The men of the ‘Gospel Coalition’ really, really hate women

What in the name of all that is holy is wrong with these people?

Before we go on I should note that much of what follows could be triggering — because apparently in order to discuss something called “The Gospel Coalition,” we’re also going to need to discuss rape and rape culture and what these strange, cruel men refer to as sexual conquering in the name of their strange, cruel God.

Because, sweet Jesus, these men have issues. The Gospel Coalition is really bad news.

For some reason this Gospel Coalition bunch — neo-Calvinist patriarchal types in the John Piper/Mark Driscoll/T.J. Mackey mold — decided to weigh in on the current popularity of 50 Shades of Grey.

Rachel Held Evans summarizes:

In a post on the GC Web site entitled “The Polluted Waters of 50 Shades of Grey, etc,” Jared Wilson argues that the popularity of 50 Shades of Grey simply reflects a perversion of the proper, God-ordained relationship of authority and submission between men and women. To support his point, he quotes from Douglas Wilson’s book, Fidelity: What it Means to be a One-Woman Man:

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. 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 … 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.

This man is unwell, unwhole and unhinged. God have mercy on Mrs. Wilson, and on all her daughters.

Evans responds:

There is so much about this passage that I, as a woman, find inaccurate, degrading, and harmful that it’s hard to know where to begin. That Wilson blames egalitarianism for the presence of rape and sexual violence in the world is ludicrous and unsubstantiated. His characterization of sex as an act of conquering and colonization is disturbing, and his notion that women are little more than the passive recipients of this colonization, who simply “accept” penetration, is as ignorant as it is degrading.

She goes on, at great length, to conquer the Wilsons’ hateful assertions with a penetrating argument. Read the whole thing.

J.R. Daniel Kirk points out that in Jesus’ name no, this is not a healthy view of sex and gender, or a biblical view, or a Christian view:

When you sexually conquer someone, this is rape. … I am embarrassed for Christianity that such an advocacy of rape (marital or otherwise) could find itself onto a websites that boasts of being one of a “Gospel” coalition.

Scot McKnight is just as blunt, writing “Take it down” and calling on the group to remove it’s cruel, degrading and “woefully ignorant” post.

Grace at Are Women Human? has a long and thoughtful response: “Doug Wilson, The Gospel Coalition, and Sanctified Rape Culture“:

Wilson goes much farther than any rape apologist Christian writer I’ve ever read, and that’s a lot of people. His notion of godly sex is little more than sanctified rape. In the name of Jesus.

He also says (as Jared Wilson states in a comment defending this filth) that “rape is judgment upon a culture that does not cherish and protect women.” We should be OK with this, according to Jared, because Doug Wilson isn’t blaming rape survivors for being raped. He’s only blaming all women who want to be treated equally and all of our allies. That’s all.

So just who is this twisted “Doug Wilson” creature, anyway? Glad you asked. Grace provides some more background on this horrible trainwreck of a human being:

Doug Wilson is not only a rape apologist; he’s also a slavery apologist. And contrary to Jared Wilson’s dismissal of commenters who repeatedly tried to point this out, this is absolutely relevant to Wilson’s teachings about obligatory female submission in sex.

Wilson is the co-author with Steve Wilkins, a white supremacist, of a pamphlet called Southern Slavery as it Was, which claims that Southern slavery “was not an adversarial relationship with pervasive racial animosity” but a relationship between “friends and often intimates.”

Jesus wept.

Stay in touch with the Slacktivist on Facebook:

Gravity always wins
Don't let the rain make you unhappy
White evangelicals and 'the social upheaval of the '60s'
The Revolution is just a T-shirt away
  • Loki100

    Do these people realize there is a very, very, very popular sexual fetish where women dominate men?

    Of course they don’t…

  • LMM22

    Savage has mentioned several times that one issue among kinksters is that the ratio of submissives to dominants is ridiculously high. (This is apparently worse in the gay community; among heterosexuals, the male-to-female ratio skews things to begin with.)

  • Lori

    Savage has mentioned several times that one issue among kinksters is
    that the ratio of submissives to dominants is ridiculously high. (This
    is apparently worse in the gay community; among heterosexuals, the
    male-to-female ratio skews things to begin with.)  

    This is one of many issues where I differ from Dan Savage. I think that he’s responding less to reality than to common, erroneous assumptions. I don’t think the ratio is actually anywhere near as skewed as people tend think it is. I think the problem is more that we have a very narrow picture of what it means to be dominant. I think there are many people out there who incline toward dominant or at least switch and don’t realize it because they look at the standard images of folks wearing a lot of black leather and mean facial expressions* and think, “That’s not me so I must not be a Dom.”

    Also, what Noah said: http://goodmenproject.com/noseriouslywhatabouttehmenz/why-i-dont-believe-in-the-domme-deficit/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=why-i-dont-believe-in-the-domme-deficit

    *Not that there’s anything wrong with that at all if that’s what you’re into. It’s just not the only way to be a dominant. 

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    I think that he’s responding less to reality than to common, erroneous assumptions.

    Ayup.

    One thing I have noticed, though I haven’t even done any surveys about it, let alone anything approaching real science: Men looking for women seems to be the most common thing in the broader BDSM community. Submissive or dominant, it’s seems much more likely for men who want women to have a harder time finding someone than women who want men.

    A female dominant who says “I’m looking for a male sub” will get dozens upon dozens upon dozens of applications, sight-unseen. All the female doms I know who are looking had to set up a strict set of criteria that they could use to throw away applications at first glance. And yes, applications, because they get SO MANY men begging for their attention.

    Female subs looking for male doms… don’t really have to look much. Look to find someone compatible, yes, especially if they’re looking for a committed romantic relationship as well. But not any more than anyone else does for a committed romantic relationship. Even woman subs who make it clear that they are 100% not available get hit on by dominant (or supposedly dominant) men all. The. Time. That does not regularly happen the other way around.

  • LMM22

     I think that [Savage is] responding less to reality than to common, erroneous assumptions. I don’t think the ratio is actually anywhere near as skewed as people tend think it is. I think the problem is more that we have a very narrow picture of what it means to be dominant.

    That really doesn’t match well with where — from what I’ve seen — Savage gets his conclusions. If anything, his opinions tend to be derived from anecdata — i.e. from the tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands? millions?) of letters and emails he’s gotten over the years. (e.g. His historic position — and he *has* gotten better about this — about bisexuals seems to have been based on the complaints he’s gotten from individuals whose partners, far after the fact, admit to *really* wanting to have sex with the other gender.) And, from what he’s said, the letters he’s gotten have been from couples where both partners are submissives, at least in bed. (And, honestly, it doesn’t matter what sort of narrow picture you have: the question is whether or not you’re willing to take that role with a partner  during sex — and whether the partner you have who *is* a sub sees you as dominant in that interaction.)

    As for the skewed gender ratio, the issue is (apparently) not a different ratio of subs to doms among the genders — the issue apparently is the different ratio of men who admit to being kinky to women who admit to being kinky.

  • http://twitter.com/Jenk3 Jen K

    See also the marriage counselors who say they never see happy non-monogamous clients.  The happy ones may not bother contacting a marriage counselor, or they search out one who is a part of the non-monogamous community.

  • LMM22

    See also the marriage counselors who say they never see happy non-monogamous clients. (re: selection bias and Dan Savage)

    Well, yes — but when it comes to observing that there are more people who are *functionally* submissive during sex than there are people who are functionally dominant, I think that his anecdata is most likely more reliable than any sort of overall survey or sociological explanation. (If there *were* an even mix, one would assume he’d be getting a decent number of letters saying “hey, we’re both dominants — how is this going to work?” — And, seriously, it’s not like Savage isn’t BDSM-friendly.) And I seriously wonder how many people are willing to admit their preferences on a survey — let alone actually identify them from practice.

