Christian Patriarchy: men who resort to physical force (wife spanking, restricting movement, etc), to gain control of their wives
***
***
Always Learning is a blog by Lori Alexander. Her husband, Ken, oversees it and comments as well. Lori claims to:
“love teaching women to be sober, to love their husbands and children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, and obedient to their husbands as the Bible instructs me to do. This is a personal teaching blog sharing what I have seen work from God’s Word in my life and the lives of many others.”
Lori sees herself as a Titus 2 woman for mentoring younger women. Twice above we read that she uses the Bible as her instruction book. This is apparently to give her more credibility as a Christian wife and because she claims her teaching comes from the Bible, who would want to question her? Oh, oh, oh, pick me!!!
***
***
The title of her disturbing article is, When Words Won’t Resolve Arguments.
Mrs. Alexander first quoted a paragraph from a New York Times article. One can safely predict, from Lori’s article title, that the sample quotes probably do not encourage using words in arguments. But how else could someone resolve an argument? The following New York Times quote is about a couple who got in a stupid argument about where to go for dinner. (I bolded words for emphasis):
In previous relationships, I might have stormed out and sought diversion in a bar, writing off the possibility of resolution as both futile and beneath my pride. This time, though, I swept up Deanna in my arms, damsel-in-distress-style. Caught by surprise, she succumbed to my rescue. I had literally elevated us above our stalemate. We kissed and headed out to dinner, no longer concerned about where we went.
Here’s more:
Talk can yield clarity, understanding and empathy, but sometimes it just brings exhaustion and recrimination. Sometimes action is the only pathway to good will. And when I picked her up, I proved it. (Source: Superheroes, Just for Each Other)
Ok, as a side note, t’s important to note that the image displayed at the top of Lori’s article shows a black and white photo of John Wayne with a lady in a dress swung over his knees. The woman has a look of terror on her face, while John Wayne has a smug look on his face. What is he doing? He is spanking her with a hand-sized metal shovel.
I found a clip from the John Wayne movie. Be forewarned, it is disturbing to watch. Notice the looks on the faces. The men seem to enjoy watching this woman being spanked, as if this is socially acceptable.
***
***
But why would Lori Alexander use this image and title if she was not at least implicitly promoting wife spanking or men using physical force to control their wives?
Below, Lori discusses the differences between men and women in using words in arguments:
Men don’t like to always use words to solve everything, whereas women do. Marriage conferences teach how couples should “fight fair;” remembering to take all these given steps, asking the right questions, listening carefully, keep talking until its resolved, etc. How come women have mostly gotten their way in resolving conflict and men have to accommodate them? {“Now, honey, you forgot this step and you aren’t allowed to say that to me.”} This is NOT how it should be in a Christian marriage!
Ken and I watched an old John Wayne Movie a few months ago. He was married to a very difficult wife. She was always nasty to him. Near the end of the movie, he took her over his knee and spanked her! She behaved herself after this and they were kissing and enjoying each other at the end of the movie. I guess this was a common occurrence in many of the old movies! {Can you imagine a movie like this today? No, instead we get perversity of every kind but if a man acted like John Wayne, he’d be put into prison.}
**
What is the common theme in both image and New York Times article?
Answer: Husband uses physical force to control wife.
**
If a man behaved like John Wayne, he should be in prison. It is called Domestic Violence – assault. But I wouldn’t be so quick to assume that the woman “behaved herself.” She was forced into submission. Did she have any other options? Do you notice how Lori paints this John Wayne movie in a positive light as if she’s sad that this option is no longer available?
Most men don’t like to just “talk it out” ad nauseam. They’re sick of arguing with their wives and would love to have some way to just STOP the arguing and have peace.
A better interpretation would be: some Patriarchal men like to have their own way and are not concerned about their wife’s feelings or concerns.
This is all most men want; peace and joy in their homes. As many of you know, I encourage wives to NOT argue with their husbands since we are commanded in the Bible to not argue and God has ordained the husband as the leader of the home. However, since most women like to control their husbands, many marriages are filled with strife and arguing.
I know how this works. When I was in the Homeschool Movement in which Patriarchy was endorsed, if a woman did not agree with her husband, she was to remain silent and pray for him to change his mind. Having peace comes at a price. The wife in this scenario is de-personalized. She doesn’t get to voice her concerns.
Ack!!! She said they mentored a couple.
Please stop mentoring, Ken and Lori!
***
I have some questions: did the wife give her husband permission to be wrapped up in a bear hug, or did the husband force this onto his wife? If he is forcing, this is not love or respect, it is using physical force to control. This is abuse.
Godly husbands should have a way to take leadership and stop the merry-go-round that so many couples are on, as long as it is not physically abusive, of course.
It is apparent that they are clueless as to what constitutes as physical abuse.
Men get sick and tired of being politically correct according to feminist’s laws and always having to talk everything to death.
She seemed to like the John Wayne movie above, but now she’s gone PC for modern times. Rats! Those pesky laws interfere with men being men. Gotta love how she throws around that F word.
After all, they are men and we should appreciate their masculinity instead of trying to stifle it.
How is talking with a wife stifling a husband’s manhood?
Let’s take a look at some of the comments and read Ken and Lori’s responses (and what they conveniently don’t address). We’ll start with a comment from Dave who is definitely in favor of physical restraint:
Lori’s husband, Ken responded:
Wifely submission is a voluntary and willful act just as a husband or wife must voluntarily submit to God if they love Him. God does not push or pull, or bully a person, even a Believer into doing what is right, and submitting to Him and His Word.
That said, there is nothing that forbids a husband from reminding his wife of God’s demand that she submit and respect her husband. Even if the husband can do little about a difficult wife he can call upon her to consider if she is in the faith, if she loves her Lord Jesus and if she is going to honor Him as Lord, or not.
Ouch! So if a husband decides his wife is not submissive enough, he gets to question her salvation?
I was at my wits end it seems at times trying not to necessarily get Lori to submit, but to get her to see the areas where she was being difficult with me.
It sounds like Ken was being a bully.
True willful submission was icing on the cake that I was not necessarily desiring, but God was, from her. It was my appeal for her to consider God’s demands upon her life that helped her realize that indeed she loved her Lord Jesus and such love demanded her obedience to Him, and in turn her willful submission to her husband.
