For evangelicals, racism isn’t a dealbreaker, but feminism is

Remember our old friend Douglas Wilson? He writes and speaks for the patriarchal neo-Calvinist “Gospel Coalition,” and is the author of many books sold at Christian bookstores across the country — including the large LifeWay chain.

Wilson caused a stir earlier this year when his description of godly marital sex was, well, horrifically rapey. Wilson wrote:

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.

That prompted many of us to take a closer look at this guy and to wonder how it was that he had come to be a respected voice in American evangelicalism. We wondered this even more when we learned that Wilson isn’t only a proponent of rape culture, but also an apologist for slavery.

LifeWay, to their very slight credit, at least doesn’t carry the book the Douglas Wilson co-wrote with white supremacist and League of the South co-founder Steve Wilkins, Southern Slavery: As It Was. Yet the fact that Wilson co-wrote a book with a white supremacist, and that this book argues that slavery was not really all that bad, apparently does not affect LifeWay’s thoughts about carrying other books by the same guy.

Douglas Wilson remains an unchallenged member in good-standing of the evangelical tribe. Just like anti-anti-colonialist and Afro-phobic “scholar” Dinesh D’Souza was before allegations of adultery clouded his name in a way that confirmations of race-baiting never did.

Mainstream evangelicalism — including institutions like Christianity Today and LifeWay — pays lip-service to “racial reconciliation,” but it has never been mandatory. You cannot be pro-gay, pro-choice or feminist and remain an unchallenged or un-“controversial” member of the evangelical tribe. But as Wilson, D’Souza (and let’s not forget Richard Land) confirm, you can espouse racially biased views without that ever prompting anyone to ask if you are really an evangelical.

As long as you continue to repeat the right phrases about God, gays and gynecology, you can say whatever vile things you want to about slavery, or Africa, or “race hustlers,” without any worry that it might provoke questions about your godly evangelical bona fides. You can be a vicious racist, but as long as you’re an anti-abortion, anti-gay racist who talks about the “authority of scripture” like its the fourth member of the Trinity, then you’re golden.

Just think back to the long Republican primary contest with its endless series of debates. In January, Chauncey DeVega listed his picks for the “10 Most Racist Moments of the GOP Primary (So Far).”  It’s an appalling, but by no means comprehensive, list. And the primary campaign still had more than a month to go.

Most of what DeVega chronicles there were statements or actions taken in an effort to appeal to evangelical voters. The main strategy for winning such voters was to try to position yourself as more anti-abortion than the other candidates — contraception is murder! De-fund anything with the word “clinic” in its name! — but once all the candidates clustered together around the same extreme positions on that point, the next step was to try to appeal to white grievance and white resentment. Candidates sought to nurture such resentment wherever it existed, and to create it from scratch in the rare places where it couldn’t otherwise be found.

Remember all the principled evangelical push-back against those efforts? No? Me neither, because that never happened. Here are some things you never heard during the GOP primaries: “Newt Gingrich drew criticism from evangelical voters for his racially charged attacks on ‘welfare queens.'” Or “Michele Bachmann lost evangelical support due to her comments about immigrants.” Or “Ron Paul’s newsletters flirting with white supremacists alienated the GOP’s evangelical bloc.” Or “Mitt Romney’s use of ‘illegal’ as a noun angers evangelical voters.”

The closest to anything like that ever happening was a brief moment in one debate when Texas Gov. Rick Perry made a Bush-like appeal for something vaguely DREAM-ish — in-state tuition for undocumented students who have lived most of their lives in Texas. That got Perry smacked down by Romney and contributed to his loss of support among evangelical Republicans.

And do we even need to mention Bryan Fischer? Mainstream evangelicals will hurry to argue that people like Fischer are really fundamentalists, not evangelicals. But Fischer uses the E-word himself, and he’s convinced the general public that this is who he is and who he represents. As Warren Throckmorton wrote yesterday:

Conservatives might lament the title “conservative” applied to AFA and Fischer. However, I think it is up to conservatives to police ourselves.

But mainstream evangelicalism is never interested in policing its huge right fringe. It’s too busy picking nits and vigilantly patrolling its “liberal” border for potential heretics. That gives people like Fischer, Charlie Fuqua, John Hubbard and Loy Mauch a free pass. They all exhibit the proper “stance” against abortion and homosexuality, so they’re nowhere near the danger zone on the liberal frontier.

Get those two “stances” correct, and race-baiting, stoking white resentment, and immigrant-bashing won’t ever cause evangelicals to question your legitimacy as part of the tribe. For that to happen, you’d have to say something nice about women or LGBT people.

Take, for example, the case of Brian McLaren. We recently looked at Terry Mattingly’s odious questioning of McLaren’s faith following his celebration of his son’s same-sex wedding. Here is McLaren’s gracious, generous response to a correspondent breaking ties with him over that “stance.”

Or consider again the case of Rachel Held Evans, whose legitimacy is now being questioned by the very same Gospel Coalition to which penetrating colonizer Doug Wilson belongs. The Gospel Coalition imagines itself to be the gatekeeper and the authoritative arbiter of tribal legitimacy, so that means their boy Wilson must be above all question, but this uppity woman must be treated as a threat.

Then there’s the matter of Christopher Rollston. I confess I had never heard of him before, and that I’d missed his recent Huffington Post article, “The Marginalization of Women: A Biblical Value We Don’t Like to Talk About.” That article doesn’t make any novel or unorthodox claims. Rollston simply points out that “women in the Bible were normally viewed as second class, if even that.” Yes. And, also too, no duh. It doesn’t matter if one reads the Bible as a “radical feminist” or as an infallible fundamentalist — Rollston’s point there is objectively, uncontroversially true.

And yet, for reasons not entirely clear, that article has Rollston “facing disciplinary action and perhaps even termination at Emmanuel Christian Seminary” where he is a tenured, and by all accounts well-respected, biblical scholar. He did not violate his professional ethics. He did not run afoul of the seminary’s statement of faith. He didn’t even say anything that any serious biblical scholar — conservative or liberal — would disagree with.

But apparently Rollston’s article angered one wealthy conservative donor at the school. Tenure schmenure, this donor told Emmanuel, get rid of this guy and I’ll make it worth your while. And Emmanuel, apparently, thought that was a good idea. It really, really wasn’t — and the only surprising thing about the ensuing firestorm is that Emmanuel’s administrators seem surprised by it. (James McGrath has good collections of links on this affair here and here.)

Again, all Rollston did was point out that men sure had a lot of rules for women 3,000 years ago — which is much the same point that Rachel Held Evans is making in her new book on “biblical womanhood.” Patriarchal Christians apparently don’t like it when anyone notices that. They’re hoping not to draw too much attention to the marginalization of biblical womanhood until after they have it fully reinstated.

So to recap: If you think women today should have more freedom than they had 3,000 years ago, or if you fail to condemn LGBT people with sufficient relish, then your standing as a legitimate evangelical will be formally challenged and your books will be prohibited from sitting on the shelves at LifeWay alongside those of Dinesh D’Souza and Douglas Wilson. Lovely.

 

Stay in touch with the Slacktivist on Facebook:

'Vote for the crook. It's important.'
'Moral tribalism' and translating the d-word
'The Supreme Court' doesn't mean abortion -- it means Shelby County
If abortion is murder, then you shouldn't be a single-issue voter against it
  • LL

    See, Fred, it’s kinda like incest, it’s something everybody’s supposed to be OK with (the “everybody” here being the family/Christian family), but nobody can talk about it. 

    Because whether you like it or not, the superior manly men can put the peen anywhere they want. And the rest of us just have to deal. Because they’re in charge. God said so in that book that has all the rules in it. That’s what all those biblical stories where fathers and mothers give their daughters to men in exchange for work are all about. 

    But all the feminazis and liberal elites have a problem with it, they call the manly men rapists and other mean things, so we have to keep this sort of thing on the down-low, so to speak. Not to be confused with homosexuality, which is a horrible, unnatural abomination before God and must be stamped out wherever it dares to appear. Unlike the godly relationship between a conquering man and anybody he chooses to conquer. 

    If you were a real man, you’d understand it. 

  • EllieMurasaki

    Not to be confused with homosexuality, which is a horrible, unnatural
    abomination before God and must be stamped out wherever it dares to
    appear. Unlike the godly relationship between a conquering man and
    anybody he chooses to conquer.

    Which takes us straight back to the bit where putting a penis in an anus is damaging to the reputation of the owner of the anus (assuming said has a reputation to damage) but not to that of the owner of the penis, and ‘homosexuality’ is not a concept that applies even if the owner of the anus is male.

  • PandaRosa

    Wouldn’t it also be damaging to the body of the owner of the anus? That’s one part about anal sex, no matter the sexes involved, that’s just… yicky. And painful. Why anybody would want to do that is something I do not want to know, especially regarding the penis. I mean, whatever else is said, it’s still putting an organ a man places tremendous important on into the hole poopie comes out of. It’s just… ouch.

    The ones that do enjoy it, well, just don’t do it in the street and scare the horses.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

    Wouldn’t it also be damaging to the body of the owner of the anus?

    Not especially, no. I mean, sure, injuries do happen, just as they do with penis-in-vagina sex. But they aren’t the norm.

    That’s one part about anal sex, no matter the sexes involved, that’s just… yicky.

    (nods) I know a lot of straight folks who feel that way, and a number of gay men who feel the same way about vaginas, and a couple of lesbians who feel that way about penises.

    For my part, I’m OK with all of us feeling whatever feelings of disgust about the human body may seem natural to us, as long as we restrict the expression of such feelings to appropriate venues. Personally, I get squicked contemplating pancreases.

    I mean, whatever else is said, it’s still putting an organ a man places
    tremendous important on into the hole poopie comes out of.

    Which, I realize, is an extremely important fact about anal sex, at least to the people who don’t do it. Whereas putting that same organ into the hole that a woman’s urine comes out of isn’t important at all.

    The ones that do enjoy it, well, just don’t do it in the street and scare the horses.

    Agreed.
    I would say the same thing about quite a number of sexual practices.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Whereas putting that same organ into the hole that a woman’s urine comes out of isn’t important at all.

    Try MOTHERFUCKING OW.

    (vagina != urethra)

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

    I stand corrected.

  • The Guest That Posts

     I agree with the spirit of your post, but women don’t urinate through the vagina. We do have urethrae.

