Blogaround

Links not related to the antichrist:

1. Types of Tornado Alert (July 3) From xkcd.

2. Chip Off The Old Block (July 1) "I’m not claiming any of this is smart or interesting. I’m claiming he constantly says whatever he’s thinking about to anyone around him, no matter how irrelevant and repetitive, and that this is of course the first sign of a future great blogger."

His kids are about the same age as my daughter, and yeah this whole post is what it's like.

3. On Christianity and Aliens (cont’d.) (June 29) "Your faith can be shattered not just by visitors from Vulcan and Vega, but by visitors from Samaria and the uttermost parts of the earth. It is existentially threatened by the idea that God might also love anybody who isn’t you."

4. Platner formally withdraws from Maine Senate race and Democrats announce process to name new nominee (July 11) "The formal withdrawal comes two days after Platner said he would quit the race, facing an allegation of sexual assault that he has denied."

And: The Banality of Misogyny (July 7, via) "It’s just occurring to me, she says, because I’ve never told anyone he assaulted me, I don’t know how I would ever get anyone to believe me if I needed to down the line. So I wanted to tell you, just in case."

And also, about Graham Platner, there are some corners of the internet (for example) which are discussing the fact that the victim apparently had texted him to say she needed a "glute massage", and he said he was coming over, and she told him not to. Discussing whether this means that it's not really rape.

I'm kind of thinking about this from 3 different angles. First, there's the modesty/ purity culture angle, which says that if a girl/woman does anything that might inspire a man to think about her body in a sexual way, well, men just aren't able to control themselves. From that point, whatever he does is not his fault. She should know that.

There's also the "it was a misunderstanding" angle. Whenever there's a big news story where a victim comes forward to talk about being sexually assaulted, and we hear the details of the story, there are always things that people will point to and say "she was sending mixed messages" and how could the perpetrator have known that the victim didn't want it? If she doesn't want it, but she doesn't tell him that directly, and she just goes along with it, then from his perspective it's consensual, and he is utterly shocked to later find out that she feels it was not consensual. I don't think this applies to the Platner case because the victim says she directly said no (here's the link to the Politico article that broke the story), but I've seen it in other cases.

I think there's quite a difference between "mixed messages" and "literally how could he have known that she didn't want it, there were no signs." And I think it's very normal that there would be [what people call] "mixed messages" leading up to a sexual assault, because the reason the perpetrator was able to get that close is because the victim does like them / trust them / is attracted to them, to some extent. Calling it "mixed messages" assumes that the only 2 possibilities are "she wants to have sex with him, specifically in the way that he wants" or "she doesn't want anything to do with him at all", and when we categorize her actions into these 2 categories, wow it's so puzzling how some of them fit into one category and some of them fit into the other one. Mixed messages. 

Like, uh, maybe she actually wanted something else, and the problem is that we're trying to force it to be one of these 2 specific things.

And then there's the "playing social games" angle (not sure what to call it, but we'll call it that). Basically, there's sort of a set of rules for social interactions between people, and you can manipulate people to get what you want- as long as you stay within the rules, no one can blame you. For example, if someone says "no", then you have to stop, and you can't have sex with them. But if you ask them over and over, and you manage to catch them in a state of mind where they don't say "no" because they don't have energy or they're not thinking clearly- ha, they didn't say "no", that means you *can* have sex with them and you can't be blamed. You've played the game and won, that's how it works.

You see this same kind of thinking when kids annoy each other playing the "I'm not touching you" game. One kid is hovering in the other kid's personal space, but because they are not *actually* touching, they are still acting within the rules, and they claim that the other kid therefore can't complain about it. It's a line of thinking based on "see what I can get away with", where the standard way we interact with other people is that we try to get what we want, we try to do things to people that they don't like, and it's just a matter of being clever enough to do it within the rules that society has prescribed.

So then when people talk about rape and consent, and say things like "drunk people can't consent to sex," for people who are coming from that "playing social games" perspective, it comes across like a slight modification in the rules of the social games. Like, now instead of targeting drunk people, in your efforts to do things to people that they don't want, you can maybe try getting your victim to drink a little bit but not enough to "count" as drunk under the societally-recognized rules.

And for the people arguing "it was a misunderstanding"- maybe we shouldn't take that to mean "if you, as an objective observer, witnessed the entire sequence of events, you genuinely might not realize that this person didn't want it" but rather "this person said something flirty, therefore the rules of social obligation say that the other person is *right* to expect that they are going to have sex. Why are you feminists suddenly trying to change the rules? This is so unfair." The "misunderstanding" is about whether the victim said something which does or does not belong to the category of "flirty things that mean they want to have sex"- if it does fit in that category, then they *do* owe the other person sex- the "misunderstanding" is that the victim believed it did not fit in that category, but the perpetrator thought it did. Rather than the "misunderstanding" being about "I paid attention to all of your behavior and I actually had no idea that you didn't want it."

But the real solution is not about closing loopholes, defining the rules perfectly so that there's no opportunity for rapists to rape while still carefully following all the rules. What we actually want is consent culture. A cultural norm where people own their own bodies, and you cannot do something to someone that they don't want. Like, genuinely, it's not about keeping within society's rules; it's about not doing things to people that they don't want.

It was so mind-blowing to me to learn about boundaries- the idea that the bedrock truth is that I own myself, my body, my money, my feelings, etc, and the challenge of navigating the social games of what to say in a confusing situation is just a superficial external layer, rather than a game that I need to win in order to escape the prospect of people doing things to me that I don't want. 

Like if a pushy salesperson keeps telling me I should buy their product, and I tell them I don't want it, and they explain to me why my reasons for not wanting it are not valid, and we go back and forth, until I don't know what to say anymore- so, that means I have to buy it. Under the "playing social games" logic, that's what it means. The salesperson is better at the game of staying within the appearance of having a polite conversation while also pushing me into something I don't want. But, no, let's not look at it that way, let's look at it from the "boundaries" perspective. My money is mine, and nobody has the right to *make* me buy something- and that's true regardless of my ability to think of a polite/convincing response. "No" is a complete sentence. You don't *have* to explain your reasons. Sure, it's good to be polite about it- it's a little rude to just directly say "you can't make me do this, you have no right"- but that politeness is just a surface-level thing, that's just a layer you put on the top, while the bedrock truth of it is nobody has the right to make you do something you don't want. If you can't think of a polite response, that doesn't mean you lost the social game and now people have a right to do things to you- it means you are allowed to be a little rude, to say "no" even though people might think that level of directness is a bit outside of the rules of the social games.

It's like I said in this post, Welcome to Purity Culture, Today We are Overanalyzing Hugs, where I responded to an article that included a section on what to do "If his hug makes you feel uncomfortable" that gave some tips about how to avoid a hug while still staying within the rules of the social games- for example, "When he reaches out to hug you, turn and give him a side hug rather than a front-on hug." Sure, these can be useful suggestions, but I didn't like how it was framed like, here are some strategies for playing this social game, hope this helps you win. Rather than, like, you have an absolute right to refuse a hug, and here are some tips for how to spin your refusal in a socially-acceptable polite way, but at the end of the day, if someone doesn't get the hint and they're still trying to invade your space, they are the one in the wrong, and you are allowed to be rude.

