If This is What Christian Sex Is Like, No Thank You

That’s disgusting.

“Fifty Shades of Gray” is, from a literary standpoint, one of the most poorly-written books I’ve had the misfortune to read lately.  I could only make it about halfway through before I had to give up in irritation.  It’s not the sex – it’s the shitty writing.  That being said, I find this Christian perversion of sex to be much more disturbing….and confusing.  Jared Wilson apparently has a problem with S&M…but only if it’s heathen S&M.  If you’re handcuffing your wife to the bed bed in the name of Christ, it’s okay.

I guess that if that shitty book will not die a well-deserved death, the least it can do is piss off the fundies.  It’s no surprise to me that’s how they see sex.  It’s how they see life in general.  Men (not just any men, a select few white rich men) on top, women and ‘others’ below, serving passively – and that dominance and authority is all a loving kindness (see: white man’s burden). 

It bothers me greatly when people can’t see the difference between fantasy/BDSM and real-deal rape, which seems to be the case for this nutty Christian reviewer.  Hell, wading into the comments, I’m not sure he can see the difference between what he considers ‘normal’ sex and rape.  That dude has some serious issues. 

Heh. “God” never said that. A bunch of men with tiny little dicks said that. 

youve never read twilight then… all this stupid shit i could have written when i was 12. 

If either of these guys ever has been laid, I pity their partners.  Oops, I mean, their “conquests”. o.O

¿Que?

 No, that’s true

You’d think BDSM would be the dream for Christian patriarchs (as long as the men are in the dominant role). Except for the fact that BDSM is always consensual and has safe words, it’s what they preach all the time. That the men are always in charge. That women have no sexual desire of their own and must do everything to please their men or they will look elsewhere.

Of course they have this silly buzzword about “mutual submission”, but that’s just window dressing and doesn’t really mean anything.

This comment from a conservative christian shouldn’t surprise anyone who has read George Lakoff’s unified theory of conservatism based on the Strict Father metaphor. 

Of course, it violates PZ Correctness to bring up the fact that patriarchy has an empirical basis lacking in theism: People can’t observe gods, but men can observe women. You can dispute patriarchal beliefs, but you can’t dispute that patriarchs have evidence in their favor.  

His inability to accept basic biological understanding as it relates to sex, which (not sure if he knows this) IS a biological act. Humans have this mentality based on millions of years of evolution of a pack mentality. Such behavior can easily be found in many primates and other mammals. Just not as poetically.

I can’t see any reason to believe that ‘egalitarianism’ has increased violence against women or rape – in fact, I doubt that rape and violence against women has actually increased given how backwards, patriarchal societies treat women. Unless his argument is that men need to view sex as violence and aggression and that, when denied this, they’ll become sex criminals.

The problem with that is he’s assuming that’s part of men’s essential natures, and I doubt that the view of sex as ‘conquest’ is one that all men hold to. It’s the standard, stereotypical patriarchal way to view sex, and I doubt men like that care that while they claim to speak for all men, they are really just speaking for themselves. Plenty of men don’t view sex as consuest and domination, and what about men who enjoy submissive sexual encounters with women?

Also, there are people who make egalitarian relationships work, and they sound far more profound, mature, meaningful and satisfying than this guy’s take on marriage and relationships. It seems like he’s doing the usual “I’m a savage and a cave man and I don’t want anyone to pretend men can be anything else, because that would raise the bar too high for me.”

I know how I’m voting now. Woohoo!

Is this relating to the hotel chain that dropped the Gideon Bible for it?

Don’t you know, rape wouldn’t exist if women would just submit to men’s dominance and accept it as their lot in life, and stop thinking that they get to have say in their own sex lives.

*retch*

That’s just disgusting. So the woman just lies there submissively while she gets humped, conquered, colonized, and planted. WTF. Are we talking about dogs or humans?
“however we try, the sexual act cannot be made into an egalitarian pleasuring party.” I’m guessing he’s never tried, because it’s rather easy. 

And of course, comments are closed. 

My body is MINE. Mine only. My fiance has permission to use it, on the rare occasion he’s not halfway across the country. It’s not “conquering” if he has my permission to Fuck me. 