    Of course, sticking the organ that men’s urine comes out of into any orifice could be considered icky.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

     I stand corrected again.

  • The_L1985

     “Whereas putting that same organ into the hole that a woman’s urine comes out of isn’t important at all.”

    Women do not pee out of their vaginas.  At all.  The urethra and vagina are not connected; the urethra is between the clitoris and the vagina.

    It’s not like a penis, where both sex and urination are accomplished using the exact same organ.

  • http://musings.northerngrove.com/ JarredH

     I’m actually a little disconcerted over the number of times I’ve observed various men demonstrate that they didn’t know this over the past year or two.

  • http://profiles.google.com/marc.k.mielke Marc Mielke

    I consider myself fairly well-informed and didn’t know that. It’s really not something a non-vagina owner would know unless they had specific education in the matter. Besides, women hide their stuff inside, while  men let it all hang out!

  • EllieMurasaki

    I consider myself fairly well-informed and didn’t know that. It’s really not something a non-vagina owner would know unless they had specific education in the matter.

    Jesus fuck. This is basic anatomy. Like, kids ought to have this down sometime in the upper end of elementary school. I knew we’re experiencing a massive failure of sex education, but this isn’t even that, this is the excretory-system section of the anatomy unit of fifth-grade science.

  • Lunch Meat

    I knew we’re experiencing a massive failure of sex education, but this isn’t even that, this is the excretory-system section of the anatomy unit of fifth-grade science.

    Yes, well, my sixth grade health textbook (published by Pensacola Christian College) thought it was so important how to tell women of different body types how to wear their hair so they would be attractive, that they didn’t have room for something so inessential as anatomy. I certainly never learned the difference between a vagina and a vulva.

  • EllieMurasaki

    my sixth grade health textbook (published by Pensacola Christian College) thought it was so important how to tell women of different body types how to wear their hair so they would be attractive

    wtf

  • VMink

    Sadly, it’s not limited to textbook failures.  My Lutheran grade school, attached to a Lutheran church in Brooklyn (which had been or was in the process of being steeplejacked) had no anatomy of any stripe.  What sex education we had was done in eighth grade by the school’s sole remaining mostly secular teacher (who was, looking back, probably otherwise the most awesome and best teacher I recall.)  And it made almost no impression on me.  I think it lasted 15 minutes and if you asked me what it boiled down to, I couldn’t even tell you.

    High school sex ed was marginally better in that it was done frankly by the gym teachers but still left out a lot about female anatomy.

  • The_L1985

     Yes.  It had a little pink section on good grooming, that included tips on how to best flatter the shape of your face and the apparent length of your neck.

    Also, did you know that if your forehead protrudes, you shouldn’t tie your hair back?  You should have bangs to hide that protruding forehead.

    I had that exact same textbook.  The 7th grade health textbook had a section called “The Making of You” that was heavy on Jeremiah.  It got the stages of prenatal development surprisingly right (except for the mis-labeled photos), and even mentioned that we all came into being “when sperm from your mother united with an egg from your mother.”

    However, there was absolutely ZERO reference to sex or the genitals beyond that quoted phrase.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jrandyowens Randy Owens

    …we all came into being “when sperm from your mother united with an egg from your mother.”

    Since it’s such an egregious example, I must double-check, was that a typo (braino?) on your part, or did the book actually get it that wrong?

  • The_L1985

     A Beka?  I remember that chapter.  The background of the page was pink.  Also, that long hair is recommended for women with a certain neck length, but is totally unnatural for all men.

  • The_L1985

    “I knew we’re experiencing a massive failure of sex education, but this
    isn’t even that, this is the excretory-system section of the anatomy
    unit of fifth-grade science.”

    The only aspect of excretion that my 5th-grade science class discussed was “How the kidneys work.”  Also, what the colon is for.

    It is possible to teach about the urinary tract without mentioning the genitals in America’s schools.

    It is also possible for people like me to graduate high school without learning that in the classroom (I only know it from outside reading).

  • EllieMurasaki

    …oh god that means my experience in fifth grade in one of the educationally worst states in the country was better than in lots of places in the country I am going to go be very sad now.

  • The_L1985

    Especially in private schools, which are the only schools in which A Beka can legally be used.  It’s a parochial text, after all.

    But yes, your experience is better than what a lot of other Americans have had.  It’s sickening, and as a teacher I hate that so many people have been so woefully underserved by our educational system.

    By the way, the textbook did have a diagram of kidney, ureters, bladder, and urethra–but in the diagram, none of it was connected to anything else. Just a disembodied urinary tract, with no troublesome sex organs for that urethra to have to go through.

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

    And to add to what EllieMurasaki said, women do not in fact keep everything inside. Have you ever even seen a picture of a vulva? Criminy.

  • The_L1985

     Well, technically, everything else is inside the vulva, unless you have big labia or an unusually long clitoris.

  • The_L1985

    “It’s really not something a non-vagina owner would know unless they had specific education in the matter.”

    This is why I am very strongly in favor of a nationwide standard that says that students must learn how ALL the systems of the human body work.

  • The_L1985

     I’m equally disconcerted when I find women who don’t know it, either.  Seriously, how do you have that little curiosity about the inner workings of your own body?

  • Lori

     

      I’m equally disconcerted when I find women who don’t know it, either.  Seriously, how do you have that little curiosity about the inner workings of your own body?   

    I find this way, way more disconcerting. For one thing, IME it takes a significant level of body shame to remain that ignorant about how your basic parts are aligned and I find that depressing.

  • http://deird1.dreamwidth.org Deird

     In their defence, it can be relatively hard to see that part of your anatomy without a good mirror. (I knew what the different bits of my vulva did, but I couldn’t have put names to any of them until I spent an hour with a mirror and Wikipedia.)

  • http://lost-erizo.livejournal.com/ LE

    You can learn quite a lot with just fingers.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

     I think that perception is diluted by the fact that in addition to people who were never actually taught this bit of anatomy, there’s lots of people who were taught it but immediately discarded it as a fact not part of their experience of reality — I’ve seen people do this; the teacher asks a question, gets a wrong answer, gives the right answer, then asks the same person the question again and gets the same wrong answer, because they immediately rejected the fact; some people have a sort of two-tier system of reality where you’ve got “school facts” taught you in school, and “real facts” about your real life, and some of those people do not see any need for the two to be associated with each other.  Also. there are people who know-on-paper what’s what, but, in  essence, reject it. (I know a rather prominent blogger who does this. Every time she uses the word “vagina” in a context where she’s actually talking about the vulva, she inserts a footnote explaining that yes, she knows the difference and that what she’s talking about is the vulva, but she hates the word “vulva” and has no problem with using “vagina” instead, and thinks badly of people who insist on correcting her on this point.).

    Which is to say, I’ve probably met both men and women who think that women urinate from their vaginas, but I can’t actually be sure that it’s not that they do understand that babies don’t come out of the urethra  are different openings, but think that “vagina” refers to the entirety of the female genital region.

    (For some reason, this reminds me of how diagrams of the female reproductive organs always label the anus, even though it seems like that ought to be outside their purview. Presumably so that the reader understands that it too is a different opening)

  • JustoneK

    the anus is the no-no place, only used by sexual deviants.  you can’t tell people they’re sexing wrong if you don’t at least label the no-no places.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Which explains the failure to make sure kids know the difference between the clitoris and the vagina…how?

  • guest

    That’s a fair point, and one a friend made to me yesterday.  I realised the other day that I think the reason I was so upset by the original comment was that it actually appeared in the context of belittling someone else for her ignorance of human anatomy.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jrandyowens Randy Owens

    On the other hand, now that I go back to look at the original context, it clearly isn’t a case of confusion between the terms vulva & vagina, as Ross seems to have been suggesting above (although maybe that was just a tangent).

  • Carstonio

     The art that Fred uses here suggests that he’s been to the buckle of the Bible Belt – similar imagery can be found there and it fits the overall spirit of the place. My kids saw a church tour bus decorated with hellfire and tombstones reading “Your Name Here” and asked why it was decorated that way, and my answer was that the group was trying to scare people into joining its religion.

    I can’t actually be sure that it’s not that they do understand that
    babies don’t come out of the urethra  are different openings, but think
    that “vagina” refers to the entirety of the female genital region.

    That seems to be the common usage, even among people who know better.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

     I stand corrected yet a third time.

  • guest

    It is embarrassing and appalling that not only were you ignorant of that fact but that you were willing to show that ignorance in public.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

     Disqus isn’t showing what comment you’re responding to, guest, only that you’re responding to me; I assume you’re referring to my demonstrated ignorance of female anatomy.

    I also assume that by “embarrassing” you mean, not that you’re embarrassed, but that I ought to be embarrassed to have demonstrated my ignorance in public.

    Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the matter.

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

    Loudly pontificating your dislike of teh buttsex is really unnecessary, thank you.

  • http://musings.northerngrove.com/ JarredH

    Wouldn’t it also be damaging to the body of the owner of the anus?

    Not necessarily.

    That’s one part about anal sex, no matter the sexes involved, that’s
    just… yicky.

    You are welcome to that opinion.  You are also welcome to refrain from engaging in such activities.  However, you are not entitled to assume that my opinion matches yours or try to dictate my decision as to whether I engage in any such activity.

    And painful.

    Not necessarily.  For many people, it’s a highly pleasurable experience.

    Why anybody would want to do that is
    something I do not want to know, especially regarding the penis.

    Because some of us honestly enjoy it.  The fact that you do not enjoy it (or have convinced yourself you wouldn’t enjoy it without trying, which would also be well within your rights to do) does not preclude the possibility — nay, the very reality — that some of us do.

    And yes, I realize you didn’t want to know any of that.  But you know what?  If you’re going to publicly wonder why people do things, you should expect that some people are likely to tell you why they do those things.  If you don’t want to know about my sexual preferences, I suggest you refrain from musing about them in my presence.

    Edited to add: Or in my absence, for that matter.

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

    Wouldn’t it also be damaging to the body of the owner of the anus?
    That’s one part about anal sex, no matter the sexes involved, that’s
    just… yicky.

    Oh my god.

    No. It does not. It is not. There is this thing called lubricant. One lubricant — olive oil. So no, anal sex when properly done is not damaging to the anus of the penatratee, and has not been for thousands upon thousands of years. Being the recipient in anal sex is amazingly pleasurable for millions and millions of people, and not one bit damaging whatsoever. Christ.