    So, short of having trained researchers sleep with a blinded, randomized sample of people, anecdata it is.

  • Lori

    That really doesn’t match well with where — from what I’ve seen —
    Savage gets his conclusions. If anything, his opinions tend to be
    derived from anecdata — i.e. from the tens of thousands (hundreds of
    thousands? millions?) of letters and emails he’s gotten over the years.  

    I have no idea how many letters Dan Savage has received over the years. I do know that they’ve mostly been from a self-selecting sample of the population who want advice from Dan Savage about some problem they’re having. In short, sampling problems, he haz them.

    Also, if you have people who are dom and don’t realize it then they’re not likely to connect with submissive partners. This will tend to contribute to relationship issues.

     

    And, honestly, it doesn’t matter what sort of narrow picture you have:
    the question is whether or not you’re willing to take that role with a
    partner  during sex — and whether the partner you have who *is* a sub
    sees you as dominant in that interaction. 

    The picture that you and your partner have of what a Dom is has everything to do with whether or not you’re willing to take on that role with a partner during sex.

  • LMM22

    Look: Like I said, self-selection (in this case from people who are unhappy) and some interaction with the BDSM community is about as good a set of data as you are going to get. Sociological shit? Hypothetical guesswork? None of that is going to do you any good.

    And, no, the picture that you and your partner have of what a Dom looks like may or may not have *anything* to do with whether or not you’re going to take that role in bed. I am a *total* sub. I don’t fit any of the stereotypes of what someone who is a sub looks like out of bed, and the chances that I’ll admit my preferences in an anonymous letter to an advice columnist are *much* higher than the chances that you’ll ever see me admit my preferences, while sober, to anyone else on the planet who I am not best friends with.

    This isn’t about gender differences. This is about the fact that, in all BDSM communities, the number of people who are submissive are far greater than the number who are dominant. (In heterosexual relationships, the fact that there are more kinky men than women makes such issues less visible.)

    I don’t know why you’re obsessively resisting this idea. Or, for that matter, failing to read the rest of the exchanges we’ve been having about them.

  • Lori

     

    I don’t know why you’re obsessively resisting this idea. Or, for that
    matter, failing to read the rest of the exchanges we’ve been having
    about them.  

    Nice. I am not “obsessively resisting” you idea. I’m pointing out that letters to Dan Savage are not the be all and end all on the issue. It sounds like Savage’s mail confirms you experience, which may be why you think it has weight. It does not confirm mine or the experience of other people that I know, which is part of the reason I can see the problems with relying on it as a data source.

     

    This isn’t about gender differences. This is about the fact that, in all
    BDSM communities, the number of people who are submissive are far
    greater than the number who are dominant. (In heterosexual
    relationships, the fact that there are more kinky men than women makes such issues less visible.)  

    The hell?

    Do you actually not understand that there may be factors driving these observations that have nothing to do with actual desires and everything to do with socialization?

  • LMM22

    It sounds like Savage’s mail confirms you experience, which may be why you think it has weight. It does not confirm mine or the experience of other people that I know, which is part of the reason I can see the problems with relying on it as a data source.

    Great. There are *just* as many dominants out there as submissives, it’s just that we have far worse stereotypes about dominants than we do about submissives and so they fail to self-identify. All of those relationships in which people complain that *both* of them want to sub are just delusions! Sociological theories have far more weight than any sort of (repeatedly confirmed, if you bothered to read the rest of the thread) anecdata out there! Armchair theorists FTW!

    Whatever. This isn’t worth arguing over. If that’s how you feel, that’s how you feel.

  • Lori

    The reason that this isn’t worth arguing over it that you’re totally mis-characterizing what I’ve said. (And also what’s been said by other people in the thread.) I can’t tell if we’re just talking past each other or if you’re willfully misunderstanding me because I’m disagreeing with you. Disagreement which is based on personal experience, your beloved anecdata, not just “sociological theory”.

    Either way, you’re right that it’s not worth it to continue.

  • The_L1985

    I’m not a Domme because when I get the urge to dominate, it is coupled with extreme, hard-core sadism, to an extent that terrifies me. I would end up badly injuring people, and that’s not the point of BDSM at all.

  • The_L1985

    If switches didn’t exist, the BDSM community would be screwed. Or not screwed. I’m not really sure which one fits better.

  • Tricksterson

    They may be aware of it, they just stuff it in the Encyclopedia Britannica sized file they keep in their heads labeled “Sexual Abominations.”  It’s why there’s so little room in their brains for anything else.

  • Caravelle

    They may be aware of it, they just stuff it in the Encyclopedia Britannica sized file they keep in their heads labeled “Sexual Abominations.” It’s why there’s so little room in their brains for anything else.

    When I read that my first reflex was “Encyclopedia Britannica ?? How last century ! Have you heard of Wikipedia ?”

    But then I got the image of a Conservative-Christian-maintained Wiki of Sexual Abominations and my brain just dissolved into evil laughter.

  • fraser

     Caravelle, some reflexes outlast all logic. After all, it’s been years since NASA was on the cutting edge of modern technology, but the phrase is still “He’s no rocket scientist.”

  • Tricksterson

    In some ways I’m a very last century kind of guy.  And by “last century” I mean the 19th (albeit a steampunk 19th because i was born in the 20th.

  • Parhelion

    What is wrong with these people?  Judging by their their own standards, I would start with their beliefs that all sex they don’t control is sinful and that their own anger and pride are not.

    Even as an outside observer, I believe the appropriate phrase is “Jesus wept.”

  • Nequam

    She goes on, at great length, to conquer the Wilsons’ hateful assertions with a penetrating argument.

    What you did there– I see it.

  • Jeff Weskamp

    I think my soul just threw up.

    I swear, these assholes are doing more harm to American Christianity than Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and all the rest of the so-called “New Atheists” combined!!!

  • Parhelion

     Writing from much closer to the atheist side of things, I’d have to agree. The new atheists occasionally make me roll my eyes and wander over to hear what the Christians have to say.  Guys like this Gospel Coalition bunch make me want to run far, far away from any discussion ever involving the word “gospel”.  Good news? Really?

  • LunaticFringe

    “Colonizes”? Should…should there be little flags in there?

  • Loki100

    “Colonizes”? Should…should there be little flags in there?

    Aren’t you aware that sex is based on Mercantile economics? No one had sex until Jean-Baptiste Colbert wrote his famous sex manual.

    (This is possibly the most obscure, esoteric, nerdy joke I have ever written)

  • hidden_urchin

    “Colonizes”? Should…should there be little flags in there?

    I just thought of this excellent Eddie Izzard clip:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEx5G-GOS1k

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/C74ZHZABOHE2I6JIIQ4M4R7PLI Rob

    “Do you have a flag?”
    That is so HOT.

  • Caravelle

    That sounds painful.

  • Twig

    Leave it up!  Please, I want to see people like this coming!  It’s like that guy I saw once in the ‘No Fat Chicks’ shirt at the convenience store – he was nice enough to tell me exactly what sort of a person he was right up front, so I didn’t have to make any pesky assumptions about decency or goodness.

  • fraser

    Come on now, this Wilson guy nails it. Everyone knows that before women’s lib turned American women into man-hating harridans, there wasn’t one single case of rape in all human history. (That was sarcasm).

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Appelget/100000185646776 Steven Appelget

    Kyrie eleison.

