***
I received a private message on Twitter a week or so ago from an elder at a church. He reached out to me after reading Beth Moore’s letter to Christian men. You may recall that Beth Moore, in her letter, asked men to put away misogyny and act Christ-like towards women. Here are a few key paragraphs from Beth Moore’s letter:
As a woman leader in the conservative Evangelical world, I learned early to show constant pronounced deference – not just proper respect which I was glad to show – to male leaders and, when placed in situations to serve alongside them, to do so apologetically. I issued disclaimers ad nauseam. I wore flats instead of heels when I knew I’d be serving alongside a man of shorter stature so I wouldn’t be taller than he. I’ve ridden elevators in hotels packed with fellow leaders who were serving at the same event and not been spoken to and, even more awkwardly, in the same vehicles where I was never acknowledged. I’ve been in team meetings where I was either ignored or made fun of, the latter of which I was expected to understand was all in good fun. I am a laugher. I can take jokes and make jokes. I know good fun when I’m having it and I also know when I’m being dismissed and ridiculed. I was the elephant in the room with a skirt on. I’ve been talked down to by male seminary students and held my tongue when I wanted to say, “Brother, I was getting up before dawn to pray and to pore over the Scriptures when you were still in your pull ups.”
I’m asking for your increased awareness of some of the skewed attitudes many of your sisters encounter. Many churches quick to teach submission are often slow to point out that women were also among the followers of Christ (Luke 8), that the first recorded word out of His resurrected mouth was “woman” (John 20:15) and that same woman was the first evangelist. Many churches wholly devoted to teaching the household codes are slow to also point out the numerous women with whom the Apostle Paul served and for whom he possessed obvious esteem. We are fully capable of grappling with the tension the two spectrums create and we must if we’re truly devoted to the whole counsel of God’s Word.
Finally, I’m asking that you would simply have no tolerance for misogyny and dismissiveness toward women in your spheres of influence. I’m asking for your deliberate and clearly conveyed influence toward the imitation of Christ in His attitude and actions toward women. I’m also asking for forgiveness both from my sisters and my brothers. My acquiescence and silence made me complicit in perpetuating an atmosphere in which a damaging relational dynamic has flourished. I want to be a good sister to both genders. Every paragraph in this letter is toward that goal.
The man who contacted me told me that Beth Moore’s letter was read at their elders’ meeting. He asked me how men could practically put into place what Beth Moore was talking about. Yes!!! I will include his questions and expand them with some of my own. This is the kind of conversations we need to be having in churches.
- There’s a challenge – especially with some cultures within church that the issue stops at the question of sexual immorality and understanding that there were other issues about how men and women relate – especially how male leaders relate were maybe not so easy to grasp for some. How can male leaders engage in healthy relationships with sisters in Christ? How can men uphold integrity for themselves and women in their day-to-day dealings with women both inside and outside the church?
- That whole fear culture – how do we get beyond that?Is there a way to move beyond that in a healthy way?
- How can we talk helpfully and appropriately and honestly as churches in dealing with misogyny?
photo credit: SMBCollege SMBC graduates serve as cross-cultural missionaries and ‘tent makers’ in locations around the world via photopin(license)
Spiritual Sounding Board 
@ Daisy
I have been wondering what KAS and men like him think of Noura Hussein.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2018/may/10/teenager-who-killed-her-husband-after-he-raped-her-is-sentenced-to-death-in-sudan-noura-hussein
LikeLiked by 1 person
If my husband did not want to have sex I would assume he was having emotional problems or having health problems. I would not be mad, selfish, or mean. I would think something sad for him was happening. I would not bully, badger, manipulate, or harras him to have sex when he did not feel like it either physically or emotionally. He would be given all the time he needed.
I would not want my husband to be submissive to me. I would want him to feel confident and free and not like a dog or child slave. I would want him to feel safe telling me what he really thinks and how he really feels. Demeaning my husband would make me feel sick and lose any self-respect I had.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Katy – I would like to get back to you on something.
Have you ever seen A Knight’s Tale with Heath Ledger? It’s about jousting in the 13th century, very funny, and one of the jokes is Heath’s character has a female armourer named Kate. She produced his heavy-duty armour for him. A good joke. Except that it is historically accurate. When Heny V of Agincourt and Crispian’s Day speech fame went to war (1415), he had a few, though not many, female armourers. In those days a woman would normally learn the trade of her husband so she could keep it going in time of war if he were called up. This included blacksmiths. After all, the woman of Proverbs 31 had strong arms!
It might have been rare, but some women did manage to achieve a decent level of education and/or even run a business.
This carried on for centuries (a thousand years up to 1800 ish), where men generally did the heavy-duty physical labour, but helped by wives during harvest or war, and women worked more in the home either as servants or producing cloth. The stay at home mother only gradually came in amongst the rich in Victorian times, and the middle-classes in the mid 20th century when there was enough wealth to live on one income.
Previous generations, therefore, like mine who were farm labourers on the whole didn’t have the time or chance of rigidly differentiating men v women roles, especially the less well off. Long summer school holidays are still a throw-back to when children had to help with the harvest.
It’s interesting what you can learn from history that is pertinent to the ‘roles’ discussion. Oh, and I learnt some the above from a book written by a woman too!
LikeLike
KAS, you’re not responding to me. re: Piper, you have not dealt with your use of “for example”
re: submit/obey, you are deflecting to head/lead.
“I didn’t learn all this from pastors, I learned much of it from charismatics who, having been filled with the Holy Spirit, started taking the bible more seriously, and believing what the NT contains is for today, not just the first century.”
Bible says to test the spirits. When you say “taking the bible more seriously” and the sort of legalistic prooftexting it’s led you to do, I wonder if it’s really the “Holy Spirit”.
“No-one has yet said how you settle disputes in a marriage under a mutual submission arrangement if you reject the casting vote idea.”
My wife and I have a status quo, and generally to change the status quo, we have to agree. There are times where we have taken two completely different approaches – for example, my wife became convinced that she couldn’t spank our kids, and I was not convinced, so we had different systems for awhile. But, I find it intriguing that your view of marriage is so adversarial. My wife and I have NEVER had a situation where we’ve come to an impasse. There has always been a way to work through it, take a step back and decide later, understand what the sticking points are and resolve them, etc. And I think many of these “comp-proof” situations are like the, “must abuse children and require instant unquestioned obedience because… what if they run into a busy street?”
“Finally for now, I noticed how you marry (sorry!) complementarianism with authoritarianism, which I don’t. I actually think this is a dangerous combination, because it can lead to head meaning absolute authority and submit meaning abject subjection, which is not what the apostle meant at all. ”
Exactly, and I can probably find you hundreds of online articles by comps that do just that. One listed all the submit relationships “slaves to masters” “children to parents” “church to Christ” “wives to husbands” and then tried to then backpedal on how it wasn’t obedience.
And honestly, you have yet to describe how submission is substantially different from obedience, so for all you want to convince us you don’t believe it and you want to distance yourself from it, nothing you have said has suggested a difference.
“I should appreciate it if you would apologise for that remark.”
She is taking what you said to its logical conclusion. You quoted “Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.” as a prooftext against women saying “no”. And while you want to temper it with your syrupy ‘nice comp’ rhetoric, the point is still made, that spousal refusal is not okay. For a woman, the logical conclusion is that eventually she will have to “not refuse” her husband regardless of her feelings on the matter. That equates to marital rape.
This exact thing happened in SGM (CJ Mahaney’s church) where a wife caught her husband sexually molesting their daughter. She went to the church who advised her not to go to the police, but instead that she needed to lock her daughter’s door and be “more available” to her husband. When that was not deterring her husband, they placed the blame on her for not being sexually fulfilling enough for her husband so that her husband was “forced” to find pleasure elsewhere. They defended him in court and, I believe, excommunicated her. That is the logical conclusion of your comp doctrine.
LikeLiked by 1 person
KAS, Nancy Pearcey’s Total Truth alludes to this (and she has come under fire from comp pastors for her writing).
Her argument is that the modern version of comp doctrine came out of the need to justify men having jobs outside the home during the Industrial Revolution. Prior to that, men and women would contribute relatively evenly to the work. Her example is a general store. You might walk into the store and find the wife managing or the husband. Children were educated by the father or mother. Jobs were pretty evenly split.
However, when the Industrial revolution came along, there was a need to justify a change in this division of labor. They needed strong men to run the machines, and that meant women needed to stay home and manage the households. Not surprisingly, the church took that mantle and decided that it was not only okay, but right that men went out and labored while the women kept home. Now, that theology is so thoroughly ingrained that a stay-at-home-dad is universally regarded as an indication of significant sin.
As Daisy said, and I concur, we don’t even know what you’re trying to say anymore. You say submit is not obey, you say head is not leader or authority, then you say the opposite. You say you agree with UK theologians who distance themselves from Piper, but then you can’t really find anything you disagree with Piper on. You continue to claim all these distinctions from the “authoritarian” comp, but then refuse to actually demonstrate Biblically or theologically what those differences are. When we point out inconsistencies, you throw red herrings and retreat to safer ground rather than dig into those inconsistencies.
If your version of comp is so Biblical and consistent, then why can’t you explain what submit means? Why can’t you explain why your interpretation of “do not refuse” does not lead to marital rape? Why can’t you explain how YOUR comp doctrine does not lead to abuse, when CBMW doctrine does. Why are you afraid to dig into the next level and rather try to point us back to the comp one-page glossy pamphlet?
Daisy and I LIVED complementarianism and authoritarianism. We know what those verses mean in the minds of comps because that’s what we were taught and that’s what we experienced. You can say, “that’s not what it means” until you’re blue in the face, but then when you make a comp conclusion, we know that’s what it means to you. Just like the submit/obey dichotomy. You can argue left and right that they are different, but you use them synonymously. That tells us what you REALLY believe.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So how did this happen, pray tell?
https://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2017/12/12/bethlehem-baptist-church-excommunicates-victim-of-domestic-violence/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark – it will have to be just one comment for now. I asked Daisy to apologise for her remark because it is untrue.
In the light of 1 Cor 7 : 5 Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season …<7I< I could not with a clear conscience answer the original question with no in the light of that verse. Do you respect conscience? Mine may be being a bit too sensitive on this, but there you go.
Yet notice the abstinence here is by agreement on both sides.
Since this is mutual, according to Daisy’s twisted logic I also believe a wife has the right to rape her husband, since he can’t refuse either.
I went on to say I suspect what was meant was ‘does a husband have a right to force his wife to have sex with him’, in which case I would say unequivocally no he doesn’t. A husband doesn’t have a ‘right’ to force his wife to do anything. On the contrary …
That rules out absolutely the remotest approval of rape or any other use of force.
Daisy chooses not to notice this and make a viciously nasty comment. I waited until I had calmed down before saying anything, it was tempting to tell her a couple of home truths. She hasn’t noticed that abuse has hit home in my own family (unlike SKIJ and Katy), she doesn’t seem to notice when I say I cannot answer every question or comment because I have things to do with my own family.
LikeLike
Mark – it will have to be just one comment for now. I asked Daisy to apologise for her remark because it is untrue.
In the light of 1 Cor 7 : 5 Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season … I could not with a clear conscience answer the original question with no in the light of that verse. Do you respect conscience? Mine may be being a bit too sensitive on this, but there you go.
Yet notice the abstinence here is by agreement on both sides.
Since this is mutual, according to Daisy’s twisted logic I also believe a wife has the right to rape her husband, since he can’t refuse either.
I went on to say I suspect what was meant was ‘does a husband have a right to force his wife to have sex with him’, in which case I would say unequivocally no he doesn’t. A husband doesn’t have a ‘right’ to force his wife to do anything. On the contrary …
That rules out absolutely the remotest approval of rape or any other use of force.
Daisy chooses not to notice this and make a viciously nasty comment. I waited until I had calmed down before saying anything, it was tempting to tell her a couple of home truths. She hasn’t noticed that abuse has hit home in my own family (unlike SKIJ and Katy), she doesn’t seem to notice when I say I cannot answer every question or comment because I have things to do with my own family.
Hopefully formating cleared up this time. Could somebody please delete the one I loused up. Thanks.
LikeLike
@ KAS per July 12, 2018 @ 1:06 AM
I appreciate that bit of historical truth regarding female armourers back in their day. We didn’t learn about this in our History of Costume classes at college, as the material presented was a brief overview of fashion throughout the ages. I find it fascinating and will seek out the movie (no, I haven’t seen that one) and the research as I have always had a fascination with that time period in general. We have attended Renaissance Festivals in the past which are quite entertaining as well as a bit educational; and the actors and actresses seem to be enjoying themselves as well!
I find it equally fascinating that when my ancestors sailed over here from Germany, they traveled westward through much hardship to settle on a parcel of land they purchased for a small fee through the Homestead Act of 1962. It was a hard, brutal living struggling to farm in the drought-like conditions (this area is now highly irrigated), and the father had to travel northward to get a job building the railroad to obtain a steady pay check while the wife stayed at home and farmed what she could in addition to caring for their children. They were able to spend quality time together during various weekends according to our family historian via letter references. Here again I struggle with definitions of certain words (ie., feminists, gender roles, jezebels) according to our “modern” worldviews, for we know not these kinds of hardships due to the Industrial Revolution. We have life pretty nice in comparison. I have a good notion that Adam and Eve were farmers together after the Fall, in trying survive as well as raising their large family together…..I don’t believe that Eve sat around on luxurious sofa eating Bon Bon’s and having the life of a princess.
We spend so much of our religious time trying to put people in their “proper places,” according to our own biblical interpretations/worldview with regards to genders and roles , all the while neglecting the greatest commands that our LORD expects from us. And knowing this, I truly grieve. It saddens me greatly because the “corporate religious office” has replaced the individual sinner that Jesus cares about…..the Body of Christ existed in the Old Testament as well as the New, for every page of the written script points to Jesus……and our need for a Savior.
