Doug Wilson’s Word Salad Involving Roy Moore, Kathryn Brightbill and ‘Hoochie Mamas’?

Doug Wilson’s Word Salad Involving Roy Moore, Kathryn Brightbill and ‘Hoochie Mamas’? November 14, 2017

WordSaladThis is all from a blog post of Doug Wilson’s Blog and Mablog titled ‘Nubile Young Women’ in response to Kathryn Brightbill’s not entirely accurate article on Senate candidate Judge Roy Moore and the Evangelical penchant for promoting the younger girl and older man dynamic published in the L.A. Times. Without a doubt much of the courtship model of Quiverfull Evangelical ranks does seem to hold this as the highest standard of marriage – even promoting the story of a young marriage where the bride was significantly underage. Here’s what NLQ founder Vyckie Garrison said about this problem nearly seven years ago:

Jonathan Lindvall, teaching “God’s Design for Youthful Romance,” cited the betrothal of Matthew and Maranatha Chapman as an ideal example of a “true romantic betrothal.”

Keep in mind that the bride Maranatha was all of 13 years old when this started and her intended was 26, twice her age, when this courtship started. Maranatha and Matthew Chapman have gone on to marry off their daughter Lauren as a teen bride too. This is a real problem in Quiverfull that’s mostly hidden from the world’s view.

There’s been a number of times in Wilson’s church where he’s married off people of unequal age, or married a sexual abuser of children off to a very young woman or he’s covered up childhood sexual abuse. But he’s claiming today that he’s been the upholder of underage women not marrying off older borderline pedos unlike what was stated in Brightbill’s article. Here’s what he said.

Screenshot-2017-11-14 Nubile Young Women, The LA Times, and Me Blog Mablog

That has certainly not been the demonstrated case in the history of Wilson’s church, his stated theology and history. Now that Evangelicals like Judge Roy Moore and his fans are taking the proverbial world heat Wilson is scooting backwards from them like a dog would after eating an entire rack of ribs at a bbq and starting to get the evil eye from the crowd. “Oh not me, not me! I would never do that!” Too bad we can see the barbecue sauce all over his hands and paws.

After spending most of his post distancing himself from Moore, claiming to agree with Brightbill on many of the points he then moves to his usual operating standard, calling women nasty names. Very Christian of him indeed and it puts lie to his words that he respects women earlier in the piece.

Screenshot-2017-11-14 Nubile Young Women, The LA Times, and Me Blog Mablog(1)

Is it ever appropriate for anyone to call any woman a ‘hootchie mama’ much less a pastor doing the name calling? I don’t think so, it certainly does not connote respect for their humanity or that much spoken about but seldom acted upon love of Jesus that Evangelicals and Quiverfulls love to talk about to those that believe differently than they do.

moreRead more disgusting words by Doug Wilson shaming others

Small Breasted Biddies

Stay in touch! Like No Longer Quivering on Facebook:

If this is your first time visiting NLQ please read our Welcome page and our Comment Policy!

Copyright notice: If you use any content from NLQ, including any of our research or Quoting Quiverfull quotes, please give us credit and a link back to this site. All original content is owned by No Longer Quivering and Patheos.com

Read our hate mail at Jerks 4 Jesus

Check out today’s NLQ News at NLQ Newspaper

Contact NLQ at SuzanneNLQ@gmail.com

Comments open below

NLQ Recommended Reading …

Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement by Kathryn Joyce

13:24 – A Story of Faith and Obsession by M Dolon Hickmon

Recent Comments
17 Comments | Leave a Comment

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


Related posts from No Longer Quivering
TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Specky

    Dang! No article there. Could it be posted again?

  • post disappears immediately.

  • Suzanne Harper Titkemeyer

    Just did!
    Had some coding issues.

  • MasterTrollBater

    now my brain hurts

  • Aloha

    INTRODUCTION

    The trick is to write a headline that gets people to read just the first couple paragraphs. After that, the overall quality of the writing has to hold them. So wish me luck.

    So taking the occasion of the Roy Moore story, last weekend The LA Times published an op-ed piece by Kathryn Brightbill that lamented an evangelical predilection for nubile young women. So far so good. But in the course of this drive-by editorial, there was a short segment in there that was dedicated to having a bullet whizz by my ear. So far not so good.

    AN EXCHANGE OF LETTERS

    Thereupon I decided to write the opinion editor of the Times, and I typed on this wise:

    Greetings. I am writing you to ask about your policy on allowing people to respond if they are named in one of your editorials. If possible, I want to object to a gross misrepresentation in the piece by Kathryn Brightbill. She said:

    “Prominent conservative Reformed theologian Doug Wilson has a documented history of mishandling sexual abuse cases within his congregation. Nevertheless, he continues to be promoted by evangelical leaders such as John Piper, whose Desiring God site still publishes Wilson’s work. When a 13-year-old girl in Wilson’s congregation was sexually abused, Wilson argued that she and her abuser were in a parent-sanctioned courtship, and that this was a mitigating factor.”