He’s trying to tell us that he wasn’t demanding her to submit, but he really was. Additionally, he went even lower by presuming to be God and judging her salvation. Convincing her to love God meant that she had to submit to him. In other words, he’s using God to meet his entitlement needs of submission.
Also in the comments section, we read from another commenter, Joanie:
One time I was throwing a tantrum (I had a thin nightgown on) on and he picked me up and carried me outside in the frigid temps and deposited me on a snow covered dog house! I huffed and puffed a few more times to show I was not gonna take that, but he told me he would do it again, but in the end I had to wind down because as much as I told myself I was big and bad ( I wasn’t) I knew he was bigger and badder. Honestly, it is hard to believe I ever acted like this. He says today he saw a diamond in the rough back then. I am so grateful. Today I try to sense what he wants or sees as direction and work to make it happen because I trust him so much.
How does Ken respond to this? Does he tell Joanie that her husband was wrong and abusive for taking her out in the frigid air in a thin nightgown and putting her on a snow-covered dog house? Let’s see:
It is such a difficult thing to know as a godly Christian husband how much to just love and accept our wife’s antics and being difficult, knowing we are to love our wife as Christ loves the church, and when we need to stand up to our wive [sic] as Christ eventually does with His disobedient children and insists on consequences. Today’s society mores, feminist views and even state laws may prevent many men from picking up their wife and throwing her into the snow to cool off in her thin nightgown, but excellent that your husband’s consistency in dealing with you helped lead you to a much better place and marriage. That is the goal for most husbands.. not to win, oppress or punish a wife, but to help her to good changes in attitudes and behaviors that will form the basis for personal growth in the marriage.
In conclusion, Ken and Lori Alexander do not think that husbands and wives should use words when they have arguments. They think it’s better for husbands to lead, and in the above case, we can see that they seem to be okay with the idea of picking a wife in a thin nightgown and putting her in the snow for “misbehavior.” They also approve of John Wayne’s spanking, but offer the disclaimer that it’s too bad that we have modern laws that prevent that from happening now. Ken and Lori both try to say they would never condone abuse, yet when abuse is clearly described to them, they dismiss it.
You can be sure that those who read Lori’s blog could easily interpret Ken and Lori’s words as condoning wife spanking (but just be careful that you don’t get caught). With this kind of talk about wives being rebellious, physically forcing her into a bear hug, etc, women are treated as a possession, an objects to own. This is NOT loving wives as Christ loves the church. Christ does not coerce His bride or physically restrain her. To claim that this teaching is Biblical is FALSE TEACHING and is ABUSIVE.
Spiritual Sounding Board 
“we agree to avoid all complementarianism.”
To me men that don’t like comp, are men that are confident a woman wants to marry him and stay married to him, is confident a woman wants to have kids with him, wants to sleep with him and wants to do nice things with and for him, can handle women telling him no! Wants to be married to a grown up, not a little child.
Any woman that marries you Scott should be lucky, so should any daughters you have.
My father was comp, when I think about him I want to throw up and cut myself.
LikeLike
“Doug Wilson’s famous quote about conquering women and woman surrendering”
Doug Wilson and Mark Driscoll remind me so much of my extreme misogynistic father.
LikeLike
“Jesus is ALWAYS there for you and will ALWAYS be there for you. So very, very sorry to read stories such as yours. God be with you always.”
Thank you Katy. You are a super cute sweetie;)
LikeLike
“But this website is nothing but poison, evil and a site where feminism”
Sage I am sorry this is your opinion. Julie Anne is the first Christian I have found to take up for children that have been raped. I was born and raised in hardcore Christianity, went to church three times a week, went to Christian home school, my father read us the bible every night, and never did I see Christians get mad at child rapist or take up for raped children.
Julie gives us a voice. The Christians I grew up with told us to keep our mouths shut, forgive, and get over it. One of my cousins committed suicide because he was raped as a little boy, another is in prison for twenty years because he was sexually abused his whole childhood. We were raised by heartless man-worshipping Christians – how children and women felt never mattered, we were to feel bad to make men feel good.
LikeLike
Well, so much has been said. All I can say about “Always Learning” blog article: Are there really Christians who think like this? Of course. I know there are. And the Christian cult that I left had its own version of misogyny. But the kind of marriage I have is nothing like the marriages discussed on that blog. They depict women as little children always wanting their own way, that need to be put in their place. I wonder if any of these Christian husbands have their wives stand in the corner, or give them time out. Or maybe they have a wooden paddle with the wife’s name engraved upon it, hanging in an obvious place to remind her of what’s coming if she is a bad, little girl. That entire blog article is written like a twisted Harlequin romance novel.
LikeLike
I did a little searching on Lori Alexander’s blog and found the following article written by her husband. He mentions that she has gotten help from Debbie Pearl. Now it all makes sense why they believe the way they do. Hyper-Patriarchy on steroids! Oh, by the way, I think this would be another excellent article for Julie Anne to decipher.
http://lorialexander.blogspot.com/2015/07/respectful-behavior-or-true-respect.html
LikeLike
Oh my, I started reading the comments on that blog article written by Ken Alexander, Lori’s husband. They are just mind boggling. Ken’s advice to some of the women living in abusive marriages is more damaging than helpful, and that is putting it nicely. One woman, who is anonymous, reveals that she has been physically abused. Then she said she figured out what preceded the abuse and and for the sake of keeping her family together, no longer does those things. I think that woman is in a dangerous and volatile situation in which she could be seriously injured or worse. Then Lori comes along and tells these women in abusive marriages that they are suffering for Christ. My heart goes out to these women who desperately need help. Ken and Lori Alexander are not the people to give them advice.
LikeLike
It just goes to show what can happen when those Genesis verses (which reflect the curse) are now prescribed as what God wants. So twisted.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I woke up so sad this morning. We talked about what to do with my mom’s wedding dress, sealed in a box since my wedding, decades ago. I see children around us growing up and getting married. We have done such a bad job, our children don’t want to get married, much less have children.
What a joy they have been and continue to be to me. And yet, somehow, they don’t see it as a joyful prospect.
I am such a failure. I chose to be a stay-at-home mom, and did so badly at it that our grown children don’t even want to consider such a life.