Apologize for getting so “preachy” at times, for my love for Jesus is still strong, exciting, freeing and liberating to me soul. He is my Rock and Strong Tower!
LikeLike
I want to also expound on Mark’s comment concerning agriculture from what we label as “pioneer times.” Our neighbors down the road here, farmed a quarter or two together, husband and wife. The husband admittedly loathed horses and had a difficult time getting along with them, while the wife had a wonderful relationship with their work animals, so she did all of the planting with the horses, (I can’t even imagine doing this by the way….I love my tractors!), and it has been said by her husband, “My wife did an amazing job planting our fields.” He “manned up” and gave credit where credit was due and they had a great “equal opportunity” marriage and we loved them to pieces until their passing. What great “role models” to have in our agricultural community. Am truly blessed to have known them personally.
LikeLike
KAS, I really didn’t want to respond anymore, but I think this needs to be addressed:
“I could not with a clear conscience answer the original question with no in the light of that verse. Do you respect conscience? Mine may be being a bit too sensitive on this, but there you go.”
I think conscience Biblically is about not doing something that has been shown to be right because you think it’s sin. For example, meat sacrificed to idols is not wrong to eat, but because of conscience some people are asked not to partake. Same thing with moons and feasts. But, alcohol was a big issue in my last church and there were many who used your definition of conscience (something I believe theologically) to then try and force others into a super-Biblical restriction based on their conscience.
A corollary about conscience is that it’s about what YOU can’t do, not about what OTHERS can’t do. If my conscience says that I can’t go to an R-rated movie, then I don’t go to R-rated movies, and others who know this and respect me shouldn’t be talking about this or that wonderful R-rated movie that I should see, or inviting me out of respect for my conscience. On the other hand, I don’t then use my conscience as a hammer to say that someone else can’t go to R-rated movies – that is, unless I’m theologically convinced that R-rated movies are sinful and I’m using my “conscience” as an excuse to force my righteousness on others.
So, when I evaluate that statement, you are clearly using your theology, not you conscience, and you are clearly using “conscience” as a hammer to say that OTHERS cannot refuse sex. If it’s theology, not conscience, then perhaps you ought to understand why your theology puts you into a position where something feels “wrong” (a woman being forced to have sex against her will because of religion) yet your beliefs say it is right. Maybe that prick is the Holy Spirit saying, would God really say this?
“That rules out absolutely the remotest approval of rape or any other use of force.”
Piper and his sycophant cloud say he treats women as first class citizens, yet his words, his actions, and the actions of Bethlehem Baptist – admitted by a subsequent pastor that they have not historically handled domestic violence (spousal abuse) situations appropriately – suggest that we ought not to believe the words without the context of actions.
In the same way, you can say (and you have said) all sorts of wonderful things about respecting women and rejecting abuse, but those need to be taken in the context of all the other things you’ve said that your complementarian peers have used to silence and victimize women. And while you say you distance yourself from that doctrine, you then use the same arguments to prove why the same verses apply. How is that distancing yourself? (As an aside, when I talk about how my father abused me, the authoritarian/comp reaction is “that’s not abuse”, so perhaps we don’t have the same definition)
If comps say that “do not refuse” means that a wife cannot refuse sex, and when asked whether a woman can refuse sex, you say “no” and use the same prooftext, how are you distancing yourself from American complementarians? Why should I respect your conscience, when you are wielding your conscience like a sword over wives in telling them that the Bible says they cannot refuse sex. And… why when we say you support marital rape, whose definition is coercing sex against a wife’s will, you are deeply offended, even though your logic “do not refuse” means precisely that a wife cannot refuse sex.
LikeLike
I was wondering if this post was going to beat the record of 1,143 comments. LOL
LikeLike
(Part 1)
KAS
And, KAS, what is your answer when it is NOT mutual, when the wife does NOT want sex but the husband still does?
What do you tell the wife to do in this situation? What would you tell the husband? Would you respond that she must submit to the sex anyhow, though she does not want to have sex?
You never do suss out the implications of your male hierarchy theology (complementarianism).
What do you do in a marriage situation where one night the husband wants sex but the wife says, “I would rather not tonight”, and the husband says to the wife, “I don’t care about YOUR wishes and wants, I still want to have sex.” -?
KAS said to Mark,
When asked if a wife can say “No” to her husband’s request for sex, you merely replied with a Bible verse about neither partner denying the other for a season, and you asked me (or CH) what I (or she) makes of that verse.
You were asking us, how can we explain that Bible verse away, since it so clearly teaches that a husband has a “right” to have sex with his wife, and she cannot or should not say “no” for any reason?
In other words, you are saying the answer is ‘NO,’ a woman does NOT have a right to refuse her husband’s request for sex.
Thereby giving your stamp of approval for marital rape, you only oppose the husband using physical force on the wife to obtain it.
You are still arguing this. I’ve mentioned ten times now why your attitude on this is wrong, abhorrent, and disgusting.
You, KAS, are OK with the husband quoting that Bible verse at his wife to guilt trip or shame the wife into having sex, even though the wife has a headache, is simply not in the mood, is under too much stress for sex, or whatever the reason.
This is what your view point is suggesting, but you don’t wish to spit it out.
What do you say when the wife does NOT want to have sex one night when the husband wants to have sex, when he plainly does NOT care about what the wife wants and he insists they have sex? What then, KAS?
My remarks on this matter are all quite true, and I won’t apologize for someone who condones, support, or justifies marital rape, especially not by making appeals to the Bible, as you have been doing.
(continued in Part 2)
LikeLike
(Part 2)
KAS said (to Mark),
So, you are saying if a wife says NO to sex, she is “biblically wrong” because the husband is not also agreeing to abstaining form sex.
The husband wants sex, but the wife does not. And the conclusion you imply is that the wife MUST have sex with the spouse, even though she would rather not. Ergo, marital rape.
If you do not share that view, then just plainly say so.
And explain what to do in the situation where the wife says No to sex but the husband still wants sex and doesn’t care that the wife doesn’t want to have sex.
Are you still going to quote the verse about not denying each other?
Then we are back to square one where you are implying the wife has to give in and have sex with hubby even though she’d rather not which = you supporting marital rape.
Without consent on the wife’s part, the act is rape.
(The reverse is also true. I do not support women pressuring, physical or emotional manipulation, MEN into having sex against their wills, either.)
Expecting a wife to have sex when she does not, and only because the husband is horny, and all due to quoting a Bible verse about mutual agreement for a season, is not answering the issue, KAS.
You’re still expecting a wife who wants to say NO to sex to say YES only because of some Bible verse.
The wife has to give full consent to sex. If no consent is present, the sex act is an act of rape, KAS.
If you are really and truly against a spouse forcing a spouse to have sex – whether by physical force, spiritual abuse, using “male headship,” “wifely submission” doctrines, guilt trips, shaming, quoting Bible verses about “not abstaining for a season unless by mutual agreement” etc etc etc, just plainly and clearly say,
“A wife has the right to say NO to her husband, even if the husband wants to have sex, but she does not.”
You use the Scriptures like the Pharisees did, and which Jesus had to correct them on numerous times.
(continued in Part 3)
LikeLike
(part 3)
KAS said to Mark,
No, your view is endorsing marital rape, because your use of that verse is saying a woman cannot unilaterally decide no sex –
The husband has to also go along and say,
“Okay sweetie, since you are too tired tonight (or too sick), we will not have sex.”
So, KAS, what do you do when the husband hears the wife say “No,” but he will not agree to forgo sex that night?
There are husbands who are sexually abusive and demand sex, even if the wife is tired, sick, stressed out, or just not in the mood.
There are selfish and abusive husbands who may not use physical force to get sex from their wives, but they will quote Bible verses at the wife to shame or guilt her into having sex, just as you are recommending they do.
They don’t have the wife’s consent in that case.
They are coercing her into sex without the use of physical force. It’s still marital rape.
So far as I’m aware, not ONCE in all the months I’ve posted back and forth with you have I seen you, KAS, show any concern for how complementarianism has personally hurt myself, Christianity Hurts, or other women.
Rather, you dig in your heels further with us and argue your position more.
It’s all theoretical to you and abstract, but not for us.
And yet you want me to show sympathy to you for some issue you’re having?
You have only vaguely mentioned some kind of problem you’ve had with your daughter lately. I don’t know what that is about.
You’ve not gone into details about it, so I don’t know what happened.
Did your daughter get a paper cut? Did she flunk an algebra test?
I don’t know, because I didn’t see a post where you explained in detail exactly what is going on with your daughter.
Furthermore, I have not read every post in this thread.
There have been a few days where I skipped and did not catch up.
(Notice I dropped out of this thread after a few days and stopped posting to it until right now.)
Quite frankly, seeing how utterly insensitive you’ve been towards Dash, C.H., and myself, nope, I don’t care about what you are going through, or what your daughter is going through.
If you had shown anyone else here concern over how spiritual abuse or complementarianism has hurt them in your months of posting here (but you lecture us instead and have not acknowledged what we’ve been through), I’d be singing a different tune.
But you want me to molly coddle you in your time of trouble? I don’t think so.
I no longer participate in one-way relationships like that.
You gas light.
You come on to this site hurting others (over a period of months to boot), not acknowledging what they have been through, even after others have pleaded with you to do so,
AND harming them on top of that (by, but not limited to, criticizing and tone policing how they talk about their abuse on this site),
but you later have the audacity to complain I’m not acknowledging your issues???
Not buying it.
And yes, I’ve read your comment where you say you don’t have the time to reply to every comment.
You’ve said that several times, and I saw those comments.
And I pointed out weeks ago how you normally ignore the comments by people with women names but generally respond to known males, or those with male screen names, such as “Mark.”
I don’t know why you still comment here.
You don’t help victims here of spiritual abuse, domestic abuse, or abuse and harm caused by complementarianism, rather you antagonize.
And I know, I know, KAS, you can’t come on here to read and post every day. Fine.
But notice how I skipped several days posting to this thread, which gave you more than ample opportunity to reply to my posts should you wish!
(Though this supposes I was wanting to hang around and keeping reading your posts.)
LikeLike
Mark quoting KAS, <blockquote.“No-one has yet said how you settle disputes in a marriage under a mutual submission arrangement if you reject the casting vote idea.” I answered this twice already in this thread, days ago.
You handle mixed gender disagreements the same way you do with disagreements with co-workers at your secular job, like I used to do all the time.
The men I worked with did not get their way automatically just because they are men when a dispute arose.
If we disagreed, we’d compromise, take turns on an issue, or they’d defer to me if I had more experience on a topic than they did.
If it works in secular employment, it can and will work in a marriage too, KAS.
Complementarians make problems where none exist.
Complementarians provide answers for questions that people with normal, healthy gender views don’t ask.
And why doesn’t the husband defer to the wife?
Why not have a complementarian rule where the WIFE gets the final vote?
My ex fiance was an idiot. He was dumb as a box of rocks.
Had I let the ex cast the final vote on anything and everything, I’d be poor, evicted, and living in a box under a bridge somewhere.
LikeLike
Mark to KAS:
THIS. THIS. THIS. A billion times this.
Very well said.
Nice summary of events and of the situation (and one reason of a few I dropped out of this thread a few days ago and stayed out for a few).
LikeLike
Christianity Hurts said,
Yes. That is a normal, healthy way of dealing with a situation.
If I’m in a marriage, and one night I hit on my spouse for sex, but he tells me he’s not in the mood that night (or is too sick, tired, stressed out, or whatever), and I’m still randy, FINE!
I’ll tell him ‘okay’ and leave it at that.
I’m not going to sit there and quote the verse from the Bible at him about “not denying each other except for a season for mutual agreement.”
– to imply if he doesn’t have sex with me, he’s in sin or is displeasing God.
I’m not going to shame, pressure, or guilt trip the guy into having sex one night if he doesn’t want to have sex.
If you’re in a marriage where your spouse is consistently turning you down for weeks to months, then…
Work it out by seeing a marriage counselor to figure out what is going on with that and find a compromise if possible,
and/or getting your spouse to see a medical doctor to rule out, or treat medical problems, that may be impacting libido.
If things cannot be worked out, and an endless sexless marriage doesn’t appeal to you, then file for a divorce and move on!
But you do not coerce, pressure, spiritually abuse, guilt trip, or force an un-willing spouse into having sex with you, period, end of story.
This is not “Morality Rocket Science.”
It is ‘doing unto others as you’d have them do unto you.’
If KAS was not in the mood for sex one night, would he really be in the mood all the sudden and change his mind if “Mrs. KAS” said to him,
“Too bad, honey, I don’t care what YOU want, or if you are feeling sick, because the Bible says you are not to with-hold sex for me unless by agreement, and sweet-heart, I don’t agree! Gimme gimme sex right now!”
LikeLike
I can’t remember if I linked to this already in this thread?
All caps in the original heading, not mine:
_A WIFE HAS NO AUTHORITY OF HER OWN BODY? (1 COR. 7:4)_
Snippets:
That is the cultural context of the passage, which KAS does not take into consideration.
It’s talking about spouses not indefinitely depriving each other of sexual relations… meaning, it’s perfectly fine and okay in a marriage for one partner to periodically turn the other down for sex.
I’ve lived without sex my whole life, KAS, but I’d like to be married and having sex with a spouse, but I’m single…
So husbands (and wives) can live without the occasional lack of sex for a day or two (or for a week or two) that their spouse is ill, too tired, recovering from surgery, pregnancy….
A day or two (or months) without sex does not equate to a life-time of celibacy.
Hey, KAS – my parents had no choice in this matter, by the way.
My dad was in the military for decades and was often sent on tours of duty where he and my mother were physically separated for a year or longer, they weren’t having sex during those times.
I would guess that neither my mom or dad necessarily “Mutually agreed” to that, in that it was not optimal, but it was part of Dad’s job, so they didn’t have a choice, KAS.
And neither cheated on the other.