I bet that drives these idiots absolutely insane. 

The reason these books are popular is because they are poorly written. “Twilight” and “the Hunger Games” are books for teens but since the majority of the population finds them easy to read they become popular.

HAHA, legit LOL from the “chicken pot pie” bit…

In defence of THG, I’ve read worse and it’s at least a cut (or 80) above Twilight.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s no “Cryptonomicon” but it’s nice to see kids reading something that at least plants seeds of defiance and independence in their minds.  The protagonist’s slight “Fuck you, make me” attitude is vastly preferable to the poorly-shrouded allegory for eschewing premarital sex and the “do everything the Right Way(TM)” mentality in Twilight.   “Mormon vampire abstinence porn” indeed.

Haven’t read 50 Shades yet (though my girlfriend is looking forward to it), as I’ve just started The Baroque Cycle, but I’ve heard…very mixed things.  Luckily I have some very kinky friends who are able to recommend good alternatives in case it turns out to be a letdown.

 s/que/cue

I’m envisioning a partnership between EPP and the Pirate Party.  There are eyepatches involved.  And large pasta dinners after all is said and done.

Ahh, what a wonderful world it could be.

What I see here is three posts in a row of Christian projection. So many Christians who seem to have such strong urges to do things that they think are morally wrong (or in some cases really are wrong), that they think that if they didn’t have religion to stop them, they’d do them. The radio host who thinks atheist girls are easy and that Christian boys are out to get laid by them – who knows what they’d do if they didn’t have religion’s moral restraint, another radio host who thinks atheists have it easy because without religion they must feel no sense of guilt, responsibility, or doubt about anything – clearly he would just do whatever he wanted without a sense of guilt or ethical deliberation if he had no religions, and finally the reviewer who thinks that without Christian sex rules everyone would descend into rape. Stay away from this guy at all costs.

Once again, Christians proving that atheists are morally superior – we try to do right because we believe it makes a better world for others and ourselves. They do what they are told is right only because the alternative is eternal torture.

 It comes from ancient Roman thought. A man could only call himself a man in ancient Rome as long as he always played the “active” role in sex, any sex, with other males, women or slaves it was all fine as long as the man was the giver, not the taker, so to speak.

Christianity, which spread through the Roman empire and thus worldwide, took that idea and also ran with the parts of the Old Testament that forbade homosexuality.

But, I think it would be wise to consider the way ancient Romans viewed sexuality when we think about or discuss child sex scandals within the Catholic Church. The Vatican being basically a two-thousand year old extension of the Empire, I kind of have a feeling that’s at least partly why they look the other way when these things come to light.

I’d make a lousy Jesus-fearin’ Christian. I’m a big fan of women going cowgirl on me.

YEEEHAH!

Considering the source of these words, Doug Wilson, is somewhat infamous for his defense of southern slavery, claiming it was a time where black-white relations were at their most positive, I can’t say I’m surprised at his views. The man is despicable.  I am surprised however that The Gospel Coalition has been so embracing of  this up until now completely fringe author. The Gospel Coalition is horrible, but I never thought it was this horrible.

 Faithless fucking.

Or reverse

And unsurprisingly, he missed the point.

Aw, see now I’m picturing dirty things involving a peg leg.

Many women stay in horribly abusive relationships out of their own free will. 

If abuse is involved, then free will doesn’t much enter into it. Being able to act freely is to be able to act in the absence of coercion; coercion need not be physical to exist. Describing anything involving abuse as consensual is an error.

Then again, you go on and confuse a consensual BDSM relationship with abuse, so that kind of undercuts your credibility for the broader criticism. 

Teaching young women that is it desirable to engage in sexual relationships with men who take perverse pleasure in beating them for hours is perverse and dangerous. Regardless of whether or not a woman agrees to abuse (and it’s abuse regardless of what achronym you want to give it), it is a perversion of the beauty and excitement of a healthy, trusting (even playfully aggressive) relationship.

Pain, humiliation, whippings, torture etc. are evil – even if you convince (brain wash) a woman (or a man) that they enjoy it.

Abuse (whether it’s consensual or not) has no place in a healthy relationship.