LikeLike
Bike Bubba, if you want to tell us complementarians does not see the wife as passive, Doug Wilson is not the best source to use.
Type “Doug Wilson conquer colonize plant” (without the quotes) into a search engine, and you will see what we mean: Wilson say that in sex men are made to conquer and colonize (win), and women to yield and surrender (lose). And men get all violent and rape-y when the bedroom cannot be a win-lose situation with men winning.
But I believe that not all comps say that, and that some of the 100’s of bloggers who opposed Wilson’s conquer/ surrender idea got comp sentiments in other things.
LikeLike
(I’m not saying SAHM is the only choice for them… I had a career and was glad to stay at home, because I have health issues that limit my energy. I know mothers who work as well, so I know it’s doable, if difficult. Many things worth doing are difficult. I’m just grieved that my own marriage and raising of children have not been examples of why marriage and having children can be a good thing.)
LikeLike
When I hear ” suffering for Christ” , I want to scream . I pray that all victims of this LIE come to know that is just flat out blasphemy in the most vile and disgusting ways. Christ doesn’t want you to suffer for him, he suffered for us. The cross was epitome of GRACE & LOVE, the completion of Christ’s mission to bring salvation to us. Christ loves us, he died for us. How can anyone use suffering for Christ as a ” leaky band-aid” for marital abuse.
LikeLike
100pinkapples, you are way too kind with your words and I am so thankful that you are victorious through Christ Jesus. And also, very thankful you have found friends and support here through Julie Anne’s blog, what a tremendous blessing to have you here.
I visited the website Darlene posted and sorry to say, I just couldn’t stay there very long without feeling betrayed for the Scripture twisting is worse than licorice. In reading our Bibles, I cannot find the text where it says that men/husbands don’t like to use words to resolve conflict. In general, I read of Jesus (a man, God in the flesh) using words quite well, I also hear the words of the disciples (all men) and the Apostles (not the wolves to call themselves apostles today-won’t go there) being men as well, and of course, all of the men throughout the Old Testament as well, speaking volumes of words with regards to all types of life issues, including conflict.
Do the authors of that website also refrain from using words in every area of life, not just marital conflict?
For example, when husbands and wives visit a restaurant, do the wives communicate their order to the server with words, while the husbands communicate with hand gestures and grunts? Or at church, do the women communicate with words while the men, including the pastors, communicate with texting, power point, hand signs, and facial expressions? There are several in our family with Communications Majors from college and they would not agree with Ken and Barbie concerning genders and communication styles.
Are men in churches verbal or are they passively quiet?
LikeLike
I suspect there will be sweet sexual payback for those husbands who dare to communicate, value, and cherish their wives. Just sayin’
____________________________________________
Not that I have the communication, valuing and cherishing thing down or anything, I can be a horse’s a$$, but…I have found over the decades that as my young arrogance and “Submit woman!” delusions faded away, exactly what you say above is exactly what happens.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m going to greatful receive the payback (hey it’s been a long wait, LOL ) from the start by skipping all the fundie marriage advice.
LikeLike
Retha, I’m drawing a distinction here between submission (where there is a big disagreement between complementarians and egalitarians) and sexual passivity. Wilson, and most of the complementarians I know (I’ve been in such churches for 28 years, more or less), say yes to male headship but no to female sexual passivity. You can see that in Wilson’s own writings on marital sexuality–he speaks very clearly about the wife’s right to enjoy her husband.
See what I’m getting at here? For reference, I’m no huge defender of Wilson, either–“my tribe” is baptistic and dispensational and disagrees with him on many things. I just think that the allegation that complementarians don’t let their wives enjoy the marital act is…..not borne out by data, to put it delicately.
LikeLike
One other comment; many New Testament passages, including James 1:12 and 1 Peter 3:17-22 indicate that suffering can definitely be part of being a Christian, part of God’s discipline of His children–see Hebrews 12. See also Hebrews 11 for a list of men and women through time who waited, and suffered, for Christ’s sake.
Adjacent passages, however, indicate that those who induce that suffering are accountable for that sin, especially if they claim to be Christians. So the problem with “suffering as a leaky band-aid for marital abuse” is not that Christians are not supposed to suffer at times. It is that we are not supposed to willfully inflict that suffering on our wives!
LikeLike
Bike Bubba, you remind me of one young woman’s observation, on the purity culture. She said she was expected to remain completely pure, not even giving away pieces of her heart in her thoughts, until she married. And then she was supposed to become some paragon of sexual excitement and passion for the benefit of her husband.
LikeLike
Refugee, I know a couple or two who had that problem–thankfully I think they have recovered. No argument that there is a fringe of extreme fundamentalism–I call it “hyperfundamentalism” myself–that IMO takes a lot of the worst extremes of Victorian culture and assumes it’s applicable today. But again, thankfully that is not the main stream.
LikeLike
Bike Bubba, I don’t recall anyone claiming complementarians teach that a wife can’t enjoy the marital act. What many of them teach ( and I have been present more than once when they did) is that a woman can’t be in control of , teach over or have authority over her husband and thus can’t be on top during sexual relations as she is then in control.
With respect to Mr. Wilson whom I consider a FALSE teacher, you are going to have a hard time convincing anyone that he doesn’t espouse those views when he has repeatedly in a very public fashion. When a man uses the words CONQUER, surrender, colonize and plant to describe marital relations, that is pretty clear. When he said that it exploded in blogger land. With thug husbands like Wilson , the wife is always the one being conquered and surrendering and that is pretty sick. It is also unbiblical as the scriptures clearly teach that the wife’s body is no longer hers but her husband’s and the husband’ body is now the wife’s. I’m not claiming all complimentarians believe this but it is obviously one of their themes.
I grew up fundie baptist and never heard this stuff until recently but the singles conference were I recently heard it was a baptist conference. The speaker was a Hayles Anderson grad, also a baptist institution. Apperently two other very fundie colleges are teaching similar garbage to graduating seniors in the last semester during their life & family seminar.
Frankly I have never heard anyone with egalitarians views teach or accept this idea about marital relations, practice or advocate ” wife spanking” or defend guys like Bill Gothard, Doug Phillips, or Jack Schaap. It’s always the complementarians and that speaks volumes.