So… KAS… My parents abstained from sex for months and months at a time, and you want me to what, feel sorry for husbands who has to go with-out for a night or two because their wife is menstruating, has the flu, or is just exhausted?
LOLOLOLOL.
No pity from me.
LikeLike
KAS said, “That rules out absolutely the remotest approval of rape or any other use of force.”
I finally read this carefully enough. “rape or any other use of force”
So, KAS is arbitrarily defining rape to mean without consent AND involving the use of force, which means, by definition that using emotional abuse and spiritual abuse and perhaps even the threat of physical violence without actual physical violence, wouldn’t be considered rape. So, this is yet another example of equivocation where we are led to believe that KAS is using the same definitions as we (i.e. the rest of the developed world) are concerning rape, however, when cornered, we see that weaseling and duplicitousness.
Fortunately for all women everywhere, you don’t get to define rape. The US Department of Justice defines rape as
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/blog/updated-definition-rape
According to Wikipedia, UK defines rape as:
So, it is quite likely that emotional and spiritual abuse will leave the victim without the “freedom and capacity” to make the choice whether to consent.
LikeLiked by 1 person
By the way, according to some complementarians, such as Pat Robertson and Mark Driscoll, and in disagreement (I would assume) with KAS, it’s not enough for a wife to have sex with her husband when he wants it…
The sex also has to be HOW the husband prefers and wants it (i.e., e.g., oral sex, if that is what the spouse is into, but the wife’s sexual preferences are never addressed by these sexist idiots),
AND, according to complementarians such as Robertson and Driscoll, the wife, even as she gets into her 50s and older, has to remain thin, sexy, wear make-up every day, has to appear as though she’s still 21 years old when she’s age 61, because if she “lets herself go,” then the husband has a “right” to have affairs on her, so says Mark Driscoll and Robertson,
-or gee, it’s so understandable why a man would cheat on her wife if she has gotten grey hairs or added pounds since marriage, that poor, poor man who married a wife who now has lines on her face or grey hair.
You, the wife, are to blame if your Male Head cheats on you, these complementarians say, even if you’ve been having sex with the guy whenever he wants it.
I thought complementarianism was supposed to be about respecting marriage and women!
But you can see it quite clearly does not.
LikeLike
Post Script to my last post –
It’s late, I’m half-asleep, but I don’t make this crud up.
Here’s one example:
_Ugly Wives Ruining Marriage says Pat Robertson_
– hosted on You Tube “Young Turks” channel
You can run a Google for Mark Driscoll’s comments about how if a wife ages or gets wrinkles, she really only has herself to blame WHEN her husband cheats on her. I don’t recall exactly how he put it, but it’s out there on the internet, if you want to google for it.
LikeLike
Pat Robertson is a complementarian.
Video on You Tube:
_Pat Robertson: “Why Your Husband Should Be Allowed to Cheat On You”_
Video on You Tube:
_ Pat Robertson Blames Woman For Attracting Abusive Spouse_
I could do this all night but will stop here.
There are millions more examples of complementarian Pat Robertson – including in video format on You Tube – saying all sorts of sexist things to and about women, including joking around that husbands should be allowed to abuse their wives, etc. Robertson is a complementarian.
LikeLike
In a nutshell: “she can say no, but she’ll pay for this! If I condone abuse? No, ’cause I don’t call it abuse”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ana said,
You may be the KAS- complementarian- Rosetta- stone!
At last we can understand what KAS is saying now. Thank you!
_Wikipedia: Rosetta Stone_
LikeLike
Daisy wrote: … I don’t care about what you are going through, or what your daughter is going through.
That one sentence robs you of any right to criticise me for being ‘insensitive’. You may not read very post due to time constraints – which limits your ability to comment sensibly (of which the post this comes from is a perfect illustration) – but there is no excuse for this, for being so woefully uninformed.
LikeLike
Mark – I wrote … does a husband have a right to force his wife to have sex with him’, in which case I would say unequivocally no he doesn’t. A husband doesn’t have a ‘right’ to force his wife to do anything. On the contrary …
What is so difficult to understand about those words?
I’m not writing legislation where every minor nuance of meaning that lawyers could exploit has to be taken into account, but I think my position on submit versus obey is pretty clear, as is the above. You are simply looking for disagreement whether it is there or not.
LikeLike
So close 🙂
The problem here is that you are telling women that they have no right to say no. If you have no right to say no, you cannot count a yes either. You are telling her that she is in SIN if she does not consent, at any time, to any man who is her husband. You are telling her also that she has no right to divorce an evil man. What do you think this leaves?
Also, if a woman does not want sex with her husband, there is a problem. It may be that he is treating her poorly, it may be that she is tired, it may be that she has a medical reason, or it may be that he is bad in bed. Instead of fixing the problem, you try to guilt trip her into sex. That’s a good way to get that 80% unhappy marriages statistic I think.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Daisy, as much as some of those guys talk about oral, I’ve never heard them mention it for women. Ridiculous to take sex advice from such selfish persons.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just caught this part. Who was the person who said they got up every morning and put on a full face of makeup and went back to bed??? So dumb! Many men prefer less makeup anyways…
LikeLiked by 1 person
KAS,
Seriously? Force is so prone to equivocation it’s not even funny. Here’s a definition:
Now, just because the modern world takes definition #2 when it comes to have a right to force his wife to have sex with him doesn’t mean that you follow suit, and by your definition of rape, it suggests that you are more in favor of definition #1.
Against their will is also somewhat naive in that it suggests that the will cannot be altered through such things as isolation from a support group and gaslighting. That is, for example, why many states have legal definitions of consent that disallow consent between students/teachers, counselee/counselor, member/clergy and other classes where there is a significant power differential.
Since you claim that you’ve never defined submit and you continue to refuse to do so, I don’t know what you could possibly mean by pretty clear. What is pretty clear is that you continue to dance around the conclusions of your words, and when we try to show you the conclusions, you protest that we are putting words in your mouth. And, honestly, I don’t know why you’re trying to sugar coat your opinions anyway. Everyone here knows you think wives should obey their husbands. You just say submit because you’ve got a prooftext behind it, and since you refuse to define what you mean by submit then you can somehow avoid confirming the truth that to complementarians, including yourself, obedience is a necessary part of submission.
It’s like a twisted version of the Evangelical ninth commandment surprise birthday party game. Somehow, it seems as long as you can equivocate, obfuscate, deflect and red herring your way around being pinned down what you believe is the truth, then you can continue to try and tear down our position.
LikeLiked by 1 person
FYI:
Again, this is the same sort of double-speak. The fact that you haven’t claimed that submit means obedience does not mean that you don’t believe it. Then, to add insult to injury you claim that you are somehow pretty clear in your position of submit vs. obey. I’d say it’s a pretty poor attempt at gaslighting.
LikeLike
KAS said (selectively quoting my post, I might add):
<
blockquote>Daisy wrote:
… “I don’t care about what you are going through, or what your daughter is going through.”
That one sentence robs you of any right to criticise me for being ‘insensitive’.
<
blockquote>Nope, that you are pulling this doubles my “right” to criticize you for being “insensitive.”
My “right” has now DOUBLED. (I explain more below.)
Continuing, KAS wrote:
You are an abusive person.
To repeat: KAS is an abusive person.
Since you have posted here on this blog, from Day One, you have done nothing but abuse and antagonize other people, and you have the nerve to say I am insensitive or depict me as the aggressor?
It does not fly.
Just like I said above (_Link_),
and which you left out of my previous quote:
KAS, if you want empathy shown to you after months and months of acting in an insensitive manner towards others on this blog, you can forget it, not from me. Not unless you apologize and turn over a new leaf.
And really, I think the best thing would be for you to stop posting here.
You’d be more at home on a Christian debate forum run by “CARM.”
You had prime opportunity to educate me in that reply there that you recently made, about exactly what it is your daughter is supposedly going through, but you chose to not discuss it.
Not once have I seen you show understanding and compassion to others on this blog who have been spiritually or physically abused (such as Dash), or to women such as “Christianity Hurts,” Katy, (and me) who have been hurt by complementarianism.
You have, instead,
– “Tone Policed” us,
-scolded us for not acting appropriately – (in your opinion, that is),
and you
-do not acknowledge how complementarianism or fundamentalist Christianity have hurt some of us on this blog,
though we’ve told you for months now our personal history with all these things.
That is not showing compassion or empathy.
I have read enough of your posts to get the idea of what kind of person you are.
After you are pulling “Victim Mode” and gas-lighting me here with this, I now care even less about you and your daughter, or what you’re supposedly going through, than I did before.
Congrats to you on that. That is all your doing.
Not mine, but yours, due to the behavior you have demonstrated on this blog the last few months you’ve been here.
Furthermore, you did not respond, that I can see, to my push-back against your pro-marital rape views in that same set of posts of mine you last quoted, unless that was in a post farther down the page I have not yet seen.
You want me to pity you, a bully? That’s not going to happen.
LikeLike
KAS said
Nope.
You’ve not been clear on this at all.
You continue to weasel word things and be duplicitous.
So, if a husband wants to have sex one night, but the wife says no she does not want to have sex that night, (for whatever reason, she’s sick, tired, stressed, just “not in the mood,” whatever),
then you’re telling us that you are… perfectly fine with the husband not getting sex that night,
you are fine and dandy with the husband respecting the wife’s choice to abstain from sex that night, so he should just roll over, go to sleep, and not hold it against the wife?
– Yes or no?
And as Lea said to you,
And I linked to this above about
_the cultural context of the Bible verses KAS keeps distorting to FORCE women into having sex even if they do not wish to have sex_
“Force” does not always amount to physical coercion, but can also refer to to emotional manipulation, spiritual abuse, guilt tripping, etc., which is what you’ve been endorsing all along, KAS, but you won’t address this.
LikeLike
Lea something about your comments to KAS here reminded me…
(Lea said),
KAS is really not giving women a choice on the matter.
He’s basically conveyed above that if a woman says “No” to sex, she is violating the “coming together except by agreement for a season” verse (which he misunderstands, please see my post above with link to a page that talks about that passage’s cultural context)….
So, KAS is saying a woman, a married woman, can never really turn down her husband’s sex request (is KAS cool with this working with the genders swapped, I wonder? What if wifey is in the mood but the husband is not?. But I digress).
This reminds me of a TV show I sometimes watch about the zombie apocalypse. It’s a cable television show called “The Walking Dead.”
There’s a villain on the show named “Negan” who is a huge jerk.
In a few episodes, the show has established that Negan has a harem of women, multiple wives, who service him.
Negan gives these women a “choice”:
they can either serve in a dangerous and/or disgusting capacity all day in some other job – such as stabbing zombies in the head all day, or whatever (I don’t recall the details), -OR-, women can be in his harem and be a “wife” to him, which gives him sexual access to them.
In Negan’s warped world view, that is not rape, since “technically,” those women are “choosing” to be with him, rather than work in a field all day getting attacked by zombies.
But Negan’s choice is not really much of a choice.
Negan is basically forcing those women to be his prostitutes at his beck and call, and he does so without using physical force on them.
And KAS reminds me of Negan in that regard.
I have never seen an episode of the TV show “Handmaiden’s Tale” (is that the title?) but it’s my understanding that the plot of that show, based on the reviews I’ve read of it – women having to let men rape them to get them pregnant – is much like what KAS has been promoting in this thread.
I don’t think Jesus Christ would advocate any of this.
LikeLike
Lea said,
Incel hero Jordan Peterson did some speech or paper or whatever where he essentially said that since women wear make-up to work, they deserve to be sexually harassed by men, or should not receive sympathy, since they only wear make-up to entice men.
(This was posted to some blog I saw awhile back that discussed it.)
One huge reason most women wear make-up to jobs is because it is expected of us, especially in professional, 9- to- 5 office jobs.
Wearing make-up to or for a job is for women what wearing a suit and tie is for men – your bosses often demand and expect you to do this.
Anyway.
I find that advertisers and Hollywood often send women messages that our value is wrapped up in our physical appearance.
And they often suggest that not only do we have to be stick thin and can never age, but we must always have our hair looking perfect, we must always wear make-up.
I’ve seen I don’t know how many Christian gender complementarian pastors and dating advice books by comps for girls and women suggest the same thing: they will say, ‘ladies, if you want a boyfriend, you must realize men are visually stimulated, so you must look attractive and wear eye liner and lip stick at all times.’
Complementarians like to depict themselves as being “counter cultural,” but all they do is echo what secular culture tells girls and women, they just tack on this bit:
“This is the way God designed men and women to be!”
For years, I used to buy into this sort of thing, so I’d wear really nice dresses, high heels, fix my hair up, wear full make-up, but I never got much male attention (or rarely).
There were some times in my early college days – when I used to dress to the nines and look like a fashion model I did get approached by flirty men, but not on the level I was expecting (according to what Hollywood preaches at us).
I noticed that any time I was too tired to “doll myself up” and leave the house, to say, make a quick trip to the grocery store, when I would be in little make-up, an old t-shirt, flip flops, and cut-off jeans, it was on THOSE occasions (when I looked terrible) that I was usually cat-called by men, men would flirt with me, men would ask me for my phone number, etc.
So, I don’t know what to think about cultural messages we women receive.
Culture (and complementarians) tell us the more we look like and dress like a model, the more boyfriends we will get, but I generally had the opposite experience.
The more I looked like a bag lady who just got up from a nap and then ran errands to the local Wal-Mart or Kroger’s, the more male attention I received, as opposed to the occasions I was in perfect make-up with nice clothing and my hair done perfectly. I don’t know why that is.
My older sister told me a time or two that she had similar experiences.
LikeLike
Lea said, <blockquote.Daisy, as much as some of those guys talk about oral, I’ve never heard them mention it for women. Ridiculous to take sex advice from such selfish persons. Oh yeah, I know. Me neither.
