* * *
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.
* * *
Spiritual Sounding Board 
I assume what this means is that the demented thing doesn’t just rhyme with the man’s name – it is identified by the man’s name – i.e., the man himself is demented. YMMV.
LikeLike
Ahh, thanks for that, Chris. Welcome, BTW. I recognize you from Twitter, but see you’re a first-time commenter 🙂
LikeLike
I’m not sure why some of these weirdo guys are so focused on sexual matters, but I have always considered Doug Wilson a pervert hiding behind the pulpit. Idiots like Wilson that are so sex obsessed should just ask their wife if she is satisfied. They need to be honest and blunt, ” Is this happening right ” ? If she says all is well they can rest easy and not be so worried about sex, especially everyone else’s sex life. Oh and this is a perfect example why all women should be gun owners. Perverts are everywhere, yes even in your churches.
LikeLike
Weird post! What you wrote is much more clear.
LikeLike
So, Doug Wilson used a whole lotta words, and in the end said nothing very clearly.
Is that the news? What’s the weather? 😉
I’m still trying to figure out what exactly he meant by “egalitarian pleasuring party”. Does he have something against married couples sharing pleasure?
Then again, I’m probably happier not knowing what’s in his head.
LikeLike
Serving Kids in Japan said:
This is my understanding of Wilson after reading some of his stuff. Sex is for a purpose (men colonize, penetrate, conquer and women receive, accept). This guy is Patriarchal and they have lots of babies. The purpose of sex is procreation, not pleasure.
Sex for him is law-based, too. He’s stuck in the Old Testament. Feelings (emotional) don’t matter.
LikeLike
Julie Anne:
This guy is Patriarchal and they have lots of babies. The purpose of sex is procreation, not pleasure.
That notion has always boggled me. Does this mean that the man’s pleasure (which is needed for procreation) is simply a “necessary evil”?
So the husband either tries not to enjoy begetting a child (which makes no sense to me), or else enjoys it fully but tells his wife she shouldn’t even try (which is simply cruel and unfair).
Patriarchy, blecch. Glad I’m not one of them.
LikeLike
Serving:
I think it is a necessary evil. I wonder if he considers it a sin when either of them get any enjoyment – lol. Look at what he says the woman’s role is in sex: “receives, surrenders, accepts”. It doesn’t sound like any of her sexual needs are met. She is the object being used to conquer, plant, colonize. Sex is a duty, not for pleasure.
Contrast that with Song of Solomon where we have all kinds of sense going on during sex: they were looking and enjoying each other’s bodies, making visual analogies with animals (maybe that was cool back then), there was touching and tasting of bodies, there was longing for one another. It was passionate. It was strongly emotional and it most certainly was mutual. And this book is in the Old Testament! What does Wilson and those like him do with that idea? Was that book a mistake? It’s so weird how everything is brought back to the law.
I look at it like this: if God created it, it was for a purpose. Look at how sensitive the sex organs are. If the sole purpose of sex was for procreating, then why would God have created our sex organs to be so sensitive to touch/pleasuring? That would be a waste of his creativity, no?
LikeLike
Lana wrote: “Weird post!”
I know. I’m puzzled that he would even reply to the questions with such a non-response.
LikeLike
Last night I watched a movie rented from the library called “Higher Ground”. I had no idea what it was about as I have been recuperating and renting 10 movies a week. Just happened to grab it.
It is R rated not because of nudity but se+ual suggestions so not appropriate for many believers.
It is a woman’s journey through Fundamental Christianity starring and directed by Vera Faringa. (she was opposite George Clooney in “Up and away”)
The Patriarchal system is there, (don’t want to spoil it for those who many want to watch) and many will relate to this movie as I have. If I would have watched it 8 years ago, it would have angered me, but now I see how I have appeared to others. I related so much to the protagonist and her journey. Also takes place during the Jesus movement.
LikeLike
Interesting, Hannah. Thanks for sharing. I’d like to check it out.
LikeLike
JA- if your branch doesn’t have it , they can transfer from another.