I have on the other hand heard and observed egalitarians take a more balanced approach. They don’t all send the kids to daycare while mom pursues a career and have Dad cooking dinner every other night while mom mows the lawn. They too have roles within the home and just seem to work it all out without someone claiming to be the other’s chief priest and demanding total submission.
From my experience growing up fundie and being in a somewhat fundie church now, I believe that compliamentarianism is a very safe place for weak men to hide. I see in in the church I currently attend. The ole ” I can be a leader here and you have to respect me because I have a penis and you don’t .
LikeLiked by 2 people
“I’m no huge defender of Wilson” for reasons that have nothing to do with tribalism. He defended a pedophile and then presided over said pedophile’s wedding.
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/07/18/the-real-doug-wilson-encouraged-presided-over-the-marriage-of-serial-pedophile/
Wilson also bashed the young woman who Doug Phillips abused, You know, the one he was caught climbing through the bedroom window to go after?
I think it’s pretty clear how patriarchy views women.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The entire Doug Wilson quote reads:
““When we quarrel with the way the world is, we find that the world has ways of getting back at us. In other words, however we try, the sexual act cannot be made into an egalitarian pleasuring party. A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. a woman receives, surrenders, accepts. This is of course offensive to all egalitarians, and so our culture has rebelled against the concept of authority and submission in marriage. This means that we have sought to suppress the concepts of authority and submission as they relate to the marriage bed.”
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/sex-authoritysubmission-and-remarkable-insensitivity
So, no “egalitarian pleasuring party” folks.
LikeLike
Well, at least he admits egalitarian couples have pleasure. That’s a lot better than: conquer, plant, surrender accept, etc. That actually sounds a bit BDSM.
LikeLike
I mean, has Doug ever done anything but missionary-style in his life? I admit it’s been a long time since I’ve read Song of Solomon, but dang, where is he getting this stuff? It’s at best bad psychology.
LikeLike
This notion of the male conquering and assuming authority and headship infects most every part of the complementarian’s life and theology.
It infects their view of sexuality, some of them add to the words of the Bible to teach fables of men, that a woman being on top or doing a bit of conquering herself in the marital bed is somehow sin–even though the Bible is utterly silent on the subject.
It infects their view of the afterlife, they imagine a heaven in which gender roles somehow persist, with them over the women into eternity–this in spite of Jesus’ clear teachings to the contrary.
It even infects their view of the Lord Himself; many of them make out a Son eternally subordinate to the Father. Why would they toy with such a notion? Because in their lust to dominate women, they need cosmic justification, and change the very nature of the Godhead to represent their perspectives on male-female roles.
They end up with the following: bad sex, a warped view of heaven, and an arguably blasphemous view of God. Sober thing to consider what idolatry of male anatomy (that will one day turn to dust) will do to you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scott, if your seminar teacher was a Hyles-Anderson grad, that is on the fringe. There is a whole world of people who tend to be complementarian–most of the Southern Baptists, Conservative Baptists, GARBC,PCA, Orthodox Presbyterians, etc.–that want little to do with Hyles and differentiate themselves carefully from them.
Regarding some of the things that you (and BTDT) mention, having read some of Wilson’s books, I think you’re over-representing them and at times mis-representing them. His books clarify his thought quite a bit, though at times I disagree.
And regarding Steven Sitler and Jamin Wight, let’s ask a question; if God has used murderers like Moses, Paul, and David (also an adulterer), why would we believe that true repentance is impossible for someone who has committed sexual abuse? Is not the Gospel about repentance from and redemption from sin?
Now if Sitler and Wight had been promptly arrested again for something (DOJ says 43% of sex offenders are within 3 years of release–mostly for non sex offenses), I’d certainly be on Wilson for easy repentance and all that. But they appear to be productive members of society, if I’m reading right. The data suggest that something may have worked in Wilson’s counsel.
LikeLike
Oh for Heaven’s sake! Moses, David, and Paul never molested children. Normal adults do not sexually desire children. Pedophilia is a sexual orientation; it is virtually unchangeable. No one know how to treat this perversion.
Wilson is wrong if he thinks that marrying an adult woman will cure pedophilia.
The best that a genuinely repentent pedophile can do is stay away from children
LikeLike
“The data suggest that something may have worked in Wilson’s counsel.”
Sitler is a pedophile. Pedophilia is treatable, but “most experts do not think a person’s feelings of pedophilia are curable, therapy may help them manage those feelings and not act on them.”
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/explaining-pedophilia
Is Doug Wilson qualified to offer this therapy? “Wilson has no training in psychology or counseling, not even ministerial training. Wilson is not ordained.”
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/07/18/the-real-doug-wilson-encouraged-presided-over-the-marriage-of-serial-pedophile/
A truly repentant pedophile would make every effort to avoid the possibility of being in close contact with children. Marriage offers that possibility. Sitler told his probation officer that he and his wife “want to start a family.” (See above TWW article.) Ergo, no repentance.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And more than that, take the time to read the comments on the TWW article. I read TWW as much for the comments as I do for the posts.
LikeLike
I have said this before and BB does not believe me but the recidivism stats on sex offenders are meaningless.
I worked with recidivism statistics for years and care has to be taken at the individual offender level to get it right and definitions have to be made clear. Sex offenses are a broad category. They include everything from a man caught urinating in public to the immature 19 year old with the 15 year old girlfriend to the serial rapist of adults to pedophilia to ephebophilia and each has its own recidivism rate.
The dedicated pedophile often has dozens of victims before being caught. A Sunday School teacher in my community confessed to molesting more than 100 very young children over a twenty year period before being arrested. They often select children with busy or neglectful parents such as the overworked single mother who is grateful that someone is mentoring her child. They groom the child before molesting him or her. They take care not to get caught. Three years with no arrest of a dedicated pedophile mean nothing to me.
LikeLike
Marsha, is this what medical folks are now saying – pedophilia is a sexual orientation? I thought I read something about this a couple of years ago, but they changed their stance.
LikeLike
Well no, they aren’t using the words; they were removed from the DSM-5, because using ‘sexual orientation’ sounds to some people as if psychiatrists are trying to normalize pedophilia when they are not. So instead it’s ‘sexual interest.’ I don’t see a distinction. Pedophiles sexually desire children. Normal adults desire adults.
LikeLike
Ok, “sexual interest” sounds weird to me. Are they not calling it at least a disorder, or something that identifies it as something not normal?