This has the distinct feel of the ol’ “I don’t like the look of it, it must be wrong!” argument. I’m curious, have you ever actually talked with someone who was into BDSM about their experiences and feelings on the matter, or is that not necessary for you to feel you understand this rather complicated subject and simply pass judgment?

 Actually, yes. I’ve counseled with many women who have been involved in this type, as well as other types, of sexual deviancy. In addition, I have my own background of various forms of consensual abuse – abuse from which Christ freed me (both physically and emotionally).

Twenty something years later, my “new normal” no longer involve a skewed view of my personal worth. My standard has been raised by a God who loves me.

Through my own experience, as well as counseling with many other women, I have found that when a person has been damaged (especially during childhood)  self-inflicted (consensual) pain is preferable to pain outside your control. This could be in the form of S&M, abusive romantic relationships, self-destructive life choices, drugs  & alcohol abuse, and the list goes on.

To promote a lifestyle that caters to abusers (those who ENJOY and get off to inflicting pain), and programs women, often weak women with baggage, to enjoy it, is to be (at least to some degree) culpable for their abuse.

Actually, yes. I’ve counseled with many women who have been involved in this type, as well as other types, of sexual deviancy. 

May I ask, in what context does this counseling take place?

Rational rogering?  Science-oriented screwing.

Aye, right there, lad – that be the spot.  Roger me harder, ye scurvy swab.  Arrrr.

I didn’t think “you were the point”. I  just wanted to know where you were coming from so I could better assess your claims. 

People’s attitudes towards things tend to be underwritten by the sum of their experiences (which include the reports of those they trust of their experiences). I have no doubt that you have counseled women who were being abused, and regardless of my opinion of the specific type of counseling, undoubtedly that experience has made you more sensitive to the issue of abuse in general. It reminds me a great deal of a AA counselor’s common attitude toward intoxicants. They see what damage can result in some cases, and so can sometimes have a negative view in general informed by what they see and hear but not moderated by the knowledge that what they are seeing is a biased sample of a limited field.

Alcohol is actually a good metaphor here. Most people can imbibe alcohol and do so with moderation, and it simply adds to their joie de vivre and aesthetic experience of reality. It is a pleasant accompaniment for a dinner or something to share with a friend at a bar. However, a few people cannot (for whatever reason) moderate their intake of alcohol, and become alcoholics, and the drink wreaks havoc in their lives and the lives of those around them. 

The question becomes, given that a small but significant proportion of those who use alcohol will abuse it, does that make alcohol consumption itself bad and/or evil? I’d tend to say it is hard to argue so. Even the Bible backs me up there. 

People who are seeking counsel are already in a place where they feel like something is wrong. Hence all you’ll ever see is of things like this going poorly; it’s a bad sample from which to draw definitive conclusions about a practice in general, much like a person would get a distorted picture of what alcohol does if they only ever talked with alcoholics. So, all I’m suggesting is that your judgment about this matter is distorted in light of the fact that you are only seeing BDSM relationships that are dysfunctional, that have already crossed hard lines into abuse that nobody who is involved with the mainstream practice condones.

I have presented legitimate concerns over the disturbing desire to make violence against women mainstream and fun.

I think what most people are reacting to is your characterization of sexual play involving explicitly consented force as “violence”. It makes you sound woefully uninformed about the community you’re opining about.

On an entirely different subject, I’m curious why you elevate oxytocin as a gift from God, but look down your nose as endorphins and endocannabinoids (the natural chemicals in the human body that make pain pleasurable under certain circumstances) as not. If it’s part of the human “design” to include both, why is one elevated and the other denigrated? Surely your God must’ve had something in mind to put those in the human mix, no?