Anyway, something I've seen on the internet, where people talk about consent and explain it as, literally you should only have sex with someone who wants to have sex with you. It's not about memorizing more and more detailed rules and staying within them while also manipulating people to get what you want. No, it's way simpler than that- it's about whether the other person *genuinely wants to have sex with you*. And then there are replies from people who finally got that that's what "consent" means, and they're incredulous. They reply and say 'this sounds totally unworkable. I can only have sex with someone who genuinely wants to have sex with me? That doesn't sound like something that would ever happen- you feminists are saying I can never have sex at all.' This really says something about them- maybe they haven't technically raped anyone (?), but their entire approach for all of their previous sexual experiences has been about manipulating people into things they may or may not want. Like, approaching dating/sex more as a game theory thing than as a "we both actually want this" thing.

Playing social games vs actually caring about what the other person wants. If someone says she wants a "glute massage", then by the rules of the social games, you can probably get away with claiming that she was asking for it. And, from the "playing social games" perspective, that's what matters- rather than genuinely caring about what the other person wants or doesn't want.

5. Sunday reading (July 5) "There is not a man beneath the canopy of heaven, that does not know that slavery is wrong for him."

6. Sen. Lindsey Graham, a close Trump ally, dies after a brief and unexpected illness, his office says (July 12) "Graham appeared to break with Trump after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, saying, “Count me out. Enough is enough.” But the senator returned to the fold and remained close with the president during his second term."

---

Links related to the antichrist:

1. Two-hundred-and-fifty years in, Justice Jackson is doing the work that is needed from our leaders (July 5) "On this Fourth of July, I am thinking about how important it is for the United States that we have leaders willing to speak forthrightly about our past and ambitiously about our future in order to make it through the treacherous present."

2. The Wet And Wild Freedom Day Catastrophe (July 7) "The only place for these tens of thousands to go, realistically, was the streets outside the event, which is exactly what happened: a crush of bodies clustered at the entrance points and choking off traffic for blocks. Everyone is just as exposed to the elements out here as we were in there, except now we are angrily bunched together with nothing to do but endure the storm and stew about the stupidity of it all."

Donald Trump Throws Miserable Tribute To Himself On America's 250th Birthday (July 6) "The Trump team claims it had planned for the weather, but the slapdash look and feel of the tents, the free-for-all of water distribution from pallets, and the general lack of common sense and guidance in dealing with (increasingly) extreme weather suggests otherwise."

3. Lorenzo Salgado Araujo shot and killed by ICE agent in Houston, authorities confirm: Live updates (July 11) 

Men who witnessed deadly Houston shooting say ICE statement is false, attorney says (July 10) "But the three men who were riding in Salgado Araujo’s work van told attorney Hugo Balderas-Ibarra the version of events presented by ICE is false: 'At no point did they use the van to ram into the ICE agents and at no point were these ICE agents’ lives ever in any danger,' the lawyer said in a video posted to his Instagram."

4. GOP governor signs bill forcing trans inmates to detransition (July 6) "The bill does not allow those who have already begun treatment to continue and does not offer any plan to wean them off the medication. Experts say forcing them to stop at all, let alone cold turkey, will have disastrous mental and physical health consequences."

5. The Christian Past That Wasn't (June 30, via) "There are many stories like this that invent a grand narrative about the Christian past of our nation— a Christian past that, put simply, wasn’t. Some of these stories are false. Some contain a measure of truth, but they are exaggerated in such a way that they become mythical. Those who believe America was or is or should be a Christian nation use these fabrications to create myths about America from the days of the first European arrival to the present."

Marriage

 

"Mawwiage." (From "The Princess Bride.") Image source.

[content note: it's about how, historically, sexual violence has always been a big part of marriage]

Thinking a lot about marriage lately, and what marriage is overall, in a general sense. As in, if you look at all marriages throughout history. The overall picture of it is very bleak for women, and I don't know what to think about that. My own marriage and my own culture- where you get married to someone because you genuinely love them and want to marry them, and you are equals- this is very much an anomaly if you take an outside, objective view of what marriage has always been.

Do Straight Men Exist?

Image text: "Are the straights okay?" Image source.

[content note: it's about how childbirth is gross. also NSFW because I used the word "vagina" a lot]

Here in China, some women don't want their husbands to be there with them in the delivery room while giving birth, and some hospitals don't allow men to be there, because of this reason: What if the man sees how gross it is, when all manner of disgusting things are coming out of his partner's vagina (amniotic fluid, blood, a slimy baby), and then he is no longer sexually attracted to her, and never wants to have sex with her again? Wouldn't that just be terrible???

Who knows if this has ever actually happened, but it is definitely a concern I've heard from women in China.

The Bible and Polygamy

Lego scene of Leah telling Jacob to have sex with her slave Zilpah. From the Brick Testament.

[content note: In the world where the bible was written, there wasn't really a concept that women should have a choice over whom they married and/or had sex with. A lot of what is discussed in this blog post is not really consensual- or rather, it's hard to say, because they didn't have the concept of consent.]

In my post The Bible and "Purity", I presented the idea that, contrary to what I had been taught in purity culture, it is *not* true that the bible teaches it's a sin to have sex outside of monogamous hetero marriage and that this rule is the same for both men and women. Instead, what we see in the Old Testament can be better explained like so:

Basically, it goes like this: A girl who's in a good family, with a father who can protect her and have high standards about whom she's going to marry- she is a pure girl. On the other hand, there are plenty of girls and women whom anyone can have sex with, and nobody cares. Slaves, sex workers, girls who don't have their father protecting them, prisoners of war, etc. 

So don't think of sex as being "1 man + 1 woman." It's either "1 man + 1 pure woman" or "1 man + 1 impure woman." 

If she's an impure woman, well, whatever, a man can have sex with as many impure woman as he wants, and why should anyone judge him for that? (Some people would say it's good and normal for a man to be sexually experienced in this way.) Even if he's married, he can still have sex with slaves and sex workers, whatever.

But if she's a pure woman, oh gosh, well a man might actually get in trouble for that- watch out for her father. That would actually be a serious thing, to have unmarried sex with a pure woman. But, still you can't judge the man as harshly as the woman because maybe it's just an honest mistake and he didn't know which kind she was.

In the ancient world portrayed in "Womanist Midrash" and "The Red Tent," women were treated better if they were in the "pure" group rather than the "impure" group, but most of the time they didn't have much control over that. Try as hard as you can to stay as one of the "pure" ones, because we all know it's totally fine for men to rape the "impure" ones, that's just the way it is.

Here's the follow-up post about polygamy.

