Doug Wilson + We got a mention

[Anise]

So this article has been making the rounds it seems: thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/gospeldrivenchurch/2012/07/13/the-polluted-waters-of-50-shades-of-grey-etc/

It provoked so many responses (such as rachelheldevans.com/gospel-coalition-douglas-wilson-sex and wadeburleson.org/2012/07/only-thing-worse-than-church-full-of.html ) that the author even posted a follow-up defending the quotation: thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/gospeldrivenchurch/2012/07/18/shades-of-outrage/ as well as adding a trigger warning to the original post.

The offending quote:

A final aspect of rape that should be briefly mentioned is perhaps closer to home. Because we have forgotten the biblical concepts of true authority and submission, or more accurately, have rebelled against them, we have created a climate in which caricatures of authority and submission intrude upon our lives with violence.

When we quarrel with the way the world is, we find that the world has ways of getting back at us. In other words, however we try, the sexual act cannot be made into an egalitarian pleasuring party. A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts. This is of course offensive to all egalitarians, and so our culture has rebelled against the concept of authority and submission in marriage. This means that we have sought to suppress the concepts of authority and submission as they relate to the marriage bed.

But we cannot make gravity disappear just because we dislike it, and in the same way we find that our banished authority and submission comes back to us in pathological forms. This is what lies behind sexual “bondage and submission games,†along with very common rape fantasies. Men dream of being rapists, and women find themselves wistfully reading novels in which someone ravishes the “soon to be made willing†heroine. Those who deny they have any need for water at all will soon find themselves lusting after polluted water, but water nonetheless.

True authority and true submission are therefore an erotic necessity. When authority is honored according to the word of God it serves and protects — and gives enormous pleasure. When it is denied, the result is not “no authority,†but an authority which devours.

Doug Wilson is the same guy that over looked sexual abuse of young children by his students (viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2561).

Dee at the Wartburg Watch goes over his background: thewartburgwatch.com/2012/07/18/the-real-doug-wilson-encouraged-presided-over-the-marriage-of-serial-pedophile/

And FJ gets a mention- yay for those here working to expose vile people like Doug Wilson.

[CanadianHippie]

69 seems pretty egalitarian to me... Though I suppose it would be inappropriate use of sexual organs to him. Sometimes women give and dominate in the bedroom, there is nothing wrong with that. Not all women are designed by God to submit. I sure as hell wasn't.

[Anise]

I wonder how Doug Wilson "knows" that sex cannot be an egalitarian pleasure party. He sure as hell hasn't tried.

Odds are he also is terrible at sex. Probably most of those fundie men are, which is why their wives need to be given reasons have sex with them- "submit woman to my needs! It's not about mutual pleasure so just lie still and think of England." :evil:

[Patsy]

I'm copying e_elayne's response to Rachel Held Evan's article here, because I think it should get exposure. I want the Wilsons and every person who agrees with them and huffs "oh those detractors are being so unreasonable" to read it, as well as others. It is mostly in response to Doug Wilson's awful language and contains direct mention of it:

Rachel, thanks so much for your discussion on this and speaking for so many women. I've read all the posts, original, yours and rehash, and I have to chime in myself as this also touches me deeply:

Conquering and colonizing, surrender and accepting? Jared, while you have made it clear you find nothing threatening in those words and seem bewildered that anyone would find them so, here's my thoughts. You seem obsessed with the word "penetrate" and using that as a defense for your description of the "natural order" of things. But then, couldn't you also say truthfully that the woman engulfs, surrounds, beseiges, the man? That he is buried, encircled, trapped, confined?

But why would you? And why would you ever use words of war and oppression to evoke your ideal sexual relationship?

When I climb into bed with my husband at the end of a long day with our kids and we can muster up the energy for some marriage bed funtime, it's just love. Love. Love, which is "patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant."

..."My beloved is mine, and I am his."