 Sorry, this goes along with blaming the video games for violence. Books like this don’t create insecurity in anyone that’s not already there. I try to understand what you’re saying – that rather than reading this book and being genuinely curious and having a partner to safely explore this curiosity (which I think everyone else is saying it’s about), she feels that she has to mask her own wants in order to be more attractive to a man, i.e. let him beat her because that’s what he wants, never mind what she wants, she doesn’t even know. The problem isn’t the book, then. It seems like you may have gone through something like this, and I’m sorry, but it’s not books that encourage women to enter into relationships in which they get physically beaten. That’s not even.. the right way to think of it. Domestic abuse is serious, physical, emotional, etc. but women don’t enter those relationships on purpose or because they read a book, a book that I understand is about healthy consensual relationships that are just a little weird for you if that’s not what you like. I can also understand if you or someone you know was abused, a healthy consensual sexual partnership like the one described might not sound really fun or safe or healthy to you, in which case, don’t get in one.

Just like any other gift that God gives us, we often pervert and misuse His gifts to our own detriment.

What leads you to believe it is a misuse?

I’m also not clear on just what in the Bible leads you to believe that BDSM, itself, (much like the use of alcohol, itself) is morally wrong. It doesn’t seem to fit into any of the proscribed categories that are listed (promiscuity, prostitution, homosexuality [arguably], incest, infidelity). While I may not believe that the Bible is the world of God, I am quite familiar with its contents, and something just isn’t adding up here for me.

“Unf, unf, AHHH. That was so good! Honey?”

“Did you say something, dear?”

O.O;

I too have pondered this, and considered writing some trash and making some money. I’d feel so dirty, though – and it’d be really, really hard to write that badly….maybe if I just cobbled together some teenager’s drunken text messages and threw in some sex and gore…

Since I’m having trouble figuring out the html to make bold or indent where I’d like, I’ll just link to my reply to you in the comment section of my blog. It’s rather long, and it is filled with Scriptural reasons for my assertions (at your request). But since the  format here only allows me a one inch wide reply section, I’m feeling rather claustrophobic. :-).  I’m sure it has something to do with my lack of technical suave. Here is my assertion that BDSM is morally wrong:

http://yoursacredcalling.com/blog/2012/07/no-shades-of-grey-a-black-and-white-seduction-of-the-mind/#comment-42808ent-8082808mment-42808

Also, for the record, I do not believe that alcohol is a sin. Quite the contrary. However, I do believe the Bible teaches that drunkenness is sin.

I see, so a person like me, a well-earning, self-standing, socially successful space engineer, is being brainwashed and victimised if her partner, whom she freely chose, does anything but gentle, careful missionary in bed, despite her consent to be way more playful? How exactly does one come to such conclusion?

Your apparent belief that all relationships that include BDSM practices are inherently abusive and pathological qualifies as a scientific hypothesis, inasmuch as it is amenable to empirical testing.  As your own conclusions are based on a highly biased and therefore misleading sample, you might be interested to know that the hypothesis actually has been tested using the best practices of psychological research to eliminate biases and confounding factors, and the results published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.  The short summary of those results is that you are mistaken.  You can read abstracts and find links to some of the relevant articles at http://www.revisef65.org/psychopathology.html

No. No it’s not what Christian sex is like. As evidenced by the reaction of Rachel Held Evans, a Christian. And of all the, uh, Christians, on her blog. And the freakin’ Southern Baptists on *Pastor* Wade Burleson’s blog. I could go on, but sheesh. You wanna know about it, Rachel Held Evans has some links.

C’mon, man. Eschew the cheap shots, would you? If a Christian had written about how sex should be a deep mutual enjoyment, all about serving each other and rejoicing in each other’s pleasure, would you have blogged about it with a headline about Christian sex? No. A dozen posts like that get ignored, but this crackpot Doug Wilson, he hits the big time!

It’s a fair point. 

Sort of. 

Yes, Christianity is not a monolith, and lately some Christians have taken it upon themselves to more vocally check the nastier stuff they used to let slide. And that is to their credit, certainly. 

Only, just as much as a post like this is a criticism of certain Christians’ individual attitudes (who do not necessarily speak for the whole), it is also an implicit criticism of the effect Christian doctrine (biblical text, et al.) has had on conversations just like this. Christianity, institutionally, has done hideous, horrendous, just mind-bogglingly stupendous amounts of damage to social approaches to healthy sexuality, both historically and contemporaneously. It is fairly difficult to talk about those effects meaningfully without finding exemplars of those attitudes spouting off today, or as Mr. Hemant did, make a useful juxtaposition with the atheist (non-)approach to controlling people’s sex lives. So is it “Christian sex” being criticized? Not wholly. But it is a Christian ideological and historical approach to sex that has definitely led to the pricelessly stupid comment that started this whole kerfuffle. On those terms, Christianity gets quite a bit of the blame, and so the adjective is apropos.

