Find some'in

Loading...

Thursday, July 19, 2012

Doug Wilson is in Need of a Good Blowjob

The Gospel Coalition is an organization formed by Calvinist, women-hating heavyweights like John Piper (Piper Boy), Mark Driscoll (Strawberry Boy), and Tim Keller (someone I am just becoming familiar with).  TGC has a Council.  This Council is made up of 52 members.  52 big name Christians.  Not one of them is a woman. 

On July 13, 2012, Jared C. Wilson wrote a small blog post on TGC's website.  In this post, he quoted a passage from a book by the misogynist Doug Wilson.  The passage read like a 1950's depiction of daddy coming home and Beaver joyously, at the age of 16, tugging on his trouser leg, begging for a story of his day at work.  Translation:  The utopia of the 1950's family on television was just that - a utopia.  Reality is and always will be much better.

There is much hoopla around cyberspace about this excerpt being an endorsement of rape from a biblical perspective, but I disagree with that.  In Doug's defense, as well as Jared's, I will take their word at face value.  They insist this isn't the case and I don't see how one can read that into this passage.  However, I think the true meaning of Doug's words give a picture into his own sex life - dry, repetitive (when it comes to sex, repetitive can be a good thing), and boring.

Doug's pet theme in many of his works is the authority of the god of the Bible over all of his creation and, by proxy, mankind created with a built-in authority structure.  Of course, as all pompous men in the fundamentalist, male-dominated world, Doug concludes that women are to be subservient to men.  But, in his writings, Doug doesn't try to mince his words by adding flowers and bunnies to the word "submit", or even attempt to redefine it as something mutual between a husband and wife.  No, he flaunts men's superiority.  In short, Doug Wilson is a prude - a veritable prick.

Get a load of this quote:
"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."

I'll give you a moment to catch your breath.

........................................

Ok.  Moment over.

Ah, the nebulous "world" jargon speak.  This word is used to keep converts in line and has no practical meaning except by those that wish to exert their control over their followers. If anyone questions the leader's principled life or words, they merely have to say "world!" and the layperson has to acquiesce.  In this case, anything that Mys. (short for misogynist) Wilson says about sex in the positive "biblical" sense is good.  Anything else - world!

Sex is only to be enjoyed through the lens of the authority doctrine.  Man conquers, woman is entered.

Mys. Wilson, I despise your kind.  You are the scum of the earth.  You are part of the problem with respect to failed marriages.  You deem yourself to be lifting up a standard for perfect people to be a pleasing aroma to your god and, instead, you end up creating piles of filth - lives destroyed in the wake of the collapse of your exalted, yet unworkable principles.

I know.  I lived it.  For SIX YEARS!


My wife grew up in fundamentalism and from conception to the day she was married, people like Mys. Wilson taught her how disgusting and evil sex was.  Sex was evil up until the magical moment of saying "I do."  Then, you could enjoy sex, but it had to be proper.  Even society, with all its hallowed stereotypes played a role in telling my bride that women weren't supposed to desire sex and men were rabid, insatiable, dogs.


So, for the first six years of marriage, we suffered.  Why?  Because I didn't get enough sex?  I must be an insatiable, selfish, self-centered, pathetic, bastard, right?

Hell no!  I just wanted her to initiate sexual activity.
  That's it.

Call it egalitarian.  Call it married.  I don't care.  When two people come together to enjoy sex, rules be damned.  I want to make sweet love to my wife in the way SHE wants it.  She wants to do it exactly the way I want it.  Then, we both want much for ourselves. 

You see, Mys. Wilson, sex isn't about rules, authority, perfection, or anything you dream up to try and spiritualize an awesome act of pure pleasure.  Sex is about the union of two bodies in the perfect, animalistic way that those two people desire to do with each other.  Frankly, it's none of your damned business what we do with it.  And, here's the shocking part, Kristine exhibits all the stereotypes of what society considers "male" and I "female" when it comes to what we desire.  There are no male and female roles in sex. 