---

There's a lot of polygamy in the bible. A lot of male bible heroes who have multiple wives and "concubines."

The way I've always heard Christians talk about polygamy in the bible was like this: Yes, there is a lot of polygamy in the bible, but it's always portrayed as a bad thing. The bible always shows that it leads to problems, like a man unfairly favoring one wife over the others, the rival wives being jealous, all kinds of family drama. Yes, there is polygamy in the bible, but it's OBVIOUS that the bible is teaching us that God doesn't want it to be that way. In the beginning, God made Adam and Eve- marriage is supposed to be 1 man and 1 woman. Even though many many people in the bible did not follow God's plan for marriage, it's clear that the bible portrays that as a bad thing. It's clear that the bible is teaching that polygamy is a sin.

I disagree with this. I do NOT interpret the bible as consistently portraying polygamy as a bad thing. In ancient times, people viewed it as a positive thing for a man to have multiple wives- it was a sign that he was rich and successful. And some of the biblical writers also thought this way- there are bible passages about a man having multiple wives which make a lot more sense if you read them with the assumption that this was a sign of success rather than a sin. 

There are many many bible stories that show problems caused by polygamy. Even so, I don't read these as meaning that the biblical writers believed the entire concept of polygamy was always bad, and no one should ever do it. In some cases, the bible portrays the problems as not necessarily being caused by polygamy itself, but by other issues. And in other cases, there are aspects of the situation which are portrayed positively- I read this as saying that even though there are some common pitfalls you have to watch out for, it doesn't mean the whole thing is bad and wrong.

And, when the bible gives rules related to polygamy, it never comes right out and says "polygamy is a sin, don't do it." It gives rules for how a man should treat his wives fairly if he has multiple wives. And there are certain circumstances where the bible commands that a man should not have many wives- but this only applies to men in those circumstances, not all men.

Buckle up, I have receipts. We're going to look at polygamy in the bible, and we're going to see that it's NOT consistently portrayed as a bad thing.

I hope you woke up this morning and said, "I want to read 10,000 words about polygamy in the bible."

The Bible and "Purity"

Bible and rose. Image source.

[content note: it's about rape culture in the bible and in purity ideology]

Purity culture teaches that this is what the bible says about sex: In God's perfect plan for everyone's lives, each person is only supposed to ever have sex with 1 person. (Or maybe 0, if God gives you "the gift of singleness.") You aren't allowed to have sex outside of marriage, and then you get married to 1 opposite-sex partner, and have sex with them, and that's how it works. Purity culture explicitly teaches that this is what the bible says.

(Or... if you're a widow then you're allowed to get remarried and have sex again, but it's not clear how this really fits into purity culture logic.)

Now, there's not *exactly* a bible verse that says "don't have sex outside of monogamous hetero marriage." There are bible verses that say not to "commit adultery." There are bible verses about specific combinations of people who aren't allowed to have sex- for example, a man should not have sex with both a woman and her daughter. There are bible verses about how if a woman is discovered to not be a virgin on her wedding night, she should be stoned. There's "the marriage bed should be kept pure." There are plenty of verses about the sinfulness of "sexual immorality" but the bible never exactly defines what that is.

Of course, though, when I was in purity culture, it didn't bother me that there wasn't 1 specific verse that explicitly said "all sex outside of marriage is a sin" because I felt that was the overall message of the bible's teaching about sex, even though it didn't say it directly. I thought, it's obvious, right? That would be gross, to have sex outside of marriage- obviously that's God's opinion on things.

So that's what purity culture claims the bible teaches: Every person should have at most 1 sexual partner, total, over one's whole life, and this standard is the same for both men and women. 

However, if you actually look at how people act in the real world, they're not applying this same standard to both men and women. Women get judged much more harshly for having unmarried sex, compared to men. 

I believed that in theory it should be the same rules for both men and women, and it was wrong (and didn't make sense mathematically) for men and women to be judged differently. Like... if we're only talking about straight people, it's 1 man and 1 woman sinning together. How can you possibly judge the woman's actions as being more "dirty"/"sinful" than the man's? If it's so terrible that the woman is doing this bad thing, shouldn't the man be held equally responsible for participating in her doing this bad thing? I always thought, the math just doesn't work, so it makes no sense to judge women worse than men for having unmarried sex- so I tried not to pay too much attention to the double standard. Since it was so obviously nonsensical. I was sure that the rules from the bible applied equally to men and women.

Recently, because I read "Womanist Midrash" and "The Red Tent," I had a whole new realization about, umm, how to make the math work, so to speak. "Womanist Midrash" closely examines the lives of women from the bible, from a womanist (black feminist) perspective, and "The Red Tent" is a bible fanfic novel about the 4 wives of Jacob- showing what the women's side of the story of Jacob's family might have been like. These books have a lot to say about women's experience of sex, and how it would have been viewed.

Basically, it goes like this: A girl who's in a good family, with a father who can protect her and have high standards about whom she's going to marry- she is a pure girl. On the other hand, there are plenty of girls and women whom anyone can have sex with, and nobody cares. Slaves, sex workers, girls who don't have their father protecting them, prisoners of war, etc. 

So don't think of sex as being "1 man + 1 woman." It's either "1 man + 1 pure woman" or "1 man + 1 impure woman." 

If she's an impure woman, well, whatever, a man can have sex with as many impure woman as he wants, and why should anyone judge him for that? (Some people would say it's good and normal for a man to be sexually experienced in this way.) Even if he's married, he can still have sex with slaves and sex workers, whatever.

But if she's a pure woman, oh gosh, well a man might actually get in trouble for that- watch out for her father. That would actually be a serious thing, to have unmarried sex with a pure woman. But, still you can't judge the man as harshly as the woman because maybe it's just an honest mistake and he didn't know which kind she was.

In the ancient world portrayed in "Womanist Midrash" and "The Red Tent," women were treated better if they were in the "pure" group rather than the "impure" group, but most of the time they didn't have much control over that. Try as hard as you can to stay as one of the "pure" ones, because we all know it's totally fine for men to rape the "impure" ones, that's just the way it is.

This isn't something that either of those books explicitly spelled out; I'm just kind of trying to summarize the overall ideology that serves as the foundation for the way women are treated in those books.

Here, let's think about these 2 different ideologies and see which one seems to match better with what we see in the bible. Is it "everyone is supposed to have only 1 sexual partner, and stay pure until marriage, and these rules are the same for both men and women"? Or is it "there are pure women and there are impure women, and it's fine for men to have sex with impure women as much as the men want- try to not be an impure woman"?

Hmm. 

Why are there laws in the bible about executing a woman who's not a virgin on her wedding night, but no equivalent laws about men? Why do lots of male bible heroes have multiple wives, and the bible doesn't necessarily portray that as a bad thing* (sometimes it's even described like it's a sign of God's favor)? Why is there a list of specific relatives that a man is not allowed to have sex with, rather than one simple rule "only have sex in a monogamous marriage"?