LikeLike
They are calling it a “paraphilia” which is a “condition characterized by abnormal sexual desires, typically involving extreme or dangerous activities.” It is classified as a disorder.
LikeLike
I think this was by Bike Bubba, from this thread:
I may have the wrong thread. I had to log in which brought me to a different screen and another, which got me confused about where I saw that comment (I copied it before I changed screens). Anyway.
I have to disagree here.
As a single adult woman celibate who has a sex drive and wants to be having sex, I probably notice the church’s teachings on sex and particularly how they pertain to women far more than Bike Bubba does or ever will.
And I have certainly noticed since back in my pre-teen and teen years how Christians of all persuasions discussion these subjects.
What I can tell you based on years of reading Christian material (by Baptists, evangelicals, fundamentalists, and lately, Reformed), watching Christian sermons on TV, hearing the occasional sermon in person….
There is normally no acknowledgement that women, Christian or no, have sex drives. Especially married ones.
Occasionally, Christians adhere to conflicting views on this: single (unmarried) women supposedly don’t want sex because only men want sex, but…
At the same time (contradiction here), Christians also hold to the position that all unmarried women are hotty totty sexual predators who will rip the pants off any man (with marrieds being their choice target).
Most all Christian sermons or content I see on the topic buys into some of the secular sexual tropes about the genders: men want and like sex (and all the time), women do not like or want sex. Further, women are emotional and prefer cuddles, flowers, and reading poetry to having sex.
That women have sex drives is never considered by Christians.
Preachers will often advise wives in sermons and books and blog about men’s favorite sexual positions and so on. (Mark Driscoll, for example, advised wives to perform oral sex to their husbands.)
Other preachers will advise married ladies to always “put out” no matter what, even if they are sick. I’ve heard many preachers go on about the so-called importance of regular sex, because men will just die!! I tell ya, if they don’t get sex X times per week/month (which is a load of garbage, but I digress).
The fact is, most women want and like sex too. Women are not only into romance and emotional touchie-feely stuff.
Julie Anne has said before we can use certain terms and discuss certain topics on her blog here, as long as we’re being mature about it. So what comes next is mature content, but I’ll try to keep it, well, clean or tasteful.
Most studies I have read say that most women do not climax with penis- in- the vagina style of sex, but that is what most men opt for. Most articles say women need manual stimulation in that area, or oral sex performed on them.
But I have yet to hear a preacher – the more well known ones – advise husbands when discussing sex to talk about this sort of thing. That women may need more or different sex acts or to be touched differently has never been brought up. Only what the husband (most men) need or want is discussed.
I’ve known a lot of women who are not getting enough sex. They want to have sex five times a week while their honey pie only wants to get it on like once every six months. I’ve yet to hear a pastor tell the men folk to “put out more often.”
And why is it that the spouse who does not want sex ten times a week has to defer to the one who does? That is not fair. I’ve yet to hear a preacher say, “Men, if your wife prefers sex once a month, and your preferences if ten times a month, sacrifice, and make due with doing it once.” I do not see why, if the male has a higher sex drive, the wife must always defer to HIS libido. I don’t see why the male spouse cannot defer to the wife’s libido.
Anyway, no, Christian gender complementarians do not care if women enjoy sex or not. As far as most of them are concerned, women are not in to sex.
Women have not been, according to complementarians, “wired” to want or enjoy sex, certainly not as much as MEN.
The sexual needs and desires of women do not exist or do not matter, according to gender complementarians, only what the man wants matters and what the MAN wants in the sack takes priority to the woman’s sexual preferences, desires, and needs.
_When Women Wanted Sex Much More Than Men, and how the stereotype flipped_
LikeLike
Ok, good, it is still a disorder and abnormal. Whew!
LikeLike
” in Wilson’s own writings on marital sexuality–he speaks very clearly about the wife’s right to enjoy her husband.” – Bike Bubba
That is like telling me a particular rapist care about a woman’s enjoyment – he wants her to enjoy what he does and to respond in kind. But – the one thing he does not want is to care when she says “no”. He wants to be in charge, he wants to conquer, to force her, and she has to accept and surrender. Actually, wanting her to enjoy it and not sit back passively is even worse – he wants her to agree to and go along with her debasement.
LikeLike
That’s a really good point, Retha. He has his mind convinced that she does enjoy it, just as she is to enjoy being under his rule, enjoy being quiet, etc.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Yep. Growing up in Doug Wilson’s denomination, all I ever heard about sex from the women around me was negative. Some women’s group was having a discussion and I specifically remember one of the women telling the single girls there that you may *think* you really want to have sex but it’s “not that great.”
At the time, I took that to heart and thought “Oh no! So sex is boring for women?”
Lol. Now I have to wonder if maybe her husband isn’t that good at it. To be honest, I think many patriarchal/complementarian men probably are bad at it, but their theology/sociology has them convinced that’s normal. “Oh, it’s fine, she isn’t supposed to want to have sex with me. I have to dominate her and THEN she’ll enjoy it.” It hasn’t occurred to them to, you know, get better at it. But while the wife is not expected to enjoy it, she is expected to act like she enjoys it . . . because her husband will like that better. Sick.
I want to use some very angry language right now.
LikeLike
Is that Wilson follower tweet for real?
LikeLike
Regarding the recidivism argument, I’ll surprise Marsha by allowing that it is possible that the sex offence recidivism numbers are deflated by people who know how not to get caught for that kind of crime. What is meaningful in this case, though, is that neither perpetrator has been arrested for anything, and that both appear to be gainfully employed and productive members of society. That is not the usual case for those who have committed this kind of crime. So whether or not Wilson is qualified in the eyes of professional groups, it appears that something “took” for the two men he counseled.
And yes, I will repeat that if God can use murderers like Moses, David, Paul, Simeon, and Levi, He can also use those who have committed sexual sin like David, Judah, Rahab, many of the Corinthians and other early believers, the woman accused of adultery, and the woman at the well. I’m going to take the Apostle Paul over DSM here, especially given the fluidity of the latter.
No argument that it can be tremendously difficult to help someone convicted of any of the forms of sexual sin–theologians call it a “besetting sin” for a reason. But let’s not forget the Gospel holds out hope for even these.