  • TheDarkArtist

    Fred, I love your blog. It’s like a zoo full of crypto-zoological creatures. Terrifying beings that I never imagined actually existed out in the wild. People who don’t understand ideas such as “fantasy”, “consent” or “a vagina isn’t an untamed wilderness.” Chilling chimeras. Things that should not be!

  • SisterCoyote

    ow.

    Ow.

    But no seriously, liberal Christianity is in trouble.

    “Sexism is dead.”

    “Racism is dead.”

    “Look, is anyone in favor of sexism? No? Okay, let’s get back to the jokes then.”

    …ow.

  • http://twitter.com/mikailborg Michael O’Brien

    This perhaps needn’t be said, but BDSM isn’t rape. BDSM, even the not-exactly-accurate kind in “50 Shades” is consensual. When everyone’s doing as they are supposed to, a BDSM scene can be stopped in a second by a codeword or action. Try that with a rapist.

  • http://twitter.com/Jenk3 Jen K

    But that’s the problem with BDSM! How dare people choose to have sex in ways they want to instead of following the explicit directions of Approved Real True Christian[tm] Sex Manuals! 

  • Jared Bascomb

    >>A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts.  <<
    This reads like something from an Andrea Dworkin/Catharine MacKinnon manifesto, except they would have written the last part as "forced to accept".

    Once again, the loony left meets the radical right and it ain't pretty.

  • Jenny Islander

    This idea that sex must always mean a man putting his penis into a woman’s vagina as she lies there pops up in the oddest places.  I came across it in a discussion about transhumanism, specifically Sex 2.0, the thrust of which was an attempt to make sex penetrate-ier.  No discussion of, oh, reprogramming the nerves in the ear to make phone sex sexier, or better gloves for better touch across long distances, or how zero gee might affect physical response.  Just jack in socket.

    This is a lot skeevier, however.  I don’t want to conquered, colonized, or planted, and my husband does not want my surrender, because he isn’t fantasizing about towsing me while wearing a conquistador’s breastplate, for crying out loud.  As for penetration, the exact physical details of my private time with my husband are not this creeper’s business.

    Why in the hell does every single moment of life–sex, childhood, school, work, everything–have to be a reenactment of rituals of submission for these people?  Can’t we honor each other as members of the body of Christ without having to decide which ones are on top?

  • LMM22

      I came across it in a discussion about transhumanism, specifically Sex 2.0, the thrust of which was an attempt to make sex penetrate-ier.

    Which brings to mind the opening line of _Steel Beach_ (quoted from memory):

    “In seven years,” the salesman said, “the penis will be obsolete.”

  • Sigaloenta

    Conquest? Colonization? I know that misogynists as supposed to be frightened of female sexuality, but this is taking it to an entirely new level. It’s a vagina, you guys, not the Heart of Darkness!

    (The confluence of metaphors is kind of amazing.  Congratulations Gospel Coalition, you have correctly realized that rape is kind of like  violent conquest, which is what the colonial enterprise is, and this metaphor is also often used for talking about overuse and misuse of natural resources to serve human greed in a post-lapsarian age. Next step: getting out of your mirror universe where these things aren’t all reprehensible.)

  • PJ Evans

    getting out of your mirror universe where these things aren’t all reprehensible

    How about just sending them back to that universe and closing the door permanently?

  • Tricksterson

    I suggest shipping them off to Gor.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Appelget/100000185646776 Steven Appelget

    I don’t want to hear that crew complaining that they aren’t “homophobic” anymore.  Because this crap clearly shows their _fear_.  Their fear of penetration, of colonization, of conquest.  Fear.

  • Random Lurker

    This man is obviously mentally ill, and needn’t be a concern.  What is concerning is that there are apparently people that listen to him.

  • c2t2

    I want to find this guy and argue back that no, the man doesn’t “penetrate, conquer, and colonize” the woman’s body… The woman envelops, consumes, and appropriates the man’s body! Obviously.

    He’d get a major case of the creeps, but I don’t think he would pick up on the lesson. Turning the tables only works when empathy is involved. *sigh*

  • Lawrence LaPointe

    Charlie Pierce today hit it on the head (albeit on a different topic)
    I remain convinced that American conservative thought is now not a philosophy but, rather, a book of spells, a series of conjuring words that have meaning only to the initiates.

  • Clabough

    From the woman who knows the man the best, his wife: http://www.bchesaidso.blogspot.com/2012/07/so-grateful-for-jared-wilson.html

  • Lunch Meat

    As Jared’s wife, I’m *pretty sure* I am more aware of his intentions and behaviors related to sex and his views of it than most. And as such, I would like to say that he is the OPPOSITE of a misogynist and vehemently opposed to rape or forceful /overpowering /humiliating /degrading sex of any kind.

    Honey, just because it’s not violent doesn’t mean it’s not rape. If he is not “asking” but “conquering” and he expects you to “surrender” and “accept” no matter what your feelings might be, that may not be rape in your eyes, but it’s pretty damn close. And if he thinks women are incapable of initiating sex and men are incapable of accepting, he’s both sexist and factually incorrect.

    And even if his sexual behavior/attitudes is less forceful than he makes it sound, he’s still encouraging and enabling violent conquering sexual behavior in other men, and he’s causing real pain to women who have been raped or abused and who hear his words. That may not be rape, but it’s contributing to rape culture, and it does real harm. It’s sinful. Your husband may be decent to you and your children in private, but his words hurt others.

    Jared does, however, conquer (to gain, win, or obtain by effort) my heart daily because of his sacrificial provision, his tender love, and his humble service to my daughters and me, his selfless service to our church, and his unwavering commitment to and passion for Jesus and the Gospel.

    The fact that you have to make use of the third, much less common definition and connotation out of four* in order to drastically twist and reinterpret your husband’s plain and obvious meaning either means that he is a terrible communicator or you don’t know him as well as you thought.

    *”1. to acquire by force of arms; win in war: to conquer a foreign land.
    2. to overcome by force; subdue: to conquer an enemy.
    4. to gain a victory over; surmount; master; overcome: to conquer disease and poverty; to conquer one’s fear.”

  • Lori

     I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.

  • http://www.blogger.com/home?pli=1 Coleslaw

    From the woman who knows the man the best, his wife: http://www.bchesaidso.blogspot…

    Maybe she is the woman who knows the man the best, but I’m not sure we can infer that solely from the fact that she is his wife.

  • http://jesustheram.blogspot.com/ Mr. Heartland

    Damn.  Am I the only one feeling a weird urge to listen to Rammstein right now? 

    Seriously though, I’m generally the ‘passive’ partner in heterosexual pairings.  Largely because I’m near pathologically shy and unimaginative until aroused.   But also because, I like it that way.   A lot.  Can you handle that creepy bedroom conquistador guy?  

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Charity-Brighton/100002974813787 Charity Brighton

     I get the feeling that he never has sex unless he’s actually dressed in chainmail and carrying a scimitar.

  • The_L1985

    That is the most hilarious mental image I’ve had in a while.

  • Rhubarbarian82

    Maybe this says more about me than anyone else, but light to moderate
    BDSM is such a baseline, gateway fetish that I barely even consider it
    kinky anymore. I don’t think it approaches real “kink” territory until
    you start building a sex dungeon in the spare bedroom.

    Although, I guess when you consider that there are still people who consider oral sex kinky…

  • AnonymousSam

    … To the point that there are people who think it should still be illegal…

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    “I don’t think it approaches real “kink” territory until
    you start building a sex dungeon in the spare bedroom.”

    Aaw, that means those of us who can’t afford to do that can’t be really kinky :(.

    I don’t see much of a point to drawing lines between kinky/not kinky. I do some stuff that other people would find completely weird and never do. Other people do stuff that I find completely weird and would never do. Sex is weird. 