Huh. Well that's... not great.

I really had always assumed that of course God meant that the rules for men and women were the same. Of course it would be bad for a man to not be a virgin on his wedding night, just like it would be for a woman. Right? The bible just happened to not mention that part, but of course we all know it's true, right? Right? But now I've come up with this alternative framework that fits so much better, and is also horrific and terrible.

(You could argue that the bible is "progressive" on this, in the sense that the rules given in the bible require men to treat women a little bit better than what was typical for societies at that time. Sure, you could make that argument. I personally am not interested in going down that path. I don't think we should let the bible off the hook so easily. Frankly I don't think it's meaningful that the bible is slightly less misogynist than the average stone-age person, and we shouldn't act like it is.)

Okay at this point you are probably saying, "Umm, Perfect Number, you are not the first person to come up with this 'there are 2 types of women' concept, this is called the 'virgin/whore dichotomy', ie, 'every woman is either a virgin or a whore.' How have you not heard of this?"

Well yeah of course I have heard of that, but I guess I never really *got* it? I don't know. I don't think I've ever seen anyone specifically making the connection between the "virgin/whore dichotomy" and the "double standards for men and women about having lots of sex"- how you really need both of these godawful concepts to hold each other up, or else the math clearly just doesn't work. See, it's not *really* about the actual act of having sex. It's about whether the patriarchy judges you to be "pure" and worthy of men's protection, or "impure" and deserving of whatever men do to you.

And the thing is, even though I was taught in purity culture that the rules should be the same for both men and women, there were some purity culture teachings where this ugly "virgin/whore dichotomy" sort of started to show itself. Where the purity teachings were less about "here is God's plan for how everyone can have a perfect marriage and sex life" and more about "it's okay for men to disrespect (and maybe even rape) impure women- make sure you're not one of them." Less about "here is how men and women are supposed to treat each other, how we are supposed to act, we all follow these rules and everything is great" and more about "we protect the women in our in-group, who follow our rules, while the women in the out-group are sluts who are at risk of being raped, what did they expect?"

When they talk about modesty, for example. In purity culture, here is how they talk about modesty: Women, you should respect and value your body instead of flaunting your body. If you don't respect yourself, obviously men won't respect you. D. Anderson had a very good post in 2013 about the way boys in purity culture are taught to view "immodest" women- containing quotes from these good godly teenage boys about how disgusted they are. I basically was taught that if a woman is dressed "immodestly", men are literally incapable of respecting her, unless they wear a blindfold or something I guess. There was a chapter of "The Great Sex Rescue" that did a great job arguing against this ideology.

People who are really into patriarchy like to talk about how "the way it should be" is that men protect women, and feminism is the reason that you hear more about sexual assault nowadays- but what they actually mean is, patriarchy is about protecting the women who follow men's rules. And any women who find themselves in the "impure" group, well they deserve whatever men do to them. Try to not be those women. From that perspective, feminists are the ones to blame, for making women think it's okay to be in the "impure" group, and thereby causing women to lose men's protection.

Anyway...

So what do we do with the bible, then?

Well, first of all, the bible does NOT teach that it is a sin for men to have sex outside of marriage, in the general case. There are plenty of rules in the bible about specific categories of women that men are not allowed to have sex with (and also, rules against men having sex with men), ie, "do not covet your neighbor's wife", and I always viewed this as being part of an overarching "sex is only for monogamous marriage" ideology- but no, it's more like "it's okay for men to have sex outside of marriage, but not with women who, like, actually matter."

And, it's not exactly a sin for women to have sex outside of marriage- the issue is if a woman has sex outside of marriage and then dishonestly tries to present herself like she's one of the "pure" ones.

(One caveat here, I'm focusing on the Old Testament in this post, because I'm thinking about this in terms of an evangelical mindset where the bible supposedly presents one clear and consistent message regarding "God's plan for sex and marriage." But it's possible the New Testament writers weren't coming from quite the same perspective. "Womanist Midrash" and "The Red Tent" focus on the Old Testament, specifically the Torah.)

I'm not sure I would say the bible teaches this view of sex- it's more like, that was the way sex was viewed by the people who wrote the bible. These are the assumptions they brought to it, when they wrote down rules for people to follow. None of this is explicitly spelled out anywhere in the bible- look at me, I used to be evangelical, I read the whole bible multiple times and never noticed this. The writers of the bible were not trying to say "there SHOULD be this double standard between men and women, and feminism is wrong," because they wouldn't have even been able to imagine an alternative. Just like how I was taught by purity culture that all sex outside of marriage is dirty, so I believed that the bible taught that too, and I wasn't able to imagine an alternative.

But anyway, now we know better.

I'm not going to be subtle about this; let me come right out and say it: The bible should not be the authority over our moral beliefs. Instead, we bring our own moral beliefs to the bible, and then we judge which rules in the bible are good ("love your neighbor as yourself", etc) and which ones are horrible. 

Evangelicals believe that if you just have the right technique for how to interpret the bible and parse it into rules for us to live by, this process will lead to a set of rules which we would recognize as good and moral- and if they don't seem good and moral, either our understanding of morality is wrong, or we're misinterpreting the bible. So then you have to keep tweaking things until you can get an interpretation of the bible which you can accept as moral. This strikes me as terribly inefficient. How about we just use our own understanding of morality right from the start, and reject anything from the bible that is obviously terrible?

Then you might ask "well what's the point of even bringing the bible into it, then?" Well, yeah, good point. I like the bible for cultural reasons, but if other people aren't interested in the bible, that's fine. No real reason to bring the bible into it if you don't want to.

Suppose you're a modern-day advocate of purity culture, and you want to combine the bible's emphasis on virginity with modern ideas about how men and women should be treated equally, and so you come up with "nobody can have sex outside of [monogamous hetero] marriage, and the rules are the same for men and women" (ie, this is what purity culture teaches, in my experience). Sure, you can believe that. But don't frame it like you got it directly from the bible. Like you're simply reading the bible and reporting what it says. Like you're not adding your own spin on it. 

I was always so sure that the purity-culture view of sex- that sex outside of marriage is disgusting and nobody should be involved in that- was just self-evidently true, was obviously God's opinion on the matter, and the biblical writers too. I didn't have a specific verse that said it, just a lot of verses about "sexual immorality" and the claim that "well, the readers of the bible would have understood 'sexual immorality' to mean having sex outside of marriage." But now I've found this other explanation... the idea that there are 2 kinds of women, and it's fine for men to have sex with "impure" women- and it's horrible but it fits so much better with what we see in the Old Testament. 

---

* I might need to write a whole 'nother post about polygamy in the bible, because the standard apologetics answer is "yes, there's polygamy in the bible, but it's always portrayed as a bad thing, the bible shows that it leads to a lot of problems, so you see, the bible doesn't *really* condone it" and I disagree with that.