LikeLike
@Bike Bubba
The married with children church going southern Baptist Christian man that sexually terrorized me from two years old until ten years old was never arrested, had a job, and church people kissed his misogynistic little girl raping @ss. I think the putrid man wanted to have sex with a virgin girl under the age of thirteen every time he had sex. He believed he deserved it, and females were just vaginas. If I said what that man said to me as a child under the age of ten I would get banned. Oh how he loved the bible.
” is that neither perpetrator has been arrested for anything, and that both appear to be gainfully employed and productive members of society.”
Sexually terrorizing children is not a sexual sin, it is much worse. I consider raping children worse then murder. But then I am not a comp man. None of the child rapist I have known ever went to prison.
Doug Wilson is pure misogyny, he hurts women, but he makes sexually sadistic men feel good, and in his world sexually sadistic men trump sexually abused women.
Why is it so important to comp men to minimize sexual abuse of women and children? Always taking up for pedophiles and rapist?
Never mind, I know why.
I really believe from the top of my head to the soles of my feet that comp men get pornographic pleasure out of women and little girls being sexually demeaned and having sexual agony.
My comp father hated raped five year old girls every bit as much as he hated raped twenty five year old women.
I hope comp men quit getting away with their selfish misogyny, it hurts very much sexually abused little girls.
LikeLike
“He can also use those who have committed sexual sin”
Sexual sin? We’re not talking about fornication or adultery here. We’re talking about a man who forced a two-year-old to kiss his erect penis.
http://www.tomandrodna.com/CR_2005_02027/Private_Letter.htm
That was just one victim. This man is pathologically disordered. And Wilson is not qualified to to determine his status.
LikeLike
How do you think child molesters manage to get away with abusing dozens of children before getting caught? Because they appear to be employed, productive citizens! Like the Sunday School teacher in my community. He had a good job and was absolutely beloved; he mowed lawns and ran errands for elderly or disabled people at his church. Jerry Sandusky even ran a charity for kids. Children who reported molestation were not believed and even when someone saw him actually raping a nine year old boy he wasn’t arrested.
I was just reading about a horrendous case in Canada where a mother reported her ex-husband for molesting their four children. He had a white collar job and was so charming and articulate that CPS decided without ever interviewing the children that the mother was mentally ill and gave the father custody for three years until incontrovertible evidence emerged that he WAS abusing the children.
The disreputable looking offender with the van hanging around the school yard offering candy gets arrested quickly. The popular Sunday School teacher, coach, or child care worker does not.
You cannot conflate murders and adulterers with pedophiles (unless you are talking about serial killers!). Pedophilia and serial killing are not like other sins! There is a real difference in likelihood of repetition between people using immoral means to gain a normal goal and those who are obsessed with wanting something not normal.
A thief can repent in prison and go through job training and work for what he wants. A woman having an affair with a married man can break it off and find a single man to pursue a relationship with.
But people who get sexual satisfaction from violence or molesting children don’t have a moral way to get what they want. Look at Ted Bundy. He escapes from prison. Does he lie low to keep his freedom and avoid the death penalty? No, he goes on a murderous frenzy! Look at the cases we discuss here of child molesters in churches who ‘repented’ who kept right on doing it. Look at the priests who were sent to new congregations and reoffended.
I am not saying that someone can’t be repentent and keep away from children and not reoffend. I am saying that a pedophile continues to want to molest children, that that desire does not go away, and they are not cured. I am saying that any pastor who thinks that fixing up a male pedophile with a nice single woman in the congregation will cure him is a monster. Even if the man manages not to reoffend by staying away from children, taking meds etc, his poor wife is still missing out on having sex with a husband who desires her. How can you defend Wilson?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Pinkapples, I am so sorry for the terrible things you were made to experience. I wish I could help in some way other than just through prayer.
How are we ever going to educate people about pedophilia in the church and protect children if we cannot even educate the people who comment here?!!! It is so frustrating! I am at a loss for how to get BB to understand let alone the pastors and elders who think this is curable and children can be safe with ‘repentant’ pedophiles and women should marry them or stay married to them.
Look, I spent a good part of my career advocating for, developing, or evaluating rehabilitation programs for offenders. If I have any ‘agenda’ it’s that I believe in rehabilitation. I have seen great programs reduce recidivism. But the sad fact is we haven’t a clue about how to rehabilitate pedophiles.
LikeLiked by 1 person
After his release from prison, Sitler violated the terms of his probation by engaging in voyeurism. Even the probation/parole officer states that Sitler “has shown that he remains a risk to the community.”
Click to access Report_of_Probation_Violation_061807.pdf
LikeLike
Wilson went to bat for Sitler in court after having six counseling sessions with him. Six! This is the same Wilson who wrote in one of his books that child molesters should be put to death. Unless of course, they attend his church and college and are miraculously cured by him.
LikeLike
Where’s Sage?
LikeLike
Hey J.A. “Where’s Sage?”
Hopefully Sage stays in her cage,
and will calm down & cool her rage.
Prayers that she moves past this anal stage
and matures in love with age.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What IS it with people supporting child molesters in authority? I decided to leave this thread and not think about child molesters for the rest of the day but then someone sends me a link theough Facebook to a story about a police officer in Maine who was sentenced to only four years in prison for repeatedly raping a four year old girl. He has to pay $5000 in restitution to the little girl to pay for past and future therapy. That will pay for a lot of therapy, right? Children are resilient, right? Arghhhhh
Here is the kicker. People packed the courtroom to support the man and the parents sat alone without support. Because, you know, except for this little quirk, he was a fine officer for 26 years and twice won an officer of the year award. He claims he only raped the little girl because he was stressed out from police work. He cried during his sentencing.
I am so disgusted with people right now I actually have heart palpitations. What is wrong with our society that we would support this monster and not this precious child?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Marsha,
I don’t have a link to a quote, but I’ve read that, in all his years of dealing with child sexual abuse, Boz Tchividjian says he’s rarely seen churches support the victims in court. They most often support the perps.
Please, take care of yourself, and keep speaking up.
LikeLike
Yes, BTDT, that’s exactly why he’s doing what he’s doing. It disgusted him when he saw people from church in courtrooms to support perpetrators and victims not supported.
Yes, Marsha, keep going.