  • Lori

    Yup. The weirdest, kinkiest thing you can even think of is someone else’s “just another Tuesday” and the thing you think of as so normal and every day that it’s not really worth talking about is someone else’s total freak out. I have no major objection to the terms “kink” and “kinky”, but I think ultimately they’re based on false notions about “normal”.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon
    “I don’t think it approaches real “kink” territory until you start building a sex dungeon in the spare bedroom.”

    Aaw, that means those of us who can’t afford to do that can’t be really kinky :(.

    Oh, there are options.  There are certain, err, call them “community centers” or “member-owned clubs” where one can go to express certain, uh, alternative forms of sexual expression.

    Not that I know anything about this.  *Ahem*

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    Unfortunately, those clubs and centers aren’t good for those people who are monogamous and also neither voyeuristic nor exhibitionist :(. 

  • The_L1985

    But sex dungeons are expensive! Rope and handcuffs are a lot cheaper than a St. Andrew’s cross or something.

  • Mau de Katt

    That’s why you attach strong eyebolts into your ceiling beams.  You can disguise them as planter-hanger anchors when they’re not in “active” use.

  • Isabel C.

    Heh, yes.

    I read Cosmo at the gym and the hair salon, and every so often they’ll run a letter to the effect of “Oh my God, I think I might like to be tied up, what’s wrong with me?”

    And my immediate response is “…well, you seem to have spent the last ten years in a cave, for one thing.” But yeah. Goes along with the “oh my God my SO watches porn!” letters:  what is this, rumspringa month? 

  • Tybult

    A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. 

    Well that’s just dandy, as if I weren’t loaded down with enough self-loathing before this. Now I come to find out that I have a built-in drive to colonize women?

    Excuse me while I go stare at myself in the mirror and cry.

  • Lunch Meat

    So, um, why did God create a female orgasm if we’re just supposed to lie there and “accept”?

  • ConservativeWhitebread

    To uh, tempt away from teh boner focus?
    and/or
    there is no such thing as a female orgasm, silly.

  • Caravelle

    there is no such thing as a female orgasm, silly.

    And insofar as some women claim to feel one it’s probably caused by Satan.

    BURN THE WITCH !!!

  • JustoneK

    wait what?  This has really been said?

  • Caravelle

     Not that I know of, I’m just being facetious. That said I am drawing on some well-known attitudes relating to female sexuality, and the Monty Python quote wasn’t completely random – witches were associated with having sex with demons IIRC. So I don’t think it’s ever been said, but I wouldn’t be overly surprised to find out some kook had actually said something like that.

  • JustoneK

    The fact it’s so frighteningly plausible is why I had to ask if it had been officially said somewhere.

  • Tricksterson

    Clearly an invention of Satan.

  • Mau de Katt

     Why do you think so many ultra-patriarchal cultures cut those female naughty bits away in the name of  “purity”?

  • Consumer Unit 5012

     I get the impression a lot of RTCs _say_ God created humans, but they think He subcontracted out the pink bits to Satan.

  • LectorElise

    Should I even ask what he thinks of lesbians? 

  • WingedBeast

    I think we should also bare in mind the other side of Douglas Wilson’s quote.  The “Patriarchy is Bad for Men, Too” part.

    Bare in mind that this quote doesn’t just talk in terms of taking agency away from women (they are to be conquered and colonized as though those terms aren’t horrible enough without associating them with sex) but also from men (who aren’t allowed to have sex in any way save missionary, with women who take any enjoyment, or for the sake of intimacy with their chosen partner).

    This sexual philosophy isn’t just a world of raped women, it’s a world of less obviously raped men where nobody has a safe-word.

    Sheesh, why does Conservative theology remind me so much of 1984?

  • The_L1985

    That jives pretty well with the opinion I had.

    So why are we getting naked in your mind? (bear in mind that I’m pedantic about grammar)

  • WingedBeast

    To paraphrase 1984 “To do our duty to God”.

    If we’re living in the Douglas Wilson’s Utopia, all sex is limited to two purposes.  Purpose 1; Domination by man over woman.  Purpose 2; the submission of man unto church/God/Douglas Wilson’s Moral Values.  Both purposes must be simultanious.

    church/God/Moral Vaues of Douglas Wilson (or, in George Orwell’s dystopia “The State”) forces upon man duty of sex which he meekly accepts and in turn forces upon woman the act of sex which she meekly accepts.

    Absent said domination by whatever, man could do something revolutionary, like attempt to enjoy sex for its own act, an act which, for a psychologically healthy human being, includes the enjoyment of others that are both involved and actively participating.  And, that could lead to dancing.

  • Tricksterson

    “who aren’t allowed to have sex in any way save missionary”

    Stupid and boring but whatever

    “with womn who take any enjoyment”

    Wait, what?  He SAID that?  Why would any sane man not want his partner not to enjoy the act of sex.  I can  put being indifferent as to wether or not she enjoys it to normal asshatery but to think her enjoying it is wrong?  That’s blatantly insane.

    “or for the sake of intimacy”

    I’d repkly to this but the second part has already blown my mind beyound thecapabiliy of scorn.

  • Tricksterson

    Oops, double negative there.  should read “Why would any sane man not want his partner to enjoy the act of sex.”

  • guest

    I just recently read a woman describing her experience with no-strings/friends with benefits sex, who said she was often told ‘orgasms are for girlfriends’.  I was shocked; I’d never heard of that attitude before…but I have interacted with men who seem to think that ‘making her come’ was some kind of proof that they’re awesome at sex, rather than something coming from the idea that if two people are doing something together they should both be enjoying it.

  • Lori

     

    I just recently read a woman describing her experience with
    no-strings/friends with benefits sex, who said she was often told
    ‘orgasms are for girlfriends’.    

    So clearly the guy is a total ass, but I have a question for the woman as well. For the love of FSM, why would you have a FWB thing going with a guy who has no interest in you getting benefits and who tells you that flat out, so it’s not like there’s room to believe the situation will get better?

    I could understand just wanting to be with another person, even if the sex isn’t fab. I understand skin hunger. I just don’t think a guy who believes you aren’t worth making any effort for at all is A) a friend and B) someone it would be enjoyable/comforting to be touched by.

    I can’t decide if I’m more horrified or depressed by the whole situation.

  • guest

    I don’t know, women have sex with men (people have sex with people) for all sorts of reasons other than to experience an orgasm.

  • Lori

     It’s not just the lack of orgasm, it’s the lack of respect. What is that guy giving her that’s worth being with someone who says straight out that she’s not worth the effort of being a good lover? The fact that they talked about it enough for her to have been told that “orgasms are for girlfriends”* would seem to indicate that she has some interest in having them.

    In the circumstances described I can think of many reasons for her to be having sex with this guy and they’re all kind of depressing to me.

    *Is sexual satisfaction in some way a reward for doing the other things involved in being a girlfriend or does the guy have some sort of weird version of the Madonna/whore thing going where only women “good enough” to be girlfriends deserve the effort it takes for them to have orgasms during sex? Is he just lazy and selfish beyond belief? Inquiring minds and all that.

  • The_L1985

    That’s just stupid. When I play Scrabble with a friend, and the friend is having fun, that doesn’t automatically mean I’m awesome at Scrabble. (I’m not all that good at Scrabble, actually. Just ask my mother–she stomps me in Words on a regular basis.)

  • WingedBeast

    Item of note: He didn’t explicitly state either of those three points that I stated.  I rather inferred them from the quote.

    For missionary, I was working from the odds.