It’s really Greek/Roman, which is the culture Christianity grew out of. One striking thing about his obsession with penetration is that this is what Roman sexuality was based on in its entirety. They were big on the active/passive part and also extended that to some other stuff like oral sex.

The only difference is that the Romans extended the circle of acceptable partners further. It was acceptable to visit prostitutes (which the aristocracy kept for obvious reasons, since their marriages were always pragmatic) and it was acceptable for men to have sex with boy. The only condition was that you had to assume the active role. Being the passive partner automatically assigned someone a lower social status.

Can you site a reference for the Vatican operated brothels? I’ve heard similar claims but have yet to hear a scholarly reference. If you have one please post.

And what scientific survey have you found that confirms your presumptions about “most Christian attitudes towards sex”? 

I’m a happily married 59 year old baby boomer who’s been an evangelical Christian for 40 years and I’ve never known a single believer from even the most rigid traditions to harbor the attitude about women or sex that you and most who are posting here are gleefully assigning to all Christians in a knee-jerk reflex to the Wilsons’ tragic choice of words and poorly advised writings. 

Yes, there are some like Doug Wilson who hold that the garden mandate of a husbands rulership and a wife’s submission is universally sustained. I don’t share that view. But even in those cases I’ve never personally observed behavior in a home or a marriage relationship that even slightly appeared to be a husband dominating his wife into submission.  In fact I’ve most consistently heard it preached in these camps that a wife’s submission to her husband is obedience to God, not obedience to her husband. 

Maybe I’m just lucky to have known hundreds of decent loving people. I’ve heard stories of wife abuse, of course, but none that can be blamed on a man’s honest attempt to obey God. Psychopaths can be found anywhere if you look but I’d appreciate it if people who abhor Christianity in general and all Christians in particular would at least point fingers accurately and specifically instead of painting with broad strokes and perpetuating convenient caricatures.

Please visit minddefensecoach.wordpress.com to understand the reason of all mass murder incidents.

Hello Dan!  
 
First of all, your comment comes off as rather silly. You chide me for being presumptuous and unscientific, yet go on to base your assertions on presumptions and personal anecdotes. Was that intentional…or…?
 
Neither one of us has the inside tract on who is more right about this subject. Like you, I can only go on personal experiences of my own and of those who have chosen to share theirs with me in person or to a general audience online or in books. Obviously there are plenty of god fearin’ couples who are progressive and egalitarian in their relationships and have sex because it’s fun rather than just to make offspring. I know some, myself. But. On the flipside, there are plenty who are taught that men are the head of the household and that women are to defer to their husbands for all things. It can express itself in degrees of severity, but it’s taught and reinforced by the church and the laypeople. I was a member of two Christian traditions in my short 35 years. Born and raised in the evangelical tradition, converted to Russian Orthodoxy in my early 20’s. (confirmed atheist since February 2011) Each tradition varies in outward rigidity, but I can tell you that they both teach the same EXACT thing when it comes to sex and relationships. It’s a softer version of what Wilson said, but the sentiment is the same. Maybe the “most” in my first comment refers to the more conservative of Christian traditions, which is in my sphere of experience and observation. The progressive Christians I personally know (a tidy handful of people in real life and online), however, still seem to defer to this same teaching, but it’s come about as more of a choice than a mandate. A trend? Random? Not sure, but that’s what I’ve observed.

You say that in *all* of your 59 years you haven’t met one *single* person from the most rigid traditions that believe this stuff? I call shenanigans. Either you don’t get out much, or you keep extremely insular circles of friends.
  
Also, as a recently deconverted Christian, I reserve the right to make gleeful knee jerk responses (on *atheist* websites), to asshats like Wilson and whatever ilk might agree with him. I’d appreciate it if people like you wouldn’t pretend to be victimized by statements that are obviously not about YOU.