LikeLike
Marsha, Makes me scream. Love your comments & intelligence on this. As you know, NO children, are not resilient! When they are old enough to process what took place, the fallout is abhorrent. Abuse kills, steals & destroys. I am with you on why the hell there are so many adults supporting these creeps.
LikeLike
Thank you Marsha;)
“How are we ever going to educate people about pedophilia in the church and protect children if we cannot even educate the people who comment here?!!! It is so frustrating! I am at a loss for how to get BB to understand let alone the pastors and elders who think this is curable and children can be safe with ‘repentant’ pedophiles and women should marry them or stay married to them.”
I grew up with men like this, they just don’t care, and never will. They are to selfish and spoilt. Men are all that matter in their world.
Have you noticed it is worse in their world for a man to cheat on his wife with an adult, but child rape is no big deal?
They understand pedophiles and rapist, they sympathize.
People that don’t hate child rape I put in the same group with child rapist and write them off.
LikeLiked by 1 person
100pinkapples, you are absolutely right to put child rapists & their defenders in the same category. Anyone who would defend these monsters is as low as they are themselves. How anyone can consider them as decent citizens is beyond my understanding.
LikeLike
@Refugee:
i.e. morph instantly from Virgin Unto Death to her new husband’s Personal Porn Star and Inflatable Sex Doll, immediately fulfilling 24/7/365 all the sexual fantasies and paraphiliae he’s accumulated during his time in Purity Culture. (Including bribing him to save himself for marriage with JUICY stories of barn-burning, swinging from the chandeliers, dynamite married S*E*X 24/7/365 after he finally says “I Do”.)
LikeLike
@DDG:
Or a fetish porn site.
Whenever I’ve described “Christian Domestic Discipline(TM)” to anyone in the mainstream, the most common reaction I get is “Now there’s a guy who’s into BDSM but won’t admit to it.”
LikeLike
Hi Julie Anne,
I stumbled upon your blog, and I am sorry to hear about you troubles with your previous church. I am the “Ken” of the Ken and Lori you speak of in this post and if you have any real interest in the truth, let me help you set the record straight.
First, I do not oversee Lori’s blog as I have no desire or interest to do so and not enough time in the day to oversee it. I am happy to participate in the blog from time to time, and enjoy listening to the many women each week thank her for her ministry. She teaches me many things from her many hours of reading each day and she has been blogging prolifically for many years now with great success in healing marriages and building up Christian women. It is obvious that you disagree with the concept of a wife’s willful submission to her husband as clearly taught in the scriptures, which is OK. You are welcome to hold whatever view of life and God’s Word as you choose. But please try to not make things up as if somehow Lori’s view of submission means I am overseeing her activities. I don’t have any interest in controlling her or her life, but simply want her to be happy and fulfilled, which the blog helps her become, as she is used by the Lord to touch others with her story and wisdom.
Second, you seem to not understand the heart of Christianity when you write, “Ouch! So if a husband decides his wife is not submissive enough, he gets to question her salvation?” My wife’s faith is based on her relationship with Christ and the cross, and not based on her perfection or even listening to her husband. We are not Mormons who may believe that a wife requires her husband’s hand to enter eternity. She has a personal faith that is in no jeopardy because of anything I may say or do.
That said, I trust you understand that for the true Christian Believer, we are all about the Lordship of Jesus Christ and submitting to His will. We understand that we don’t go in and out of salvation because we sin, or do not listen to Him, but because of His great love for us, we chose to obey Him, even as we are not perfect followers. So by such a definition, and a classic one held throughout the centuries in Christianity, why should any Believer shy away from reminding another as to how God wants us to walk, talk and to be lights for Him in a fallen world? We are not afraid of following God at His Word because we have come to understand that He is always right.
I can only assume that you know there is a huge difference between real Christians and those who may use Christianity as a weapon to control and degrade others, leading them astray. I am referring to cults or cult-like gatherings. When you try to paint conservatives who believes in both submission and husband leadership with your slanted view of these subjects based on your bad past experiences, you fail to see the millions of Christians who are effectively living out marriages where a husband like me truly loves and admires his wife, and she in turn truly desires to submit and please me. Neither of us are compelled solely by what Christ asks of us, but we choose voluntarily to fulfill the vows we made to each other, to love each other for a lifetime. Love casts out fear, and neither of us are fearful of the other, but rather enjoy the connections and intimacy we share based on trust. Something most marriages aspire to, but rarely obtain because selfishness interferences.
You have read Lori’s writings enough to know full well that she does not condone physical abuse of any form, and we do teach couples to talk to each other about what they might do by way of touch to help the other come out of a dark place of moods, misbehavior or even depression and anxiety. Whatever a spouse does with the other should be talked about and agreed to in advance, so that should answer your question: that we do indeed believe that generally a husband should not act unilaterally in helping his wife. Obviously if she is going to harm herself he must act, but that is not the case in this discussion. We also believe that a wife can help a husband “snap out of it” at times if the two will first decide how to they can help handle such upsetting times in advance.
Obviously you mischaracterizations of me are not appreciated, and you are welcome to your world view, but not in making up a new and untrue reality. My hope is that you will be more accurate in your writings, and that you will come to realize that although we may be in the solidly conservative Bible believing camp, there are the vast majority of us who have healthy, wonderful marriages with zero control, now that our wives have stopped trying to control us. And we have no desire to control them, only to live in peace, harmony and love with them. We understand the nature of submission that it must be willful, and we also understand the nature of misbehavior by a husband or wife. That unfortunately sometimes, until a nice, considerate husband stand up to and challenge his difficult wives to consider what God asks of her, she will continue down a path of destructive behavior for the marriage. Husbands can do the same destruction, but Lori’s blog is about Christian women learning to play out the role God asks of them… so much of what is written is pertaining to Christian women. I have written on a Christian husband’s responsibilities if you care to read it, and they are every bit as demanding, or more demanding on his life than his wife’s, in order to please God. God wants both husband and wife to be loving, and neither to be controlling in any way.
Thank you for allowing me to set the record straight. You may have a ministry in finding abuse in the church, or marriage blogs, but be careful not to jumped to so many unfounded conclusions and wrong conclusions. Not everyone who asks a wife to submit is a “bully.” Some of us are doing the loving thing to ask a wife to consider her own values and beliefs. If I had asked her to be kind, gentle, patient, loving, good to me would that have made me a bully? Those things are also Biblical requirements of all Christians, and demanded of our Lord Jesus.