Doug Wilson, you need a damn good blowjob.  You need to learn how to be conquered, be planted upon, and smothered by a beautiful woman that wants nothing but to satiate your lustful desires while enjoying the hell out of herself, as well.  Take your perfect world and throw it out the window for one night of pleasure.  Doug, you'll never go back.

Finally, one last consideration.  Where to insert your beard.


14 comments:

  1. The use of the word "conquered" implies overcoming resistance. I think that's where the rape thing is coming from: to conquer someone, you have to oppose them and prove yourself stronger, and that's not the kind of metaphor you want to use for any kind of healthy sex life.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bingo. suddenly claiming the word implying anything but violence is an out-and-out lie. But then, "colonists" have been :conquering" language in their favor for centuries.

      Delete
  2. How in the world could they possibly do a proper post about "50 Shades of Grey" without reading the book? ;)

    No matter how much they try to backpedal this whole thing, his excerpt from the book means exactly what it says. He's a sick, sick man.

    ReplyDelete
  3. that quote made me sick to my stomach.

    One thing, i don't think he actually used "world" here in the tradtional christian way of "ungodly" I read it as a reference to "reality" (i.e. the real world) that to try and have egalitarian sex was physically impossible because that's not the way the "world works". Sex (as he sees it) is about domination and submission on the purest biological level so that just "backs up" his doctrines of submission on every other level. That's a minor point though.

    I read and re-read his quote a couple of times (i too grew up with this christian and cultural view of marriage/sex) part of me is repulsed and part of me is scared that it is true...deep down somehow it is true that it is always the man who "wins" that the only thing the woman can do is hope and wait and "submit".

    ...but as i try to gather my logic and courage and desire to believe in the possiblity of something better i have these thoughts:
    Women have their own "weapons" (if you will) as well. What is the source of this man's erection that allows him to "penetrate, conquer, colonize..."? Where does his desire originate? And who has the power (rape aside) to bring in or shut out... to make it exhilirating or agonizing? And what if (heaven forbid) the woman pushes back and hops on top?! well... anyways as you said...

    still, his graphic description freaks me out.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This whole thing is just ridiculous. Here's a real shocker: you could just as easily say that a woman physically "surrounds" a man, making HER the dominant sexual partner. For that matter, I believe that with most couples, it is biologically easier to reach orgasm if the woman is (gasp) on top!

    All you have to do is switch around the language a bit to show how much of a straw man Doug Wilson's thoughts really are.

    ReplyDelete
  5. And now we see yet another root of patriarchal Christian homophobia. I wonder if anyone has ever told these guys that there are *heterosexual* men who like being penetrated? I suspect their heads would explode.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm so glad that I found your blog! I knew when I read the blog's title, I would enjoy your writing.

    My husband and I have been married almost 15 years. He's a Catholic and I'm a Quaker. He's a wonderfully fun, unique man that looks at and lives life as a big adventure. I get the feeling that you are alike, in that way. Thanks for being my new guilty pleasure. :)

    ReplyDelete
  7. @ AfricaTurtle,

    My thinking is running along your lines. The man is engulfed. He is surrounded. He is held captive. He is overwhelmed.

    And since I supposed the wife doesn't have an orgasm, as he does--then he loses his sanity in that moment, he loses his grounding. But the woman is always sane and in the moment. SHE is in control.

    So who is the stronger, then?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I’m a young single female with no sexual experience, and I find your take on a blowjob interesting. From how I saw free Internet porn, it would seem to me that a blowjob is just about the least egalitarian act there is.
    “You, woman, get on your knees before me, man, and do what pleases me. On your knees before me is your real station in life, and acts which please me without bringing you any closer to orgasm reminds you why you exist.”

    You seem not to agree?

    Anonymous-for-a-reason

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is one way of looking at it. Another way is to see that in a blowjob the person giving the blowjob is the active sexual partner and the person receiving it is passive; the person giving the blowjob is in complete control of the receiver's sensations. Or that having your penis in between two rows of teeth and a jaw made for *biting* is in fact a vulnerable position to be in for a man; one could use the word "submissive" in fact...