    And by the way, a penis in a vagina can cause incredible damage when improperly done, when forced, and sometimes even by complete unforeseeable accident. I’m not just talking about the pain of the first time, either, which for many women is hellish. I once had a penis bang into my cervix somehow or other during mutually participatory and until-then pleasurable missionary position nowhere near the first time sex, and I nearly fainted. I was in horrible pain for a week. 

    Just… god. You are so incredibly wrong. Please learn something about this stuff before having ridiculous and damaging opinions about it. If you  insist on not learning, then please stop talking about it. You’re going to give me an aneurysm.

  • The_L1985

     Olive oil? Wouldn’t that dissolve the condom?

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

    I’m assuming this is before latex condoms were invented and in wide use, such as with sheepskin, which wouldn’t be attacked by the oil.

    In modern times K-Y is king. Water-soluble, doesn’t irritate, etc.

  • http://musings.northerngrove.com/ JarredH

    I actually prefer I Can’t Believe It’s Not Boy Butter, a water based lube made by the same company that makes the oil based Boy Butter.  It’s hypoallergenic and has a silky/creamy feeling to it.  I find KY too sticky/tacky, personally.

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

    Possible oversharing, so ROT13 follows ( http://www.rot13.com/index.php ):

    V ng bar cbvag jvgu na rk hfrq guvf bss-oenaq lryybjl ab-anzr “nygreangvir” gb X-L. Vg npghnyyl znqr frk cnvashy naq jr qvqa’g ernyyl ernyvmr guvf ng gur gvzr. Ohg nf vg gheaf bhg fbzrgvzrf fnivat n pbhcyr bs ohpxf ba yhor vf n onq pubvpr.

  • Tricksterson

    From the way the post is phrased I suspect Panda is either quite young, as in teeange, or very sheltered.

  • The_L1985

     I’m guessing so as well.  I must admit I’ve never seen “just assume” used in place of “just as soon” before.  I’m used to seeing “one and the same” butchered, but not “just as soon.”

  • The_L1985

     As a general rule, the use of personal lubricants (lots of them) tends to prevent the form of harm you’re referring to.

    Also, some men like receiving anal stimulation because it stimulates the prostate (or so I’m told).  Furthermore, most people don’t have anal sex when they have to poop.  Your anus actually isn’t all that nasty inside when you don’t have to poop (not to mention that some people make it really clean by douching).

    I’ve never actually had anal, myself, but what I hear from people who do indicates that it’s not actually any nastier than regular PIV intercourse, so long as you take precautions.

  • PandaRosa

    Anal sex is like habenero peppers, it does have its charms, but I fear they are lost on me. Will you be offended if I would just assume not enjoy its pleasures?

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

    I don’t give the slightest damn whether you want hot peppers. But I will yell at you for saying that those peppers cause cancer and there’s something twisted about anyone who likes them and people should never talk about enjoying them ever and they should keep their recipes to themselves.

    I do not understand what is so difficult about this. I want to have sex with my fiancé. I want to eat chocolate creme cake. I want to swim a mile. I want to read Jane Austen novels. I do not care if you do not want to do those things. I do care if you start spreading lies about sex with my fiancé, chocolate creme cake, swimming, and Jane Austen novels. 

    The people talking about enjoying anal sex, and telling the truth about it, don’t want to have anal sex with you (as far as I know — I sure don’t), and it is absolutely nothing to us if you want to have anal sex with no one or an entire football team.

  • PandaRosa

    Actually I meant that there’s something wrong with me that I don’t enjoy it.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Not enjoying a particular sex act != having something wrong with you. Making sure your sex partner knows you don’t enjoy that sex act = necessary thing to do.

    Making sure that everyone knows you don’t enjoy that sex act regardless of whether any of them is proposing enjoying that sex act with you = being a pain in the ass, please stop.

  • http://musings.northerngrove.com/ JarredH

    If you don’t enjoy anal sex, then why did you feel it necessary to bring the topic up in this thread.  No one was discussing anal sex in the thread before you brought it up.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    If you don’t enjoy anal sex, then why did you feel it necessary to bring the topic up in this thread.  No one was discussing anal sex in the thread before you brought it up.

    Just bringing it up tempts fate.

  • P J Evans

     Some of us just aren’t into sex. Sorry for existing.

  • http://musings.northerngrove.com/ JarredH

     Um, no one has criticized anyone for not being into sex.  What we take issue with is someone who is not into sex (or particular sex acts) and trying to universalize their preferences and suggest the rest of us should share them.

  • P J Evans

     Ex-boyfriend (still a friend) said I was out beyond the two-sigma point on the low side of the normal curve for sex. (I describe it as about once every seven years.)
    YMMV, and I hope it does, because it really isn’t fun.

  • The_L1985

     er, what?

  • Joshua

    I personally would be very happy if you stopped going on about it. Also, the answer to your question is stated perfectly clearly in the comment you are replying to, at the end. So why ask it?

  • Tricksterson

    As lonmg as you don’t have a problem with those who do.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jrandyowens Randy Owens

    Will you be offended if I would just assume not enjoy its pleasures?

    No, I’m offended when people mess up a simple phrase like “just as soon not.” :p  (Granted, in these days of spell check, that might not be entirely your fault.)

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

    Rest assured, I am indifferent to your sex life, as I would prefer you were to mine.

  • The_L1985

    Not in the slightest! ^^  I’m just saying that anal isn’t necessarily dirty, is all.

  • Lori

    Not to put too fine a point on it, if it hurts you’re doing it wrong.

  • Fusina

     MMm, I think that penis insertion into vaginas is just as damaging to the reputation of the owners of the vaginas, if you see what I mean. How many words are there for women who do that without “civil protection” in place (and in some cases even then)?

    Which brings up another of my pet peeves. There were, once upon a time, courtiers and courtesans, being the masculine and feminine forms for someone who hangs about at the royal court. So how come only one of them is now used for someone who “sleeps” around? This word problem has aggravated me for some time now.

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

    Yep. For some reason, the patriarchy has decided that anyone who has a penis stuck inside them is someone to be demeaned and shamed, barely human. 

  • guest

    Yep, like ‘master’ and ‘mistress’ are no longer parallel terms.

  • EllieMurasaki

    ‘Governor’ and ‘governess’. Used to be ‘prince’ and ‘princess’, but we’ve mostly got over the idea that women are out of the line of succession unless there’s no men also in line. There’s others but I can’t think of them offhand.

  • Carstonio

     While I appreciate such deconstructions, what I really want is to cross-examine someone who insists that, say, legalizing same-sex marriage amounts to “redefining” marriage or threatens opposite-sex marriage. It’s simple enough for any of us here to say that such a person really wants to protect male privilege, but it would be more intellectually and emotionally satisfying to show that the person really has no case.

  • Joykins

    “colonizing penetrator” sounds like a horrible bacterial infection to me.

  • Magic_Cracker

    Or a kick9ass (ironically-named) trans-man hardcore band.

  • Jeff Weskamp

    At first, I was  stunned that that Emmanuel was ejecting Rollston over his article.  I mean, wasn’t he simply explaining why his fellow Evangelicals reject feminism, abortion, and any rights or protections for non-hetero people?  Then I read further, and saw Fred’s comment, “They’re hoping not to draw too much attention to the marginalization of biblical womanhood until after they have it fully reinstated.”

    And *that* is the heart of the matter.  They don’t disagree with Rollston’s column.  They’re just angry that he stated things so bluntly and jeopardized their support among moderate Americans.  Because make no mistake, most Evangelicals *want* women to have the same status in the modern world that they had two or three millenia ago.

  • http://profiles.google.com/joe.p.carter Joe Carter

    If Slactivist writers couldn’t bash other Christians, what would they have to write about? 

  • http://musings.northerngrove.com/ JarredH

     I find it interesting (not really) that you’ve chosen to frame criticism of positions those other Christians actually hold as “bashing” them.

  • http://profiles.google.com/joe.p.carter Joe Carter

    frame criticism of positions 

    To say that Doug Wilson is a “proponent of rape culture” is an outright and vicious lie. And Fred knows it. But he doesn’t care.

    Fred long ago stopped carrying about truths that didn’t fit his partisan narrative. That’s why as long as he can keep getting pats on the head from secular liberals for being “the right kind of Christian” he’ll continue to slander his fellow believers. 

  • EllieMurasaki

    To say that Doug Wilson is a “proponent of rape culture” is an outright and vicious lie.

    Is this the same person who said ideal sex involved a man conquering a passive woman? I’ve lost track. And if it is the same person, unless he is referring specifically to a pre-negotiated male-Dom female-sub BDSM scene with a safeword (nb: most sex isn’t), how does that sentence say anything other than that ideal sex is rape?

  • http://musings.northerngrove.com/ JarredH

     I see that three wonderful women (If I’m wrong in my recollection that you’re all women, EllieMurasaki, Lunch Meat, and Lliira, I apologize) have already explained perfectly well how Doug Wilson’s statements promote and defend rape culture.  As such, rather than repeating their hard work, I’m simply going to  suggest that you listen to them very carefully.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Define ‘woman’. I’ve a factory-installed vagina, and sometimes I identify female and sometimes I identify agender. ‘Genderqueer’ is consistently accurate, so is ‘genderfluid’, and as you’ve no way of knowing which way I’m leaning at any given moment, ‘she’ and ‘ze’ are both acceptable pronouns at all times. Which is either tangential to or utterly beside your point.

  • The_L1985

     I think he’s basing your female status on the fact that “Ellie” is a feminine name.  I’ve been reading this blog, and the comment threads, for ages, and I didn’t know you were genderqueer or that you’d had SRS until you just said so.

  • EllieMurasaki

    I didn’t know you were genderqueer or that you’d had SRS until you just said so.

    Uh, no, I have not had sex reassignment surgery, and if you mean something else by SRS I have no idea what you’re talking about. I’m pretty sure I’ve mentioned being genderqueer around here before, but I didn’t expect anyone to know it, which is why I mentioned it when the subject of my gender came up.

  • The_L1985

    …Sorry, apparently I was reading more into the phrase “factory-made vagina” than you intended.  I thought you meant that it was, er…made, not something you were born with.

    Very sorry about the confusion.

  • Baby_Raptor

    No, it’s not a lie. Not to ponies who have a healthy view of sex, and who believe females are pony as well. When one believes that a mare should not be able to say “no,” and that they are property to be “conquered” whenever a penis owner wants, they most certainly are propagating rape culture. 