    Given the context of her piece, this is almost a photo negative of the reality. I look forward to receiving your guidelines.

    Cordially,

    Douglas Wilson

    So that you may see for yourself how far I first thought politeness gets you these days, I received this prompt reply:

    Dear Douglas,

    Although we don’t run response op-eds, we can and do run letters to the editor in these situations. The address for that is letters@latimes.com and you can let the letters editor know I sent you.

    Best,

    So then I wrote the letters editor, and here is the beginning of the reply I got.

    Thank you for your submission to the letters page of the Los Angeles Times. We have received your e-mail and will review it within seven days.

    A reminder about our guidelines:

    Submissions should be no longer than 150 words and must respond to stories that have appeared in The Times; please include the title of the article, preferably in the subject line . . .

    The email continued on with more boilerplate, but I have by this point learned that I have the opportunity to respond to a false allegation about a controversy that spans a decade or more, and that I have 150 words to do it with. That many words is what we writing professionals call the Tweet Premium.

    And so I thought to myself, nah. I’ll just blog about it. Way more people will read my response that way, and I can use 200 Tweet Premiums in a row, and more than that if I feel like it and get to going good.

    But then, after I had written much of this response, I got another letter from The Times, explaining that I could use 250 words in a print edition letter, or 700 words for an online response. Extra words are an irresistible temptation for me, and so I chose the latter and sent that off last night. I will notify all of you guys somehow when it runs.

    But my thanks to The Times for chance to respond.

    A BRIEF ASIDE

    There is one other thing before we get to the good stuff. I do want to say that it is nice to have my ragamuffin theological outlook being dismissed on larger and larger platforms. At this rate I will soon be a nobody on the international stage. My irrelevance as a spokesman for conservative Reformed Christianity is, as they say, burgeoning.

    THE CENTRAL DIFFICULTY

    So what was wrong with Brightbill’s lame attempt to work me into her thesis? Well, the main problem is that I am on her side on this one. I hope you see that this presents something of a difficulty for her. What she did was kind of like Robert E. Lee shooting Jeb Stuart.

    There are sectors of the conservative homeschooling world that have a big problem with regard to the issue she raises. Now saying that, I want to be careful not to generalize too quickly, or too broadly. Homeschooling is a big city by now, with lots of nice areas. But there are some sketchy neighborhoods still. I know this because I have been in conflict with them, on this issue, for several decades now.

    I have fought with those who had an impulse to leave their daughters uneducated or undereducated. I have labored to box out those who taught that homemaking was a low-skills calling. I have two daughters and a son, and my (college-educated) wife and I sacrificed a great deal to ensure that our daughters were educated the same way our son was. Their education was aimed at different ends, but it was every bit as rigorous. I have countered those who had low expectations for their girls by telling them that the level of education they provided for their daughters was going to roughly predict the level of education that their grandsons would receive.

    And when it comes to older guys courting younger girls, I have taught that because all men are hungry for respect, some of the lazier ones are tempted to garner this respect on the cheap. They do this by vying for girls who could only compare them to all the fifteen-year-old boys they knew. In fact, I made some fun of this pattern in my novel Evangellyfish.

    In sum, when a 25-year-old guy sets his sights on a 15-year-old girl, I think it is safe to say that I hate it with the heat of a thousand suns, more or less, give or take.

    And yet, instead of trumpeting my loyalty to this most reasonable cause, Brightbill drags me into the fray, pretending that I think that a parent-approved courtship in a situation like the one in the case she mentions mitigates anything. It mitigates nothing. “Mitigates” would mean that Crime X becomes, as a result of this mitigation, crime x. Rather, my hostility to this kind of thinking meant that I thought that Crime X was actually Crime Y. It means “statutory rape” instead of “lewd and lascivious.”

    For the case she mentions was a prime example of the kind of thinking she critiques throughout her article. It was a prime example of it, and it did happen in our church community. But my opposition to that kind of thing is one of the reasons why the courtship was kept a secret—because the climate of our church community was and is decidedly against that kind of thing.

    And so here is my lament, too long to be published (in all its fullness) in The LA Times. Why does Kathryn Brightbill complain about evangelical creepiness on this score, and then sideswipe an evangelical leader who takes what amounts to that same stand?

    ACTUALLY, HERE’S WHY

    That was a rhetorical question. I’ll tell you why. It is because I am willing to say that young women are nubile.

    By the way, if my periodic use of that perfectly acceptable word has had you fuming since you read the headline, this is because somewhere down in your secret heart of hearts you have turned over all questions of moral authority concerning gender to the feminists. But here at this blog we don’t care what they think. We care what God thinks, and specifically, we care what God says.

