting II Timohty 1:7—”For God hath not given us a spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.” Debi seems to be quoting it because it uses the phrase “a sound mind” and she was just talking about things like anxiety and depression, but it seems to directly contradict what she said earlier about how important it is to be afraid—literally afraid—of God. Furthermore, to be honest, the verse seems to go against the blaming, vindictive feel of this entire passage. Debi’s attempt to proof text just isn’t working out for her here!

Finally, get excited, because next week we learn that there are exactly three kinds of men.

Comments open below

Read everything by Libby Anne!

Spiritual Abuse Survivor Blogs Network member, Libby Anne blogs at Love, Joy, Feminism
Libby Anne grew up in a large evangelical homeschool family highly involved in the religious right. College turned her world upside down, and she is today an atheist, a feminist, and a progressive. She blogs about leaving fundamentalist and evangelical religion, her experience with the Christian Patriarchy and Quiverfull movements, the problems with the “purity culture,” the intricacies of conservative and religious right politics, and the importance of feminism. Her blog is Love, Joy, Feminism

NLQ Recommended Reading …

Breaking Their Will: Shedding Light on Religious Child Maltreatment‘ by Janet Heimlich

Quivering Daughters‘ by Hillary McFarland

Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement‘ by Kathryn Joyce



Patheos Atheist LogoLike No Longer Quivering and Patheos Atheist on Facebook!

Here's How the 'Pro-Life' Money Machine Turns Desperate Women into Submissive Baby Makers
"Lies Women Believe" Review 167 - 192
Quoting Quiverfull: Why All the Hormone-Blaming?
Quoting Quiverfull: Natal Nazis and Human Sacrifice?
About Suzanne Calulu
  • Ronica Skarphol Brownson

    Are the typos hers or yours? If they’re hers, the “meet” typo for “meat” is rather telling…

  • Sonya

    I’m 100% convinced that Debi writes her books *to herself*. To keep herself in line. It’s horribly sad, really.

  • Lolly

    Debi makes marriage sound like a booby trap. The woman is supposed to do all the work to make the marriage godly and holy, while simultaneously sublimating all emotions and thoughts. How can it ever work if all the responsibility falls to the woman who has none of the power? It’s specifically designed to fail. The more it fails, after the Pearls insist it’s perfect, the more people are lured in further to their lifestyle and make the Pearls some do-re-mi. Ka-ching!

  • MamaMay

    I have come to the conclusion that the Pearls live a S&M lifestyle, which is fine, but that they tout it as Christian drives me crazy.

  • Joy

    Almost like she’s trying to brainwash herself. Sadly, by doing it in book format, it’s contributing to other women’s brainwashing.

  • Suzanne Harper Titkemeyer

    I post ‘em just as I find ‘em, typos in place. Many QF seem to have more typos than than normal.

  • NeaDods

    What they do to children is not safe, sane, or consensual.

  • Saraquill

    A man who gets that fussy over a minor detail like that is not worth marrying and sounds like grounds for an annulment. Considering how soon this was after they tied the knot, I’m sure it wouldn’t have been too difficult.

    I’m also not sure why she seems to keen to have coitus with him, and why she felt the need to bring it up in this anecdote. There is more to marriage than sex, such as not getting angry or beating oneself up over a frugal suggestion.On a similar note, I don’t see how having carnal relations with a sadistic control freak who doesn’t even check for consent can be at all enjoyable.

  • Nightshade

    50 Shades of Gray, fundie style?

  • Juniper

    “He was twenty-five years old and had never had a woman question him about how he was spending his money, and I will never forget the bewildered look on his face.”

    I kind of love this sentence. It seems like a short story prompt. There’s so much drama there. The clueless, coddled man-child, hand in the financial cookie jar. The indignant, or concerned, or equally bewildered woman. I can see it in a story about a couple maturing together and learning from each other, or as part of an “I have the worst dating history ever” montage, or a story about the unusual friendship between a worldly-wise landlady and her frat boy renter, or between a dragon of a nun and a priest just out of seminary, or an odd couple story about the woman with OCD and the man with Manic Pixie Dream Girl-itis, or maybe in a horror story about the reality-warping mother of this overgrown boy.