Update: Here it is, The Bible and Polygamy

---

Posts about the book "Womanist Midrash" by Wilda C. Gafney:

Womanist Midrash 
The Slavery We Ignore in the Book of Exodus 
The Second-Worst Bible Story 
Michal wasn't here for David's worship, and now neither am I
Why did I think David was the good guy in the story of Abigail? 
David's Womanizing 
The Bible and "Purity"

---

Related:

"God has one perfect guy for you!" Yeah, that's not biblical. 

"The Red Tent" (this bible fanfic is great) 

6 Ways Purity Culture Did NOT Teach Me About Consent

Motivated By Inerrancy Or Sexism?

Icon that says "Bible commentary." Image source.

[content note: rape]

A few days ago I published a post called David's Womanizing, which included quotes from the bible about David's 10 concubines who were raped by David's son Absalom. Here's a summary of that story: David was the king. His son, Absalom, started a rebellion and David had to flee from his palace- but he left 10 of his concubines there. Then Absalom's advisor told him it would be a good political strategy for him to have sex with David's concubines, so he did that. Later, Absalom is killed and the rebellion is over, and David comes back home. Here's what happened to the 10 concubines:

When David returned to his palace in Jerusalem, he took the ten concubines he had left to take care of the palace and put them in a house under guard. He provided for them but had no sexual relations with them. They were kept in confinement till the day of their death, living as widows.

After I published that post, I thought I'd do some googling to see if anyone else was as horrified by this bible story as I was. 

I found a few commentary websites- Precept Austin and Biblehub. Both of these contain excerpts from bible commentaries by many different writers. And... wow, I have feelings about this, I don't know why I have so many feelings, I've read plenty of commentaries before, and what I find on these sites is pretty standard commentary stuff... but... they all just read so heartless to me, and I'm shocked and saddened, wondering how these writers could be so heartless toward these 10 women.

Some commentaries put part of the blame on these women, saying they should have tried harder to resist being raped. Some commentaries say that these women could not be seen in public because it would remind people of Absalom's rebellion. Some commentaries say that they were "defiled" by Absalom and so they couldn't be sexual partners to David any more.

Here's one quote on that, but many of the other commentaries said similar things:

Matthew Poole's Commentary

Put them in ward; partly, because they had not vigorously opposed Absalom’s lustful desire, as they should have done, even with the hazard of their lives; and partly, lest the sight of them should renew the memory of Absalom’s filthiness, and of their own and David’s reproach, which it was fit to bury in-perpetual oblivion; and partly, because it might appear incestuous to have to do with those who had been defiled by his own son; and partly, because as David would not, so it was not now convenient that any other man should have any conjugal conversation with them.

I just... how can someone say something like this? Bible scholars sitting there and writing that these women couldn't be seen in public... like for them to even exist isn't proper because then people will have to think about Absalom. Like they can't be people any more, they can only be ugly reminders of what Absalom did.

(This reminds me of how Monica Lewinsky says people have advised her that she should change her name- because her name is also the name of the scandal. Like there's something wrong with her simply existing in public after what happened to her. She says she will not change her name, and asks why nobody ever says Bill Clinton should change his name.)

At the same time though, I don't know enough about what life was like for kings' concubines to know if this is actually a worse situation for them. Is it worse to be required to have sex with the king, or to not be allowed to have sex at all (or to go out in public, apparently)? Note that this meant they could not have children. Either way it's not great for them. It's not like they all had great marriages with David and then Absalom came along and so David suddenly ended his good healthy relationships with these women. Either way, their having sex or not having sex was full of political meaning, and was never about what they wanted. So, I actually don't know if this was a worse outcome for them or not.

But this story just made me think... what if you're a straight man, and your wife gets raped- would you say "well I'll do the bare minimum to provide for her financially, so no one can accuse me of being unfair to her, but we won't have much of a relationship any more, obviously"? How about, like, having some compassion for her? Why is the commentators' only concern about how it makes David look?

(I mean, I know that's not really a good comparison, because what the bible is talking about here is totally different from how we think of marriage today. I wish Christians would acknowledge that, instead of claiming there's some "biblical definition of marriage" which we supposedly still follow.)

So that's when it hit me- these commentary writers really don't care about women, do they? This is just blatant sexism. I mean... I've often heard feminists talk about how the bible is mainly focused on men, how a lot of famous theologians are men, etc, and I never really paid much attention to that, because there's nothing inherently wrong with talking about men, or learning from men. The issue is when women are explicitly being excluded, and typically you can't know for sure that's happening, you can just look at the relative numbers of men and women and feel a bit suspicious about how it ended up that way.

But... I don't know why, something about this just strikes me as "wow they explicitly don't care about women." To discuss rape victims in these kind of terms, like "well yeah then David couldn't have a relationship with them any more because it would look bad." 

But then I thought, maybe it's not sexism, maybe this heartlessness comes out of a belief in biblical inerrancy. You believe that everything in the bible is true, so then if you read something bad in the bible, you have to accept it and just keep reading without thinking too much. That's why the tone of these commentaries is like "well, here's what the logic would have been, in their society, to justify treating these women that way- okay keep it moving, keep it moving, next verse!"

But wait, no, inerrancy wouldn't apply in that way in this passage. Inerrancy would come into play for passages like Deuteronomy 20:16-18, where God commands his people to "completely destroy" all the people in the promised land. To commit genocide. If you believe in inerrancy, you have to believe that God really said this, and that since God said it, it must be right. You have to believe that genocide is right in this case.

This 2 Samuel passage about David is different. Even if you believe in inerrancy, you don't have to believe that David was right. You can say "yes, the bible is inerrantly recording something that really happened. But what David did here was wrong." See, this verse doesn't say anything about God's opinion. God can't be wrong, but other bible characters can be wrong. In fact, that's one of the go-to talking points that inerrantists use. Someone comes along and makes the argument "there's a lot of violence in the bible" and then the inerrantist answers "the bible isn't condoning that. These passages are descriptive, not prescriptive. People aren't perfect! A lot of these bible stories are about teaching us what NOT to do." Which holds up logically if it's something like this, something that the bible says David did but doesn't mention God approving of it. That argument doesn't work when the bible explicitly says it was God who told them to commit violence, for example.

And actually, there was a part of one of the commentaries that said David did wrong:

David came to his house at Jerusalem, and the king took the ten women, the concubines whom he had left to keep the house, and placed them under guard and provided them with sustenance, but did not go in to them - David seems to respond a bit in the flesh in this passage (in my opinion) especially since the act committed against these women was the consequence of David's sin! Oh, the ever widening circle of our secret sins! Beware! After all who had left the concubines in Jerusalem? David had. And who had heard and should have pondered the prophecy by Nathan about his wives (2Sa 12:11-12+). David had heard this prophecy, and theoretically should have taken the concubines (who were considered lesser wives) out of harm's way. Of course it was a prophecy from God and every prophecy is fulfilled perfectly. So one must propose that David had to leave them to fulfill the prophecy. I don't think he knowingly did that, but somehow was caused to forget Nathan's prophecy. In either event, David seems to react strongly against the 10 women who would have had no choice but to surrender to Absalom raping them! They are collateral damage of David's sin with Bathsheba and against Uriah!!!  