Out of all the complementarian relationship advice stuff I’ve heard or read through the years, they only comment on what men like and prefer in the sack (and as if they speak for all men).
I’ve never heard comps mention what many or most women may like or prefer in the bedroom.
Because complementarians only care about men. And they assume all women hate sex, are asexual, and have to be guilt-tripped or coerced in some fashion into having sex. (Only men like sex, is what they assume.)
I’ll try to word this clean, but, from many of the studies and informal work I’ve read in marital advice columns, human sexual behavior reports, etc, etc, most women do not shall we say, -cough cough-, receive pleasure through “typical” sexual behavior, shall we say – (involving male genitals).
Most women, these reports say, ‘get off’ via oral sex, but I keep reading most men are selfish and like to receive but do not live to give that. (They’re like, “Ooh, icky, I don’t want to do that to a woman! Icky – icky – gross- gross.”)
Maybe some complementarian out there has tackled this topic, but I’ve never seen it. I’ve only seen the Mark Driscolls of the Comp world browbeat married women into feeling compelled into doing this to their husbands.
The only things comp pastors do is tell the husbands to “be nice and run a bubble bath for your wife one day,” and “be understanding with your wife when she wants to get emotional and talk about her day.”
(Notice how complementarian pastors re-enforce some obnoxious gender stereotypes about women, even when supposedly trying to get husbands to meet the needs of their wives.
And notice the needs of women they address are never, (or about never), pertaining to sex.)
There are many, many marriages where the woman has a higher sex drive than the man, and the man does not want sex, so the couple goes for months (or years!!) without sex, even in Christian marriages.
But comps always assume that the sexless marriages consist of a “randy” man married to an un-interested wife. Many times, the genders are actually flipped around. (I don’t have stats on this, just going by the many anecdotal things I’ve seen on Christian shows and forums and in articles through the years).
LikeLike
Mark, I’ve not yet finished reading all your post to KAS, but this part right here, I wanted to comment on for now:
One of the very insidious things about complementarianism is how it indoctrinates, brain-washes, and convinces women, from the time they are girls, to voluntarily give-in to anything and every thing another person wants, especially – men in general, men in authority positions, and later, should they marry, their husbands.
It’s quite warped and deviant what complementarians do.
Complementarians coach women to voluntarily lay down their agency and decision-making.
Comps convince girls that having boundaries and being assertive is “un-godly,” “feminist,” (giving in to a “feminist agenda”) and selfish.
So, in that way, a Christian woman who wants to be a good, godly, Christian woman (or wife), who is raised under comp teaching, will automatically give in to whatever other people want, including husbands, so that use of physical force will not (or should not) be necessary.
If a Christian woman raised in this poison (complementarianism) is brain-washed thoroughly in it, she will become very codependent and willingly allow other people to take advantage of her to always do what the other party wants, and she will not resist or fight back, nor will she ever try to get her own needs met.
And she is taught by complementarians that such passive behavior is “biblical,” “godly” and admirable behavior.
I was raised in complementarianism – my parents are comp, and when I was a kid, I was exposed to this teaching in the churches mom and dad took me to, and in the Christian magazines my mom brought home.
My parents brought me up believing that being a God-honoring, good Christian meant allowing others to use me.
I was taught in the complementarian mix that my needs, feelings, and safety did not matter.
I was always to put others before me, even when and if that other person was being rude or abusive to me.
I was taught that fighting back and standing up for myself and enacting boundaries would be wrong, bad, un-feminine, etc.
My parents primed me into being a willing victim in my own abuse by abusers, in other words, which is what complementarians are doing to girls and women.
I was blind to most of this for much of my life.
Had KAS met me online when I was in my 20s, I’d probably be sitting here agreeing with much of his commentary (not all of it), and I’d probably even be defending him or some of his comp views.
The KAS’ of the world have a much easier time selling their sexist complementarian swill to women who have been conditioned to think of it as their only option, or to think that it’s biblical and proper.
He (like other practicing comps) has a difficult time convincing someone like me that comp is true, biblical, or good, since I used to be one and rejected it after I saw through it years ago.
LikeLike
Mark said to KAS,
Yes. This. If I could “fave” it or like it a billion times, I would.
KAS is more slippery and evasive on these topics than slimy, boiled Okra.
KAS does not want the logical out-workings and ramifications of his complementarian views spelled out, or admit to them.
He doesn’t want to admit them to us, or maybe not to himself.
I used to be a complementarian myself, for many years.
There is some cognitive dissonance that goes along with being a complementarian, I think, especially if you are a Christian woman.
LikeLike
Lea – The problem here is that you are telling women that they have no right to say no.
No, the problem is that the apostle Paul in 1 Cor 7 instructs married couples not to refuse one another (note the mutuality) except for brief periods of time, and then resume to avoid temptation. And there was plenty of it to be had in a debauched city like Corinth, just like the secular West. There is also a Satanic element to sexual temptation and sin. You cannot simply ignore this.
The apostles’s advice could also apply in a situation where a wife is refusing sex with her husband to manipulate him into allowing her to get her own way. It is not always the men who are fault.
Note the expression ‘by agreement’ the apostle uses. This means the couple talk to each other about it, communicate. There is no hint of coercion here or anywhere else in the NT for either spouse.
Standing back from this a bit, we need to get away from the idea that marriage is (in effect) legalised sex. Sex is not the most important aspect of marriage; pleasing one another, companionship, shared life and goals, communicating, the faithfulness and loyalty of one for the other in good times and bad. Humour and laughter. Developing character and growing up. Taking responsibility. Eventually saying sorry when you have loused it up. Coping with the differences of upbringing when a new family unit is made (‘one flesh’). Last but not least, the little bundles of joy that come your way!
A good wife who can find? When you do find one, you get the closest friend and most loyal companion imaginable.
No husband who faithfully attempts to live out what both Paul and Peter instruct him to do will ever coerce his wife in any area. Not abuse, not manipulate. It’s not loving, or honouring, or cherishing … . And wifely submission imo has little if any sexual connotation to it. There is a disturbing element in this thread tending in that direction, for what seems to be to be fairly obvious reasons, the unmarried guessing how a marriage actually works in practice, revealing a very unsavoury way of thinking, to say the least.
LikeLike
KAS,
Daisy’s July 30, 2018 @ 6:03 PM post is actually spot on. It is the truth regarding the comp theological heresy that has invaded the apostate c’hurch since its inception. I personally, did not attend a comp church during my formative years, so I didn’t hear any of this gender “role” philosophies, nor was I raised “the lesser” of the two genders. My brothers did not have “more rights” in our family, nor were they “favored” more than the rest of us. So I still have a most difficult time understanding the Holy Scriptures from a top down philosophy with regards to my Savior, as well as His words regarding “freedom,” “liberty,” “burdens being light,” and “yokes being easy,” in Christ alone……then comparing them with the Scriptures from the Apostles. If they are to line up according to the illumination of the Holy Spirit, there should be absolutely no doubt of contradiction. None.
It was when I married a comp husband and then began attending a “conservative Baptist church, I learned that my “individualism,” “my personhood,” and my “personal identity in Jesus Christ,” was irrelevant in man’s desire to rule, dominate, and to place himself in the “god seat” above my Risen LORD. It was then, satan’s toolbox of labels, name calling, and lying judgements by “religious” men were thrown at me in full force. I have learned from comp men that I am “a feminist.” I have been called “a feminist” to my face by my former Baptist women colleagues due to my beliefs that we are all equal in Christ, no authoritarianism needed. This is due in part to the fact that they believe they are more the spiritual that meself, thus desiring a following of lesser sheep to control and manipulate into their “charismatic” teachings. And for the record, I find it ironic that some of these women are divorced, have careers outside of the home, and a few of these women have also called my home in tears, due the abuse of their own comp husbands…….and yet, I am called “a feminist.” I also find it almost hilarious that these “inflated comp utopians” have actually spewed the words during “praise and blessing time” during their religious fests this phrase, “Yea, when people are around me, they want what I have (spiritually speaking).” Ahhhh no, no thank-you…..I believe most of us women who know Jesus Christ as our personal LORD and Savior, do not want what they have for their veneers wear thin.
And when life gets tough, KAS, extremely tough as you well know, I find it comforting and actually joyful in me spirit, that those who espouse Christ from an egalitarian viewpoint, if that is what man chooses to label it, are far more prayerful, far more kind, loving and generous, and far, far, far more compassionate in ministering to this hurting soul, as well as to the souls of others. To quote Scriptures according to the interpretations of some comp man’s commentary, sermon, or coffee mug or daily devotional, actually doesn’t minister to Jesus’ sheep, when they need to be fed and nurtured back to spiritual, mental/emotional, physical health. Comps will tell you exactly how to live, how to think, and how view our LORD from their perspective because pride and power are at stake within their own convoluted souls…….reminds me of how Jesus was tempted by satan in ruling this world.
So please forgive me, when I shake me head at religion when it speaks of “those feminists,” “those women attending college seeking an education,” “those women working outside of the home with their children in daycare…..paying the bills of this world,” “those women who are given the right to vote in elections (actually had a Baptist man in leadership at his c’hurch tell me this, “the U.S has been consistently going downhill ever since women were allowed to vote…….he is a “comp man :(” ), “those women who dare to say “no” to their husbands,” “and as far as the east is from the west, those women who dare tell their local c’hurch institutional leaders, the word “no.”
There is hell to pay in our apostate religious system, when a woman believer in Christ alone for her salvation, tells a man, religious or naught, the word “No.”
How in the world can this be? Sheep in the natural, are animals that do not care whether the hand that feeds them is a man or a woman……or a child doing the chores. They are content and satisfied and at peace just to be fed, for it leads to healthier animals resulting in a growing flock. It appears that the false religious system, cares more about the gender, more about “who on this earth” is in authority, and precisely “who” will rule the day. And Jesus still stands outside of the door, desiring to be invited in to fellowship amongst His sheep.
KAS, perhaps the “eastern” as well as the “western” c’hurch institution, has strayed away, forgetting Who the Real Shepherd is…..
JESUS
LikeLiked by 1 person
KAS,
Just a side note here, in humor of course.
If John Piper, Mark Driscoll, Doug Wilson, John MacArthur, Pat Robertson, or any other “big name comp man” were lost in the back forty of our rural area, and I came upon his distressed state while out four wheeling, it would be my pleasure to give them proper directions back to civilization where they could fill on fuel and grab a coffee for their highway journey.
Comp and egal religiosity set aside……I desire their well being in getting back to the comforts of their own grandiose religious system……waiting patiently for a sermon on how “that woman who lives in the outback of civilization helped them on their journey when they were lost.”
The sound of crickets are the norm during drier summer months.
LikeLike
KAS said
You were the one who has been implying that married women never have a right to turn down sex. You.
And you were asked this question, “can a wife say No to a request of sex from her husband, yes or no” by Christianity Hurts, a question which you dodged for over a week until pressed.
-And she asked because she came from a family where the MARRIED complementarian men in her family felt that their wives (and I guess daughters and/or grand-daughters) were their sex slaves and had not right to say “no”.
So, in response to this point I raised earlier:
<
blockquote>So, if a husband wants to have sex one night, but the wife says no she does not want to have sex that night, (for whatever reason, she’s sick, tired, stressed, just “not in the mood,” whatever),
then you’re telling us that you are… perfectly fine with the husband not getting sex that night,
you are fine and dandy with the husband respecting the wife’s choice to abstain from sex that night, so he should just roll over, go to sleep, and not hold it against the wife?
– Yes or no?
<
blockquote> -You are answering in the affirmative (?)
Just to clarify.
When someone asks you “can a wife say no” it’s best just to respond simply,
“Yes, the wife can say No to a request of sex”
rather than just be oblique about it by quoting a Bible verse about not “depriving each other except mutually for a season,” which would seem to suggest you are saying, ‘No, she does not have a right to say no and must always perform.’
You said,
Nice insult about me without saying my name.
For all your prattling about “talking nice” and the Tone Policing, you insult people just fine, minus the cuss language you object to.
And you again, expect me to treat you with empathy -the last time you posted here, you were saying I’m not sensitive to you? You are condescending.
You are rude to people and have been judgemental to the wounded on this blog since your first day posting here but demand they treat you with sensitivity when you claim to be going through a hard ship. Breath-taking.
I was engaged to a man for about four years (we were a couple for seven).
My parents were married for over 30 years, and I saw their relationship play out.
I heard teachings about marriage from Christians constantly from the time I was a kid, since I repeatedly was exposed to those awful “wives submit” messages in complementarian sermons.
I have a good idea of how marriages work, KAS.
I don’t have to be married to understand how marriage (or sex) works – see my posts to Lea about oral sex above to get an idea about that. Lacking first hand experience is not always the same as lacking knowledge or insight about a topic.
LikeLike
Katy said (in part, to KAS),
I dig it, but, I’m afraid it may fall on deaf ears, if you believe KAS will read your post or respond to it.
KAS, like most complementarians I’ve run across, does not like to actually respond to or deal with the real-life consequences that complementarianism has had in the lives of real, actual, living women.
Complementarians prioritize defending their abstract doctrine and posing hypotheticals(*) to actually considering their gender theology may be wrong, since it has produced so much TRASH (or “bad fruit” in Christianese language) when it is applied to the lives of girls and women.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
*Hypothetical:
*Such as the stupid question oft put forward by complementarians,
“But what do you do in a marriage where there is a dispute and the couple cannot agree. One NEEDS a tie-breaker vote, does one not?”
Solution 1:
Let the WIFE always be the one to get the tie-breaker vote in a marriage, problem solved.
But see, this bogus complementarian question is all about finding a justification to defend the idea that the MALE in the marriage should always be the one with all power and control, hence they want to trot out this supposedly insolvable dilemma to say that a man should have all headship (power).
There’s no reason why a wife in a marriage cannot or should not be the one in a marriage to hold final decision- making capabilities, only that it conflicts with the complementarian incorrect interpretation of the Bible, so of course comps will never advise the wife be given final decision- making abilities.