    As for being refused the right to have sex with a woman who takes enjoyment or for the sake of intimacy, that’s the natural conclusion of roles which are limited to man=conquerer and woman=acceptor.  This isn’t a world where the two are roleplaying conquerer and colonized (hey, there’s a kink for everybody it’s on the internet) but where the real roles are exactly that in real life.

  • Erista

    Oh for the love of . . .

    Saying that “rape” fantasies have anything to do with actual rape is basically the same as saying that dressing up as Spiderman on Halloween means you want super-villains to come attack your city. Tip: if you’re having trouble understanding why one does not necessitate the other, you have serious issues.

  • ReverendRef

    Jesus wept.

    Oh . . . I’m pretty sure it was more than that.  In my mind, it went more like this:

    “Holy fucking shit!  Dad!!!  Did you see this?!?!?”

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    My reaction: (O_O) Whooooooooooa.

    Seriously, how do you respond to such a He-Man gender-essentialist concept of sexuality and sexual interaction that is so damagingly limited in its worldview?  What happened to women and men (or men and men, women and women) teasing, flirting, interacting sexually as equals or even with ‘reversal of roles’?

    *sigh*. It’s kind of saddening to know there are people like this.

  • Trixie_Belden

    Doug Wilson is not only a rape apologist; he’s also a slavery apologist ….. Wilson is the co-author with Steve Wilkins, a white supremacist, of a pamphlet called Southern Slavery as it Was which claims that Southern slavery “was not an adversarial relationship with pervasive racial animosity” but a relationship between “friends and often intimates.”

    This is not a surprise. 

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    Wow. I’m not even going to bother with this frightening rape cheerleader.

    On to stuff I find more interesting: submitting in BDSM is not passive. It is incredibly active, mindful, and oh yeah, CONSENSUAL. Actually I wish there was a better word than “consent” that we used for sex generally. Consent can imply that you’re just letting someone else do something, when that’s really not enough.

    BDSM is totally mutual. A dominant who wants to actually literally conquer people is not a good dominant. It’s pretty commonly acknowledged within the community that most of BDSM centers around and is done mostly for the benefit of the submissive. 

    Someone in a BDSM community one of my friends is active in did something very like what Christian Grey does in the beginning of 50 Shades of Grey, right down to the paperwork. (PAPERWORK WTF.) He was drummed out, not welcome at anything any longer. That crap book is not about BDSM and it’s not about erotic dominance and submission. It’s about an abuser who is rescued by the love of the right woman. That’s an old, old fantasy, and the way it’s presented in 50 Shades is not revolutionary in any way.  I’m exhausted by the media pretending it’s anything new.

  • ReverendRef

     Actually I wish there was a better word than “consent” that we used for sex generally.

    What about PARTICIPANT?

    Because a rape victim certainly doesn’t participate in that act.  And, getting away from the rape issue to something much more tolerable, there’s a big difference between the times my wife consents to sex and the times she participates.

    And if you’re wondering . . . yeah, Episcopal priests have sex.

  • Tricksterson

    May I suggest “mutually participatory”  A bit verbose I’ll admit but the best i can com up with on short notice.

  • AnonymousSam

    It’s pretty commonly acknowledged within the community that most of BDSM centers around and is done mostly for the benefit of the submissive.

    This. So much this. And it’s true to the point that some of the only arguments my SO and I have had is who “has” to be the dominant one.

    I swear, no one who hasn’t truly had these yearnings has the slightest idea what they’re like and should be treated like a criminal if they attempt to speak on behalf of those who do.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    Which is why it will be a great day when we invent a robot that can be programmed to dominate both partners at the same time.

    Or perhaps I have said too much.

  • AnonymousSam

    Well, you know, Japan is pioneering field of AI and robotic automatons…

  • Mark Z.

    Yeah, but some of us don’t like tentacles.

  • AnonymousSam

    You know what they say, “Once you’ve gone Cthulhu,

    “R’lyeh wgah’nagl fhtagn!”

  • We Must Dissent

    My first reaction was “Holy fuck!”, but I realized that it was exactly the opposite. “Fucking hell!” seems much more accurate.

  • Emcee, cubed

    One of the biggest misconceptions about BDSM  relationships is how the power dynamic works. People not involved in BDSM assume that power resides in the dom. This is untrue. In a positive BDSM relationship. the power resides in the sub. The sub sets the limits, gives over control, and can take it back again at any time. The only power the dom has is what the sub chooses to give them.*

    *Okay, the dom also has the power to stop a scene or roleplay if they feel uncomfortable with anything as well. So the dom has some power, but it is a more passive power, in terms of not doing something. The active power, allowing something to happen, resides in the sub.

  • Jenny Islander

    @Lori: I always remember a couple of missionary stories when this topic comes up.  The first (secondhand from a friend of the missionary wife) concerns a woman who went to a village in a country in Africa whose name I don’t recall, dressed in the missionary-standard modest shirt and baggy shorts, and got stared at everywhere she went.  Finally somebody explained that breasts were totally meh, nobody cared whether she wore a shirt or not, but she couldn’t go out in public with . . . those just sticking out in plain sight of God and radar, because any man who saw her K-N-E-E-S would automatically think of . . . higher things.  So she switched to the local long, full skirt, and eventually ditched the shirt.  The second was an article by an anthropologist, IIRC in Nigeria although I’ve lost the link, who had to explain to the local women that tourists stared at them because they were attracted to their breasts–and the women all went, “O.o foreign men are a bunch of kinky freaks, do they wear diapers in bed too?”  Because everybody knows that breasts are strictly for babies.

  • Tricksterson

    Until around the 19th century and even well into that Wetern fashions favored low cut bodices combined with floor, or at best, ankle length skirts.  As a leg anf butt man I am most happy this has changed.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/4AIOQIHJD6UMQWCPKNDKIDA24Y Jaracai Williams

    Damn heathen.

  • nirrti

     If I ever write a book, I would be thrilled for some religious organization to call it “perverted” Doesn’t this dude know he’s doing the author of 50 Shades a huge favor by giving her free publicity plus making it seem even more titillating by condemning it? I guess these folks still haven’t learned their lesson from “Last Temptation of Christ” or “Harry Potter”.

  • Tonio

    Dan Ackroyd’s Dragnet movie, hardly a cinematic classic, featured an alliance between a Hefner-type publisher and and a scheming televangelist. I doubt that this explicit situation happens in real life, but I do suspect that publishers of things like 50 Shades may use more subtle forms of encouraging controversy. Perhaps they use intermediaries to leak upcoming works to mid-level staffers in the religious-right organizations.

    Did something like this happen with Potter or Temptation? I think the backlash against the former was unexpected, even by Scholastic who published the series in the US. Ditto for Scorcese, who seems to be an artist first and a Catholic second and might not have fully grasped the mentality of Protestant fundamentalists.

  • http://apolarity.com/ Adrenalin Tim

     an alliance between a Hefner-type publisher and and a scheming televangelist. I doubt that this explicit situation happens in real life

    I remember reading about a bit of teaming up between religious broadcasters & adult/non-“family-friendly” channels in opposition to a scheme to make cable channels available à la carte.

  • Tonio

    Or how about the uneasy alliance between feminists and fundamentalists who oppose porn, even though they have far different attitudes (to put it mildly) about female self-determination? 

  • Tricksterson

    It wasn’t just Protestants, in fact IIRC that was the first time the Catholic League made big headlines.

  • PJ Evans

     The more conservative Catholics got up in arms about that one, too, as well as other movies. Nothing like wanting a movie banned before it’s even been reviewed, let alone opened in theaters.

  • Jeff Weskamp

    That’s why Tipper Gore’s organization stopped protesting specific albums back in the Nineties, and instead shifted its efforts to political lobbying*.  Every time they protested an album, its sales would increase.  And the louder they protested, the more sales went up.