    But I would never, if given this sentence alone, have guessed that the rest of the essay said, “I realized I was acting like a person and women acting like people are evil shrews, so I chose not to be a person anymore.”

  • Saraquill

    The thought makes me want to cower in a corner.

  • persephone

    Apparently, that’s a growing trend, based on wifely submission.

    Please, excuse me, just think about it has nauseated me, and I need to calm down.

  • persephone

    I have come to believe that Michael is certifiably crazy, and Debi’s lack of life experience causes her to deal with it by continually reinforcing for herself the absurd belief that this is the proper way to live.

  • http://biblicalpersonhood.wordpress.com/ Retha Faurie

    I do not think it would be fine if they
    do. For one thing, Debi does not even know there are other – healthy
    - ways to live and certainly did not make a really free choice to do
    it, if she does not know other options. I believe it is common in
    both patriarchy and BDSM to not even know what healthy relationship
    dynamics look like, and to voluntarily and consensually submit and to
    still be taken advantage of, even though there is consent.

  • Trollface McGee

    The difference is, responsible S&M relationships always give the submissive the absolute power to say no and define the limits. With Debi, if there is a limit, you aren’t being a good enough wife and how dare you even suggest limits being born without a Y chromosome in the first place. So, no, even if this wasn’t touted as “Christian” it would still be irresponsible encouragement of abuse and don’t even get me started on their parenting “advice” which should be criminal.

  • Baby_Raptor

    The big difference is that in actual S&M, the sub has *all* the power.

    I’m new to S&M, getting into it because the boyfriend is. And in everything I’ve read/everyone I’ve spoken to, the very first thing laid out is that all S&M play is done at the consent of the sub, and everything stops the second the sub starts being uncomfortable. The master having all the power is an act; it’s the sub pretending to be powerless.

    This in no way reflects Debi’s marriage. She can’t even make a suggestion about shopping without Michael having a breakdown. How d’you think he’d react if she tried stopping him in bed?

  • Baby_Raptor

    You’re throwing around words that you apparently don’t understand the common usage of. “Consent,” when used in a sexual context, requires that the person giving it be fully aware of and into what’s happening. It also requires that they be capable of consenting, IE, not mentally intoxicated or in other ways hindered.

    If one of the people in a relationship is doing things that the other person is unaware of, then no. There was no consent. You cannot consent to something you didn’t know was going on.

    You cannot consent to something and still be taken advantage of if you actually consented to whatever’s happening.

    Further, please refrain from completely pulling comments out of your ass RE things you know nothing about. You “believe” it’s common that in BDSM relationships, neither party has any idea of what a healthy relationship is? What basis for this belief do you have? Do you have any statistics to back it up? Or are you just assuming and judging people because they don’t follow the same basic style you do?

  • Nightshade

    Yep, bottom line being consent and agreement. Both participants agree, both want to engage in whatever they do, no pressure, manipulation, or forcing a partner into something they don’t want or like. My 50 Shades comment was put in because I hated Christian Gray’s extreme control tactics, which may not be precise parallels, but not so different underneath IMO. But even he had the sense to back off when Ana got really fed up, I don’t think Michael could handle that.

    My 2 cents, can be taken for whatever it may be worth. :)

  • Jenny Islander

    I didn’t think I could feel sympathy for someone who systematically beat a little child for wanting to play by himself with a toy of his choosing, but this passage did it.

    Poor monster.

  • gimpi1

    I had this thought as well. Then, I had to go and wash the bad taste out of my mind.

  • http://biblicalpersonhood.wordpress.com/ Retha Faurie

    Baby_Raptor said: “If one of the people in a relationship is doing things that the other person is unaware of, then no. There was no consent….You cannot consent to something and still be taken advantage of if you actually consented to whatever’s happening.”

    Are you suggesting that supposing A say yes to something while not knowing certain facts that would have influenced her decision (for example, yes to unprotected sex because she believes her partner last had another partner 3 years ago, not 6 partners the past year), then it was in fact non-consent, and she could accuse him of rape? The point is, that way you can never really even know if what you do is consensual – if your partner lie, you are not.