    Fred is one of the few decent christians I’ve ever met, and the only reason I haven’t given up on the religion all together. People like you are the reason I left in the first place.

  • Tricksterson

    Joe Carter is an example of why some stallions need neutering.

  • The_L1985

    Raptor?  Please, please make sure you turn off your MLP filter before posting comments.  We aren’t seeing the word P-E-O-P-L-E, but instead that “females are pony.” And about mares not saying no, etc.

  • Lori

     

    To say that Doug Wilson is a “proponent of rape culture” is an outright and vicious lie. And Fred knows it. But he doesn’t care.   

    Things we have all learned today: Joe Carter does not know what “rape culture” means.

  • Seraph4377

    Why do you assume that Fred’s audience is solely Christian? 

  • The_L1985

     Hey, it’s better than the weirdos who insist that Fred must be an atheist, writing to an audience consisting solely of other atheists.

    Not much better, but at least marginally so.

  • JustoneK

    the endless stream of assholes of all other denominations?

    it’s hard to avoid when American Christians seem deadset on being the denographic with highest asshole content.

  • Lunch Meat

    What would you do if you couldn’t complain about how mean liberal bloggers are to Christians, and had to, y’know, address the substance of the post?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Sue-White/1605859612 Sue White

    If Slactivist writers couldn’t bash other Christians, what would they have to write about? 

    What if there were no stupid rhetorical questions?

  • The_L1985

    Oh, trust me, Fred has written about a lot of other things (keep reading the blog).  He’s just particularly frustrated when his fellow Christians behave badly on such a large and public scale.

    By the way, I am not aware of any other writers on the main Slactivist blog, nor of any guest posts.  The old typepad site has become “The Slactiverse” and is used by other bloggers–is that what you’re thinking of when you say “Slactivist writers” in plural?

  • EllieMurasaki

    The Typepad place closed because of reasons. The community, under new management, is now at slacktiverse.blogspot.com.

  • Baby_Raptor

    The hypocrisy of this statement is just…Wow. 

  • reynard61

    “If Slactivist writers couldn’t bash other Christians, what would they have to write about?”

    First, not all of us are Christians.

    Second; if Christians simply *stopped doing* bashable things (Yeah, right…), then maybe we would, y’know, *stop writing about them.*

  • http://www.facebook.com/jrandyowens Randy Owens

    Given the way he assumes everybody here is Christian, gee, you’d almost think they weren’t an oppressed minority in the US!

  • Lori

    Way to totally miss the point Joe. The obligatory self-righteous tone is, as always, a nice touch.

  • Consumer Unit 5012

     General social injustice, people doing GOOD things, the news, Buffy the Vampire Slayer…

    It’s not like Fred is a one-note writer.

  • Eamon Knight

     God, gays and gynecology

    I am so stealing that…..

  • The_L1985

     Personally, I think a 4th word needs to be added, for maximum accuracy and alliterative potential:

    God, gays, guns, and gynecology.

  • http://tellmewhytheworldisweird.blogspot.com/ perfectnumber628

    Wow… a lot of excellent points in this post. I’m going to link to it from my blog. I recently wrote a blog post called Without Jesus, would I even be a feminist? in which I said “There is a way to use Christianity to reinforce one’s own ideas and
    maintain the status quo of oppression. Whenever someone is doing
    something that makes me mildly uncomfortable, I can quote 1 bible verse
    that vaguely relates, and say obviously what they’re doing is WRONG.” And if you do that, if you go to the extreme and support slavery or something equally ridiculous, well you may get called crazy but of course we evangelicals respect how you take the bible so seriously. (… right.)

    But if you start thinking “hey maybe there’s more nuances to issues like gay rights, abortion, etc”, if you start talking about any issues that feminism talks about- whoa, you’re a crazy liberal who’s trying to water down the gospel, clearly you don’t really believe the bible, etc.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/M7UJVXVJLWTJDTXRPRF23I2SCM Jeff

    Slanderist would be a better name for this blog. Come get your two minutes of hate against evangelicals at Fred Clark’s Slanderist!

  • JustoneK

    Oh no, a random asshole, whatever shall we do

  • Lunch Meat

    Slander generally means “false.” Please prove that the individuals named above did not say the things that Fred attributed to them.

  • http://musings.northerngrove.com/ JarredH

    An accusation of slander implies that Fred is making false claims.  What claim has Fred made that you know to be false?  Please provide evidence that said claim actually is false.

  • JustoneK

    Incidentally, you know Fred’s an evangelical, right?

  • The_L1985

     …Fred Clark is an evangelical.  He has said so frequently and repeatedly for years.  Based on his non-political posts (which do tend to be fewer around election time, I’ll grant you), I have every reason to believe him.

    Fred Clark is an evangelical Christian.  He is, as his co-religionists would say, speaking the truth about his evangelical brethren in love.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    …Fred Clark is an evangelical.  He has said so frequently and repeatedly for years.  Based on his non-political posts (which do tend to be fewer around election time, I’ll grant you), I have every reason to believe him.

    Fred Clark is an evangelical Christian.  He is, as his co-religionists would say, speaking the truth about his evangelical brethren in love.

    Keep in mind, Fred is speaking about a subculture that (detailed in his own writings) often tries to police its own boarders and keep out anyone taking a position that does not agree with the “gatekeepers” by trying to remove their label as “Evangelical”.  The recent kerfuffle over Rachel Held Evan’s new book is a current example of this.  

    So to a lot of those who buy into the gatekeeper’s bluff, Fred is not an “Evangelical”, regardless of his own tradition, belief, and self-identification.  

    Among them, there is only agreement with their interpretation, or there is hateful slander.  There is no room in their discourse for disagreement and dissent.

  • http://profiles.google.com/marc.k.mielke Marc Mielke

    Two minutes of hate is woefully insufficient for Confederacy apologists.

  • SisterCoyote

     This.

    Also… I find it disconcerting that this post attracts the most trolls in a few weeks (unless I’ve missed something), by calling out… slavery apologists? And a guy who believes women shouldn’t enjoy sex?

    Really, folks? This is your sticking point? These are the people you want to come defend?

  • http://www.facebook.com/jrandyowens Randy Owens

    Really, folks? This is your sticking point? These are the people you want to come defend?

    I think that was kinda the whole point of the post; yes, it is, and yes, they are.  They’re just confirming it.

  • SisterCoyote

    Fair point. It’s just depressing to see people leaping so enthusiastically to prove the point.

    (Unrelated, but that image in the post – it’s not real, right? It’s some kind of parody. Right?)

  • The_L1985

     I’m going with Nathan Poe on this one: if it is a parody, there’s someone out there who wishes it weren’t.

  • Madhabmatics

     I’ve seen more instances of the phrase “Are you sure this is the hill you want to die on?” in the past week than I’ve seen in my entire life.

  • Consumer Unit 5012

     Eh, we’ve had a few trolls over in the Dinesh D’Ishonest thread, too.  One of whom looks like she’ll be sticking around for a while.

  • Baby_Raptor

    Hilarious. Evangelicals regularly lie about people, deprive them of basic rights, break laws to keep people they disagree with down…The list goes on, but Fred says WORDS at them and he’s the bad guy? Does your cognitive dissonance hurt?

  • EllieMurasaki

    It’s not dissonant at all. Fred is accusing these people of treating different demographics differently. This implies that treating different demographics differently is a bad thing; no one accuses anyone of donating to an animal shelter. So Fred is saying that these are bad people because they do a bad thing, which is obvious lies since he’s talking about good people, and he is also saying that treating different demographics differently is a bad thing when it is self-evidently morally neutral if not morally exemplary. It can’t possibly matter how many people are hurt by different treatment of different demographics, especially if the reason they’re hurt is they won’t accept their proper place in life; therefore the only person doing anything wrong here is Fred.

  • The Guest That Posts

     Fred’s an Evangelical.

  • lowtechcyclist

    Like evangelical Christianity has anything to do with, well, Christianity.

    Tribalism.  It’s just about whether you’re part of the tribe, or part of the evil Other.

  • JustoneK

    And for extra pedantry, it’d technically be libel.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/M7UJVXVJLWTJDTXRPRF23I2SCM Jeff

    Just trying to go with alliteration. Plus, it rolls off the tongue better than Daily Bitter Spewing of Pointless Hate-filled Posts. 

  • http://musings.northerngrove.com/ JarredH

    Hate?  Criticism = Hate now?

    Funny how I suspect that’s not a standard that will be applied equally.

  • derlurker

     Are you sure you know what alliteration means?

  • JustoneK

    I am totally convinced of your commitment to Sparkle Motion.

  • Matri

    Do you even know what “alliteration” means, or are you just spouting off ignorance?

  • Lunch Meat

    it rolls off the tongue better than Daily Bitter Spewing of Pointless Hate-filled Posts.

    Yep, Fred is just all about the pointless hate. He definitely never posts anything interesting, uplifting, educational, challenging, beautiful, or inspiring. Why do we even read this blog?

  • JayemGriffin

    You forgot to mention fun. This is a strictly fun-free space. All the blog posts are just us bitter evil non-Christians sitting around and making up nasty lies about the pure, angelic men of God, which is srs bizness, you know.

  • Lunch Meat

    And how is it more vicious to say the words “a proponent of rape culture” than it is to blame rape on feminists for claiming equality in sexual relationships?

  • EllieMurasaki

    You’re misunderstanding as usual, Lunch Meat. It is not wrong to treat a demographically defined group of people as inferior. It is wrong to accuse someone of such as though such is a bad thing to do.

  • kash

    Feminists never claim equality, the word equal is not even part of their name.

    They would be heeded more if they did more equality talking than dominance talking!!

  • EllieMurasaki

    Feminism. Noun. A social theory or political movementsupporting the EQUALITY of both sexes in all aspects of public and private
    life; specifically, a theory or movement that argues that legal and social restrictions on females must be removed in order to bring about such EQUALITY.

  • kash

    Actions speak louder than words!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Equality, rubbish its all about promoting women just because of their gender and not their achievement-I have never seen anything more insulting to women themselves.

    Feminism is the most stupid idea of this century!

    Jesus was a feminist really????, did he advocate for walking naked down streets??

  • EllieMurasaki

    Okay, now you’re into non sequiturs. I’m going to go back to writing.

  • kash

    Really social restriction on females!!

    You do know that restrictions on males has increased, but no one cares about that.