      And of course there are different ways of giving blowjobs that involve different levels of activity on both sides, and they don't necessarily involve a man standing and a woman kneeling.

      The thing to remember about sex is that the symbolism of a sex act is important in that it affects how it makes you feel - your most important sex organ is between your ears after all. But that symbolism is in your head, not intrinsic to the act itself. If you feel blowjobs aren't egalitarian, then they aren't egalitarian... FOR YOU. Other people can and do feel differently.

      And WOW is free internet porn a bad source of sex education if it's your only source. Go read Scarleteen or Savage Love stat. I am serious, google both of those sites right now and read everything in them.

      Delete
    2. Oh, anonymous-dollface, listen to Caravelle; the stuff you see in porn isn't sex, it's performance designed for visual effect and to fulfill the idealized, fantasy notions of the intended audience. Most of the angles and contortions and positions that you see in porn aren't anything like what people do in real life; what looks good on camera and what feels good in the real world are rarely the same thing. Porn, and oddly enough, Doug Wilson too, imagines the penis as some kind of weapon, hard and powerful and invincible, a battering ram used to break open the gates of womanhood, conquering and colonizing her. But in truth, the penis is an incredibly vulnerable organ, exsquisitely sensitive, coupled with testes and a scrotum which are also not made of iron like some ancient bludgeoning device. Trust me, if you're actively and happily taking a man's penis into your mouth, you are in a tremendously powerful position, even if you're also on your knees.

      Any sex act can be egalitarian; it's all about consent and context and comfort and connection. For most of us, sex isn't something that men do TO women, it's something that we do WITH another person. Men's bodies can be delicious, and oral sex can be about devouring and being devoured without destroying or being destroyed.

      The real problem is Christian Patriarchy and its rejection of everything most of us hold dear about enlightenment ideals and modernity: personal freedom, equality, happiness, rationality, scientific knowledge, and acceptance of human nature with an aim to cultivate our better angels. For goodness sake, Christianity holds that the pursuit of knowledge resulted in the Fall and Original Sin that is propagated throught humankind through propagation, which, in our species' case, is acheived through sexual reproduction.

      And, incidentally, there's nothing about a blowjob (unless you're playing it that way) that restricts you from using your own hand on your clitoris to stimulate yourself while pleasuring your partner, and if you genuinely enjoy having a penis in your mouth, then your arousal and pleasure is getting you closer to orgasm.

      Delete
  9. Great question, Anonymous!

    Let's change the perspective a little bit. It was Mys. Doug Wilson that defined what he doesn't like as egalitarian. But, sex isn't about egalitari-whatever. Rather, in an awesome relationship, sex is about mutually meeting one another's needs. If the man wants a blowjob and the woman is perfectly willing to do it...yay! It also goes the other way around. If the woman wants the man to go down on her, do it dudes! Frankly, there is no keeping score with good sex. Both individuals should be willing to pleasure their partner as much a they can while being selfish for themselves together. Sex is messy and awesome at the same time. The minute you add rules to it, it becomes a chore.

    Also, realize that porn is not real life.

    A man loves to be blown. A woman loves to be cunnilized (not a real word). Then again, some don't and some don't. Every couple is different. Find out what your parented likes and vocalize what you like and enjoy yourselves together.

    My point...throw out all rules. Enjoy the pleasure.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I haven't seen them say that they don't condone marital rape. What I have seen is them simply defining it out of existence within their paradigm. It's rape apologism 101.

    More on topic, even a 1st Century Greco-Roman Jew like Paul seemed to take it for granted that women had sexual desires and agency. These neo-Victorian ideas about sexuality are toxic and need to die. Toxic to women, for very obvious reasons. And toxic to men - frankly, a man who would not give up his pathetic, tyrannical authority over his partner for the joy of being desired is emotionally and spiritually dead.

    ReplyDelete