Also, see my _Response (above) for Solution 2_ of this problem.
LikeLike
KAS,
I would like to agree with you there, but faithfully attempts are weasel words. When we deal with reality – limited resources, limited energy, limited mental ability, and, of course, sin, then we have to say, what does this look like when it doesn’t work.
How does a husband deal with an unfaithful covenant-breaking wife, and on the other side, how does a wife deal with a covenant-breaking husband. Even more, what is the pattern for everyday life? If the framework for marriage is the manager/employee, parent/child, master/slave relationship then all sorts of cultural baggage comes with it. And, unfortunately, in comp circles, that cultural baggage seems to speak louder than the “sacrificial love” mantra that is proclaimed.
And, here’s an interesting thing. When I was first married, I was comp, but I was sacrificial and we reached consensus before making decisions. There are comps out there that would say that I wasn’t acting in a “comp” manner, that my marriage was egal. So, then what should I have done to make my marriage comp? I’m guessing it is along the lines of being more domineering and abusive. I don’t think functionally, my marriage is any different today as a theologically egal marriage than it was when it was comp.
What I find with the cultural baggage, though, is that it gives domineering husbands the right to domineer. My brother – a church leader – claims that ~80% of husbands in his church need to hear the sacrificial love message, which suggests that there is a high incidence of domineering. But, then he told me about a “situation” where the wife wanted a divorce because the husband was not doing his part and the church’s reaction was to apply pressure to the wife not to divorce.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Katy said,
“I have learned from comp men that I am “a feminist.” I have been called “a feminist” to my face”
Growing up in a super large comp Christian family I learned that saying anything negative about rape or rapist made me a feminist. Saying anything about wife beating and wife beaters made me a feminist. Any time a woman says anything that does not flatter a creepy man’s ego and benefits his self-serving insecure sexually sadistic agenda she is a Jezebel, unsubmissive c*nt, rebellious against men feminist. I have been called a feminist for saying things that traumatized loser men’s selfish worldviews. I am supposed to take care of their feelings but they never had to give a tiny care about mine.
Growing up I hated feminist, and no one had to tell me to. I thought they did not want children and I wanted all I could get. I thought they wanted to have sex with every man and I hated sex and thought any woman who wanted to have sex was totally stupid.
Then after I got feed up with the immense pain comp was causing me I started researching atheism and feminism. I learned these two groups of people did not want to hurt me and did not think they had a right to hurt me the way the I knew Christians did. The way I see most Christians after growing up comp is they are not satisfied or happy unless they are causing other people pain. Physical pain, emotional pain, and sexual pain. Their preferred people to cause pain to is little boys, little girls, and women.
Who else besides comp men hate feminist? The answer is ISIS, the Taliban, and Boko Haram.
Who else besides comp men think a woman should not divorce her husband for beating her? The answer is ISIS, the Taliban, and Boko Haram.
Who else besides comp men think a woman does not have the right to deny her husband sex? The answer is ISIS, the Taliban, and Boko Haram.
Who else besides comp men think a woman has to be submissive to her husband? The answer is ISIS, the Taliban, and Boko Haram.
Comp men belong in the same category with men who trap, enslave, rape and beat women. I was a young comp girl and not because it made me feel good or safe but because I thought if I did not do it God would hate me. I had no choice. I was brainwashed and my brain was in chains. Chains my heartless pervert misogynistic father put me in for the protection of other selfish loser men like him.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Christianity Hurts said
<
blockquote>Then after I got feed up with the immense pain comp was causing me I started researching atheism and feminism.
I learned these two groups of people did not want to hurt me and did not think they had a right to hurt me the way the I knew Christians did.
The way I see most Christians after growing up comp is they are not satisfied or happy unless they are causing other people pain. Physical pain, emotional pain, and sexual pain. Their preferred people to cause pain to is little boys, little girls, and women.
Who else besides comp men hate feminist? The answer is ISIS, the Taliban, and Boko Haram.
<
blockquote> I don’t go by the feminist label myself, but I am alarmed and tired of how so many Christians, complementarians, and my fellow conservatives often misrepresent all of feminism, or try to portray all of all them as being unstable kooks.
Feminists are not a monolith. They don’t always agree with each other on every issue, for one thing. Not all of them are crackpots, either. Some maybe, but not all.
I sure don’t agree with all feminists all the time on every subject, but sometimes I do (depending on the subject), and my fellow conservatives don’t like to admit this, but feminists are right about some issues, some of the time.
I’ve written a few posts on my blog (and re-blogged works by other people) about how complementarians and conservatives have wrongly turned all feminists or feminism itself into a boogey-man they are always attacking, such as:
_Let’s Say Good-Bye To The Straw-Feminist by Cordelia Fine_
_The Republican and Conservative Women Who Want to Remain in Denial About American Sexism (by a conservative woman) _
It’s obscene how some conservatives are blaming today’s sexual harassment (as brought to light under the “Me Too” movement) on feminism itself!
I keep seeing that tactic come up on various conservative sites.
I did a post on my blog pointing out that sexism and sexual harassment existed BEFORE 1960s feminism and the 1960s sexual revolution – for my fellow conservatives to blame feminism on today’s sexual harassment is absolutely demonic, and gas lighting – it’s blaming the victims of the behavior (usually women) for the behavior, and telling women they are at fault for it.
Were Christians, including complementarian men who claim to be champions and respectors of women, at the forefront of fighting or bringing attention to the rampant sexual abuse / harassment in secular jobs or in the church?
Nope. It was secular women, and some Christians, who began rectifying it with the “Me Too” hash, and later, with the “Church Too” hash.
LikeLike
Another related link about that:
_Conservatives Are Wrong to Dismiss Feminism by S. Quinlan _
LikeLike
So, based on everything Paul said collectively on marriage, you think the intent of this was to force people to give in to sex anytime the other wants it? Or did he maybe just mean your partner shouldn’t make a vow of celibacy? I’m not ignoring it, but it seem highly contextual. You change the context entirely when you would tell someone in a specific situation that they are not allowed to say no!
Nobody said they were, only the men who are not treating their wives right. People don’t want sex for a reason. It’s better to figure out what it is than just tell them they aren’t allowed to say no. And let’s not pretend that this burden is not mostly placed on women in complementarian type churches, because they love to sell this idea that men just want sex, sex, sex and women don’t, which is far from true and a good way to make men into selfish lovers – which is a good way to ensure that women don’t want sex.
I agree. And no decent pastor, or other man, will advise women that they are not allowed to say no. Many men would never coerce a woman. Many would. Let’s not add the weight of ‘god says so’ to the ones who would, as you are doing.
And if you think unmarried people don’t have eyes to see and ears to hear, or experience with relationships in general, well join way too much of Christendom in throwing out anything we have to say. I don’t much care for your statements either and I sure as hell would never marry anyone who thought that way.
LikeLike
KAS said,
“No, the problem is that the apostle Paul in 1 Cor 7 instructs married couples not to refuse one another (note the mutuality) except for brief periods of time, and then resume to avoid temptation.”
This is saying a woman has to have sex against her will. A wife is her scumbag husband’s sex slave. This is the way I grew and the reason when I read about men like Ariel Castro and Phillip Garrido it reminds me of a Christian marriage. They remind me of Christianity and Christian husbands.
KAS, I was repeatedly sexually abused as a little girl. After reading what you write is a comp marriage why would I ever want to get married? Why would I think anything good of your God, your rape/female slavery manual book (the bible), or you? I have already been a Christian wife; kind of, because I had to have sex against my will with a man who loved all the crap that is important to comp men.
Sex is so much different for a woman than it is for a man. Comp men know the least about sex, about women, about women’s genitals, and about rape. They pretend they know things they don’t. It is easy for a stupid man to tell a woman she has to have sex against her will. Men who take money from other men who are wanting to rape the chained up sex slave in his basement do it all the time.
I was burned as a child and my skin melted off. This was like going to Disney Land compared to the vile unbearable pain of sexual abuse. I dreaded it. It made my stomach hurt. It made me sick. It is so unfair to not have the right to say no to sex and not have ownership of your own genitals. Comps promote everything that hurt me as a trapped little girl wanting to have the right to say no to men and no to sex.
“And there was plenty of it to be had in a debauched city like Corinth, just like the secular West.”
This sounds just like something a jihadist would say. Oh, those evil westerners doing all those things like embracing freedom and washing their hands of my primitive barbaric selfish misogyny. I just hate people (especially women) who have the right to say no to me and “MY” preferences for their lives.
“There is also a Satanic element to sexual temptation and sin. You cannot simply ignore this.”
Every time you and you comp buddies explain comp it sounds Satanic. The same way Ariel Castro and Keith Raniere’s selfish fetishes sound Satanic.
“The apostles’s advice could also apply in a situation where a wife is refusing sex with her husband to manipulate him into allowing her to get her own way. It is not always the men who are fault.”
Are you saying a person denying another person sex is just as bad a person wanting someone to have sex against their will?
But he should get his way by having sex with his wife against her will?
It is rapist and pro-rape the way comp men explain they are fine with a woman being scr*wed against her will. And they would feel perfectly comfortable having sex with another human being (their wife) against her will.
I have every right to not have sex for any reason I do not want to have sex!
In comp brain marraige legitimizes rape.
See KAS, when you know a lot about the mutable physical and emotional feelings of sexual abuse you comprehend rape and hate rape.
The comp men I grew up with were so stupid, childish, and selfish they really did not know what rape was. Most comp men are like this.
I have had three comp men tell me that an unmarried adult woman having consensual sex was every bit as bad as a man raping a child.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Daisy
When I was born all four of my great-grandmothers were alive. Three were still alive all the way through my teens and I saw them every week.
I know before the 60s they had no resources and no rights. Yes, they were savagely beaten by their husbands and raped as little girls. They had to live with it, tough it out, and keep their mouths shut about it. Two of my great grandfathers died and left my uneducated already in poverty grandmother to raise 9 children and 6 children. Women made so much less money back then and there were hardly any jobs for women.
Knowing how hard and unloving my great grandmother’s lives were I am so grateful I was born after the 60s and that women fought for my rights in the 60s. My comp parents did not care if I was trapped, raped, demeaned, used, and beaten, or if I had dreams.
The reasons my father and the child sexual abuser hated feminist.
My father did not want my mother getting any ideas in her head that she could get a job so she would have the money to rescue herself and me from my him.
My father hated feminist because he did not want them giving my mother any ideas that she did not have to be married to a sadistic wife beater.
My father hated feminist because he did not want to feel bad about being a wife beater.
My father hated feminist for trash talking rapist and wife beaters.
My father, being the bottom of the barrel loser he was needed the safety and reassurance of comp that women could never tell him no or ever escape him. How dare a feminist arrange for him to be alone; what he deserved to be, and would have been without the aide of comp.
The man who sexually abused me hated feminist for telling girls rape is wrong and bringing negative attention towards rape.
Before the 60s rape and wife beating was kept secret. Wife beaters and rapist could feel happy and good about themselves every day and all day. They NEVER heard or saw things that were negative towards them or condemned them.
Feminist trash talking rapist and wife beaters and telling little girls like me we have a right to press charges and woman like my mother she has the right to divorce my father diminish men like my father and men like the rapist sense of safety.
The man who sexually abused me hated feminist for blowing rape out of proportion, for pretending it was worse than it was, and for giving little girls a small message that the rapist is vile and evil and she is the victim.
Before the 60s men had a monopoly on the trash talking. And it was all directed at women and girls. When they started getting a dose of their own medicine they did not like it so much.
It is so obnoxious how comps think they should be able to trash talk atheist and feminist but atheist and feminist should not be able to trash talk them.
My father and the man who sexually abused me hated feminist for saying women and little girls have a right to say no.
I hate comps for saying women and little girls do not have a right to say no.
As someone who grew up with comp men I think comp men and Taliban men should have to take turns being each other’s wives. That is what they both deserve. They are each that vile.
Do comp men think they are better than Islamist because they are white and wear western clothing? They both treat women and children, and raped women and raped children like garbage.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is where crazy sin leveling gets you and discounting the importance of consent.
If these people were as ‘pro marriage’ as they all claim to be they would NEVER encourage someone to have sex against their will. That sounds like a great way to make you loathe your partner.
LikeLike
Katy, people who say this are either very poor historians or only thinking of their specific category of people (which I’m guessing was white male), because many, MANY things have been going uphill for people in this country since the 1920’s.
LikeLike
Christianity Hurts (replying to a post by KAS)
I must have overlooked this post by KAS.
At any rate, this may be pertinent to your point:
_The Female Price of Male Pleasure (response to #MeToo criticisms) L. Loofbourow_
LikeLike
Christianity Hurts
(replying to a post by Kas)
And what if that is the case, KAS, would you then argue that the man has a right to take sex from the wife by force at that point, by guilt tripping, punching, emotional manipulation?
You’re saying your wife should, what, just cave in, because Paul wrote a verse directed at married people 2,000 years ago who were taking unilateral, permanent celibacy vows?
What if your wife still says, “nope, no way” after you quote that Bible verse at her.
What then?
BTW, KAS (and JA, I don’t mean to be crass here, I’ll try to keep this PG rated), but…
If your wife does not want to put out one or two times, go pleasure yourself. (Find someplace private and go there with your bottle of lotion and your tissues.)
I’ve survived 45+ years without sex, KAS, so I know you can go without for a week or a few months.
My parents were apart years at a time, due to my father’s military service, and they had to be celibate while they were married.
If they could do it (and they did), so can you and other complementarian men, KAS!
Stop guilting or pressuring women into having sex they don’t want to have.
If your wife is in fact with-holding sex to “get her way”…
Maybe your wife is with-holding sex for a good reason. But no, let’s not focus on that, let’s just feel all sorry for this hypothetical, whiny husband who’s not getting laid tonight.