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

    Doug Wilson thinks all sex between men and women is rape and that that is the way it must be and that that is fine and dandy. He does not think consent is a thing, certainly not a thing that a wife can exercise regarding her husband. While calling Doug Wilson a “proponent of rape culture” is certainly far too mild, that’s Fred.  He’s always giving people the benefit of the doubt. Being too mild in one’s criticism does not make one a liar.

  • kash

    Have you interviewed DOUG WILSON about this???

    Stop spreading lies, when he has not told you anything

  • EllieMurasaki

    His public statements say basically exactly what Lliira said they say. Shut the fuck up.

  • JustoneK

    We’re all perpetuating rape culture.  Some of us are just more blatant and ignorant about it than others.

  • VMink

    Oh, has one of the drive-bys decided to stay for a while?

  • JustoneK

    They’re showing us up.  I am surely shamed of my position on racist systems and gender pay equity.

  • VMink

    Eh, they’ll get bored.  They come by, clutch their pearls, assert they’re right, but once they realize they’ll have an easier time passing a kidney stone than passing their assertions as proof, they’ll disappear into a puff of illogic and curl up in their own little corner, reassuring themselves that the only right sex is the kind of sex that only anyone with a halfway rational or compassionate mind would charitably call ‘non-consensual’ but who cares about their opinions anyway?

  • JustoneK

    I totally do.  How else will I know what an awful attempt at humanity I am without them to tell me?  Every repeated memetic phrase is precious, like sands in an hourglass, these are the days of our lives.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jrandyowens Randy Owens

    …they’ll have an easier time passing a kidney stone than passing their assertions as proof, they’ll disappear into a puff of illogic….

    Actually, much like they seem to have an easier time believing those assertions after swallowing the first few, I seem to be finding it easier to pass kidney stones each time since the first.  (Wow, the metaphor works on so many levels!)

  • everstar

    Disqus, why won’t you support the killfile?  You’d make me so much happier.

  • VMink

    I’ve asked them.  They refuse to.  They say that any forum owner who uses disqus is responsible for moderating their own forums to eliminate trolls etc.

    So basically, Trolly McTroller has a field day spewing their bile on Disqus-enabled boards because they know unless the owner is moderating full-time, they’re guaranteed (sp) eyeball-time and Maximum Chance To Induce Rage.

    Get on your game!  You can do better than this!  Believe in me who believes in you!

  • Ian needs a nickname

    Whereas putting that same organ into the hole that a woman’s urine comes out of isn’t important at all.
    If you encounter a cloaca during sex, doublecheck your partner’s species.

  • SisterCoyote

     In this thread, which is so far “What?!”, “…no!” and “Oh ye gods and little fishies HELL NO,” you have just nearly made me spit hot chocolate onto my keyboard, and for that I thank you.

  • Victor

    Hey you’re doing a great job Fred and those so called humans like Joe Carter and Jeff who don’t like “IT” should just stay out of the kitchen if “IT” is too hot for them. Right guys and gals?

    HOW MANY TIMES DID  me, myself and i tell you to stop throwing NITRO on fires sinner vic?

    GET AWAY FROM U.S. Victor cause we gods don’t believe in your so called 7% Jesus Cells so for CHRIST SAKE  leave U>S (usual sinners)  to do what we want to do. “IT” is a “Free World” is “IT” not so NOW? 

    Have “IT” your way sinner vic.

     http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=My+daddy%27s+eyes+by+Smiley+Bates&view=detail&mid=94F6535A7902D7CB946694F6535A7902D7CB9466&first=0&qpvt=My+daddy%27s+eyes+by+Smiley+Bates

    Peace
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

  • LL

    “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.”
    Yeah, nothing rapey there. We must not be reading the between the lines well enough. 
    Honestly, not being terribly familiar with the bible, I’ve been reading these “biblical families” posts of Fred’s with interest. And I’d probably not be aware of most of the appalling things current self-described evangelical Christians write about women and sex if Fred didn’t tip us to them. Before, I’d always viewed instances of Christians (esp. clergy and other leaders) blaming the victim of sexual offenses or domestic abuse as exceptions. But I’m beginning to think that these ideas — that women are not the owners of their vaginas, should have no say whatsoever in how sex happens, should be OK with being slapped around and should be the only ones punished in the event of some sort of sexual “incident” — are a feature, not a bug. This is how these people think the world should be. They sneer at the word “egalitarian.” As if the very idea of it is so unthinkable and ridiculous, we might as well replace it with “Communist.” I mean, yeah, the times I attended church when I was younger, I heard plenty of yapping about “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.” I guess I wasn’t paying very close attention. They meant “lord” literally. And they don’t just mean wives, either. They mean all of us. All women, and all the brown people, too. That’s why they hate birth control and the brown man who’s the president now. Only white men should have control over anything in America today. That’s what these people mean when they say want to “take our country back.” What the rest of us want is irrelevant, I suppose. 

    I guess I was extremely naive to think before that most evangelical Christians (in America, anyway) are decent people. And I’m an atheist, so I wasn’t particularly inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. But seeing their repellent beliefs, in their own words, is more of an indictment of them than anything I could say. 

    And I’m sure many evangelical Christians would protest that most of them AREN’T like this and I would respond that they need to prove it by marginalizing the assholes who are giving them all such a bad name. Instead of marginalizing the people who point out how many assholes there are out there, besmirching the formerly good name of Christianity.

  • EllieMurasaki

    We must not be reading the between the lines well enough.

    Nah, you just didn’t get issued the special tinted glasses.

  • VMink

    I’m slightly uncomfortable with this point — that the evangelical community needs to ostracise and call out the jerks who call themselves evangelicals and giving the larger evangelical community a bad name.  We’ve noted frequently that we can’t ask that of Muslims (even though there are many protests and Muslims who repeatedly disavow the violence done in the name of Islam) in part because there’s no strict hierarchy.  It’s hard to ask that of evangelical Christianity which also doesn’t have a hierarchy, per se.

    There are people and orgs that call themselves evangelical, though.  I think it IS fair, to point out individual organizations that accept these jackwagons as their titular, ideological, and spiritual leaders, and demand of them to own their leaders’ bile or put said leaders out the door.   The trouble is that most of these organizations are totally okay with proponents of rape culture* and outright racists speaking for them.

    ETA: But yes, what Dave Wilson said is pretty damn disgusting.

    * – Deal. =)

  • EllieMurasaki

    I don’t know that we shouldn’t insist that generic Muslims distinguish themselves from people being violent in the name of Islam. We certainly shouldn’t do so when we don’t insist that generic Christians distinguish themselves from people being violent in the name of Christianity, nor should we do so as part of a campaign driven by religious and/or racial and/or political tension, but I don’t think that means we shouldn’t do it at all.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

    I don’t know that we shouldn’t insist that generic Muslims distinguish themselves from people being violent in the name of Islam.  We certainly shouldn’t do so when we don’t insist that generic Christians distinguish themselves from people being violent in the name
    of Christianity

    For my own part, I generally consider it my responsibility to evaluate others’ level of violence should it become necessary, rather than theirs to identify themselves as violent or nonviolent. I also tend to assume that people won’t be violent in the absence of some specific cause to assume otherwise, and I don’t consider any religious affiliation I know about adequate cause.

    But just in case it becomes relevant: I distinguish myself from people being violent in the name of Judaism. I don’t think I should have to, though.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Yeah, that’s one side of why I’m not sure on whether there should be a general social rule that nonviolent members of any group should emphasize their difference from violent members of that group when the latter make the news. The other side is I do think I need to distinguish my flavor of atheist from the eradicate-religion flavor and the misogynist flavor and the general-jackass flavor. In any event, I am more worried about the double standard in force that blames all Muslims for 9/11 and doesn’t blame any Christians for abortion clinic bombings even though the bombings are just as much in the name of the perpetrators’ religion as 9/11 was.

  • VMink

    Fair points, and the topic of violence in Islam and if it is inherent or not is certainly worthy of debate! … Probably not at this time, though =)  I readily concede I may be incorrect, as well.

  • EllieMurasaki

    I am of the opinion that most violence (self-defense excepted as by definition they didn’t start it) is either in the pursuit of power, to demonstrate the possession of power, or for violence’s own sake. The stated reason for the violence is an excuse, nothing more.

  • VMink

    In this I think we are in agreement.  I would also note that while this is not always a BAD thing — populist revolutions fall under the ‘pursuit of power’ lede in that they are attempting to wrest power from a, presumed, few — violent actions are also amongst the easiest to suborn.  I was recently exposed to several examples of how a number of populist revolutions were built on the backs of a number of oppressed peoples… who remained oppressed even after the revolution.  I’m becoming increasingly convinced that there can be no place for violence in any sort of meaningful change, because the violence either becomes the goal of the change, or it distorts the existing goals.

  • Patrick Spens

    Come one, we are talking about the U.S Civil War in this very post. You know, that incredibly violent event that clearly changed the United States for the better? 

  • EllieMurasaki

    There’s room for argument about whether a violent solution to slavery in the US would have been necessary had a nonviolent solution been tried earlier. Mind, for the nonviolent solution to work, it would probably have had to be decades earlier than the war, and it would probably have to have been the US government buying and then freeing all the slaves and simultaneously banning slavery, which would have produced understandable (if unjustified) protest from lots and lots of people whose tax dollars went into the mass purchase. So it probably wasn’t ever going to happen, but there is room for argument that it could have.

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

    Slavery was already war. It just took a hundred years for white people in the North to wake up and realize it. Antebellum North American slavery was war by one segment of the population (“white” people) upon another (“black” people).

    Violence is sometimes necessary, legitimate, and good. Slaves killing the people who enslave them is self-defense. And absolutely, entirely, 100% justified.

  • EllieMurasaki

    For the most part it wasn’t slaves or ex-slaves killing slaveowners, though. It was people who’d never been anywhere near slavery killing other people who had mostly lived in proximity to slavery but not been personally involved, and vice versa. I am not arguing that the war was unjustified, because the slaves did not have guns and the Union soldiers did, and there’s nothing wrong with defending others, any more than with defending oneself. It’s just that we could hypothetically have ended slavery with considerably less bloodshed. Everywhere else did, after all. Except Haiti, but nobody likes to remember about Haiti.

  • VMink

    This has been an interesting topic of debate on Ta-Nehisi Coates’ site, and… I’ve been wavering a bit. I can’t bring myself to disagree with you since slavery was bloody *wrong*.