Commenter Adrienne also mentioned this response, so I thought I would link it: jrdkirk.com/2012/07/18/sexual-conquering-is-rape/ (I do not know anything about J R D Kirk or his blog)

[Patsy]

and Wilson, may I suggest pegging? You may find yourself pleasantly surprised!

[mebeforee]

Men dream of being rapists...

Really? Really?? What men dream of being rapists?!

I'm sure many men dream of being dominant, that's where the dominance/submission thing comes in. Normal, healthy, well-adjusted men do NOT dream of being rapists, of violently forcing themselves on unwilling partners and physically overpowering their victims who are trying to defend themselves or force the man off. There is a very distinct difference between the two concepts.

[luckystone]

That's silly. Some people like being submissive or dominant. I don't know the gender breakdown, but I'd suspect it's roughly equal. I don't think the nature of penetration automatically means dominance. I've heard men say they find it's pretty dominating to let someone engulf them, if you think of it the other way around.

[debrand]

I'm copying e_elayne's response to Rachel Held Evan's article here, because I think it should get exposure. I want the Wilsons and every person who agrees with them and huffs "oh those detractors are being so unreasonable" to read it, as well as others. It is mostly in response to Doug Wilson's awful language and contains direct mention of it:Commenter Adrienne also mentioned this response, so I thought I would link it: jrdkirk.com/2012/07/18/sexual-conquering-is-rape/ (I do not know anything about J R D Kirk or his blog)

I was thinking something very similar to Rachel. Why is the act of penetration described as conquering? That is bizarre. There is nothing about penetration that automatically means that the one with the penis is in control. What the hell. Just like Rachel said, it could be claimed that the woman surronds and beseiges the man when he enters her. That she entraps and momentarily controls him. I don't think that usually happens but it is pretty ludicrious to say that the act of voluntary sex between consenting adults has anything to do with war like imagery.

Doug's article makes me wonder if he has his own rape and control fantasies

[Lady_M]

Reminds me of that thread about Peter Bradrick where someone mentioned all the battle verbiage and joked about his son Michael Courage:

This arrow was forged on the bloodied battle ground of my valiant wife's womb which I opened violently with my sword of awesome and magnificent power and therefor this arrow in my quiver will henceforth be known as Courage that he may one day brave the treacherous lands of lust to subdue a womb of his own!

Except, damn. The Wilsons et al ACTUALLY think this way. Scary.

In all seriousness, the article by Jared C. Wilson is really upsetting and infuriating. His comments to the people who called him on his idiocy are even more so.

[Sweetpea1]

Reminds me of that thread about Peter Bradrick where someone mentioned all the battle verbiage and joked about his son Michael Courage:

Except, damn. The Wilsons et al ACTUALLY think this way. Scary.

In all seriousness, the article by Jared C. Wilson is really upsetting and infuriating. His comments to the people who called him on his idiocy are even more so.

That quote is just WTF creepy.

[deelaem]

That's silly. Some people like being submissive or dominant. I don't know the gender breakdown, but I'd suspect it's roughly equal. I don't think the nature of penetration automatically means dominance. I've heard men say they find it's pretty dominating to let someone engulf them, if you think of it the other way around.

Really? Did men suddenly start getting raped at the same rate as women, and no one told me?

[gustava]

Every time I hear his name, I see the character in Weeds, who loves his weed. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[BlackHawk]

Really? Did men suddenly start getting raped at the same rate as women, and no one told me?

I didn't read this as talking about rape necessarily, I read it more talking about people wanting to be dominate and submissive within a sexual context. You know, like BDSM games and whatever.

That said, as a guy, I've never thought about raping someone and any man who thinks ALL men must think like this needs to look at their own lives and figure out what the hell is going on that YOU think like that.