Our sins like David's can affect so many others in so many different ways!

This bit is good in that it says David "seems to respond a bit in the flesh"- this is Christianese for "his behavior is sinful and not what God would have wanted." Also it says "the 10 women who would have had no choice but to surrender to Absalom raping them"- good job not blaming the victims for being raped. Seems like that's a low bar to clear, but several of the other commentaries failed to clear it.

So this commentary writer has thought a bit about what it was like for these women, and how David did not treat them right. But the passage I pasted there only talks about that a little bit; its overall point is discussing how this fulfills the prophecy from 2 Samuel 12:11-12, and making a bland point about how our sin affects other people. 2 Samuel 12 is after David rapes Bathsheba and murders her husband Uriah, and the prophet Nathan comes to David and tells him that was wrong, and "Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight." So now, look at that, Absalom rapes David's wives, we've come full circle, the prophecy is fulfilled, score a point for inerrancy.

Heartless. 

Even though this commentary excerpt has some compassion for these women, it's mostly framed in the context of "did David do the right or wrong thing here?" 

Oh and then that web page moves into talking about "Was David Right to Take Concubines?" which is all about the laws that God gave about marriage, and contains nothing about how the concubines were actually treated. It's all about examining whether or not polygamy breaks God's laws. Nothing about how it affects actual people. That's the inerrancy mindset right there.

But then I thought, maybe there's a third explanation for why these commentaries come across so heartless toward these 10 concubines. It's not necessarily about sexism, or inerrancy- it's about the purpose of a commentary. Commentaries are intended to be resources that pastors can use when they write sermons. And sermons are about "how to be a good Christian" or "here are some things you should believe about God." Caring about these concubines doesn't really fit into that. So the commentaries spend very little time on it.

Oh.

So, my whole life, I've had the wrong idea about the purpose of a commentary.

Uh, let's back up, because I'm really deep in the weeds here. I read lots of commentaries when I was evangelical, but that's not really a normal thing that evangelicals do. Pastors do that. Bible study leaders do that. The average evangelical does not. 

The average evangelical talks a lot about how we're all supposed to read our bibles every day, and we feel guilty for not doing it enough. But no one's walking around in church saying "we should all read more commentaries." 

I took all that "read the bible every day" stuff really seriously. Evangelicals are always talking about how it's so important to read the bible and know the bible and memorize the bible and base your whole life on the bible, but very few actually follow through on that. I did. I did read the bible every day, back then, and I often encountered weird things in the bible, and I felt like "this is weird, I need help to understand it better" and so I would go look for commentaries to help.

Commentaries are useful in the sense that they do at least have some kind of comment on every single verse. It may not be that helpful, it may not acknowledge the WTFery of the verse in question, it may leave me with even more questions than I originally had, but at least it will say something. That's better than all the sermons and Sunday school lessons which totally ignore all the super-weird passages in the bible.

But now I'm suddenly realizing, if I want to "understand the bible better", commentaries are not really the right thing. Commentaries are for "I want to write a sermon based on this bible passage. I want to spin this such that it can teach us something about how to be a good Christian."

So... what I actually needed was not a commentary, but something more... academic? I seem to remember occasionally coming across academic papers about the historical context of something in the bible, and they weren't trying to make a point about "here's what this bible verse can teach us about how to live a good Christian life." They were just, you know, talking about a thing.

The awkward thing about an academic treatment of the bible, though, is that it won't be from a biblical-inerrancy perspective! So good evangelicals aren't really allowed to read that.

And what I need now is not really a commentary, but maybe something more along the lines of a feminist reading of the bible. That's why I'm enjoying the book "Womanist Midrash" so much.

But wait, back up, I seem to be saying here "when I was evangelical, I just wanted to understand the bible better, so I read commentaries, but that wasn't really the right thing, because commentaries are written from the perspective 'here's what this bible passage teaches us about how to be a good Christian.'" Uh, hello, when I was evangelical, I *did* believe that all bible passages had something to teach us about how to be a good Christian. I *did* have that mindset when I read the bible. 

Every day I did my daily bible reading, and I believed that I would read something that would inspire me and connect me with God. And when I felt depressed, or lonely, or had doubts, or other negative emotions, I would open the bible and expect that God would help me feel better through reading it.

And it all fell apart when I started to question evangelicalism... I would try to do my daily bible reading, and over and over I would get stuck on this or that weird thing. I would come into it thinking I'm gonna open the bible for 10 minutes and get some inspiring message from God, and instead all I could think about was how so many little things in the passage struck me as wrong. (I wrote about this in 2015: Why on Earth Did I Ever Expect the Bible to be Anything Other Than Incredibly Weird?)

It used to be, when I was feeling bad, I would take my bible and open it and read something- I had a few favorites that I would often read in situations like this- and it would help me feel better. And I took that as evidence that the bible truly is from God. But I'm ex-evangelical now; I don't think that way any more. 

I still have favorite bible passages. There are bible passages I love, that I find very inspiring. But I'm very aware that I picked them out of a sea of, well, everything. A sea of problematic stories and ancient misogynistic laws and violence and genocide. They don't serve as evidence that the bible is "God-breathed"- they just show that all throughout history, there have been at least some people who have had really profound and inspiring things to say about love and justice.

So. Wow this has become a long blog post- can we bring this back to David's concubines somehow? Why do the commentaries care so little about what life was like for them, and the injustice of David responding to their being raped by ending his relationships with them? Is it because of sexism- the commentators are men who just really don't care about women? Is it because of inerrancy- the commentators need to keep their belief that everything the bible condones is right? Is it because of the whole purpose behind writing commentaries in the first place- they're meant to help frame the bible in a way that lends itself to teaching us how to live our lives- and caring about David's concubines doesn't fit into that purpose at all?

I remember when I first began to encounter feminist readings of the bible, how my mind was blown by things that had been there the whole time- I knew these stories, I knew these characters, but I had just never thought of them in that way. I guess I had been held back by sexism, inerrancy, and the belief that the bible is meant to teach us lessons on how to live our lives.

---

Related:

Womanist Midrash

David's Womanizing

The Worst Bible Story 

Why on Earth Did I Ever Expect the Bible to be Anything Other Than Incredibly Weird? 

"The Author of Leviticus Would Have Been Cool With It"

"Women shouldn't preach" MUST mean "women can't preach"

[content note: Christian misogyny]

So there's this tweet:

Screenshot:

Link: https://twitter.com/haymes_joshua/status/1801036705434128801 

Text:

[tweet by @haymes_joshua, June 13, 2024]

It's not that Women "shouldn't" preach... 

It's that Women "can't" preach. 

To try and have a woman preach is to both misunderstand the nature of women, as well as the nature of preaching. 