Some may be offended by a couple of scenes( not sure why they were necessary) so I wasn’t sure whether to recommend it. It just may be a journey many Christian women can relate to. Totally a womans perspective.
LikeLike
“I’m still trying to figure out what exactly he meant by “egalitarian pleasuring party”. Does he have something against married couples sharing pleasure?”
Yes. It is NOT about the woman’s pleasure. That has no place in his scenerio. It is about the man having power, planting his seed and receiving pleasure, etc.
He is describing sex as a power stance. Add in violence and that is where the rapist is coming from, too. A power stance. Sex as power over another. Underlying principle is there.
After all, Wilson arranges marriages for convicted pedophiles so why should we be surprised?
BTW: I have been a bit surprised to find out Doug Wilson is popular in IFB circles. He is a Calvinist, they are just backwoods fundy’s like Bob Jones, Jack Hyles, Jack Schaap, etc, with fake PhD’s.
LikeLike
1) And they call me a perv because I’m a Brony…
2) I can’t read “PENETRATE! COLONIZE! CONQUER! PLANT!” without hearing it in the rabid screaming voice of THE keynote speaker at a Nuremberg Rally (about ten minutes into his speech when he really cuts loose).
3) Is this the guy who runs that Cult in Moscow, Idaho? The one praising the Confederate States of America for their Godliness? And their Peculiar Institution regarding certain Animate Property?
4) Calvinist. As in “It’s All Predestined — GOD HATH WILLED IT!” The Taliban and the Ayatollahs agree, including using it as Cosmic Justification for whatever they do TO others.
5) And as for this Calvinist being popular in IFB circles, I’ll just defer to Chesterton on that one:
“These five Kings said one to another:
‘King unto King o’er the world is brother….'”
— G.K.Chesterton, “Ballad of the Battle of Gibeon”
LikeLike
@Lydia replied:
Because he has reduced male/female interaction to Power Struggle and Power Struggle alone. (I wonder if he sees EVERYTHING as Power Struggle alone; it would explain a lot.)
Because when you reduce something — anything — to Power Struggle, the only two possible end states become My Boot Stamping on Your Face or Your Boot Stamping on My Face. And the only way to avoid the second is to make sure of the first. Forever.
LikeLike
@Julie Anne:
Outbreed the Heathen. Quite Darwinist, actually. Because in Darwin’s original meme, “Survival of the Fittest” actually meant reproductive success — those with more offspring generation after generation crowding out and absorbing those with less.
And women are nothing more than Wombs to Outbreed the Heathen. Like the spawning pits beneath Isengard, cranking out Uruk-Hai for the Culture War.
LikeLike
I, knowing absolutely nothing about p o r n, recently read a book about it and it’s affect on individuals, relationships and society. Wilson’s thoughts about sex make a disturbing amount of sense in light of that book.
LikeLike
Lydia observes, “He is describing sex as a power stance. Add in violence and that is where the rapist is coming from, too.”
Without or without physical violence, non-consensual sex is rape. In a marriage relationship based on patriarchy, where the wife is not given the option of saying “no,” all sex is rape.
Every husband who behaves according to the principles of undiluted patriarchy is a rapist.
LikeLike
But Gary, the Bible says spouses aren’t to deprive one another.
LikeLike
JA,
Jesus says turn the other cheek. Guess that means I have the right to slap you?
No, Paul’s exhortation notwithstanding, a husband who forces himself on his wife is still a rapist.
Patriarchist husbands are almost by definition rapists.
LikeLike
Leaders are tempted to gloss over sexual issues, but Wilson uses clear language to confront specific sins with specific solutions.
“Leaders are tempted to gloss over sexual issues?” No, they’re very much not.
Which is why some unmarried, celibate Christians squirm in their seats even more than married couples do in churches these days, because the tendency among some preachers is to discuss sex non-stop these days. In great detail.
Ed Young Jr, Mark Driscoll are two well known examples.
Here’s a page about the phenomenon:
The Church of Sex
Even octogenarian Christian TV host Pat Robertson has discussed oral sex and other mighty specific sexual topics on his daily show “The 700 Club,” and more than once. Visit “You Tube” and search for terms like “pat robertson porn” and you will find many examples.