[Peas n carrots]

So this article has been making the rounds it seems: thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/gospeldrivenchurch/2012/07/13/the-polluted-waters-of-50-shades-of-grey-etc/

It provoked so many responses (such as rachelheldevans.com/gospel-coalition-douglas-wilson-sex and wadeburleson.org/2012/07/only-thing-worse-than-church-full-of.html ) that the author even posted a follow-up defending the quotation: thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/gospeldrivenchurch/2012/07/18/shades-of-outrage/ as well as adding a trigger warning to the original post.

The offending quote:

Doug Wilson is the same guy that over looked sexual abuse of young children by his students (http://freejinger.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2561).

Dee at the Wartburg Watch goes over his background: thewartburgwatch.com/2012/07/18/the-real-doug-wilson-encouraged-presided-over-the-marriage-of-serial-pedophile/

And FJ gets a mention- yay for those here working to expose vile people like Doug Wilson.

This is pretty scary stuff. So he's generalizing that men dream of raping and women dream of being raped. So any woman who is raped really really at the bottom of their hearts wanted that? And any male you encounter is really thinking about raping you at this minute.

Talk about a sick mind.

[Sumeri]

I posted Rachel Held-Evan's response to this yesterday but am too lazy to look it up. She just posted something today:

rachelheldevans.com/sex-submission-response

edited to break link.

[CanadianHippie]

I didn't read this as talking about rape necessarily, I read it more talking about people wanting to be dominate and submissive within a sexual context. You know, like BDSM games and whatever.

That said, as a guy, I've never thought about raping someone and any man who thinks ALL men must think like this needs to look at their own lives and figure out what the hell is going on that YOU think like that.

I read it as dominate and submissive too. I remember hearing somewhere that the majority of those who prefer a submissive role in a BDSM relationship are white male with high power job that puts them in a dominant position at work.

[deelaem]

I didn't read this as talking about rape necessarily, I read it more talking about people wanting to be dominate and submissive within a sexual context. You know, like BDSM games and whatever.

That said, as a guy, I've never thought about raping someone and any man who thinks ALL men must think like this needs to look at their own lives and figure out what the hell is going on that YOU think like that.

It really doesn't matter how you read it, domination is at the core of sexual violence. The BDSM community refuse to acknowledge this because they would have to take a hard look at their values. Gay men are not exempt from this as I have witnessed some very misogynist behavior from some in their community.

The "heart" of patriarchy is that men dominate women, and women must submit or be treated as a pariah. And that domination may not always take the form of what is considered to be rape, but you can be sure that coercion that stems from male privilege takes place so often it is commonplace. Trust me, the gender breakdown of domination/submission is far from equal, and the BDSM community is certainly not representative of it.

[emmiedahl]

Between his comment that sex can never be mutually pleasurable and that all men want to be rapists, I think it is fair to say that Dougie is a very sick individual. And bad in bed.

[Peas n carrots]

It really doesn't matter how you read it, domination is at the core of sexual violence. The BDSM community refuse to acknowledge this because they would have to take a hard look at their values. Gay men are not exempt from this as I have witnessed some very misogynist behavior from some in their community.

The "heart" of patriarchy is that men dominate women, and women must submit or be treated as a pariah. And that domination may not always take the form of what is considered to be rape, but you can be sure that coercion that stems from male privilege takes place so often it is commonplace. Trust me, the gender breakdown of domination/submission is far from equal, and the BDSM community is certainly not representative of it.

How do radical feminists view men who like to be subs? I'm asking b/c I have a friend who apprenticed as a domme for a while, and the domme she was training on had a clientele that consisted of some pretty powerful men in the business world.

[wtfrenchtoast]

I don't understand how this guy thought he could describe sex as an act of "conquering" and "colonization" and not expect people to see that as degrading and misogynistic. As others have pointed out, it could be seen as the woman "engulfing" the man, as opposed to him "penetrating" her. Or it can just be two people coming together mutually. It doesn't always have to be someone dominating someone else.