Maybe your wife is with-holding sex to get her way because she is being forced to be passive-aggressive because she’s married to a selfish complementarian man who’s been taught that his wife’s needs and wants don’t matter – only his do – so her needs are not being met.
If she was raised comp, (as I was), I was taught it was wrong for me to say directly what I wanted and needed. Hence the passive, indirect, aggressive measures.
Your precious complementarianism, KAS, actually creates some of these problematic scenarios you put forth. I’d like for you to mull that over.
If this sexless marriage thing is an on-going problem, go get some marital therapy with your wife to resolve things.
There is no need to have a “Male Headship” rule where the man gets automatic and final-say-so to work these things out.
LikeLike
And also for KAS – written by a former Christian who is still married:
_Masturbation: A Selfish, Addictive, Vicious Cycle_
(The author critiques common arguments against it by Christians. She says this practice can be healthy and useful in a marriage, especially on days when one partner wants sex but the other is too tired or what have you.)
LikeLike
Lea – And if you think unmarried people don’t have eyes to see and ears to hear, or experience with relationships in general, well join way too much of Christendom in throwing out anything we have to say.
I didn’t expect you to leap for joy over my comment, so let me put the boot on the other foot. Would you like the benefit of my wisdom as to how those experiencing unwanted singleness should cope, especially for women and especially when middle age is beckoning? You would quite right say ‘KAS, on yer bike you cannot possibly know what it is like’.
If you teach husbands they do not have a ‘right’ to coerce their wives into having sex, it is a moot point as what ‘right’ a wife has to say no. The question would never arise because he would never force the issue.
Let me re-phrase the question: ‘does a husband have a right to force his wife to make love to him’? To ask the question is to answer it. We need to get away from talking about this as though couples are rutting animals, and bring love into it. Unfortunately, modern society has largely divorced sex from love, and from marriage and from children for that matter. Selfish pleasure has replaced mutual giving. Marriage is the antidote to this, but society seems to have been in rut over this for a long time now, displaying desperate levels of selfishness and an aversion to the old-fashioned biblical word, self-control.
LikeLike
For the first part, if I were in that position where I was asking for ‘wisdom’ in how to ‘cope’ (which I’m…not particularly) and I thought a person had any wisdom married or single, male or female, I would listen. Does that mean I would agree with everything they had to say? Of course not.
As for you personally, I doubt you would say anything that would be helpful simply from your comments here and the later part of this quote regarding women in particular and ‘middle age beckoning’. If you have paid attention to the thread on singleness, there are many men who are quite unhappy with their status. There are women who are perfectly satisfied.
I am tempted to ask what advice you might be inclined to give, simply because I am sure it would be terrible.
Single people are certainly well qualified to tell what they feel the impact of being pressured into sex might be, and I think you’ll find they might have some experience in that that you do not.
LikeLike
KAS, do you honestly think so?? I have know so many married people who have cheated, or been abused, or been cheated on. It seems like marriage is no antidote. this is wishful thinking.
LikeLike
KAS said
-I was in a long term, serious relationship and was engaged to a man for a few years,
-I have heard countless marriage sermons in the churches I was raised in (are you saying these complementarian marriage sermons are worthless? Then why do comps keep trying to indoctrinate the youth with them), and,
-I observed my parent’s marital relationship (which lasted for over 30 yrs).
So single adults can have a pretty good idea of what married life is like.
I personally do not have to be married to know about marriage.
I have spent a lot of time in the past reading testimonies from married Christian women at CFJ blog, where they talk about things like how their Christian complementarian husbands abused them.
It’s been quite educating.
So, singles can learn a lot about marriage by being in serious relationships and by observing and listening to married people.
Apparently, this is not so for people who married in their 20s, are still married to this day (in their 50s or older), and assume (wrongly) that being single at age 30+ is the same thing as being single at age 20 and still a college kid.
My parents met and dated in the 1950s (in high school) and did the stereotypical date-y stuff for that age: dad took mom to drive- in movies and then went to a malt-shop.
When you’re 30+ in the year 2018, things don’t work that way. Barring friends from setting you up, you try dating sites, which are chock full of weirdos and perverts. Dating at age 30+ is not as easy, simply, or the same as dating at age 17 in the year 1956.
Also, complementarians and conservative Christians generally, give all sorts of bad dating advice to singles who want to marry, so that getting married becomes impossible.
If you want more explanation of that, or what I am talking about, please read the chapters about adult singleness in the book “Quitting Church” by Julia Duin, and in the book “Singled Out” by Christian authors Field and Colon.
If older married couples did not assume that dating and being single at age 30 and up was identical to their being single while in college at age 21, I might be a bit more inclined to listen to their singleness advice.
LikeLike
KAS said
I don’t think it’s moot, because-
No matter how often culture or churches teach men that they are NOT entitled to sex (which they actually DO teach men, especially in complementarian churches!), some men are never- the- less going to be abusive and demand sex from a girlfriend or a wife.
These women have to be taught (contra complementarian and societal messages), that girls and women have a right to have boundaries, be assertive, and say No.
I was raised comp, and under comp, I was taught that I do not have a right to boundaries, that I should always say “Yes” (even if I wanted to say No). Such teaching made me quite vulnerable to being abused and exploited.
Girls and women need to be taught that they do not have to cave in and have sex with a guy, just because the guy is pressuring them, and if the man is threatening violence (over not getting sex or what ever else0, it’s safest to terminate that relationship.
Both sides of the coin need to be taught.
This is where I part company with secular feminist – many secular feminists teach that men should not be taught to rape, but the feminists bristle at society (or police, colleges, parents) teaching girls and women how they can lessen their chances of being raped.
Personally, when I was in college, one reason of several I never had a man up alone with me in my dorm room with the door shut is because I did not want to be raped.
Also, over my life, I usually try never to go out alone shopping or on errands past 9 or 10 P.M., because I’m trying to avoid being raped or mugged.
Today, you can’t give advice like that, because…
The feminists will scream and complain that giving such advice is supposedly the same thing as telling women they are to “blame” for being sexual assault victims, and that the only approach to halting rape is to teach men about consent and that it’s wrong to rape.
I disagree to a point.
Yes, certainly, teach men about consent and that rape is wrong, but, I believe that parents, schools, etc, should ALSO be teaching girls and women safety tips, that it’s OK to be assertive, how to lessen one’s chances of being mugged, raped, etc.
Because no matter how much you teach men about consent and tell men “its wrong to rape women,” there will be some men who hear those messages who do not CARE and will still try to rape women anyway.
But I mostly find your remark to Lea about his non-sensical.
If a guy knows not to rape women, and doesn’t force a woman into having sex, then of course, no, the need for the woman to be able to say “no” would not arise in that particular relationship or situation, but some women DO face boyfriends or husbands who force them into having sex or threaten them or use emotional manipulation.
I think you, KAS, assume that all complementarian marriages are heavenly and idyllic in these matters, and you don’t concede that there ARE complementarian men who rape their wives or who pressure their wives for sex.
But they’re (comp marriages) are not all idyllic.
Visit the CFJ blog where you will see Christian women who are married to abusive complementarian men discuss how terrible their marriages are, because their husbands beat them or emotionally abuse them.
LikeLike
(continuation from my post right above)
The only time you, KAS, like to acknowledge problems in a marriage is when it’s convenient for your position.
If the problem somehow impacts THE MAN.
For example in a post above to someone you were saying, “But what if the wife says NO to sex to get her way with her husband?”
See, you only care about the HUSBANDS in these situations. (Most every study and anecdote I’ve ever come across it’s HUSBANDS who abuse the WIVES.)
The only time you, KAS, like to address that there could be problems in a marriage is to drag up the stupid false complementarian argument about,
You want to talk about moot points, KAS, as you were just doing above, to Lea, I think?
Here is a complementarian MOOT POINT:
As comps don’t allow divorce, that comp argument is really a MOOT point.
The Majority of complementarians won’t allow a wife to divorce the husband if he’s unbearable to live with, and she tires of not having her needs met or HER wishes respected or catered to – nope, she is trapped in a cruddy marriage to a narcissist, even if and when there are disputes.
She must always cave in to a bully or abusive husband, comps teach.
Complementarians say divorce is ALWAYS wrong, some comps teach divorce is wrong even in cases of physical abuse.
So, you, a comp, teach that a wife must always submit (“obey,” though you deny submit = obey, but in other posts you’ve admitted, yes, it means that) … and you teach divorce for any (or most) reason(s) is wrong….
So, what difference does it make when a married comp couple get into a dispute?
You’re saying the man always has the right to run rough-shod over the wife’s wishes, by pointing out he has a penis, and by quoting (out of context) a Bible verse or two about submission or headship.
Then you are essentially telling the wife in these situations, too bad, buttercup – it’s your lot in life. Just deal with your man getting his way all the time, divorce is forbidden, so you cannot leave if you tire of being taken advantage of or abused.
I addressed that bogus complementarian talking point above (about “but marriages NEED for the MEN to have a final tie breaker vote”), see:
_my post here_
No, marriages do not need the husband to have a “final say so” in a marriage to settle any and all marital disputes.
LikeLike
The kind of argument KAS makes here is like other wishful thinking comp arguments that collapses the moment anything goes wrong. If a man treats his wife poorly, or abusively, comp still insists that the woman do what it thinks is ‘right’….which is entirely WRONG when dealing with an abusive or even just a selfish or inept man who doesn’t rise to the level of abusive.
He says it will be a moot argument if you teach men that they are not entitled to sex (which is the OPPOSITE of what most comp preachers are teaching!). That doesn’t address what happens when he ignores what the pastor says (in the rare cases the pastor is actually teaching him correctly on this point). Or what happens when a selfish man realizes his wife will not stand up for herself in anything because she has been taught by people like KAS that it is sin. It’s a recipe for disaster. I don’t need to be married for 20 years to know that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
KAS said
Complementarianism is not about love. It’s not about the love of women, or loving women.
Comps will talk a good talk in their propaganda books and sermons on occasion, about how husbands should be willing to lay down their lives for their wives, but at the end of the day, complementarianism is all about trying to justify male control of women in the church and other areas of life.
(Which is one reason comps despise feminism so much, because feminism is, in part, fighting against that.)
KAS said
So have complementarians and complementarian teachings.
KAS said
Complementarianism is antithetical to anything mutual.
You’re the one going on and on about female submission and male headship.
It’s not egalitarians (and other non-comps) who emphasize a unilateral power differential in a relationship – that’s YOUR side.
Funny you indirectly insult me above in some post (Lea quoted it) about middle aged single aged people not wanting advice from married couples-
Don’t lecture me about sex and self control, you’re talking to an aged 40+ virgin. I have the sexual self control down pat. I don’t need condescending lectures from you about it.
Stats show that a lot of married Christian men admit when asked in surveys – admit they regularly look at dirty magazines and web sites with naked people, by the way. Google for it.
And it’s on every other main stream Christian magazine site – the articles about, ‘How Christian Married Men Struggle with Dirty Movie Addiction, Click Link to Read Advice on How to Break Free!” Most every Christian site runs an article like that anywhere from at least once a month to once ever 3 – 4 months.
LikeLike
And see, this makes me really sad because some men absolutely can be trusted in such a situation and my personal belief (borrowed a bit from the gift of fear) is that you go with your gut on people and hope for the best. Be reasonable, I wouldn’t invite in someone I didn’t know for instance, but also live your life.
I think situational awareness and some basic instincts will get you pretty far. And some things can’t be avoided no matter how careful. There is some happy medium between risk avoidance and living without fear. But that can only work if you trust yourself and you allow yourself to put up boundaries and even be ‘rude’ when you need it. Which is why I get angry at people telling women not to trust their instincts and to be overly solicitous and lacking in boundaries.
Although this is probably a little off topic lol. In conclusion, read The Gift of Fear 😉
LikeLike
Lea said,
I read the book “Gift Of Fear,” but I’ve also read many interviews with rape victims going back to the 1980s.
And many of them said – especially the ones raped by a male friend they knew and mt in college, while in college – that they thought they could trust the man.
They were shocked and betrayed the guy they thought was a friend attacked them.
I did invite one guy I was friends with, who I THOUGHT I could trust in to my dorm room, but I still left my dorm room open. Because you never know.
I also didn’t want anyone getting the idea that he and I were doing anything sexual.
But yeah, there is a real problem with culture and Christians conditioning girls and women to never appear “rude” – because that can put them in very dangerous situations.
LikeLike
KAS,
Hmmm. Corollary. If we teach men not to kidnap or molest children, then it is a moot point what we should teach children regarding how to deal with strangers, and even adults in the family that touch them inappropriately.
I would guess that you did not apply the corollary to your children. In other words, whether or not society has taught men not to molest, men still do, and we still need to teach and model behavior with children that demonstrates that we will protect them and we will deal with those who treat them wrongly.
However, what you are advocating is that we should be silent to the problem of abusive men, and also, that we model behavior that demonstrates that we will not protect victims of abuse and we will not deal with those who treat them wrongly.
THIS is precisely what the Evangelical Complementarian church is doing today. Over and over.
This is NOT a moot point. Teaching black children how to interact with police is not a moot point. Teaching boys and girls how to deal with strangers is not a moot point. Teaching women how to deal with abusive boyfriends/spouses is not a moot point. Teaching members how to deal with abusive leaders is not a moot point.
LikeLike
Daisy, “Stats show that a lot of married Christian men admit when asked in surveys …”
This is a huge problem now in Christian ministry. Not only are pastors looking at porn in large numbers, but organizations like Young Life are having to internally minister to their employees, because they can’t find people who are “porn-free”.
LikeLike
In a perfect world, nothing bad ever happens and everything is a moot point. We don’t live in that world and it’s childish to pretend we do.
Also, can we take a minute and reflect on how a question posted to KAS of ‘does a woman have a right to say no’ (which he basically answered with ‘no’) gets turned around into how sad he is that we poor spinsters just don’t understand how a marriage is about more than sex lol??