    Men and women are different. Foolish men and foolish women are different. Wise men and wise women are different. And both classes of men and women are different from each other, with all of them different in different ways.

    Starting with the foolish, they value different things. A certain kind of man values certain traits that are at their peak when a woman is young (I would use the word nubile here again, but I don’t want to tax your patience). A certain kind of woman values certain traits that are at their peak later when a man is older (e.g. wealthy, successful, putting off a most-interesting-man-in-the-world vibe). These two types will often meet at parties (or, in Brightbill’s story, at worldview conferences). It will not be long before they hook up to make a deal.

    It is a human thing, not an evangelical thing. Whenever the population of any subculture gets large enough to have successful fools with distinguished-looking beards, and a substantial cohort of nubile young hotties, you will see the carnal coalitions start to form.

    This is what has happened in some of the corners of evangelicalism described by Brightbill, and this is also what has been happening in that skanky-fest called Hollywood. Welcome to earth, kid.

    And this is where you see the difference between biblical prudence and feminist resentments. Feminists hate the fact that there even are hot bodies. They want socialism applied to sex, surgically-imposed on the one percent if necessary. Wise Christians know to look past the look, but they don’t resent the existence of it at all. They know its place. Sexual attractiveness is a factor, but by no means the most important one.

    “Charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain, but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised” (Prov. 31:30, ESVOpen in Logos Bible Software (if available)).

    So please note that the idea is not that charm is nonexistent, but rather that it is a liar. And, in particular cases, it is pretty good at lying.

    “For the lips of a forbidden woman drip honey, and her speech is smoother than oil, but in the end she is bitter as wormwood, sharp as a two-edged sword. Her feet go down to death; her steps follow the path to Sheol” (Prov. 5:3–5, ESVOpen in Logos Bible Software (if available)).

    But in the strange new world of feminism, when godly mothers warn their sons about the painted ladies, this is taken as some form of conservative misogyny, an attack on any women anywhere who were working on their own empowerment. This is why our ruling overlords are trying to transform our language. They want to turn hoochie mamas into unionized “sex workers.”

    Got it? By rejecting those believers who say that certain women are sexual fools (and that the men who pursue them are another kind of sexual fool), our new establishment wants to create a new rule, one that says a critique of any woman is an attack on all. And by this clever means, they are trying to remove the hope of the gospel from the earth.

    * There’s the post.
    ** Here’s the link … https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/nubile-young-women-la-times.html

  • Aloha

    Plus, this new background for comments makes reading extremely difficult.

  • Suzanne Harper Titkemeyer

    Refixed again. For some reason Patheos CMS frame is fond of dumping junk code into a post and usually it’s only one or two lines where I’ve quoted something from a previous post. Today it put junk code in every single line of the post. Had to pick it out one by one.

  • Carrie Scott

    Thank you for your dedication.

  • Mel

    Look, reason that high school students don’t end up having affairs with high school teachers ISN’T that most high school teachers don’t realize that high school students are physically attractive.

    It’s because no matter how attractive a HS student is – once they start talking – the relative immaturity is a complete turn-off for anything except people who are looking for sex with a powerless partner.

    A 32 year old man wanting to have a romantic relationship with a 14 year-old girl is NOT interested in her character, intellect or witty conversation; if he picks her up after a custody hearing – he’s purposely finding doubly-at-risk girls.

  • Mel

    I hadn’t thought about the Chapman nightmare in a few years.

    The whole thing was gross – but making Maranatha dress up for her wedding every afternoon and wait for a few hours to act as a re-enactment of “not knowing the hour or the date” was really twisted.

    Ever notice that these crazy lunatics never do their “rituals” themselves but always find some poor souls to act as pawns for them instead.

  • Allison the Great

    Dougie, you’re a nasty piece of shit and always have been. It’s much too late to distance yourself from the horrible things you’ve said and done. One thing you can do though is to never pull that bullshit again, apologize and make amends to everyone whom it negatively affected and then work to try to prevent others from harming children and young girls in the future. You don’t have to spend the rest of your life being a complete twat, you know.

  • AFo

    Sounds like what Doug’s really upset about is that people called him out for his own behavior, so now he has to hit back with this nonsense about how feminism is destroying the world because people get mad at him for referring to women he doesn’t know as “hoochie mamas” based solely on what they’re wearing.

  • SAO

    Wilson justifies men pursuing girls by saying, “A certain kind of man values certain traits that are at their peak when a woman is young'” but those traits — dewy youth and immaturity — don’t last long. Thus, the men, or more precisely, the creeps are either stuck in a marriage with a wife who doesn’t have the traits they value or moves on to some other dewily youthful, emotionally immature girl. Or the girl grows into a woman and discovers the guy is a creep.