    My question is: Nat Turner?

    ETA: I should clarify: The Southern governments’ response to Nat Turner’s rebellion was utterly wrong and I will *never* say it was called for. I’m asking more about Nat Turner’s rebellion killing the children of slaveowners. (The slaveowners themselves, I’ve really very little ability to be sympathetic towards.) There weren’t many, but they were there. I’m just wondering if… well, if that was part of what needed to be done? I’m not saying you or I (or even Nat Turner himself) condoned it, but if it was an inevitable and necessary part of the rebellion, if the rebellion was… … You know, I don’t even know what I’m asking. :(

    Argh. I’m sorry, it’s late and it’s been a rough day, and I hope I’m not coming off as punchier than normal because i’m finding this a very helpful discussion about the necessity of violence. :(

  • VMink

    Yes.  The nonviolent option is ALWAYS going to be the longer and more painful route but it will ultimately result in less desire for, say, a ‘re-match.’

    Since we’re talking about the Civil War, I’d point out that it was started by the ones who wanted to keep the slaves, and that didn’t exactly work out for them.  However, Reconstruction is where the North dropped the ball.  it could be argued that, had Reconstruction been carried out fully, then there would be less ground for racism to cling to tenaciously for all this time.  Besides that, emancipation would have had to have taken place long before the Civil War — at the very least before the Mason-Dixon Line.

    And I could be wrong!  I could be very wrong, and violent revolt/conflict is the only way that we’ll ever get any meaningful change in society.  Or I could be partly wrong, and sometimes it’s needed.  I don’t lay claim to perfect truth. =) I’m just expressing… well, what I’m starting to see.

    Believe me, a part of me is seeing all these yahoos say “Ah’ve got mah guns an’ my God, filthly Libruls!” and wants to come back with, “Come at me, bro,” or stupid rejoinders like that.  Part of me wants very much to see if might makes right, or right makes might.  (From my perspective, at any rate.) And that’s not good, not healthy, and I’m starting to come to the belief that it’s not helpful.  It leaves violence open as an option, and I’m starting to believe — and again, I may be wrong — that a violent reckoning will only result in blood and ash, and another generation which will plot revenge against the victors of the last round, simply because their elders taught them that way.

    My opinion only, of course, I don’t expect to hold anyone else to it, and again… I may be wrong.

  • The Guest That Posts

     Violence is not inherent in Islam or any other religion that I know of. How in the world can that even be worthy of debate?

  • Ima Pseudonym

    When they try to marginalize the assholes, the Jeffs and Joe Carters of the world swarm out of the woodwork to accuse them of being evil horribbad people for slandering their brothers and sisters in Christ and sneer that they’re just sucking up to the secular liberals for head-pats. 

  • LL

    A clarification: I do not mean to imply by my previous entry that I thought Christianity was all  Good News Club and sunshine and baskets of kittens and casseroles and ice cream socials before I stumbled upon Fred’s site. I’m not an idiot. I’ve been an atheist for decades. Fred didn’t poison me against Christianity, the overall track record of Christianity is what did that, long ago. Fred would probably not want people to think I’m an atheist because of what he writes. If anything, Fred’s writing gives me hope that not all American Christians are fucking horrible racist, sexist, poor people-hating, science-hating, selfish assholes who’d like to send us all back to 1855, when women and coloreds and children knew their place and poor people stay in the ghettoes where they belong. 

    Just saying, since I’m not a reader of any contemporary Christian authors and leaders, I was unfamiliar with how very terrible and disgusting many of them are, how much money they make from selling their terrible and disgusting ideas. Obviously, I’m aware of the occasional terrible statements of various politicians (Akins, et al), but I wasn’t aware of how much support these terrible ideas have among Christians in America in general. It would be amusing, how mad they get when you tell them their ideas are terrible, if it wasn’t so sad. You’d think a decent person wouldn’t have to be told that 

    “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.”

    is a terrible idea. 

  • Amaryllis

    I was unfamiliar with how very terrible and disgusting many of them are,
    how much money they make from selling their terrible and disgusting
    ideas.

    No Longer Qivering had a post on that yesterday:

    In evangelical Christian culture, marriage is a commodity. Marriage books are sold like gardening manuals or cheat sheets for the SATs. The sales pitch for marriage in Christian culture is more intense than any you’ll ever experience on a used car lot. Christians are made to believe that they’re God’s designated curators of Marriage, That Holy and Venerable Institution, and that falling down on the job can undermine the entire fabric of society. Just look at these book titles!

    And so I looked, and would have laughed if I wasn’t trying not to cry.

    And I refuse to even speculate about why “men are like waffles and women are like spaghetti.” (To steal from Dave Barry, I am not making this up.)

  • Lunch Meat

    Thanks, Amaryllis–we got a lot of “how to be married” books as presents and that makes me feel better about ignoring them. I have a feeling “Fireproof” might make me break the TV, anyway, and we can’t afford a new one. Marriage is hard (for me) in the way that living with anyone is hard, but I resent the implication that I need all these resources in order to figure it out–especially when we aren’t really having any problems.

    I have the same problem when people telling me I really need to follow Dave Ramsey. I’m actually really good with money, thanks–my system works for me and I’m not interested in being told to change it.

  • hidden_urchin

    Thanks for this. I passed it along to my little sib who just got engaged. They’ve been feeling kind of low since the conservative side of the family has made their relationship out to be some herculean task that they are not mature enough to handle despite being employed, educated adults who have dated for years and own a home. Don’t ask me to explain it.*

    * My favorite WTF comment to date is, ” why don’t you take a break for a year and see if that changes how you feel? If you love each other then you’ll wait.”

  • Joshua

    “men are like waffles and women are like spaghetti.”

    Those are two things that just do not belong together. The author was presumably advocating same-sex marriage.

    In fact, two waffles are never enough.

    Putting bacon on them is just wrong, too.

    I’ll stop now.

  • Tricksterson

    Bacon works with waffles if you use maple syrup.  And I probably just said something terribly obscene without realizing it didn’t I?

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

    Bacon on the side is one thing. Bacon IN the waffle? No thanks.

  • P J Evans

     Well, crumbled bacon might be interesting in waffles: something like putting blueberries in, but a different flavor. I’m not in a hurry to find out, though.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

     Tastes pretty good but the bacon can’t retain crispiness during the cooking process, and the result is that you basically get a waffle that is structurally reinforced by a pork-kevlar security thread that makes the whole thing chewy and hard to eat.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Bacon-flavored soy bits? Or does something important get lost in the changeover from pig bacon to soy bacon?

  • guest

    It is good–I used to go to a place in New Orleans that made waffles like that.

  • The_L1985

     Do go on. ;)

  • Joshua

    Bacon works with waffles if you use maple syrup.

    That is terribly obscene. Literal bacon should not be mixed with literal sweet things. I have no idea why that it a thing over in the states. It makes as much sense as peanut butter with jelly.

    Would you put bacon bits on an ice cream sundae? Actually, if the answer is yes, please don’t tell me.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    Would you put bacon bits on an ice cream sundae? Actually, if the answer is yes, please don’t tell me.

    Do not tempt fate.

    You cannot win.

  • Joshua

    I pray for the cleansing nuclear fire.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jrandyowens Randy Owens

    I’m so sorry.  Not only is it… what you rhetorically described, but it’s also fast food.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    Denny’s sells that. Though they also put maple syrup on top.

    Chocolate-covered bacon is freakishkly delicious, though I suspect the fundmental wrongness of such a thing is part of the joy, like deep fried green beans

    And my experience is that the jelly is mostly there as a lubricant so that you don’t get gummed up with peanut butter and choke to death.

  • Lori

    Deep fried green beans are fabulous. They’ve always been my favorite part of a good tempura platter.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    I once went to a place that had tempura bacon.  Damn, that was sinfully delicious.  

    Pity it closed down.  It was a nice restaurant  but its profit margins were too thin.  

  • Dan Audy

    And my experience is that the jelly is mostly there as a lubricant so that you don’t get gummed up with peanut butter and choke to death.

    I’ve never been a big fan of peanut butter and jelly but I really like peanut butter with either sliced bananas or mustard (pasted not whole grain) which both offer really nice flavours to offset the peanut butter and provides the stick-protection I desire.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

     I really like peanut butter with either sliced bananas

    Also jokingly known as the “Atheist’s Nightmare” sandwich, mainly for combining two of the most absurd creationist arguments into one delicious snack.  :D

  • Tricksterson

    I never understood peanut butter and jelly either.  I mean it’s okay but I much prefer peanut butter on it’s own.  On the other hand  I once made and ate chocolate chip scrambled eggs (not a success) so who am I to criticize?  Sausage pancakes on the other hand are delish.

  • Madhabmatics

     I have a copy of one of these books written by Tim LaHey (The Act of Marriage). It is a trip.

    Also it has a huge illustration showing the vagina and urethra with arrows pointing to it so you can tell some of the people in this comment line have never read it. :P

  • SketchesbyBoze

    “Just saying, since I’m not a reader of any contemporary Christian authors and leaders.”

    You’ve never read “Harry Potter”? Friend, it’s not too late.

  • Jiagap

     I do not understand how someone who is a christian with any sense of the love of God, i.e, we love because He first loved us, has a problem with Doug’s language. A christian, by definition would be part of the bride of Christ. I am quite thankful, as a part of the bride, that Christ’s love penetrated me, conquered me, and he resides in me and plants his spirit in me – I receive, surrender and accept.

  • EllieMurasaki

    So being a sub in a consensual D/s relationship works for you. Awesome. More power to you.

    It doesn’t work for everyone. Some people are Doms, some are subs, some are switches, some aren’t into the D/s thing at all. One’s gender and one’s genitals play no role in which category one falls in with respect to D/s. Wilson’s insistence that all men should be Doms and all women should be subs, that is frightening even before we take into consideration wider societal power dynamics that nearly always assign power to men and not women.

    Wilson’s choice of words, the man conquering and the women surrendering, that is also frightening: ‘conquer’ implies resistance, ‘surrender’ implies giving up resistance, and in this context that means the woman does not want sex and the man is sexing her anyway. There is a word for that. That word is ‘rape’.

  • The_L1985

     It may be that Jiagap has been taught that women never want sex, and that she has so far internalized this myth that she literally cannot perceive her own sexual desire for her husband.

    I find that very sad, if true.  It would mean that her husband is allowed to enjoy it when they have sex, and she isn’t.