    *Where they were much more successful.  The little “Parental Advisory” stickers you see on CD’s today are a direct result of their lobbying.

  • The_L1985

    I’m still waiting for one of those types to discover Bible Black. I want to see if such a person is even capable of watching any of it without his/her head exploding.

    Quick note: DO NOT look up the above at work. It is porn, of the Satanic-rape-and-bizarre-bodily-transformations kind.

  • AnonymousSam

    I’d love to see that reaction. Especially to the thought of a woman [data expunged] to a man in complete and utter role-reversal.

    Head exploding probably would be the most likely outcome. Still, it’s not science until you test the hypothesis!

  • Tonio

    Wilson’s hateful “theory” about BDSM sounds very similar to homophobic claims that homosexuality is misdirected impulses caused by corruption of gender “norms.” 

  • Caravelle

    The best part is still Jared’s responses to the comments though. I haven’t had the courage to go through his whole post yet but the first two lines are already priceless :

    What if you published a post that was for sexuality that serves and
    protects and against “rape fantasy” erotica/role-playing and lots of
    people found it horrifying and sickening?

    Well, to actually answer the question, I would realize I really haven’t come across as I intended and would take a hard, critical look at what I had written, and probably apologize whether or not I understood the criticism right then.

    But it’s pretty hilarious that he would describe his post as “for sexuality that serves and protects” when the whole post could be summed up as “Shorter Doug Wilson : by promoting rape and domination fantasies ’50 Shades of Grey’ subverts everything we stand for, i.e. actual rape and domination”.

  • Tonio

    “Serves and protects”? So men are the LAPD of women’s sexuality? This is the burqa mentality.

  • Caravelle

    So men are the LAPD of women’s sexuality?

    Sounds like it. I’d even bet the metaphor extends to their attitudes on police violence.

  • http://apolarity.com/ Adrenalin Tim

    God have mercy on Mrs. Wilson, and on all her daughters.

    Mrs Wilson and her two daughters and daughter-in-law blog at Femina Girls. The two daughters have posted responses to the fiasco attempting to defend their father, and there’s—shall we say—a fair amount of misogyny in their responses.

    I’m afraid that the Furiously-Righteous-[Rachel Held] Evans has transitioned into her squeaky voice, and we all know what happens when a woman gets squeaky. (And to be perfectly frank, this is a level of squeak rarely caught on camera since the Temperance Movement.) This subtle and yet unmistakable change in tenor almost unfailingly means that a woman is gearing up to hold a grudge of mammoth proportions…

    I am not worried about misogynists. But the only reason that they do not bother me is that I have never been without the protection of a sacrificial man.

    A woman carrying a sandwich board decrying Mr Wilson’s racism

    was unprotected, unloved, and insecure. She was, in short, suffering from some serious Daddy issues.

  • http://www.blogger.com/home?pli=1 Coleslaw

    I’m afraid that the Furiously-Righteous-[Rachel Held] Evans has transitioned into her squeaky voice, and we all know what happens when a woman gets squeaky. (And to be perfectly frank, this is a level of squeak rarely caught on camera since the Temperance Movement.)

    Squeaky voices were caught on camera during the Temperance Movement? I thought “talkies” didn’t come into common use (as in newsreels) until the 1930’s, when Prohibition was already a reality. Did she provide examples? And did men in the Temperance Movement also have squeaky voices?

    At least we’ve moved on from “shrill”.

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    Bettie Boop was a huge temperance advocate, didn’t you know?

  • Lori

     

    I am not worried about misogynists. But the only reason that they do not
    bother me is that I have never been without the protection of a
    sacrificial man.  

    Holy. Shit.

    There is so much wrong there that I can’t even. The thoughts are all jammed up in my head like 2 people trying to walk side by side through a narrow doorway.

     

    She was, in short, suffering from some serious Daddy issues.  

    Pot. Kettle. Black.

  • Tonio

    “Sacrificial man”? I picture him having his heart torn out like in the second Indiana Jones movie.

  • Lori

    I was thinking of the meat you throw to get guard dogs to stop chasing you.

  • Tricksterson

    I was thinking Wicker Man myself.

  • MaryKaye

    It’s also infuriating that if you are a woman and a sub, you feel like your personal sexual proclivities might be taken as evidence for female natural submissiveness.  Argh!

    My sample size is small, but I’d say that finding submission sexually appealing and being/wanting to be submissive in non-sexual contexts correlate very poorly.  I think some people (of any gender) use sexual dominance or submission as a role reversal–it’s fun precisely because it is *not* what you are normally like.

    The other thing that’s infuriating in a lot of mainstream discussion of BDSM is the idea that a sub’s partner must be a dom.  Um, no.  You can just *take turns*.  I tie you up Monday, you flog me Wednesday.  Given that subs are pretty darn abundant, it’s great that this sort of arrangement works out or a lot of us would be sexually frustrated.

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    My sample size is small, but I’d say that finding submission sexually appealing and being/wanting to be submissive in non-sexual contexts correlate very poorly.

    My sample size isn’t small, and you are correct about that. How submissive do I seem when I post here ;-)?

    However, within the relationship itself, it depends. When one has a relationship in which the other person is allowed and encouraged to order the other into bed whenever that person chooses, it does impact all aspects of life. Wonderfully so. There is absolutely nothing wrong with choosing a submissive role in a relationship. I think we in the U.S. look down on people who aren’t assertive or dominant “enough”, and that’s a form of prejudice.

    To your other point: Lots of subs don’t want to dominate and do want to be dominated. So they could not be just as happy if they were with someone who was either a switch or not dominant. I think there is a spectrum within dom/sub just as there is a spectrum of attracted to same sex/attracted to other sex. 

  • guido

    Are we sure that it is the same Doug Wilson who did the slave pamplet.  How can someone promote that slavery is an OK way to live?  That means slavery today, much which is sexual slavery, is OK?  Or, let’s cut to the chase to justify Southern slavery and discount modern slavery means one is a racist.  Pretty much if one defends Southern slavery, one is a racist. 

    I know we are talking women’s issues, but that little tract really freaked me out.  Now, I have it on my google tracking….no telling what will be pushed my way for advertising.

  • friendly reader

     

    I know we are talking women’s issues, but that little tract really
    freaked me out.  Now, I have it on my google tracking….no telling what
    will be pushed my way for advertising.

    Use Firefox, get the Scriptblocker add-on and block google syndication.

    While your at it, get Add Blocker Pus and Better Privacy.

  • Donalbain

    Better word than consent? Mutuality? 

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Does anybody remember the film “Perversion for Profit”? After one watches it, and realizes who funded it (the Keating syndicate, BTW) one wonders if it was intended to serve a dual-pronged approach of energizing the pearl-clutchers, as well as increasing their sales by means of encouraging the prurient interests of the audience.

  • Tonio

    I used to listen to a radio show that played clips from that film and from another one, Boys Beware. The show mocked the homophobia and the Reefer Madness ridiculousness. The Confidential book series of  “exposés” were from the same era, and they pandered to both the prurient interest and self-righteousness of readers – not much different from the pandering behind shows like Real Housewives and Jersey Shore.

  • hidden_urchin

    A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts.

     
    I was thinking on where I’d come across this idea before and then I realized it shows up in Whitman’s “A Woman Waits for Me.”  There’s a pretty good dissection of it in T. Walter Herbert’s Sexual Violence and American Manhood (chapter 2).