Even funnier (or more disturbing, depending on your view), visit You Tube and look for videos using the phrase, “pat robertson muscular tim tebow” 😆
LikeLike
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.
That’s basically one of two messages we older virgins/ singles get –
1. “Just suck it up and deal with it. No sex for you! Them’s the rules!”
The other is-
2. “And when you do have pre-marital sex, God will forgive you, so don’t sweat it.”
Julie Anne said, “The Bible does not have a whole heck of a lot to say regarding marital sex.”
I agree.
The Bible also doesn’t have a lot to say about how to get a spouse, nor much about the type of person one should marry, but it sure as heck doesn’t stop lunk-headed married Christian authors and preachers from tacking on a bunch of rules they think singles ought to follow on when and where to get one, or what traits they think singles should stick to when looking for a spouse.
They sometimes give their opinions away for free on blogs, but they sometimes publish this stuff in books they sell.
scott said,
You and me both. And I’ve not had sex yet, and I’m in my 40s (I was wanting to wait until marriage).
I sometimes wonder why married guys (who I assume are getting sex regularly with their spouses) are so consumed with the topic, when people such as myself (who are not having it) do not think about it or yak about it constantly.
(Yes, I have sexual desire, yes I’d like to marry and have sex, yes the topic crosses my mind occasionally, but not nearly as often as it does Mark Driscoll, Ed Young Jr, etc.)
RE: Julie Anne’s thoughts above about Wilson probably considering sex being for procreation only.
I’ve heard other Christians who believe that way (and it comes up frequently in anti- homosexuality marriage debates), which makes me wonder what they make of married couples who are infertile? Are infertile, hetero couples just supposed to not have sex, since a baby will not result?
LikeLike
Great question, Daisy!
LikeLike
I just never understood the “sex is for procreation only” or “Christians should oppose homosexual marriage on the basis that only heteros can reproduce.”
As for Wilson’s comment that a woman “surrenders.”
Nope. One of my mottos is from Galaxy Quest:
Galaxy Quest: Never Give Up, Never Surrender! 🙂
That was a funny movie. I recommend it.
Also, actress Sigourney Weaver looks really pretty as a blond (she’s in that movie with blond hair). Her character is also shown beating the stuffing out of some bad guy on the show, which gender complementarians would not approve of 🙂
LikeLike
My husband is a long haul trucker. He can be gone for weeks at a time. I think whatever my husband and I do is none of Wilson’s, yours or anyone’s business. Having said that I will say so long as he is happy and not tempted by the next truck stop hooker that comes along I’m happy to do it. We have read Song of Solomon over our cell phones to each other. That is all I will reveal about that.
I am wondering how old Wilson’s wife is? The reason I ask is that I am in my 60s and post-menopausal. I’m pretty sure they have grown children but they may still be in the it’s possible age. If sex is only for procreation then are you just supposed stop once you can no longer procreate? Most men would not be happy with that.
LikeLike
I met Doug Wilson at a homeschool convention about 8 yrs ago and he appeared to be in his early 40’s at the time.
Reading Daisy’s reference to Driscoll. I can’t believe he is still at it with his nonsense and women still support his churches. Stripping is in the Bible? He wants his wife to walk in front of him so he can watch her from behind? Why can’t he keep this stuff to himself? I guess he arouses everyone with his perv talk. This is the stuff that grows churches nowadays..
BTW Daisy-I think you are the same daisy I have read on another blog some years ago. I really enjoy reading your posts. You have great insight.
JA- you have a great group of insightful people posting here.
LikeLike
“Insightful people” (Or in Christian talk- Holy Spirit led” ;))
LikeLike
Sex advise from Doug Wilson is just a big NO thank you!!
PS – I believe he is now closer to age 60.