LikeLike
“You have read Lori’s writings enough to know full well that she does not condone physical abuse of any form”
Oh, sure. That’s why you proclaimed Cabinetman a hero, right? And Cabinetman says, “we do not believe marital rape is possible” and “We also believe that denying a spouse sex is just as much abuse as forcing sex upon a spouse.”
https://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2015/01/08/marital-rape-is-it-even-a-possibility-in-christian-marriage/comment-page-1/
This man is your hero. I guess marital rape isn’t abuse to you.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Hi Been There Done That,
I believe we are talking about a disagreement on a definition here. Cabinetman does not believe that a husband should force sex upon his wife, and if a husband forces himself in any physical way on his wife, sex or without sex, it may indeed be assault, but it cannot be marital rape, in most cases. Assault yes, but rape no. One cannot be accused of having sex with someone he has a marital contract to have sex with AND who is generally sleeping in the same bed.
I will add that it may be possible to have what you want to label as “marital rape” if a wife is estranged from a husband, or separated, or has the intent to divorce. In such cases you might be able to argue “marital rape” is possible. But if a husband and wife live in the same home, and have marital relations from time to time, and then a husband forces himself upon a wife, how can one claim “rape” when she has been giving him sex all along? No, it is best to call it assault perhaps, but not rape. It is clearly wrong and there needs to be legal protections in place against such assaults for such messed up marriages.
So I believe we are dealing with semantics here, and Cabinetman would be the first to tell you no husband should force himself upon a wife, not just for legal reasons, but because it is unChristian and unChristlike. A husband must patiently wait for his wife to allow sex, no matter how disobedient to the Word of God she may be.
Lastly, I know it is hard for many to understand that context plays a role in everything that is written or said, especially in understanding the scriptures. I called Cabinetman a “hero” for his willingness to work with his difficult wife to help her move from a messed up situation to a terrific marriage relationship. She was messed up, dealing with many things in her life, yet he loved her enough to save her and their family. I know you and your group of hyper-critical types will see what you want to see in his story, and he admits that he could have told it better, or given a fuller explanation, but the reality is that he heroically stayed with her until she discovered that what he was doing in moving her was the very most loving thing he could. Love sometimes requires standing up and saying “no” I am not going to take this anymore. And he in no way abused her… but again you want to read between the lines and see abuse behind many men. Funny that you understand this so clearly if a woman does it to a man, but can’t grasp it when a loving husband stands firm against his difficult wife.
Again, see what you want to see, just understand that sometimes one’s agenda and personal past experiences colors what they see in life, or understand. Both Cabinetman and me live in terrific marriages with super wives after enduring many years of heartache with them. Both have found that their need to control was at the root of the problems, and neither Cabinetman nor I are controlling of our wives in any way. But we are not bashful in letting the world know that we love our wives enough to both patiently wait upon them, and if necessary challenge them to consider living up to their own values. Just as our wives are not bashful in doing the same with us.
LikeLike
“I will add that it may be possible to have what you want to label as “marital rape” if a wife is estranged from a husband, or separated, or has the intent to divorce. In such cases you might be able to argue “marital rape” is possible. But if a husband and wife live in the same home, and have marital relations from time to time, and then a husband forces himself upon a wife, how can one claim “rape” when she has been giving him sex all along? No, it is best to call it assault perhaps, but not rape.”
You and your wife clearly should not be counseling married couples when you aren’t up to speed on legalities. You may find yourself an accessory to a crime.
“Marital rape in United States law, also known as spousal rape, is non-consensual sex in which the perpetrator is the victim’s spouse. It is a form of partner rape, of domestic violence, and of sexual abuse. Marital rape is today illegal in all 50 US states.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape_(United_States_law)
“I called Cabinetman a “hero” for his willingness to work with his difficult wife”
He didn’t work with her at all. He stuck her out in the shed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken said,
“Assault yes, but rape no. One cannot be accused of having sex with someone he has a marital contract to have sex with AND who is generally sleeping in the same bed.”
——
If sex with the wife is done without wife’s consent, that is in fact rape – biblical, legal, moral, however you want to define it, it’s rape.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken,
It is obvious by your comments that I have not mis-characterized you. You seem to be inventing your own definition of rape, and guess what? It means nothing legally or spiritually; it’s just your personal opinion. I find you to be a scary man. I hope and pray that women do not put themselves in harm’s way by reading your dangerous words.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken and Lori not only obscure the seriousness of marital rape, they also downplay the deaths of children due to the Pearl’s “training” methods:
“Also, never believe the reports that say a child was killed by parents who have To Train Up A Child in their home.”
https://web.archive.org/web/20140726035721/http://lorialexander.blogspot.com/2014/02/believing-in-corporal-punishment.html
Never mind that “investigators said both sets of parents had followed advice from To Train Up a Child, a copy of which was reportedly found in both homes.
Michael Ramsey, a district attorney who prosecuted the Schatzes, said he was planning to mention the book as a contributing factor if the case had come to trial.
Though he did not want to detract from the parents’ responsibility in causing Lydia’s death, he said the book’s ideas were “wholeheartedly embraced by the Schatzes”, and “the entire philosophy of the book is intended to lead someone down that slope”.”
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-25268343
Never believe the reports? The children were, indeed, “killed by parents who have To Train Up A Child in their home,” and were actively practicing its advice.
I think Ken and Lori are deliberately misleading.
LikeLiked by 1 person
On the other side of the coin, did anyone notice how much this woman alluded to arguing? She mentions endless arguing, arguing to exhaustion, talking it out ad nauseum, homes filled with strife and arguing, talking it to death… It seems we are discussing a perpetual control battle, not an effort of 2 persons who love and respect each other to communicate and enjoy life together.
LikeLike
It’s always interesting when someone has to go to great lengths to “set the record straight” with someone else who has exposed them or disagreed with them. What was it that Will Shakespeare said? Something about “Methinks he doth protest too much.” If Ken “doesn’t have time” to oversee Lori’s web site (hard to believe since he comments there), how come he has time to write long explanations about how wrong you are? Hm.
Proverbs 18:17 He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him.
LikeLiked by 1 person