Women are not forbidden from a task that they are actually well suited for. 

It's not that they could preach on the Lord's Day if it weren't for those pesky Bibiclal commands which clearly forbid it. 

No. 

It is not in their nature to preach. 

Preaching is not simply a TED talk on a Sunday morning. 

Preaching is quite literally representing Christ, as an under-shepherd to his people, and then preparing the troops for a week of battle. 

It's not that women shouldn't lead men into battle, it's that they can't. 

It's like having a lady come in the locker room and try to get the football team riled up and amped for the second half... That is just simply not their place. And if they were to try, it would just be embarrassing and uncomfortable for everyone. 

Women are different. 

They were made for a peculiarly feminine glory. 

The fact that this is even controversial tells us how captured The Church is by feminism. 

It should not upset women that they cannot do what they were not made to do in the same way that it should not upset men that they cannot give birth to and feed a baby with their body. 

Women often make great orators, teachers, and communicators. There are many powerful examples of this throughout history... BUT preaching is more than teaching, and it requires a masculine gravitas that women simply do not have. 

They have other wonderful glories. 

And those glories are found in submitting to the Biblical vision for womanhood laid out in the pages of scripture.

Okay a few things to say about this:

First of all, this is some guy on twitter with bad opinions. Let's not bother with arguing with him or responding to his "logic." 

Second, the thing I want to talk about in this blog post is this: The way he says this, the way he presents his complementarian viewpoint, this really gets at the core of it in a way that's transparent and honest and I haven't heard before. It's disgusting and misogynistic, obviously, but this is the only way that complementarianism can make any logical sense. If you believe in complementarianism, you have to believe in something this disgusting. (Or you believe in a god who just says women can't be pastors, for literally no reason at all.)

Complementarians always try to spin it in a nice way, like "God made men and women equal, but for different roles!" (By the way, let me give a definition of "complementarianism"- it's the belief that God made men and women different, and therefore men can be leaders in a way that women can't. In a marriage, the husband has to be the "spiritual leader." [Apparently queer people don't exist.] In the church, there are restrictions on what kinds of leadership positions women can have- different complementarians have different ideas about what exactly these restrictions should be.) But no matter what, this ugly sexist crap is the belief behind it. If you believe women can't teach men in the church, that only makes sense if you believe that when a woman stands up in front of the church and says "Christ is risen," that there's something wrong about that. That her femaleness makes it wrong, contaminates it.

I read Haymes's post about how "It's not that Women 'shouldn't' preach... It's that Women 'can't' preach", and it's so disgusting and sexist- but at the same time, this is the logic. What other logic could there possibly be behind complementarianism? A woman can't be a pastor because... because why? What bad thing would happen if a woman were a pastor? It only makes sense if women are just incapable of doing a good job of it. If every single one of the billions of women on earth would do such bad job that in every case it's better to have some kinda-sorta-maybe-qualified man instead.

(But actually, since I just said "billions of women on earth" that reminds me of how many complementarian churches allow women to be missionaries- to be pastors in other countries, but not in their own church. So, uh. What's the logic there? Pretty much just racism... women can't teach *white* men.)

It reminds me of when I was younger, and I believed in complementarianism, because I thought that Christians *have to* believe in it... and I tried so hard to make it make sense. And no one ever gave explicit clear rules- it was just "men are the leaders" but they didn't teach me what exactly that meant- what specific actions women are or aren't allowed to do. Just this very vague "God made men to be the leaders." (Some complementarians do give explicit rules. My church did not.) I wanted answers- what does that mean, that God made me to be led by men? And why? And this whole thing sounds really sexist- someone explain to me how it's not sexist!

And the way Haymes says it is so vile and offensive- but this is the only way complementarianism makes sense. I've never met anyone who said this in such a sexist and disgusting way, but this has to be the belief behind it. Otherwise, God says women can't be leaders because... because why?

---

Related:

Men have no idea what it's like for women in complementarian churches

"Desiring God" says God wants women to be scared of men

"Desiring God" says God wants women to be scared of men

Gaston corners Belle against a door. Image source.

So uh, here's a post on "Desiring God", written by Greg Morse: The Future of Masculinity [via]. The whole post is such utter nonsense, it's hard to even believe someone wrote this and took it seriously, and it was posted in 2020 so why am I even blogging about this? I'm blogging about this just so you know what the organization "Desiring God" is about. And just in case you ever come across something else that Greg Morse wrote, so you don't make the mistake of taking it seriously, lol.

Or, in other words, I'm writing for myself, little Perfect-Number-from-15-years-ago, who thinks that "Desiring God" is a really good Christian organization, and I have to believe what they say. Little Perfect Number who believes in complementarianism, that God made men and women different, and God wants women to be barred from certain leadership positions, and this is good and godly and I must conform myself to it, because that's what it means to be a Christian.

(Wait a minute, we've talked about Greg Morse before! Wasn't he the one who wrote a post about how real men don't use plastic forks, and I was so boggled by that? Fellas, is it gay to eat potato salad at a picnic?)

(Wait, Morse is also the one who wrote the post about how it's good to stand up at a funeral and announce that the dead person is in hell.)

Okay so let's talk about Morse's 2020 post. It's based around a scene from a sci-fi novel by C. S. Lewis, "That Hideous Strength." I haven't read that, so I can't speak to whether Morse's interpretation is actually what Lewis was trying to say. (I am a fan of C. S. Lewis though.) Apparently, in this scene in the novel, a character called "the Director" is talking to a woman named Jane, about how she has been trying to avoid men who are truly masculine, because she sees them as unpredictable and dangerous, but it's wrong for her to do that. Masculinity is supposed to be a little aggressive and dangerous, and women just have to accept that, rather than try to get away from it. Rather than marry a safe and trustworthy man. Like, what on earth? The post literally says "She had chosen a husband, Mark, accordingly. He 'really understood' her — meaning that he posed no threat to her self-government and asked nothing of her she was unwilling to give." As if that's a bad thing!

This reads like Morse lives in a fantasy world, where action heroes and movie villains are so cool because they're badass and violent. Like he doesn't know anything about the reality of what it's like for women who are victims of men's violence. Like he's romanticized it, like a little danger is exciting but at the end of the day you don't *really* have to be scared because masculine men are good. Like he doesn't know what it's like to be a woman and feel vulnerable and eventually realize that no one is going to come and save you- you have to make yourself stronger and protect yourself.

And then there's this extremely bizarre section which says that God is so incredibly masculine, that even men are feminine in comparison. What??? That's not in the bible anywhere- Morse just made it up! (Or he got it from someone else who made it up.) What on earth???

I will say, though, I do like the section in Morse's post where he takes bible verses about God and changes the "he/him" pronouns to "she/her"- that's my religion. My God is male and female and nonbinary. Makes me want to go change more bible verses to she/her, what a great idea! So ridiculous when people try to limit who God is, and say They are male and not female. Morse changes the "he/him" to "she/her" in an attempt to show us how that would sound wrong (???) and therefore God is a "he/him"- but really it says more about him than it does about God.