LikeLike
Wisdomchaser:
I loved your comment. I love that you’ve read Song of Solomon with your husband when he’s been away. Long-haul trucking is a very difficult job with so many temptations. Let me just say – – whatever you do to make your man happy while he’s away: You go, girl 🙂
LikeLike
Daisy – – I had a shiver go down my spine with just the thought of searching Pat Robertson and porn on YouTube. Ack!
lalalalalalala changing subjects right now – – – Soooooo, what’s the weather like where you are? It’s a cool 23 degrees, sunny, with just a couple of clouds in the sky.
LikeLike
Bridget – you’re right. I just looked Wilson up. He was born June 1953 = 60 yrs old.
LikeLike
@Daisy:
I’m pretty sure Driscoll is a male nymphomaniac; if so, he’d be incapable of NOT thinking/yakking about it. Just as a CELEBRITY Gigachurch Pastor/Dictator he has to couch it in acceptable form: Bible Studies or “I SEE Things”.
Don’t know about the others, but I suspect some part of it is the Alpha Male Have parading “What I Have THAT YOU CAN’T HAVE!” before the Have-Not Losers.
LikeLike
@Daisy and Julie Anne:
1) As someone with time in-country in SF, Fantasy, Furry, and Brony fandom, I’ve had to think on the subject in the interspecies context — “Interspecies” as in “alien, fantasy creature, or genetic uplift”, a non-human or semi-human person coupled with a human. Being different species, the two DNA genomes would not be compatible resulting in total infertility.
2) The worst advice I’ve gotten along those lines was similar to Daisy’s quote but with Rosaries. I was told (by a guy who I figure in retrospect was a Catholic Quiverfull and into Clericalism) that if I could NOT marry or couple if the marriage/coupling was to be infertile; instead I HAD to become a Priest or Monk. (Not Nun because of my Y chromosome.)
LikeLike
@Wisdomchaser:
Though I’m sure with Wilson, “Some Animals are More Equal than Others”:
“WOMAN, SUBMIT!!!!!
PENETRATE!!!!! COLONIZE!!!!! CONQUER!!!!! PLANT!!!!!
PENETRATE!!!!! COLONIZE!!!!! CONQUER!!!!! PLANT!!!!!
PENETRATE!!!!! COLONIZE!!!!! CONQUER!!!!! PLANT!!!!!
(and make sure you scream about What a Real Man *I* Am!!!!!)”
LikeLike
I’ve come to the conclusion that there must be at least one misbegotten, incomprehensible and unfathomable attempt at a joke in everything Doug Wilson writes. It’s gotta be an actual city ordinance in Moscow because I’ve never yet read anything of his that didn’t have one. So don’t feel bad. I have no idea what the one above meant either. I do, however, suspect Wilson cracks himself up all the time.
Someone really should start a website where all Wilson’s non-funnies can be preserved for posterity. “Posterity” meaning, of course, future comedians-in-training, so they can learn what NOT to do.
LikeLike
Julie Anne
I’m speechless. I’ve nothing to add. I have reached way down and I still having nothing. Is this real?
The only thing I can say is the person wearing that one-piece suit needs to cover-up and may also need some serious facial waxing.
LikeLike
Yes, Mark, Doug Wilson and his articles/book on the topic of sex is real. And he has a large following. And they respect him and his words. I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.
LikeLike
Hannah, yes, I post at Wartburg Watch as “Daisy.”
I tried to sign up for an account on Word Press as “Daisy” to post here, but Word Press said, “that name is already taken, try again!” which left me with “MissDaisyFlower.”
I sometimes post at Internet Monk and Rachel Held Evans blog as Daisy.
There are about two other women who post at RHE’s as “Daisy,” though, so I tried to post there as “DaisyFlower,” but sometimes, her blog doesn’t accept that screen name from me, so I just go with “Daisy.”
I was cyber stalked years ago (and another guy took what seemed to be an unusual interest in me several months ago, where he was following me around online to other sites, which un-nerved me), so I tend to post under different names on different blogs.
When I post under other names, I’m not trying to fool people, be dishonest, or do that “sock puppet” thing. When I post under other names, I’m doing it primarily for my safety / piece of mind.