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Appelget/100000185646776 Steven Appelget

    x-posted rom RHE

    I’m persuaded Mr. Wilson means every word he says.  His post shows us,
    probably inadvertently,  the basis of his reasoning about many things. 
    He uses the language of the acquisition of property to describe the
    relationship between men and women.  By colonizing and conquering, one
    obtains a species of ownership.  This, I am persuaded, is how Mr. Doug
    Wilson, especially, views the world–as something divided between the
    owners and the owned.

    If I am correct, then one can understand Mr. Wilson’s position that he
    has never advocated rape or abuse.  An owner generally cares for the
    owner’s property.  Most dog owners don’t beat their dogs.  Yet, we know
    this happens–it is not a universal rule.  Further, while owners may be
    kind and nice and generous to their property, the relationship remains
    the same–that of an owner to the thing owned.

    This also explains Mr. Doug Wilson’s advocacy of slavery.  If, as I
    contend he believes, the world is naturally (or Divinely) divided into
    the owners and the owned, then it makes sense for some to own others. 
    In fact, according to this belief, to disrupt such ownership is a grave
    sin.

    Unfortunately, I think this reasoning, while not necessarily required by
    Calvinist assumptions about the nature of the relationship between God
    and humans, often tends to run along with it.  In Calvinist theology,
    God is absolutely sovereign; God owns everything.  God is, in this
    imagination, the Ultimate Owner.  Thus, if one is going to be like God,
    one will seek to also be an owner.

     

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2CUJHSQSQYTYT4DPZSKTVESYNQ B

     I’m sure this has been said a zillion times in other places, but that’s a counter-argument to the whole, “I protect her, care for her, take her needs into consideration, and sacrifice for her!  So even though she’s supposed to submit to my authority, we’re still equals.”

    Seems like you can say that about your dog, too.  Or your toddler.  Or for that matter, your tomato plants. (Standing out there removing suckers in this heat sure feels like a sacrifice to me. And they’re drinking up part of my water bill, too.)

    Obviously dog != toddler != tomato plant, but my point is that you can care for and protect something a great deal, and take its needs into consideration in all your decisions, without it even approaching being a relationship between equals.

  • http://www.blogger.com/home?pli=1 Coleslaw

    What if you published a post that was for sexuality that serves and 
    protects and against “rape fantasy” erotica/role-playing and lots of 
    people found it horrifying and sickening?

    Hidden in this question is the assumption that “rape fantasy” erotica/role-playing is something that people need to be against, so I guess a place to start would be by presenting all the evidence you have that “rape fantasy” erotica/role-playing is in some way harmful. Then you would present the evidence that the kind of sex you are endorsing does in fact protect against “rape fantasy” erotica/role-playing. So bring out those peer reviewed studies any time, Wilson. And no, the Song of Solomon doesn’t count as evidence.

  • Tonio

    I admit that this type of fantasy role-playing seems skeevy to me, assuming we’re talking about someone who wants to be in the rapist role. 

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    It is not skeevy. It is the opposite of skeevy. If you don’t want to do it, don’t do it, but do not judge people who do please.

    Remember that it is ROLEPLAY. Someone in the ravisher position will stop immediately as soon as the person in the ravished role indicates they want to stop. The person in the ravisher role is always watching for the least sign of that. And trust me, this kind of roleplay can be incredibly joyful and healing. 

  • Tonio

    Sorry, I was just describing my emotional reaction and not passing judgment on anyone else. I doubt that I could trust anyone who wants me to be in a position where I have all the vulnerability, regardless of the context. That has nothing to do with whether other people should or shouldn’t have trust in such a situation.

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    I think you’re not really getting it. Let me explain. No, there is too much, let me sum up.

    In ravishment roleplay, the dom does not want the sub to have all vulnerability. (I’m using shorthand terms here, this kind of roleplaying doesn’t have to be dom/sub.) First, remember that the sub can stop or pause play at any time. Immediately. With no repercussions or discussion — sub wants it stopped, it’s stopped, period.

    Second, the dominant has a massive amount of responsibility. The doms I know enjoy this responsibility both erotically and on a deep emotional level. Yes, they often also enjoy inflicting pain and exercising power, but they would not enjoy these things if the sub did not enjoy receiving pain and handing over power. While the dom does please him or herself, certainly, they put more into pleasing the sub. I.e., the dom holds the sub down because the sub wants it, the dom calls the sub names because the sub wants it, the dom slaps the sub because the sub wants it, the dom tells the sub the sub exists to serve the dom sexually because the sub wants to hear that.

    And the dom can make mistakes. Then the dom is in the position of knowing that they were pouring so much into making this experience awesome for the sub, and they screwed up. It was probably an unforeseeable accident, but still, the dom wanted to create these wonderful feelings for the sub, and now the sub is miserable. How do you think that feels to someone who’s a caretaker type?

    What I’m trying to say is, for a good, caring dom, the dominant role is every bit as emotionally vulnerable as the submissive role, if not more so.

  • Tonio

    I think I understand that on an intellectual level. I would simply perceive the simulation as me having all the vulnerability and none of the power. The simulation would seem to require an almost absolute trust, and I would most likely not be capable of that because the simulation goes against everything I’ve ever learned to be comfortable with. It would remind me very strongly of two incidents involving my father. And I seem to lack the ability to predict others’ behavior. So I couldn’t assume that I would have the ability to stop or pause play – I would fear the possiblility that the dom might lose control and take out her anger on me. I’m not claiming that this would be a reasonable fear to have of BDSM devotees specifically.

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    Understanding it on an intellectual level is good. Nothing wrong with not wanting it yourself. It’s like — I couldn’t be in an open relationship. If my dude went and touched another woman sexually and then touched me, I’d want to vomit. But I know there’s nothing wrong with people who do want open relationships.

  • Eric B

    Are we sure this is misogyny?  It was so oddly written I couldn’t really understand what point they were trying to make.

  • Isabel C.

    …and once again, I end up having to stick up for a craptacular work of ridiculous fiction* because the people bashing it are asshats. GODDAMMIT YOU GUYS THIS IS WHY WE CAN’T HAVE NICE THINGS.

    *There is way better BDSM fic out there. There’s less offensive BDSM fic out there that was written a hundred years ago, or by Anne Rice. Why is *this* what gets popular? Fucking human race…

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    There is way better BDSM fic out there.

    YES. *mumble mumble where’s my millions of dollars grumble*

  • Isabel C.

    DUDE I KNOW. 

    As an author, I’m okay with the fact that I’ll probably never be as popular as King/Rowling/Pratchett. I mean, it makes me tear out my hair sometimes in a fit of WHY DIDN’T I WRITE THAT DAMMIT, but their success doesn’t make me twitch.

    Twilight/50 Shades/Da Vinci Code, on the other hand…I have to go somewhere quiet and repeat “cultural pressure point, cultural pressure point”. And drink. 

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Word on the “Twilight/etc” twitch factor. It’s especially depressing when someone like JR Ward writes improbably bad vampire stories and somehow spins them out into a 6 book arc and it’s like (O_O) OH GOD WHY.

    Anyway, fic wise? I’m very OK with slash, het, gen, the works. I just don’t like certain pairings (e.g. in the Harry Potter fandom Draco/Hermione really doesn’t do it for me, and I can’t even begin to try and like any teacher (usually Snape)/student type stories because like major boundary issues and stuff.)

  • LMM22

    There is *way* better BDSM *fanfiction* out there. I can’t speak for “Twilight” — though I’ve been told it’s out there — but, back in the day, “Buffy” had some *awesome* stuff.

    And — I should note — from what I’ve read of it, _Fifty Shades of Gray_ has a much lower sex to plot ratio than your average epic-length erotic fanfiction.

    Of course, a lot of the stuff out there is slash, which might complicate things. We can tie people up, but we can’t get *too* kinky.