LikeLike
It does make you wonder how much of this crazy sex advice and errant thinking on gender relationships coming out of the pulpit (not to mention abuse) is actually partly a consequence of the influence of porn on their thinking…
LikeLike
KAS, “Selfish pleasure has replaced mutual giving. Marriage is the antidote to this…”
Even pastors in comp circles are not this dumb. They would say, marriage is between two sinners, and selfishness is a huge issue in marriage. They go on to say that selfish married people think that the solution to being selfish is to have a baby, but then you have three selfish people in the equation.
(Definitely not an endorsement!) https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/when-sinners-says-i-do/
That’s why marriage is work. I think single men in comp churches are taught that marriage equals great sex whenever you want. I think this is a pendulum swing to counteract the movie portrayal that being single equals great sex whenever you want… Not surprisingly, my wife had completely different ideas about what marriage was, especially since sex was painful for her.
LikeLike
KAS said,
“Would you like the benefit of my wisdom as to how those experiencing unwanted singleness should cope, especially for women and especially when middle age is beckoning? ”
KAS are you a troll? Why do you post here? Please answer.
Is it to make comp men look like heartless, selfish, misogynistic jerks?
I decided as a teenager that I never wanted to get married even though I wanted to be a stay at home mother and have all the children I could. I decided this after sixteen years of watching and hearing how the comp men in my family talked to, talked about, and treated their wives like child slaves.
Two of my great aunts both say they wish they had never gotten married. They were married for fifty years before their husbands died. They now tell their granddaughters and nieces, “DO NOT GET MARRIED.”
My grandmother, (wife of southern baptist preacher) told me to never get married.
Many women are deciding they do not want to get married after watching how awful their mothers and grandmothers were treated by their fathers and grandfathers.
They are deciding marriage is not worth it. Men are not worth marriage because they could see and hear how awful their fathers were to their mothers.
My little sister is gorgeous; men ask her to marry them all the time. She does not have issues with men the way I do, but because of our father she will not get married. A very attractive tall marine begged her for years to marry him, she loved him, he treated her like a princess, but she would not marry him. All comps fault for telling men that they should treat their wives like child slaves.
KAS you are such a horrible person you have swept everything Daisy, Katy, and I have said about our years long pain because of comp under the rug. And you have kept being selfish and disrespectful about our testimonies. Are you trying to make comp men look like dumb jerks?
I do not need to join NXIVM and marry Keith Raniere to know how awful it would be and that I would hate it. Just like I do not need to marry a comp man to know how awful it would be and that I would hate it.
This website is for victims of spiritual abuse. You come here and disrespect and ignore the victim’s pain here. Then you selfishly and heartlessly promote what has hurt them.
LikeLike
Another thing complementarians have in common with the Taliban, ISIS, and Boko Haram is they hate for an unmarried woman to have consensual sex. They hate this woman with a passion, but they are all four cool with men raping children. They just decide they hate the raped child and the child rapist is a poor victim.
Child rape is fine with these four groups of men because MAN POWER.
LikeLike
CH – KAS are you a troll? Why do you post here? Please answer.
No I am not trolling. I want to push back against abuse, especially that which American (pseudo?)-evangelicalism exports round the world, and where it damages people.
As far as the complementarian/egalitarian dispute goes, to counter the sort of thing you endured I think it better to say that the complementarian understanding of scripture is basically correct, but such treatment goes diametrically against the teaching of how husbands are to treat wives or men should treat women.
The other approach is to try to persuade them of egalitarian interpretations, but I am afraid too many of these are far too easily refutable, are too obviously an attempt to accommodate the surrounding culture, and such an approach will get you nowhere. At the very least egalitarian interpretations create more problems than they solve.
If you would like me to flesh that out a bit, I shall be happy to do so, but if it suffices, then I hope it answers your question.
LikeLike
Today’s observation of absolute irony –
KAS waging a war to establish that women should retain their roles set down in the . . .. . what . . . 4th century ?. . . (from a book written by MEN of that time period) . . . on a device perfected in the 20th century.
LikeLike
KAS,
Christianity Hurts holds much wisdom based on personal experience, in her heart and in her words. And truth be told, she appears to be more Christian that what comps hold to be true, for she truly “gets it.”
May I ask you a question, with regards to “anger.” When I posted my personal experiences regarding male neighbor farmers yelling at me and treating me “like crap,” you posted the issue of “righteous anger” regarding these abusive males.
My question to you, KAS, it this, “Can women have that same “righteous anger” with regards to the failings this world, or is that “righteous anger” only reserved for men. And is it only comp men that are allowed to define “righteous anger” according to their distorted worldview?
Just like the issue of “feminism.” Is it comp men who define and label the bullet points of feminism?
And also, KAS, what would you do with a man like this in the public arena…..true story here…..
“The Christian woman was standing at the Walmart check-out counter, asking the sales associate questions regarding cell phone technology. A man walked up to the counter pushing a cart and stood right behind here. On two occasions this man interrupted the conversation at the check-out counter with these words, looking mockingly at the woman, “It must be your sex appeal.” Not just once did he say this to insult, but twice. The woman looked at this pervert, recognizing him as a friend of one of the elders of her former abusive Baptist c’hurch. She also knew that he was a big time leader church board member at his Lutheran c’hurch, a retired dentist professional, and a “leader” in his local community. And yet, he said words to insult this woman and tear her down, when he should have been minding his own business, exhibiting fruits of the Holy Spirit and patiently waiting his turn. But no, he chose to work his evil schemes with that reviling look on his face…..he was intentional.”
Now, KAS, how was I to react to such a wicked c’hurched man in the public arena? And am I allowed to exhibit a “righteous anger” towards this sick pervert regarding his “sex speech?”
This type of personality is alive and well within the evangelical veneers of Christianity, treating women as sex objects, and not human beings mutually created in the image of God. And yes, I did have a righteous anger when I left Walmart that day, and due to my faith in Christ alone for my salvation, not male religious leaders such as that sick man, I can bow down and pray in the comfort of me own surroundings (the Body of Jesus Christ doesn’t need walls built with human hands to pray in 🙂 ), and pray for the salvation of this man.
Righteous anger…….who is allowed to exhibit this? Is “European c’hristianity” far better than “American c’hristianity.” I respectfully disagree, KAS. The pride of this life affects every square inch of this world, not just parts of it.
LikeLike
@ KAS
Why don’t you care that your ideology hurts women and little girls, hurts raped women and raped little girls, that your ideology hurts battered women and their daughters?
Why do you disrespect and ignore the testimonies of women here who have been hurt because of your ideology?
The way you post here towards victims of comp should make you feel selfish and ashamed. If you are trying to make comp men look like they care about women and they are empathetic towards women who have been abused you are doing an awful job.
I could easily go over to Doug Wilson or Doug Phillips websites to read up on your opinions, but I don’t have to because I heard it all growing up.
“I want to push back against abuse, ”
You have not and are not pushing back against abuse. You come to a website that was created for abuse victims and sh*t all over the abuse victims here.
“If you would like me to flesh that out a bit, I shall be happy to do so, ”
No. I do not need a man who is hateful and disrespectful towards women, towards women who have been abused because of his misogynistic selfish ideology, and towards people who were sexually abused as babies to try yet again to peddle his selfish misogyny as good.
“As far as the complementarian/egalitarian dispute goes, to counter the sort of thing you endured I think it better to say that the complementarian understanding of scripture is basically correct,”
Someone, please explain to me what he meant by this.
Complementarian says women and little girls do not have the right to say no to men or escape men. Men deserve the right to have their @sses kissed by women and little girls.
Egalitarian says men and women have the right to say no to each other. Women do not have to go through life as men’s trapped sex slaves. This petrifies men who know women would want to cut them out of their lives.
“At the very least egalitarian interpretations create more problems than they solve.”
KAS, this you pretending in your selfish state of misogyny that something is true that isn’t. You are just another misogynist trying to tell abused women their business. You didn’t live it!
It is like the man who sexually abused me saying, “I don’t care that it hurts you, it is your lot in life, get used to it. God wants us men to feel good as we trap and use women and little girls. God does not care if we hurt and use you. You are a c*nt, get use to it!”
When my comp father died my mother and me were better off. When I stopped going to church and cut Christian men out of my life I was better off.
Your comp god did absolutely nothing for my mother or me except made us trapped sex slaves for men.
I knew my whole childhood that your god did not love me or my mother and he was nothing more than a pimp. I learned that growing up comp.
I learned growing up comp that the comp god does not hate rape, but does hate raped women and raped children. I also learned growing up comp that comp god gets a thrill out of men beating wives and children.
LikeLike
I have yet to see any of these supposed problem egalitarianism causes…and yet I see a TON from comp. So.
LikeLike
But Lea, if men can tell you no and you can tell men no that could ruin the selfish fetishes of men like Ariel Castro and women like Allison Mack. There needs to be people with special rights over other people. Apparently, that is biblical.
LikeLike
I mean, the only argument I can recall is that it would apparently be just impossible to make a decision if nobody had the power to completely override the other’s opinions. Which is nonsense, of course. People do it every day.
LikeLike
Same here, Lea. CH, Daisy, Katy and others have offered numerous concrete examples of problems and sufferings caused by gender comp doctrine. What does KAS offer as a solution? More gender comp! Along with vague and shadowy claims that “egalitarian interpretations create more problems than they solve”.
“More problems”, for whom exactly, I wonder? For abusive and narcissistic spouses? I can see that. For professional theologians and patriarchal pastors? If so, who cares? For vulnerable and wounded women? Very hard to picture. KAS seriously needs to come down to brass tacks.
LikeLike
KAS,
Not to people like Christianity Hurts. It seems very relevant to her whether a wife has the right to say “no”, regardless of what husbands are being taught. Considering that this forum is primarily for people like her, you would be wise to understand what’s important to her, instead of dictating to her what is or isn’t “moot”.
LikeLike
Katy – I don’t understand why you are even asking the question. Why shouldn’t you get angry over the stupidity of some sundry religious leader? Who says you shouldn’t? Righteous anger is an equal opportunities employer.
Mind you, I am all for the well-crafted put down: “It must be your sex appeal” – “Jealous are we”? “Chins up” “When is the baby due” (assuming middle-aged spread) or “Shame yours went when you lost your hair” or something similar to make him look silly. Run over his foot with the trolley (cart!) and apologise profusely.
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? A lot of people don’t know this, including long-standing churchgoers, and even leaders.
Do not be deceived; Multitudes are in regarding what follows, a good example being a feminist like Rachel Held Evans …
neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Revilers – another translation is ‘verbal abusers’. Men will give account for every careless word they utter, and in some cases may find that what they said during this life revealed in reality an evil, unbelieving heart, and that they are therefore excluded from the new heavens and new earth in which righteousness dwells.
LikeLike
Yep, KAS. I conducted a personal Bible study into precisely what our Holy Scriptures have to say concerning the topic of revilers, for they are closer to me home than you may fully realize. Plus the fact of going to an abusive Baptist c’hurch where the viper revilers consume unaware women for their love fests/lunch menu.
And when a reviler speaks of righteousness and “righteous anger” from their own point of reference/worldview, the lower laity sheep (in many cases, women) can figuratively see the red flags waving behind this façade of a self initiated “holiness” that is unrecognizable by our LORD Himself, for only He is the author of true righteousness. Reminder…..He never sinned.
And I won’t even begin to insult your intelligence with the placating words, “I don’t even understand why you are even asking this question.” For two nights in a row, I was criticized, corrected and finally, literally yelled at (because I refused to put the bacon back into the refrigerator for usage at a later, comp prescribed date) for frying bacon for my family for our supper meal……remember……I am married to a comp/entitlement/oppressive/self anointed prophet (for decades) and he actually said that we should all be eating cereal for supper, just like him, because it’s cheaper.
Your posts are deeply disturbing at times, KAS, and I truly believe that when Jesus appears at His Second Coming, many will be in for an awakening for earthly appearances/outward appearances by the religious elite, will renders themselves ineffective against the teachings of our LORD and Master……..Jesus.
I have heard of Rachel Evans, but have never visited her penned material or listened to her via the internet. I used to listen to John Piper right after I bolted out of that abusive Baptist c’hurch and found his teachings parallel with the “lording it over” teachings that Jesus condemned.
I will not engage in attacking you personally, KAS, for I have decades of experience in living with a reviler. I know the language well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That response to KAS made me smile, Katy. In my mind you ‘flipped him the bird’, only in Biblical language. 🙂
By the way, I think you would love what Rachel Held Evans has to say – she’s a lovely person and extremely well respected, in many circles. Intelligent, successful, and an extraordinary writer with incredible insight, she ‘speaks’ to believers and non-believers alike.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Misogynist KAS does not like Rachel Held Evans.
KAS said about John Piper.
“his teaching would in no way justify abuse, nor does he treat women as second class.”
John Piper says a wife needs to kiss her husbands @ss while she is dealing with him abusing her and John Piper giggles about wife abuse.
https://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2018/07/10/are-complementarians-tough-on-abuse/
All I have to do is read the vile male serving woman enslaving slop John Piper and KAS promote to know complementarian was dreamed up by the same spirit that dreamed up the vomit loser Muslim men promote.
LikeLiked by 1 person
KAS said
Back when I rejected complementarianism, there was no Rachel Held Evans the celebrity author.
I did not reject comp due to RHE, nor due to secular or evangelical feminist influence.
RHE did not have a blog or any books back then.
While RHE is correct in her arguments on complementarianism, I do not agree with all her views on other topics, certainly not on politics (she is left wing, I am right wing).
I rejected complementarianism due to complementarianism.
I rejected complementarianism because it presents an inconsistent view of the Bible and what the Bible says are God’s characteristics, and because comp produced a lot of bad fruit in my life.
Jesus said a good true produces good fruit, a bad tree, bad fruit.