  • bekabot

    Doug Wilson: “Me, I got no case. So, I’m going to spend all my time trash-talking my enemies.”

    And trash-talk is what it is. This claim — “Feminists hate the fact that there even are hot bodies. They want socialism applied to sex” — isn’t one bit true. The people who think socialism should be applied to sex are disgruntled males who mostly lean rightward in their official politics but who think they’re entitled to a relationship with a good-looking young woman (very young, preferably) no matter what their own attractions are. I’m not going to link to anyone or anything at this point, but Reddit used to be full of these guys, and even though the policies of the Redditors have changed (somewhat) in the recent past, it probably still is. Their lucubrations aren’t hard to find online, be it said, so anybody who wants to sample their wisdom should have no trouble doing it.

    So, to pick up the thread. “They want socialism applied to sex, surgically imposed on the one percent if necessary.” This is crap. Wilson provides no evidence for it and can’t be bothered to explain how it would even work. It might be noted at this juncture, however, that men who’ve been fed or have imbibed the idea that they’re entitled to female attention no matter what have been known to commit murder on that basis…a brand of murder which might be described as ‘surgery’ of a sort.

    Wilson would no doubt protest fervently that, since these men don’t believe in God (or at least since they tend not to believe in God) it can’t be argued that he and they have anything in common, and that their doctrines should not be identified with his. But here’s why I think differently: the socialists-of-sex are guys who are very fond of what’s called ‘evo-psych’ — a branch of Darwinian psychology which (once they’re finished with it) “proves” to them that they’ve got a right to a woman and “proves” that the power differential between a man and a woman who are in a relationship ought to be extreme. Wilson touts the same set of convictions, except that he does it under a religious mantle. Here’s why I think that what Wilson does is many times worse: by the time the manospherians are done with Richard Dawkins, they think they deserve a woman because they’ve got a natural right to her, but by the time Doug Wilson is done with them, or with men who are very much like them, they think they deserve a woman because they’ve got a divine right to her: IOW, they’ve been encouraged, with Wilson’s aid, to think God’s their procurer, and they’ve also been led to think women who don’t like them are committing a sin.

    Wilson has a lot to answer for. He’s handed messed-up guys a mandate from Heaven: exactly the same kind of Heavenly mandate Roy Moore seems to have been counting on 40 years ago. Do I see a connection? You bet I do.

  • Lucy

    Also, regarding this quote from Dougie

    Feminists hate the fact that there even are hot bodies. They want socialism applied to sex, surgically imposed on the one percent if necessary. Wise Christians know to look past the look, but they don’t resent the existence of it at all. They know its place. Sexual attractiveness is a factor, but by no means the most important one ….(famous bible verse about beauty)…. So please note that the idea is not that charm is nonexistent, but rather that it is a liar. And, in particular cases, it is pretty good at lying.

    MAJOR strawmannirg and projection here. What Dougie says about charm is a really good description of the charm he himself uses to weasel his way into the upper ranks of fundagelicalism, along with that of the rest of his ilk. Furthermore, if he actually read feminist stuff sans complete mental ossification, he would realize that no, feminists do in fact believe in looking past physical attractiveness. Oh wait, he probably does know that because his ilk lament the fact that women aren’t chosen for beauty. And, if anything it is feminists who are most likely to say that sexual attraction is not the most important factor in dating, or even much of a “factor” at all, compared to the traits of a decent human being. And no, it’s not that feminists hate that “hot bodies” exist, because of course physically attractive bodies exist. And gender reassignment surgery is never imposed on anyone, except in one case – that of forcing intersex people into a gender binary, which is met with no disapproval whatsoever by evangelicals. Besides, I don’t think that’s the kind of surgery he is referring to. I suspect that what he is referring to is a nonexistent trend of forcing plastic surgery on pretty people to make them ugly or homely. And outside of dystopian novels/short stories (which are fiction), surgery arrangements like those do not exist. And again, his charm is a liar. The “charm” of physical beauty/handsomeness on the other hand? Not a liar at all. That kind of “charm” says nothing, and does nothing in any direction – it just is, like a rainbow is just an arc of light, it’s not the rainbow’s fault that people’s eyes are fooled into thinking they can walk across one, because that foolery does not stem from the rainbow, but rather from the human brain’s way of organizing data. Similarly, physical attractiveness is not there to deceive you into thinking bad people are good. It’s just a specific subset of the many forms a human body can take, one that was encouraged through mate selection, but also one that says nothing whatsoever about a person’s character.

  • Carstonio

    I wasn’t expecting Wilson to unintentionally endorse the Howard Stern and Parker & Stone view of feminism. Those guys willfully misinterpret feminism’s attacks of the objectification of women, treating feminists as merely anti-sex spoilsports.

  • smrnda

    If Wilson actually thought sex workers were humans instead of just caricatures to ridicule, he’d get why they want unions.