  • Otrame

    Some of my favorite fan fiction is BDSM, even though I am completely not turned on by BDSM (no problem with it, just not my thing).   That is because the BDSM is consensual and profoundly loving, in a society in which most people are either Doms or Subs (with a bunch of  switches and occasional non-dynamic) and the whole society is based on this fact. I am more interested in the author’s vision of such a society, and in the romantic love of the main characters than in the BDSM itself.  

    I think Wilson’s view of sex is just plain perverted.  

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    Well, quite a few people aren’t turned on by slash. Like me. Erotica has to be a woman and a man or it does nothing for me. (A woman and two men might work also, but I’ve never wanted to write it, so probably not.) I wish it were different, but that’s how it is.

    Also, a lot of people don’t like reading fanfic, and a lot of that stuff is fanfic. Even those willing to look at fanfic are gonna be appalled by some of the combinations. Like, I’m willing to give adult Ginny/Harry erotica a try, but when I even see the tag Draco/Hermione I’m immediately massively turned off and there goes that idea.

    However, there is actually a lot of het BDSM that is not fanfic online — I don’t know if much is book length though. 

  • LMM22

    Slash doesn’t do it for me, but it’s so ubiquitous online (and, as far as I can tell, almost the majority of BDSM-related fanfic) that it’s likely that, if one goes *just* by quality alone, most of the best will be slash.

    Fanfic was brought up because _Fifty Shades_ is a Twilight fanfic with a search-and-replace function. It’s just a terrible example of the genre. (Like I said, there are way better book-length BDSM fanfics out there. The issue is that no one ever arrives at a conclusion.) — And, honestly, if one is going for a particular kink, I’ve found it’s often easiest to just look at a (very large) fandom that one has no particular affiliation with. I can’t read Buffy / Spike stuff. Hermoine / Draco works fine for me, though, mainly because I don’t care.

    I’ve seen a bit of online non-fanfic BDSM, but I’m neither sold on quality nor on concept. Part of the reason why fanfic can be so sexually dense — while still containing plot — is because there’s little need to introduce or develop characters or settings. (And, yes, I know, _Beauty_ — but you’ve got to admit that the characters there are thin and the world is very poorly developed.) Fanfic also has an informal infrastructure that’s really unparalleled anywhere else online (and, arguably, offline). Bad fanfic is, well, written by thirteen-year-olds. Good fanfic is almost certainly better than the vast majority of self-published works and arguably better than many actual published works. (*)

    So, yeah. Fanfic. Awesome stuff when good. Terrible when bad. Probably superior, at times, to the majority of the drek put out by most franchises. (I’m *positive* I could find you Star Trek fanfic better than, say, half of the actual novels out there.)

    (*) Just for anyone who attended Readercon this year: “People were told to drive more carefully.” I rest my case.

  • Caravelle

    And, honestly, if one is going for a particular kink, I’ve found it’s often easiest to just look at a (very large) fandom that one has no particular affiliation with. I can’t read Buffy / Spike stuff. Hermoine / Draco works fine for me, though, mainly because I don’t care.

    I’ve found the same thing. I really like m/m slash, but I’m not that much into fanfic (in my brain the only acceptable versions of characters and worlds are the author’s canon version, and my own), so the stories I’m really drawn to are those based on franchises I know nothing about (most notably back when I looked into those things, stuff involving Hercules)
    (and then I read stories from here http://www.mannazone.org/zone/index.html and I never went back to random m/m bdsm slashfic with a mediocre plot again) 

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/4AIOQIHJD6UMQWCPKNDKIDA24Y Jaracai Williams

    That’s funny, Christians tend to preach things that the world hates to hear and tries to censor at every opportunity. Yet when someone preaches something biblical, (yes, what Wilson preaches is in the Old Testament) some Christians take offense and try to have it taken down, and censored. There’s a great deal of hypocrisy floating around here I see.

  • Heather Munn

    Fred, I just want you to know this crap didn’t originate with Gospel Coalition and the guy who posted it up there, Jared Wilson, didn’t even understand the quote to mean anything like what, well, it means. He says he thinks there should be mutual submission in sex and he told me in an email that when Doug Wilson write “Authority and submission are an erotic necessity” he took it to mean God as the authority that both people submitted to…

    So yeah. He doesn’t hate women, and I doubt that the rest of Gospel Coalition does. He just got taken in by a guy who, well… totally does. Doug Wilson deserves your article, Jared Wilson doesn’t.

    I’m not affiliated with GC in any way, BTW. I’m Mennonite. I just took the time to have an email conversation to understand what was going on here before I decided who to be mad at. I see that everyone else’s reaction in the meantime has been… somewhat different.

  • Caravelle

    When Jared Wilson writes a post that consists of 99% quoting someone else he should be expected to be held responsible for that quote, yes, unless he’s explicitly disassociating himself from it, which he doesn’t here. And if it turns out that quote completely misrepresented his position in a horrible way he ought to apologize for his misunderstanding and clarify his own position, not dig in. Which he does here.

    Forget for a second considerations of whether you should consider Jared Wilson a Good Person or whether he Hates Women (for that matter, would Doug Wilson agree he Hates Women ? If you’re willing to draw the line at Doug Wilson but not Jared Wilson, what is your criterion and why should we all adopt it ?), and consider what he actually posted.

  • Lori

    And if it turns out that quote completely misrepresented his position in
    a horrible way he ought to apologize for his misunderstanding and
    clarify his own position, not dig in. Which he does here.  

    Exactly. The original statement was made in public. Why should anyone have to rely on a private email exchange for clarification? If what Jared Wilson really meant is so innocent and so easy to explain why doesn’t he just post a follow-up?  For all we know it could be that his self-justification doesn’t really hold water and he doesn’t want to expose it to wide scrutiny.

    I’m certainly not inclined to simply take the unsupported word of a person who has never posted here before and has apparently never posted under this ID on any other topic.

    I’ve never been impressed with the old “the lurkers support me in email” claim and this variation doesn’t fill be with confidence either.

  • Lori

     

    I’m not affiliated with GC in any way, BTW. I’m Mennonite. I just took
    the time to have an email conversation to understand what was going on
    here before I decided who to be mad at. I see that everyone else’s
    reaction in the meantime has been… somewhat different.  

    Nice bit of self-righteousness for the big finish. You really stuck the landing.

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    *Snerk*

  • David Motes

    I’m a little confused by the whole thing so I traced it back to Wilson’s site and he seems to have withdrawn the post and (sort of, circularly) apologized (not to any critics of course but to some other people.)

  • Caravelle

    Yeah, that was one weird apology, where it wasn’t at all clear what he was apologizing for. I wouldn’t go so far as to call it a notpology because there wasn’t any “if anybody was offended”… he seemed to genuinely realize he’d done something wrong and was apologizing for that, but it wasn’t clear that he understood what it was he’d done that was wrong.

    I don’t think that’s a bad thing actually, I think that realizing you’ve done something wrong and apologizing for it even when you can’t understand exactly why what you did was wrong is laudable, it takes other people into account and all, but I see it as the first step in actually getting to understand what the issue was and I’m not confident he’ll take the other steps.

  • BaseDeltaZero

    Wait, what?  He SAID that?  Why would any sane man not want his partner not to enjoy the act of sex.  I can  put being indifferent as to wether or not she enjoys it to normal asshatery but to think her enjoying it is wrong?  That’s blatantly insane.

    Agreed.  All this talk of BDSM, and how the dom isn’t actually the one in power, and mutuality and what not… well, that is what genuine, honest to god sadism looks like.

    Same for ‘orgasms are for girlfriends’ guy…


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X