    Be careful if you want to enter the BDSM scene, look deeply! According to at least one BDSM submissive who have spoken to a concerned person on the Internet when he asked, said: “People show and accept love in different ways… Ever since i can remember, i’ve shown affection through compliance- before i knew there was a word for it, i would devote all of my time, attention, openness, and trust to someone i care about. From listening and obeying my father to tending to my boyfriend’s needs. This is the most natural way i know how to show love, and unfortunately, people have taken advantage of this throughout my life.” Yes, the compliance – if you do not want to call it consent when she does not know everything – can be taken advantage of. (To make it worse, she has a boyfriend who posts his fantasies of strangling and drowning on the Internet.)

    Another person who answered me say:

    There are many different facets to those involved in the BDSM lifestyle. Are some abusers? Sure. Do some suffer from a mental imbalance that makes it unsafe for them to participate in the lifestyle? Yes. Do the abusers and the chronically abused sometimes wind up in a relationship together? Unfortunately, that too is a yes. But the same happens in every day life, outside of BDSM, as well.

    You see, some people, as far as they can see, consent. But you, from your “only if she isn’t mentally hindred is it consent” viewpoint, will say they did not consent as they suffer from an imbalance. But the abusers and mentally imbalanced are part of the scene, and the compliance of some will be taken advantage of.

    And those who claimed to be happy, say things like: “We have a mutually respectful relationship.” I go to their blogs. One of them describe a recent scene by saying that he called her a [crude term, semen receptacle] and she was utterly broken, because she so much want to be more to him. It is long after the scene when she typed the blog entry, he did not tell her otherwise, and her reaction was to promise, on her blog, she will work hard to be more to him one day. Yet, this very same woman who is called a [semen receptacle] by her friend and who is devastated because she is no more to him, tell me she is in a “mutually respectful relationship.” She does not lie to me – this is cognitive dissonance, a form of lying to the self. People in abusive realtionships (this particular one uses both BDSM and abuse to speak of her relationship) often have cognitive dissonance to cope.

    Babyraptor, be careful of the propaganda. The reality is somewhat different. Many things in BDSM overlap with either warning signs for a domestic abuser, or the definition of domestic abuse. And since consensual/non-consensual is not part of the definition for domestic abuse, those things can indeed be called abusive.

  • http://biblicalpersonhood.wordpress.com/ Retha Faurie

    I will repeat that the person who said her relationship has mutual respect/ that he sees her as only a [receptacle for semen]; the person who said abusers and the chronically abused sometimes get together in BDSM; and the one who say she have often been taken advantage of because of her compliant nature, whose boyfriend/ master talks of drowning and strangling his submissive – they are all 3 BDSM practitioners.

  • Trollface McGee

    So, you have 3 anecdotal examples of unhealthy BDSM relationships – which means all of them are? The problem isn’t the lifestyle but the people involved. Take any part of society and you will find a mix of healthy/unhealthy relationships with lots in between.
    No, abuse isn’t something one consents to, but responsible relationships aren’t abusive and BDSM relationships are not automatically abusive. Nor does lying invalidate consent except under certain specific circumstances. Nor does mental illness or trauma generally prevent someone from entering into consensual relationships. Again you have to look at the individuals and the circumstances involved. What may be fine for one couple may be horrible for another.
    For the record I’m not part of the BDSM community but as someone in the LGBT community I know all too well that an entire community often gets labelled as evil and depraved because of anecdotes or the actions of some individuals.

  • http://biblicalpersonhood.wordpress.com/ Retha Faurie

    I mention 3 because there is really not space to mention all. I am sure you have no non-anecdotal evidence of the existence of healthy BDSM relationships either. As for consent, that was a reply to Baby_Raptor’s definition of consent, a definition I disagree with.
    Some BDSM components, like controlling behaviour (Dominance is one of the things the letters in BDSM stand for), is per definition things that make relationships unhealthy. I discuss the dysfunction and immorality of this lifestyle further on my wordpress blog Christianrethinker.