Comp produced bad fruit in my life that I’m still working at over coming.
At this point, I don’t know if I care so much what you think about comp, but KAS, stop erecting straw man arguments against those who disagree with comp, like attributing rejection of comp to RHE.
There was no RHE blog or site back when I realized how inconsistent, sexist, and unbiblical comp is.
LikeLike
Christianity Hurts said (to KAS)
Because, as I’ve pointed out the last few months on here, KAS operates under the incorrect assumption, that the problem is not with complementarianism but that some men act in opposition to complementarianism and abuse women.
KAS said,
Which is false.
See the blog post by “heretic husband” called “The No True Complementarian Fallacy” and this one on my Daisy blog,
_Even Warm and Fuzzy, True, Correctly-Implemented Gender Complementarianism is Harmful to Women, and It’s Still Sexism – Yes All Comps (Refuting “Not All Comps”)_
I’ve told KAS many times before that the logical outworking of comp leads to the abuse and exploitation of girls and women, AND,
Even the nice, polite form of complementarianism he promotes harms girls and women, as it did with me, because the “nice, biblical” form of comp that my Southern Baptist Churches taught to me, oh so nicely, encouraged me to hold codependent thinking patterns and behaviors.
Which ended up hurting me, because codependency passed off as “God’s design for women” -as complementarians do teach it – leaves women thinking that to be “godly” and a “biblical woman,” it means being passive, lacking boundaries, and otherwise making a tempting and easy target or prey for abusive or selfish men and women.
I’ve explained this ten times over to KAS on this blog (even with links to my blog explaining it further), and he continues ignores it.
KAS does not want to admit that his complementarian doctrine, even when practiced by loving, gentle men, leads to and/or perpetuates to abuse of women and/or that it makes women easier marks for abusers or unscrupulous people.
LikeLike
@ Daisy
I am convinced Kas is just an immature misogynistic troll. For all we know he is one of Doug Wilson’s creepy loser worshipers.
One of the reasons comp men go on about their manhoods is because they don’t act like men; they act like childish obnoxious 14-year-old boys. This website is not about which rich boy drove the biggest truck at the homecoming parade.
LikeLike
Well Daisy, when I say complementarianism covers a wide range of belief and practice, some of which I would very definitely distance myself from you invoke the no true Scotsman fallacy, but when you say Hence, when some dude assumes or tells me in his complementarian clown video … that I am a feminist when I am not in complete agreement at all things feminist, I bristle and call him out on it said fallacy does not seem to apply.
Sauce for the goose, eh?
LikeLike
KAS said,
I’ve addressed your particular brand of complementarianism – the sweet, nice, gentle kind and have explained to you a 100 times how that sort of type if damaging.
_Even Warm and Fuzzy, True, Correctly-Implemented Gender Complementarianism is Harmful to Women, and It’s Still Sexism – Yes All Comps (Refuting “Not All Comps”)_
Further, in weeks page, you said you do not subscribe to the John Piper type of complementarianism,
but in days after, Mark pointed out that your type of “UK” flavor of comp was indistinguishable from the American John Piper / Mark Driscoll type.
I don’t agree with all of feminism. I do not go by the “feminist” label. I’ve never pulled a No True Feminism argument on you. You, however, voluntarily go by the “complementarian” label.
And you continue to ignore many points I’ve brought up or raised.
LikeLike
Correction, I said in post above,
“Further, in weeks page,”
That should read,
“In weeks PAST”
— not page
LikeLike
I wanted to comment on this further.
In response to KAS above (“what’s good for the goose” comment directed at me)
I said,
I do not use the “feminist” label to describe myself or my views.
KAS, however, does use the word “complementarianism” to describe himself or his views.
That is the first important distinction to make.
I have already acknowledged many times, over my years on this blog, and the other one I post to, that complementarianism is not a mono-lith, and that it runs on a spectrum from “soft” complementarianism to “hard” complementarianism.
KAS keeps wanting to depict himself as some sort of loving, sweet, gentle, civil, refined, “soft” complementarian, and he wants to insist that,
“No true complementarian would ever (fill- in- the- blank- here with whatever objectionable action).”
(I’ve pushed back and said, yes, KAS, even the “nice and sweet” variety of comp you believe in and promote is harmful to women as well, not just comp applied abusively, and I have explained why, with links to my blog cited.)
Despite the fact I am not a feminist, the video guy in the video JA linked to in the “Is feminism rebellion against God” post was telling women (to paraphrase),
“Even if you do not call yourself a feminist, and you don’t support abortion, you’re still a feminist, you feminist you!”
So, this guy is slapping a label on me, that I don’t even apply to myself, and that I don’t particularly want to defend.
Also, while I recognize that complementarianism exists on a spectrum, and that not all comps agree with all other comps on everything, many conservatives don’t do this with feminism.
Most conservatives lump all feminists in to the same group and treat them all as though they all agree on everything all the time.
Even some feminists seem to do this.
Even some self-professing feminists on this very blog (on another thread) seem to act as though feminism is a great big monolith where all feminists walk arm and arm and agree with each other all the time on everything.
The truth is, _feminists can quite often be found in a civil war with each other_ over different topics.
Secondly, another distinction:
If a conservative such as Rush Limbaugh were to say that,
“Some feminists support abortion, some of them support Trans bathroom laws, and some act like they hate all men, and none of that is good” –
I would agree with that observation (and with his conclusion or judgement of the matter).
I would not sit here, as KAS has done in the case of defending complementarianism over several months, and respond,
“NO TRUE FEMINIST would, or has, ever hated any man! No true feminist would ever support abortion or Trans bathroom laws!,”
-nor have I ever argued in that manner about feminism.
I concede, and have forever, that some feminists do believe in, or behave like, X, Y, or Z, and furthermore, I do not agree with X, Y, or Z myself. (Which is one reason of a few I don’t go by the “feminist” label.)
Have I ever argued on this blog (or the other one), “No true feminist would ever…”
No, I have not.
One of my few points of contention on the subject of feminism is to say that not all feminists are in agreement on every topic, as so many anti-feminist types always assume they are.
I actually recognize that they are a varied lot. Does KAS?
No, he seems to broad-brush them, and to assume that all feminists and other varities of non-comps reject comp due to Rachel Held Evans (which I corrected him on in yet another thread. When I rejected comp myself, I had never even heard of RHE).
So KAS, you were kind of comparing apples and oranges here. I admit that some feminists are wrong and crazy on some topics.
And I agree these are actual feminists.
I’ve never said, “No true feminist has ever said…”
But I’ve seen you, KAS, use the, “No true complementarian, if he’s really following Male Headship biblical passages would ever, hurt his wife, or blah blah blah…” defense many times…
And you’ve used that defense to deflect the obvious negative consequences that comp has had on the lives of women who have told you they’ve been abused under comp, whether it’s comp carried out badly, or your type of comp: comp carried out lovingly.
LikeLike
I said (to KAS),
This is yet another problem with complementarianism. (I wanted to add this to the last post but forgot.)
Complementarians cannot and do not agree with each other on what the extent of male rule of women should be, and this is yet another weakness to their position.
One would think if their position is true, godly, biblical, and that it’s so “obvious” that God designed the genders to be a certain way that it should so very be self-evident, why do we always see complementarians disagreeing with each other on how to apply complementarianism?
Just one or two examples of what I mean:
Some complementarians don’t like the “complementarian” label _and they think Christians should use the word “patriarchy” instead_, because they believe the word “complementarianism” does not go far enough to describe their view of gender roles.
Their embrace and argument for the use of the label “patriarchy” actually reveals the true agenda of complementarianism – which is not about valuing women, but justifying continued male control and authority by men of women.
At least these pro-patriarchy label guys are being more honest about comp’s true goal and interests than soft comps (such as KAS) are.
Another example.
You have some complementarians who believe women MAY teach in front of mixed gender teen-aged Sunday School classes, while other comps say NO, that is forbidden.
Another example.
Some comp churches allow women to read aloud from Bibles during Sunday services, others do not believe that is “biblical.”
Another example.
Some complementarians actually believe that male rule of women should extend to all of culture, and even to un-married (Non-Christian) women,
While other complementarians (such as Mark Driscoll) says that Male Headship is applicable only from one (Christian) wife to her own husband (not to other men, or men in general).
This confusion and inconsistency of application of and by complementarians leads to things like this:
_Elisabeth Elliot Can’t Use a Pulpit to Preach, But She Can Share from the Music Stand_
And it’s that sort of inconsistency that causes some women, such as that author of that post, and such as me, to see how faulty and arbitrary, complementarianism is, and to reject it.
(I also have other reasons why I rejected comp.)
It’s not Rachel Held Evans or secular feminism that causes Christian women to reject complementarianism, it’s complementarianism itself and complementarian people who do so!
Complementarians are themselves confused about their own gender doctrine on several points.
The Bible says God is not /i> the “author of confusion,” so no, God is not the creator or endorser of Complementarianism.
LikeLike
KAS said: “As far as the complementarian/egalitarian dispute goes, to counter the sort of thing you endured I think it better to say that the complementarian understanding of scripture is basically correct, but such treatment goes diametrically against the teaching of how husbands are to treat wives or men should treat women.”
And therein lies the problem. It’s easy for the church to diagnose when a wife is not being obedient and hard for the church to diagnose when a husband is not being loving. One is black and white, the other gray, and that’s why Piper, for example, does not touch it with a ten foot pole, and why his former church has failed to uphold victims of domestic violence, and brought in an “expert” on DV to teach them.
So, even if egalitarianism is not “the answer” in your mind, it is much, much closer to the answer than anything you’ve been able to claim. I have yet to see anyone be disciplined for domineering, but have seen many disciplined for insubordination.
LikeLike
_How Did We Get Here?: Misogyny in the Church and World_
LikeLike
“explaining the importance of a wife being able to say “no.”
On the post-conference evaluation form, one comment (we assume it was theirs) read, “There’s nothing in Scripture about mutuality in the bedroom. When I want [sex], I get it.””
As a twelve-year-old girl two years after my sexual abuse stopped I often wondered why God could not have put in the bible women have the right to say no to sex and he hates rape.
I see no reason why a rapist wouldn’t like the bible and I see no reason why a wife beater and wife rapist wouldn’t like complementarianism. Comp tells men they can beat and rape their wives and their wives have to be even nicer to them (submission) and their wives can not divorce them. It truly is like comp was dreamed up by rapist and wife beaters.
“When I want [sex], I get it.””” Knowing what I know about rapist I wonder if this man has ever raped a small child.
LikeLike
This is so sad.
LikeLike
From your article Daisy:
I’ve been seeing a persistent theme in some quarters (so called ‘nice guys’, incels, The red pill/pua folks) that women want to be treated poorly and I’m wondering how much of that comes from porn. Because it’s not true, obviously. Hmm.
LikeLike
Lea,
Porn (which should be outlawed) is one of the offsprings of abuse that is deep rooted.
Many adults and kids were never mentored to understand what it means to emotionally connect. How could they? Their own parents were never emotionally connected or never heard of such a thing. So they either divorced or lived a loveless marriage. Many are mentored from the very start, that verbally colliding, bickering and poor communications skills as normal. Many don’t know what it means to having a civilized and soothing conversations as an alternative to discovering solutions that truly stimulate the mind for both. When voices are raised why can’t couples say “baby, lets stay calm we can get through this”
So that leaves society, schools, media and churches to do the mentoring.
Society/media mentored many to embrace a locker room/porn visuals of a staged version of harder and bigger mix of fast and furious sex giving men and some women an unrealistic view that sex is supposed to be a performance instead of an experience of making love slow and unhurried. Porn seems to also glorify a promiscuous lifestyle, which makes it near impossible to discover the meaning of emotionally connection.
Schools don’t really teach good citizenship, though I think they are more aware and are trying to deal with the bullying.
Churches seem to encourage couples to get married, if they are having sex, leaving love out of the equation.
It’s like the art of being polite and friendly, or couples exploring one another’s minds or loving one another is dying, To respect and be sensitive to likes and dislikes of a partner isn’t being instilled.
Which leaves many of us to navigate through life picking up the pieces while carrying some heavy burdens living in an environment that doesn’t embrace 1 Cor. 13:13 “And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.”
LikeLike
I dropped by to post a link I just saw either to this thread or the other comp one, but first I wanted to comment on this-
Lea said,
Sometimes it’s true that women end up dating horrible or abusive men, but the conclusions other men draw from this are the wrong ones.
There is even a Christian guy who sometimes posts here and at the other blog who has said, for the last few years (and I’ve seen him say this on other blogs), that he sort of has this mindset.
(And this is not a guy who supports complementarianism. I don’t think he’s sexist.)
But this guy I’m talking about has had bad luck getting dates or girlfriends, and he’s made comments before on various blogs about how he notices a lot of women do date jerks, as though he suspects that women secretly do really feel attracted to jerks who treat them bad.
I’ve tried explaining to him in the last few years on these sites some of the reasons why some women date or marry abusers / jerks and why they stay with them for a long time but my explanations never seem to “stick” with this guy.
No woman wants to date or marry a jerk or an abuser, but some reasons they might include having grown up in an abusive house-hold when they were kids – so an abusive man feels normal and familiar to them; if abused they may not believe they deserve a “quality” man who treats them nice.
Some women have low self esteem and have poor boundaries – and so the reason the jerks get more women is that they are persistent to the point of stalking with women.
These men are selfish and don’t care to respect a woman’s boundaries.
These types of men will keep pressuring a woman for a date or relationship or sex, and the women with weak boundaries will cave in so as not to “hurt” the guy’s feelings, or they find him scary –
They are afraid if they turn the guy down, he will punch them or what not. Still others think if they give the dude a “pity date” maybe he will back off after that.
There are other reasons like that which factor into why some women date/marry jerks.
But none of the reasons women end up with jerks are because women enjoy being treated like trash or find jerks attractive!!!
(continued in part 2)
LikeLike