  • Consumer Unit 5012

     

    Wilson’s choice of words, the man conquering and the women surrendering,
    that is also frightening: ‘conquer’ implies resistance, ‘surrender’
    implies giving up resistance, and in this context that means the woman
    does not want sex and the man is sexing her anyway. There is a word for
    that. That word is ‘rape’.

    IIRC, the same Latin root-word originated both ”Rape’ and, appropriately for this blog’s usual topic, Rapture’.

    Hm.

  • Lunch Meat

    The difference is that in the church*, we are all one–equal. There is no race, social class, nor gender in Christ. Yes, we all have the same relationship with regard to Christ. However, instead of admitting that he too is “part of the bride,” Doug is placing himself and all men above women, in the place of Christ. These are the kind of people that argue that Christianity has a “masculine feel”. They are not arguing that everyone should be submissive and surrendering, just women. That’s sexist, it’s not true with regard to sex, and it ignores the new reality in Christ, where there is no distinction between men and women.

    *Not that everyone who is responding to this post is a Christian or of the church; please bear that in mind.

  • Victor

    That makes a LOT of sense Lunch Meat especially the last part where “IT” ignores the new reality in Christ, where there is no distinction between men and women as far as He’s concerned. Ah yes! *Not that everyone who is responding to this post is a Christian or of the church; please bear that in mind. :)Peace

  • JustoneK

    Christ may not be concerned about gender, but the Christians sure as hell are.

  • Tricksterson

    This is going to sound like I’m poking a stick at you but I’m not.  Have you been taking medication Victor?  because that post was actually completely understandable.  If you are, or receiving some other kind of treatment or therapy, please continue because as disoriented as you usually are I worry that you might do yourself harm.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Internet diagnoses bad, Tricksterson, remember?

  • Victor

    I didn’t know that you were a psychologist Tricksterson butt for the record, no you’re not poking a stick at me at all. I will tell you that “I am” taking medication which my doctor suplies for my physical condition and “I” really don’t need to explain to you but trust me they are not for mental retardation but if they were, why would that concern you? Face “IT” deep down in side you don’t really give a darn about me so stop worrying  you silly man and/or woman or whate ever else Tricksterson might stand for. 

    If you’ve been reading my comment in other blogs, and you probably have and/or should have before passing judgement.  You should and probably do know that  I truly believe that “The Blessed Sacrament of Marriage” is between a Man and a Woman only.

    Having said that, believe “IT” or not, I don’t hate anyone for their sex orientation so please don’t try to score points by throwing your insult cause I’m not an idiot and “I” could go on and one butt face “IT” some people won’t ever learn to agree to disagree without indirectly throwing your  silly insult.

    Forgive Victor folks, “IT” is a little late and he’s only human and sometime does get tired of “IT” all but the only danger that he has is that someone might just be tempted to put him out of circulation if he continues expressing himself cause Victor really is his own worst enemies cause he just won’t quit needlying Jeff for his behavior which is really none of Victor’s business. For his own mental state, I’ll try to convince him to stay away for good butt you try talking to stub born human.

    Sometimes I almost wish that  GOD (Good Old Dad) and His Angels really did exist so that they could take care of Victor cause believe “IT” or not, “I AM WHO I AM” and I’M also getting pretty tired of “IT” all myself  if you get my drift? :)

    STOP “IT” sinner vic cause I don’t need you to fight any of my battles and besides most human have a good heart if you can get past their tuff skin that is. Go Figure!  :(

    Peace

  • Baby_Raptor

    Um, maybe because I don’t think I’m property to be used on some guy’s whim? Maybe I feel like I’m an actual human being, and should have rights as well? 

    Why does this confuse?

  • EllieMurasaki

    Weren’t you listening? If you’re Christian, you’re a part of the bride of Christ. There’s too many such parts for you to be an organ, so you must be a single cell. Single-celled organisms have no rights. And if you’re not Christian, of course you don’t count for even that much.

  • Victor

    With all due respect Ellie, not all Christian believe literally that they are a part of the bride of Christ who is suppose to be “The Church”and right or wrong is that  not so especially nowdays?

     I may not read “The Good Book” but old age experiences tells me that if “Jesus The Christ” is for real then me, myself and i wouldn’t mind being an  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoeba for HIM if need be cause in the long run “I” know that we would come out on top if ya know what “I” mean?

     Contrary to what sinner vic says on occasions, I did not take my life in 1991 and the problem back then was that sinner vic was convince that I had already premeditated to take my life after a week but long story short, “Jesus” brought me back to life on the third day and these so called imaginary friend of mine who believes that sinner vic is my god and own 92% of my flesh won’t believe me that the real God in me is my 7% Jesus Cells. Go Figure!

    Let’sjust  say before I close  that if I find out after death that “IT” has all been for nothing and GOD (Good Old Dad) does not even exist and worths of all me, myself and i find out that we only  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdtZgFqQg6E&feature=ymg and should have enjoyed sex more. Anyway! All I can say to so called Christian Men is that they better better keep a close eye on all of sinner vic’s  1992 female cells who are saying nowadays stuff like  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__nlUb5r6sY . cause they’ll get “IT” all in the long run after “BB” Day comes. :(

    I hear ya folks! Just don’t let sinner vic go  bipolar on U>S (usual sinners) please Victor? :)

    Peace

  • Joshua

    OK, that was weird.

    Just because you want Christ to do that to you (which OK, I can try not to judge, we’re all adults here) doesn’t mean all mean should do that to all women. I mean, what? WTF?

  • Joshua

    all men. Maybe I should get an account after all.

  • NoDoubtAboutIt

    Get some therapy.  Stat.

  • The_L1985

     Because I am not a plot of land to have a flag planted on me, nor do I think that the war-related term “surrender” has any place in a relationship based on love.

    European-Americans conquered the Native-Americans by forcing them onto reservations, making and constantly breaking treaties with them, burning entire villages alive (see also the Pequot War), and deliberately infecting them with the deadly smallpox by giving them infected blankets.

    I literally cannot see, hear, or read the word “conquer” without those connotations immediately leaping to mind.  Nor do I believe that any human being has the right to control any other human being above the age of about 5 or so.*

    I believe it is blasphemous and an insult to myself and my origins as a child of the Divine to accept any situation which is abusive, or which forces a mere human to have that degree of control over another human being whom he loves.

    * After that point, you’d better be teaching your kids self- control, if not a bit sooner.

  • VMink

    Also, it seems like Fred’s post has touched a nerve, either with one very determined person or a handful.  That or it’s attracted a poseur troll.  Which is itself fascinating to watch, considering the recent incident with what’s-his-face, Violentacres.

    If it HAS touched a nerve, I find it even MORE fascinating just what people will come out of the woodwork (to attempt desperately) to defend.

  • AnonaMiss

    I suspect the reason a lot of guys think women pee out their vaginas is the colloquial conflation of “vagina” and “vulva”.

    Dudes: Yes, the urine does enter the air above the toilet from the vulva. But the vagina isn’t the only hole the vulva shields.

  • Jane

    However, I will go on the record as saying that people who do not enjoy habanero peppers are potentially dangerous deviants who should be strictly monitored.

  • Tricksterson

    So that’s why I have a chip in my head!

  • Mary Kaye

    The Scarleteen web site is AWESOME on anatomy.  I’ve owned these parts for 49 years and I learned some new stuff about them.  Not just for teenagers!

    In particular, it doesn’t just address “average” sex organs, it talks a good deal about the range of normal variation–which is really wide, especially in females.  Two vulvas can look extremely dissimilar–and both be perfectly normal.  This was nice to find out.

    (There is some interesting evolutionary biology being done on the question of why, given that reproduction is such a key function, it’s so evolutionarily volatile.  Why aren’t vulvas as standardized as, say, hearts?  The fact that the same genome has to work for males and females seems to be part of the answer.)

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gregory-Peterson/1608524690 Gregory Peterson

     Reminds me of this article, somehow. Curtis J. Evans, ‘White Evangelical Protestant Response to the Civil
    Rights Movement’, Harvard Theological Review 102, April 2009, pages 245–273

  • Headless Unicorn Guy

    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.

    When this quote surfaced at Wartburg Watch a couple months ago, one of the comments was “Does she receive/surrender/accept while holding her Handmaid in her lap?”

  • Lunch Meat

    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.

    Last time this came up, someone (I’m sorry I don’t remember who) made the important point that this could just as easily say, “A woman encompasses, surrounds, overcomes, takes. A man relinquishes and is absorbed and buried.” The physical mechanics of PIV sex work just as well when the woman is active and dominant. There is nothing inherent in sex that requires a man to be dominant, try as Doug Wilson might to describe it that way. In fact, there is nothing inherent in the physical mechanics of sex that requires either partner to be dominant. We don’t describe one puzzle piece as more active or dominant than the other.

  • JustoneK

    This thread, man.  THIS THREAD.

  • Jim Roberts

    Can I just stick up for Dave here for a moment, get this comments moved to the top of the heap or something?

    The pancreatic bile ducts connects to the pancreas just before the __________.

    If you can fill in that blank, then, please, continue to mock and belittle Dave for his lack of knowledge of human anatomy. I’m not saying this is a recommended course of action, unless you’re a medical student or something, but it’s your show. If you cannot fill in that blank, then assume that he was sincere when he said that he didn’t know before and that he knows now and that he didn’t mean to cause offense.

    Moving on: I am an evangelical. Mr. Wilson’s comment definitely promotes rape culture. There can be no question or equivocation on this. Saying that this comment promotes rape culture is like saying, “Cheese is AWESOME,” promotes dairy culture. It just does, and if you can’t see that, then you are part of the problem.

  • http://musings.northerngrove.com/ JarredH

    The pancreatic bile ducts connects to the pancreas just before the __________.

    I can conceivably go my entire life without having a need to know this information.  However, if any man ever has a wife, girlfriend, or even a young (e.g. infant) girl he’s helping to care for, having a basic understanding of the anatomy of a vulva would probably be a good idea.

    Granted, my issue is not so much with Dave, but with a society that has left him and many men (myself included at one time) poorly informed about something that might actually be good to know.

  • Jim Roberts

    I definitely agree, Jarred, and it’s a deficiency that needed to be addressed. I jsut question whether it needed to be address (by my count) five times by different people. There comes a point where education becomes browbeating.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

     

    whether it needed to be address (by my count) five times by different people

    That’s my count as well.