[meda]

It really doesn't matter how you read it, domination is at the core of sexual violence. The BDSM community refuse to acknowledge this because they would have to take a hard look at their values. Gay men are not exempt from this as I have witnessed some very misogynist behavior from some in their community.

The "heart" of patriarchy is that men dominate women, and women must submit or be treated as a pariah. And that domination may not always take the form of what is considered to be rape, but you can be sure that coercion that stems from male privilege takes place so often it is commonplace. Trust me, the gender breakdown of domination/submission is far from equal, and the BDSM community is certainly not representative of it.

I agree with you that domination is at the core of sexual violence, but I don't understand how that relates to consensual BDSM. Is your premise that all sexuality which involves an element of dom/sub behavior, regardless of which gender is in which role, is inherently demeaning to women? If a man is a sub, is his female partner's role as a dom some how coerced?

Do you feel that this sort of kink only exists as an expression of patriarchy? I'm curious as to how you view female doms in this construct.

[Minerva]

Really? Really?? What men dream of being rapists?!

I'm sure many men dream of being dominant, that's where the dominance/submission thing comes in. Normal, healthy, well-adjusted men do NOT dream of being rapists, of violently forcing themselves on unwilling partners and physically overpowering their victims who are trying to defend themselves or force the man off. There is a very distinct difference between the two concepts.

:angry-banghead: Rapists dream of being rapists. That's not a normal thing to dream. :doh:

the sexual act cannot be made into an egalitarian pleasuring party

Then why has every sexual act I've ever participated in been exactly that (thank God)? Hetero sex is not inherently unpleasurable for the woman. You're just bad in bed, Doug. Stop making excuses for it.

[debrand]

Here’s a question for critics of the piece: You want these words not to mean a forceful, degrading domination of women, yes? And here is Wilson saying he does not mean them in that way. So why not accept that?

I think that Wilson is so twisted by his own weird view of female submssion that he can't grasp why claiming that sexual penetration equals conquering can be associated with rape. To him, it is natural that the woman be the passive vessel for the man.

My husband does not conquer me during sex because it is a voluntary act.

In the final analysis, I come back to my original analysis, which is that Douglas Wilson’s view of women is that they are to be cherished and protected and served humbly by men, even men in authority over them. This is the kind of authority the Bible prescribes, the kind that edifies and helps wives to flourish, not wither

um...no. I don't need to be cherished and protected or served humbly by men. What the hell is that? If I am attacked, by all means help me but believe it or not, I can go about my daily chores without the need of male guidance. Certainly I don't want my husband to serve me. He can do nice things for me, just as I do for him. Neither one of us are servants though.

[Guest Anonymous]

In other words, however we try, the sexual act cannot be made into an egalitarian pleasuring party.

It damn well can be. Doug, you're doing it wrong.

[deelaem]

I agree with you that domination is at the core of sexual violence, but I don't understand how that relates to consensual BDSM. Is your premise that all sexuality which involves an element of dom/sub behavior, regardless of which gender is in which role, is inherently demeaning to women? If a man is a sub, is his female partner's role as a dom some how coerced?

Do you feel that this sort of kink only exists as an expression of patriarchy? I'm curious as to how you view female doms in this construct.

Here's what I think regarding sexuality of all kinds. Coercion should never be a part of the sexual act. You can't do BDSM without coercion. Traditional sex also often involves coercion. I, for one, can't even count how many times I had sex with my ex-husband because he bugged/guilted me so much about it that it was just easier to give in. I've also had sex because I knew it would gain me favor with the man I was currently with, because he always told me how much he wanted it. What I wanted was easily put in the background when it came to pleasing the man.

I do realize that there are male "subs" and female doms, etc., but it is my opinion that those sex roles prevent real intimacy, because neither person is being their authentic self. I know I will get "killed in the comments" by BDSM people saying that I don't get it, I'm obviously vanilla, blah, blah. I really don't care. I dream of a world where sex is 100% consensual, and a person doesn't need to play a role or submit to dominance to give and receive pleasure.