* * *
Last year, an excerpt of Doug Wilson’s book, Fidelity, went viral because of the graphic words chosen to describe the roles of men and women in the sexual union in marriage. In a recent blog post, Wilson attempts to answer more sex-related questions.
* * *
Doug Wilson included this phrase which created an internet firestorm last year:
* * *
* * *
Now, please allow me to take a brief interlude to identify the source of these “memes.” They come from a site called CREC Memes, Real issues with the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC). On the “About” page, we read:
“The memes tagged “I sh*t you not” and “real life stories” are just that. They are exactly what is happening in some of these CREC (Communion of Reformed Evangelical) churches.
If you have never checked this site out, please do. I get a daily dose of mixed emotions when visiting. First, I usually experience fits of laughter realizing how much this guy *gets* the CREC Doug Wilson culture. Next, the emotions take a wild swing to anger, sadness, or both, realizing what I had previously laughed at is in fact the reality for so many people in high-controlling, Patriarchal, full-quiver churches. I do let out a good bit of steam, so for that, I’m thankful! Special thanks to CREC memes for granting permission to post them here.
Ok, back to the original intent of the post . . .recently, Wilson included two questions on his blog post regarding homemade porn. The article is entitled, Home Made Porn.
The CREC Meme site was quick to post a related meme. Brace yourselves:
* * *
(Oh, before I forget – click here to go to the site of the original meme and put your cursor over the picture for a hidden message. )
Here are the two questions which were submitted to “Ask Doug,” posted on his blog article:
Q1: Is it necessarily sinful for a man to masturbate to “porn” of his own wife when away for long time? Obviously, the masturbation is the main issue… one can easily close his eyes and imagine memories.
And the second question is like unto it:
Q2: Should receiving nude pictures of your wife by “secure means” (when you know you two will be geographically separated for long periods of time) ever be encouraged with a large motivation of having the man be detracted from the temptation of other women a husband may encounter?
The question would involve things like phone sex, nude pictures, cheesecake photos, homemade porn, and so forth.
Full disclosure: JA’s shuddered when she thought of Wilson even broaching this topic in light of the previous brouhaha last year with conquer/penetrating and colonizing. Ewwww
Here is a brief summary of Fidelity, from which the conquer/penetration quote originated so you can get an idea of the scope of the book:
Fidelity hits hard, offering pointed help to Christian males everywhere. Leaders are tempted to gloss over sexual issues, but Wilson uses clear language to confront specific sins with specific solutions. He shows how effeminate slackness leads to pornography, how being seduced is a failure to lead, why masturbation is lousy theology, and much more. Grace-centered masculinity should be self-disciplined and strong, not compromising and hypocritical.
* * *
The Bible does not have a whole heck of a lot to say regarding marital sex.
Ok, we have some pretty wild descriptions and interpretations of “tasting” and seeing body parts that resemble wild animals in Song of Solomon, but beyond that, there’s that bit about not depriving one another and obviously sex for procreation, but what else really is there?
So . . here on Wilson’s blog, we get onto the topic of homemade porn – – – something that could not have existed 200 years ago, let alone 2,000 years ago and Wilson tries to find words to say on the topic? Okie Dokie, let’s dive in.
Wilson breaks up his response into three discussion points:
- wisdom and discretion
- lawfulness of marital masturbation under such circumstances
- lawfulness of homemade porn
The wisdom and discretion point has to do with the idea that using technology to share personal porn can be dangerous as it can end up being viewed by someone other than the intended spouse. I think by now we all understand these risks with technology, don’t we?
Regarding the second issue, “lawfulness of marital masturbation” during times of absence, Wilson has this to say:
The Bible never says that such behavior is unlawful, and so we ought not go beyond what is written. We may not condemn what the Scriptures do not condemn. But we are allowed to be wary of things that the Bible doesn’t condemn by name. I would encourage husbands who are away from their wives for long periods of time not to simply assume that masturbation is their only recourse against temptation. It may not be.
I’m not picking up any real content in the above paragraph – just words that basically say that the Bible has no clear answers on this topic and then telling husbands that masturbation may not be the only recourse against temptation – – – which leaves a big honkin’ question mark in my mind. Ok, if it’s not the only recourse, then what else is there to offer, Pastor Wilson? LOL Please!! I’m not saying we need to go “there,” just saying that his writing gives no real answers to this dilemma.
For the last category, he asks the question: if it were possible to have a modicum of privacy via the transport of said porn via technology, would it be “lawful?” What is all this lawful business he’s talking about? I don’t recall any such laws in the New Testament. Where is he going with this?
He then gets all weird in this paragraph:
As with all forms of human behavior, there can be a range. Some things might strike us as relatively innocent — a wife who is being seductive on Skype the night before her husband gets home, say. But then other forms of the same thing (technically) should strike us as seriously messed up. Suppose a husband masturbates to images of his wife of thirty years before. Something is demented there, and it rhymes with whatever his name is. A Christian husband ought to be sure to ask himself how this will help him honor his wife in such a way that his prayers will not be hindered (1 Pet. 3:7). Reducing her to same level as the residents of one-handed magazines doesn’t fit that bill.
(JA does not get the italicized part – – someone please clue me in – – no questions asked, make a fake e-mail account if you need to, I just want to understand. Please help!)
The final paragraph sums it up – – I guess – – sort of:
So before rushing in with the sexual supplements that technological can provide, we really ought to think it through a bit more carefully. Otherwise, we are all just prisoners here of our own device.
Ok, I’d like a crack at this. Let me see if I can do a better job than Wilson at giving a reasonable response (this is purely hypothetical because I am certainly not putting myself in an authority position with my Christian brothers and “teaching” men here on this blog – whoa Nellie, no!). Here JA’s version:
Keeping in mind the idea that nothing is perfectly “safe” on the internet, if you and your spouse are sharing with each other in a loving way, meeting each other’s needs creatively, you don’t need me in your bedroom telling you what to do and what not to do. God gave you the Holy Spirit for that. Enjoy!
What do you think? 🙂 Well, I know there’s no way that Wilson would agree with my thoughts, though, because the sentence preceding Wilson’s “penetrates, conquers, colonizes, and plants,” sentence, he wrote this:
In other words, however we try, the sexual act cannot be made into an egalitarian pleasuring party. A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts. This is of course offensive to all egalitarians, and so our culture has rebelled against the concept of authority and submission in marriage. This means that we have sought to suppress the concepts of authority and submission as they relate to the marriage bed.
So, hey all of you who travel a lot, I guess if you are separated from your beloved for extended periods of time, I think what Wilson is really trying to say is you better just suck it up because the sex act is not about mutual pleasuring, anyway.
* * *