    There comes a point where education becomes browbeating.

    FWIW, I mostly didn’t consider the primary purpose of most of the replies to be education in the first place.

    Rather, I understood them to indicate that my ignorance of female anatomy was being treated as a sign of more general indifference to women, either by me as an individual or (as JarredH notes below) by society as a whole or both or indiscriminately.

    Since such indifference is seen as a moral fault, and lots of people here seem to believe that expressions of moral faults deserve public chastisement (for various reasons), it didn’t surprise me that it was chastised.

    I don’t like any part of it, but it’s all been a community norm to varying degrees for as long as I’ve been here, and I’ve come to expect it. This was an exceptionally mild case, and more generally the level of public shaming is much milder than it once was.

  • Lori

    FWIW, I mostly didn’t consider the primary purpose of most of the replies to be education in the first place.

    Rather, I understood them to indicate that my ignorance of female
    anatomy was being treated as a sign of more general indifference to
    women, either by me as an individual or (as JarredH notes below) by
    society as a whole or both or indiscriminately.  

    FWIW, I would consider it a failure of education since I think everyone should be taught basic anatomy. Beyond that I wouldn’t generalize. I know there are some things about male bodies that I only know because I’ve been in intimate relationships with people who possess them and if I hadn’t I would likely not have had a huge interest.

  • The_L1985

     I was person #3 to correct Dave, though I didn’t know it at the time.  Remember, Disqus’s default is to list comments in chronological order, unthreaded.  So to comment on Dave’s comment, I’d either have to read through all of the comments in the entire thread, just to make sure I wasn’t repeating someone else; OR I’d have to do what I actually did, i.e., read all the comments up to that point and write a reply while it was still fresh in my mind.

    If persons, #2, 4, and 5 (no, I’m not digging through the thread just for this) did the same, well, I can understand it.

  • Jim Roberts

    That was why I wished my post could be put up closer to the top. Or that we had something amazing like an edit feature. Like you have in Notepad. Notepad. Disqus, did you hear that? You’re less technically proficient than frickin’ Notepad.

  • The_L1985

    You can edit comments if you’re logged in to Disqus.  I do it all the time here. :)

  • Dr. Rocketscience

    Threading is an available option in Disqus, but Fred has it turned off. If memory serves this was because 1) each reply gets less column width, resulting in some unreadably narrow comments, and b) the migrants from Typepad, where all comments are unthreaded, didn’t like the threading.

  • Rowen

    Question. . .

    Are we using genderqueer as a gender identity? I’m merely asking because how I first encountered it, and have seen used it for a LONG time has been more a cis-gendered person who makes a choice to blur the boundaries.

  • The_L1985

     “Are we using genderqueer as a gender identity?”

    …It’s not?

  • Rowen

    I started hearing it used in the 90’s as not being about gender identity but about blurring the norms of gender expression. So, it wasn’t exactly “cross-dressing” or woman wearing pants, but more of an androgynous look/statement that was more about skirting the lines between men wear pants and have short hair and women wear skirts and have long hair.

    So, it wasn’t exactly apart of gender *identity* but more gender *expression* and what from what I’m reading, it looks like it’s being used more about identity, and I just wanted to be sure i had it right.

  • Leum

    I was never taught about the clitoris or the urethra in my sex ed class. We only learned about the uterus, the ovaries, and the fallopian tube. I think we might have mentioned the vagina once or twice? Condoms were never even mentioned. And I went to a school that was among the most progressive in the city.

     Violence is not inherent in Islam or any other religion that I know of. How in the world can that even be worthy of debate?

    I think you could make a fairly convincing case that violence is inherent to Sikhism. Not because it advocates holy war, but because Sikhs believe that failing to defend the oppressed usually requires violence and that it would be wrong to do otherwise; one of the common motifs is the image of the kettle and sword, the kettle to feed the hungry and the sword to defend them.

  • The_L1985

     You learned about the uterus and ovaries in school?  That’s better than the entire state of Alabama!

  • P J Evans

    I was never taught about the clitoris or the urethra in my sex ed class.

    Mine didn’t bring those up either. (It was probably before yours, though.)

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    I am rather satisfied with the sex education that I got.  First were a few day classes in late elementary school, basic “birds and bees” type stuff pointing out the primary physical differences between the two common sexes, and some basic stuff about what would happen to our bodies during puberty.  Middle school had a few classes, which elaborated on the puberty thing, covered things like sexual orientation and STDs.  High school had a more advanced class split between both sexual education and general bodily health education, which in addition to covering some of those prior biological elements to sexuality in more detail, also covered a variety of purely social studies, such as peer pressure, desire, gender, dating, various methods of birth control, even more uncomfortable (but essential to know about) subjects such as rape and incest.  

    Overall, I felt it was pretty comprehensive, released essential information at a good times and at a rate it would not overwhelm the students.  

    There are times I loved growing up in Seattle.  :)

  • http://www.facebook.com/jrandyowens Randy Owens

    OK, I’d seen this A Beka mentioned occasionally in previous posts, and the best I could figure from context was that maybe it was an old commenter who wasn’t coming around any more.  Now, that’s pretty clearly not the case, so, who/what exactly is it?

  • Consumer Unit 5012

     From what I’ve gathered, A Beka books writes ‘textbooks’ for propagandizing the children of the Bombs and Jesus crowd, whether homeskooled or private skooled.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    Crumbled bacon would go good on a waffle, just so long as you make the bacon separately from the waffle.  Cook the bacon to crispness, then crumble it all up and scatter it over the waffle.  Best of both worlds!  

  • http://www.exiledstardust.com/ M. K. Hajdin

    Wilson’s comment: “However we try, the sexual act cannot be made into an egalitarian pleasuring party…” reveals the false dichotomy that people on both sides of this issue seem to believe in:  either men must “conquer” or sex must be all about “egalitarian pleasuring”.  Either way, women are still defined by their sexual relevance to male interests. 

    Women don’t get to opt out of the man-pleasing business, ever, even when their forward-thinking men get to consider themselves better than other men because they generously consent to toss their wives a few crumbs of pleasure.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Lesbians, asexual and/or celibate women, mixed-sex couples who agree to try kinks that they expect only one of them to enjoy and half the time the one having fun is the woman, none of these exist?

  • http://www.exiledstardust.com/ M. K. Hajdin

    You seem to be under the mistaken impression that noticing male supremacy equals the endorsement thereof. 

    Male supremacists think lesbians exist for male entertainment.  Asexual or celibate women have no function for men.  “Kinks” are a fetishization of dominance culture and are therefore no threat to the status quo, despite the apparent belief among liberals that “being kinky” is liberating for women.  This is false.  The only way to liberate women is to end male supremacy.

    Contrary to the claims of both conservatives and liberals, misogyny is evenly distributed throughout the political spectrum.  Don’t think your side doesn’t hate women, just because your side’s brand of woman-hating is different.

  • EllieMurasaki

    I don’t feel like unpacking the bullshit in most of your comments, not tonight anyway, but your statement that “asexual or celibate women have no function for men” is proof positive that your earlier statement that “women don’t get to opt out of the man-pleasing business, ever” is in fact bullshit.

  • Carstonio

     I admit that I’m not sure what point you’re driving at. It sounds as if you believe that women cannot participate in any sexual activity, whether it’s with a man or with another woman, without ending up being used for the pleasure of men.

    What Wilson doesn’t understand is that “egalitarian pleasuring party” is not about the man satisfying the woman while satisfying himself. It’s about both partners satisfying each other and themselves in a mutual intimate exchange.

  • Lunch Meat

    Wilson’s comment: “However we try, the sexual act cannot be made into an
    egalitarian pleasuring party…” reveals the false dichotomy that
    people on both sides of this issue seem to believe in:  either men must
    “conquer” or sex must be all about “egalitarian pleasuring”.  Either
    way, women are still defined by their sexual relevance to male
    interests.

    You do realize that egalitarians don’t refer to sex as an “egalitarian pleasuring party,” right? That he’s using that phrase to mock us?

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

    Man pleasing business?

    Lesbians in their own bedroom would disagree with that.

  • kash

    If feminists ever cared about the needs of men and the fact that they suffer I will listen to them, otherwise they are the most hypocritical bunch of loonies.

    Same to supposed  complementarians or those you call patriarchy promoters.

  • EllieMurasaki

    What makes you think we don’t care about the needs and suffering of men? We don’t in situations when caring about men would require us to care less for women, true, but that doesn’t mean we don’t care. I have heard about the ways in which attempting to achieve the masculine ideal hurts men from and only from people who want the genders to be equal; that is, feminists, whether they use the term for themselves or not.

  • kash

    achieving a lot of things hurts people, that’s the whole idea of achieving something!!

    I have never seen so much hate towards men from, egals/comps/patriarchu advocates.

    And they wonder why men are the minority among  Christians.
    Men make the majority of the poor, majority of those in prison, yet christians sit and spend their time attacking men rather than helping them.

    Sorry but the racist/sexist/rapist murderer are sinners too and have the right to receive the gospel.

    If a man wants to lead his family so what???, stop bashing him.If you do not pls stop forcing your pattern on life on others and constantly accuse them of being anti biblical, etc,etc.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Citation needed for every fucking word of that–and people have the right to not hear the gospel if they don’t want to hear it or if they have already heard it, regardless of all other factors, and the primary concerns with racism, sexism, and rape are making the people doing the hurting stop and helping the people who got hurt (in no particular order). Helping the people doing the hurting is a very distant third.

  • kash

    Here is a citation. READ THIS BLOG!!!!!!!!

    We all know for you guys whenever a man has a different opinion to a feminist he is a sexist!!!.

    This is all about making men shut up and silent.Sorry but you need to do a better job convincing men or they will slowly become muslim and crazy violent!

    And we know that muslims have no respect for women

  • EllieMurasaki

    Which is obviously why men who express an opinion held by some but not all feminists are shouted down as sexist when women who express that same opinion are not, and it is men expressing opinions contrary to the local female population who get called gendered slurs such as ‘bitch’, not women expressing opinions contrary to the local male population.

    Oh wait that doesn’t happen.

    Still waiting for those citations.

  • kash

    sorry, but in todays world whatever a women says supercedes a male opinion!!!

    Feminists just think  they are so superior!!!, never seen such nutcases, so desperate to become men!

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

     Shame on you.

  • kash

    your a citation!!!!!!!!!


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X