About the Driscoll link I gave above, “The Church of Sex”. I think that page is about two years old now, to be fair to Driscoll. I’m not sure if Driscoll has lately said anything about sex, but he was sure on a roll a few years ago, going on and on about sex in his sermons.
Driscoll most recently said on a blog page of his (a few days ago) that Christians should not marry “pro- choicers.” I don’t support abortion, but I found it odd and a put-off that a married preacher is telling Christian singles not to marry people based on their views on abortion.
IMO, that’s a little like a preacher saying, “Christian singles, don’t marry someone who is a libertarian / republican/ democrat,” or, “Christian singles, don’t marry anyone who is for immigration reform (or against it),” or, “Christian singles, don’t marry anyone whose favorite color is blue and favorite ice cream flavor is mint chocolate chip.”
I am not against a pro-life Christian deciding for him/herself that he/she would not feel comfortable marrying a pro choicer. That is fine.
I just find it distasteful and overly controlling for a preacher to be making these rules up and telling other people they need to be living by them when the Bible is not clear on that stuff.
How am I ever going to get married if I have one billion non negotiable rules for a mate?
If I think, “The guy I marry must be pro life, have three arms, blue hair, a pet poodle named Frank, love Jesus, be a Star Wars fan, hate celery, and his favorite day of the week must be Thursdays, and he MUST be Presbyterian,” well good night, I am never going to be able to get married.
LikeLike
Well, judging by the photo crop, he should at least cover up and get a facial wax or at least cover up with a brown paper bag or something. That picture isn’t a pretty site.
LikeLike
The guy who does the CREC Memes blog and I have been Twittering yesterday. I’ll be sure to share with him your “concerns,” Mark.
LikeLike
Done!
LikeLike
I don’t think I have ever emphasized the need for a bag until I saw that picture.
All kidding aside I don’t know why elite Calvinist like Albert Mohler isn’t critisizing Wilson’s Methodology.
LikeLike
@ Julie Anne
😆 I’m sorry I grossed you out.
I watch The 700 Club quite often, so I see a lot of Robertson’s weirdo or incendiary remarks, before they get picked up by Right Wing Watch and left wing activist groups who get angry at him.
When his show did a piece on the erotica novel “50 Shades of Grey” about a year ago, Robertson actually asked his female co host (Kristi Watts, who is no longer on the show) if she ever read it or looked at porn, or did she enjoy porn, she sat there stuttering and sputtering. It was both funny and painful to watch.
The man was having a hard time understanding why or how women would be interested in sex, was how I took it. Or maybe he was just using that as a pretext to put Watts on the spot.
Robertson’s comments on The 700 Club, about football player Tim Tebow having a nice chest and broad shoulders, or whatever the exact quote was, had me alternating between feeling sick and laughing hysterically.
Pat Robertson Likes Tim Tebow’s ‘Chest’ & ‘Muscles’
That video is only for the brave.
(Do not view if you are snacking while on the computer, as it may cause you to either throw up, or laugh so hard crumbs spew all over your monitor.)
LikeLike
HUG said,
Oh geeze. I do wish religious people, especially the married ones, would be ten times more considerate about what they say to singles, especially single who wish to be married.
I read a story about one older, never married guy in a book about why people leave church, and it was heartbreaking and infuriating. This guy was an avid church goer. He wanted to be married.
When he asked male members and the church preacher for prayer in getting a wife, they gave him some of the most snotty replies. One said he didn’t think the guy should be married (wasn’t marriage material), so he refused to pray for him. One or two gave him the old standbys of “be content in your singleness.”
After he asked them once or twice more months later for prayer for being married they started putting him down and I think suggested he leave. He then tried two or three more churches over the years, asking at each one for prayer for a spouse, and he got the same lousy treatment at each one.
The guy finally tried a dating service (I think this was pre- internet days), and they burned down. A guy at his church said, “See that is God telling you to stop trying to date and be content in singleness.”
It is truly remarkable the insensitivity that is shown by Christians to Christian singles who desire marriage but they are having trouble meeting a Mr./Ms. “Right.”