  • http://biblicalpersonhood.wordpress.com/ Retha Faurie

    I agree that the problem is the people – in BDSM, people who like hurting and humiliating others (sadists) are often coupled with people who like to obey orders (submissives). This is not a bug, but a feature. If you tell me such a system is not unhealthy by definition, you got to give me the reasons you think so.

  • Trollface McGee

    I’m not putting forward the claim that all BDSM relationships are by definition unhealthy, you are, and you provide only anecdotal evidence (if you give me 10 more examples, it would still be meaningless). Give me statistics, data, studies that prove your point and I will be happy to review them.

    Like I said, I am not part of that scene but I have been repeatedly told that my LGBT “lifestyle choice” means I can’t have meaningful relationships, that I don’t want a long term partner, that I have STDs, that I have been the victim of sexual abuse and can’t meaningfully consent and other nasty nasty things because there are people who think it’s icky. When you put out words like dysfunctional and immoral, those are the same words I’ve had directed toward me and the LGBT community.

    Like Raptor described, healthy BDSM relationships are about power play where the “submissive” is in charge and the dominant’s control is an act. In fact, a lot of relationships switch back and forth about who the dom/sub party is. But how is that different than fundamentalist relationships where not only is there a dom/sub component, it is inflexible and non-negotiable?

  • http://biblicalpersonhood.wordpress.com/ Retha Faurie

    Data is not needed to see if something is unhealthy per definition. The definition of it, and agreeing on what is healthy, is.

    You may or may not agree with this simple standard of morality, but if you ask someone why he/she sees him/herself as a good person, the normal answer is: “I don’t hurt people on purpose.” BDSM, on the other hand, has sadism as part of the definition. Sadists hurt people on purpose – and like it. I’d say that is unhealthy.

    You may regard anything I say – hurting people on purpose, how BDSM fits in with the definition of domestic abuse (more on that in point 1 here http://christianrethinker.wordpress.com/2013/05/17/is-there-anything-good-about-bdsm-arguments-that-cannot-be-used-to-call-bdsm-morally-acceptable/ ) as things that do not fit your definition of unhealthy. But sadism and domestic abuse sure fits my definition of unhealthy. Even putting on acts of rape or other forms of violence, like such scenes do, IMO does not come from a love of goodness.

    But I never said anything about your lifestyle, so if I dislike the lifestyle of people of whom I asked and studied their explanations for a long time, I am not insulting you or anyone in the LGBT scene – unless they also participate in BDSM.

  • Trollface McGee

    I think we’re coming from two completely different perspectives so I think any further arguing is just going back and forth in circles and is pointless.
    From a social science standpoint as I’m looking at it, yes you certainly need data to show that a certain lifestyle is correlated with or if there’s a cause/effect relationship with harm and abuse. I’m sure, given that this has been studied by psychologists for a long time, that such data is out there. Where it lies, I don’t know because it’s not an issue I particularly follow.
    From your standpoint it’s morally wrong by definition. Which is why I bring up the LGBT issue because that’s the same argument that’s been used. It’s immoral by definition, it’s immoral because my holy book says so, it’s unnatural, etc. etc. The point is, the sociological data does not support those claims meaning they are only valid as one’s agreement with that particular opinion.

  • http://biblicalpersonhood.wordpress.com/ Retha Faurie

    I agree to disagree. Someone who don’t agree that hurting others on purpose is wrong/ unhealthy, would have no reason to agree with me on sadism (or on murder or rape or child abuse, for that matter).

    Even if I actually produced statistics as you asked of, say, people being traumatized (hurt) or more likely to be cruel (hurting others), you would not agree that I proved something unhealthy.

  • Trollface McGee

    You clearly seem to be very invested in this issue, which is why it baffles me that you don’t seem to have, or at least cite any research or scientific data to back up your claims.
    I happen to be very anti-murder, rape, child abuse, hurting people, boiling puppies, using babies as emergency footballs, etc. (and I can be against all these things and still disagree with you – magic!). But I see no need to derail this thread any further so good day!