They just assume if you ARE single (even if you want marriage) that you were “called” to it (or “gifted” with it), which infuriates me.
My Mom got cancer and other health problems, and despite years of prayer by her, me, and others, she was not healed. Using the same logic, I reckon God “called” my Mom to cancer-hood, or God “gifted her with cancer”?
LikeLike
Getting back to the original post topic. This must be a long time issue among Christians.
My Mom used to order Christian books. She had this one (I still have it somewhere) that is like a volume of various topics Christians wonder about. One chapter is about marriage and marital topics, and there is a question in there from someone about ‘is masturbation a sin if you are thinking of your spouse while you’re doing it, what if you are apart on a trip, staying in a hotel and the urge hits.’ (The Christian person’s answer in a nutshell was no, it is not. The person’s answer was a lot more reasonable and clear than Wilson’s.)
That book was published sometime in the 1980s. So, it seems this is a concern that’s been around for quite some time with Christians, but other Christians have handled it a lot less awkwardly than Wilson.
LikeLike
Daisy – – David Pakman and his co-host are f.u.n.n.y. I did in fact watch it the video about Robertson liking Tebow’s muscles – lol.
I had never heard of Pakman until the show covered my story (http://youtu.be/2VUo7lC7yk4).
LikeLike
“That book was published sometime in the 1980s. So, it seems this is a concern that’s been around for quite some time with Christians, but other Christians have handled it a lot less awkwardly than Wilson.”
Do you remember the title of this book, Daisy?
LikeLike
Mark – CREC Memes blogger responded here:
LikeLike
Julie Anne and CREC,
CREC, made an interesting point, sometimes it’s best to look at the positive.
I might add to CREC’s point that, at least the one piece wasn’t a speedo.
LikeLike
@Daisy:
The guy finally tried a dating service (I think this was pre- internet days), and they burned down.
Are you familiar with the Yiddish word “Schlemozzel”?
A guy who Just Can’t Win?
A guy at his church said, “See that is God telling you to stop trying to date and be content in singleness.”
And a variant on the “See How God Punishes You!” Jesus Juke.
AKA the last thing you want to say to a schlemozzel.
LikeLike
@Daisy:
My Mom got cancer and other health problems, and despite years of prayer by her, me, and others, she was not healed. Using the same logic, I reckon God “called” my Mom to cancer-hood, or God “gifted her with cancer”?
Same thing happened to my Mom in ’75. Except with her it took months, not years. Small Cell Lung Cancer works FAST.
These days I’ve just given up on ever getting married. Now I content myself with My Little Pony streamed off YouTube and moon over Twilight Sparkle, Rarity, and Fluttershy. (If only they were real…)
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t think I have ever emphasized the need for a bag until I saw that picture.
That isn’t Doug Wilson’s real face, is it?
LikeLike
OH CRAP IT IS!
SECOND ONE LOOKS LIKE HE SHOULD BE IN A PRIDE PARADE IN THE CASTRO OR WEST HOLLYWOOD! SERIOUS PHOTOSHOP-JOB NIGHTMARE FUEL!
(Well, at least his face looks normal, unlike Furtick and Swanson’s Central Casting looks.)
LikeLike
I’m really upset with Douglas Wilson for his patriarchal teaching and for his overemphases on Calvinism. I think the quiverfull movement is rediculous. But we have to look at the reason why people believe these things. Why do people propogate this stuff and why do others listen to and accept it? It resonates with a certain type of person. Whenever some kind of fundamentalist or legalistic movement emerges, that type flocks to it, whether it was Bill Gothard in the 80’s or Quiverfull now. We need to understand these people — what makes them tick. It is more than a general temperamental difference. It is a unique psychology.
LikeLike
Doug is saying that marital sex is about satisfying the man, and not his wife!
Translation: The husband is under NO obligation to learn better foreplay and sexual techniques for the benefit of his wife. No advice books, no couples therapy, no listening to her dedcribe her sexual needs or preferences. These are too deferential to women– a Biblical NO-NO!
And that’s one major reason why I am no longer a Christian!
LikeLike