Anyway. What really struck me, while reading Morse's post, was thinking about myself back when I was a good evangelical. What if I had read something like this, back then, saying that masculinity is inherently possessive and dangerous, and that's the way it should be, and as a woman I am supposed to let scary manly men rule over me? (I did read articles from "Desiring God" back then.)

Also, what if a woman marries an abuser, and she's scared of him, but she thinks that's normal and doesn't realize the way he's treating her is wrong? What if she didn't even know that it's possible to marry a good and trustworthy man and have a healthy marriage? What if she doesn't know that it's NOT healthy to be scared of your husband? OMG. She thinks to herself, "He's a great guy, so loving and kind to me. Sometimes he gets angry and I'm scared of him, but that's normal, that's just what masculinity is, that happens in every marriage sometimes." 

!!!! OMG, if you've never heard this before, you need to hear it: Many many women are in healthy marriages where they are NEVER scared of their husbands. NEVER. It should happen NEVER. If it happens "sometimes," that's a red flag.

Anyway. Back then, I wondered what "wives submit to your husbands" really meant. I had heard it in church my whole life, but I didn't feel that it made sense to restrict people based on their gender, but I still believed that Christians were required to be complementarian (ie, required to believe in "wives submit to your husbands," and that women can't be leaders to the extent that men can, and that the man has to be the "spiritual leader" in a romantic relationship). So I was very much looking for an explanation of how this was supposed to work- what *is* godly masculinity, or godly femininity, and how can it make sense that as a woman I'm made for a role that feels restrictive to me, but the restrictions are right and good and how God wants it to be.

I was looking for answers, answers to help me believe in complementarianism. I know I'm required to believe this- make it make sense! (Forever grateful to Rachel Held Evans for presenting an argument that it's possible to be a Christian and NOT be complementarian- finally an answer that makes sense!) What if I had found an article like this back then? Saying that masculinity *is* aggressive and dangerous and I need that in my life. Saying that God wants me to be with a man who makes me feel unsafe. Saying that God is so extremely masculine, so different from me, a woman. Men are like God, and I am not. (I am sure Morse would say this is a misinterpretation of his article- but, come on, this is necessarily how it comes across when you make a big huge deal about how it's so important to believe God is masculine and not feminine.)

So when I read this, first of all it's just so much nonsense, so laughable, so obviously out of touch with reality- but then I think about where I was back then, 15 years ago or so, and how something like this could have really affected me. I understand how it feels to have a mindset that would take this seriously. I had been told my whole life that Christians have to believe that God made men and women different, for different roles, and that it's super important that we all follow the correct roles- and it made no sense but I tried to believe it... If I had come across some horribly misogynist hot take that genuinely did the world-building to make it make sense, like Morse's article, I might have believed it.

---

Related:

"Desiring God" Goes Full Toxic Masculinity 

Men have no idea what it's like for women in complementarian churches 

This May Be The Most WTF Christian Article On Sex I've Ever Read 

Don't Invite Anybody From 'Desiring God' to Your Funeral 

"The Authority of Scripture" is One Hell of a Drug 

And this post from the Slacktivist: Brief Interludes With Hideous Men (Part 1)

Also please enjoy this song, "God is a Girl." This is my religion.

Blogaround

1. Psychology of a Hero: MOON KNIGHT and Dissociative Identity Disorder (2022) "And so many systems saw 'Moon Knight' and said I feel seen. This is what it's like." (29-minute video)

2. 2024 Total Eclipse: Where & When (via) 

And more on the eclipse:

Satellite views of solar eclipse 2024: See the moon's shadow race across North America (video, photos) (April 10) This photo is incredible!

Photo of the earth, with a huge dark spot on it where the eclipse is.

And from xkcd: Types of Eclipse Photo (April 8) Love this!

3. Bootlicking Calvinism Is The Unfunny Kind Of Calvin + Hobbes (April 8) "You might expect, then, that good Calvinists would agree with that latter sentiment. They might not appreciate the punks and anarchists who spray paint “ACAB” on subway walls but, logically, it is a statement that they must regard as true. If all people are sinful bastards, and police are a subset within “all people,” then all police, as people, must also be sinful bastards. If all people cannot be trusted to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with their God, then it would be foolish to claim that police officers are somehow, inexplicably, an exception to this universal rule."

4. Censorship: How Does It Work? (January 27, via) "Every Chinese person I know seems to have a lot of skill in reading the news between the lines to figure out what’s actually happening through the bullshit."

5. O.J. Simpson dies of cancer at age 76, his family says (April 11)

6. What I’ve Learned as the First Out Trans Division 1 Men’s Athlete (2023, via) "'It saved my life,' he said after a few heavy breaths. 'You saved my life. And I needed you to know.'"

7. What LakePointe Church and Pastor Josh Howerton Think about Women (April 12) This will only be of interest if you know who Josh Howerton is. He's a pastor who recently got a lot of attention on social media for making a "joke" about how a wife should do whatever her husband wants sexually on "his" wedding night. Well I'm sure you will be *shocked* to find out that it's not the first time he's said disrespectful things about women. Sheila Gregoire has the receipts.

The Great Sex Rescue: Obligation

Stock photo of a woman picking up laundry from the floor while a man sits there doing nothing. Image source.

Links to all posts in this series can be found here: Blog series on "The Great Sex Rescue"

---

We are now in the second part of chapter 9 of The Great Sex Rescue: The Lies You've Been Taught and How to Recover What God Intended [affiliate link], pages 162-178. This section is about obligation sex- when a wife feels that she is obligated to have sex with her husband, because "men need it," and that is more important than any of her needs or desires.

I'm really glad to see "The Great Sex Rescue" speaking out against "obligation sex"! It's a very bad teaching, and it's EVERYWHERE in evangelical marriage ideology.

This section starts off by talking about the authors' focus groups, where they talked to women who had been harmed by the "obligation sex" message:

Almost all of them said that their husbands never gave them the obligation-sex message themselves. Their husbands didn't see sex as something they were owed or entitled to take, but instead as a gift for them to share together. Their husbands saw the importance of honoring their wives' no-- they just never knew she didn't feel free to say it! Each of these husbands empowered their wives by saying what they had been thinking all along: "You are allowed to say no, and in fact, I want you to say no if you're uncomfortable, because I don't want sex to be something you don't want to do."

Yeah, this is very real. Women are the ones being taught this "obligation sex" ideology in church, and a man might not even realize this teaching exists or how much of an impact it is having on his wife.

And... yes, I agree with the advice that men should explicitly say that they don't want their wife to feel she is forced to have sex- but I think it's more complicated than that. It's very likely that a woman from an evangelical background simply won't believe her husband when he says that. She may interpret it as "he's saying that if I can't fake like I'm enjoying it, it ruins his experience of sex- so I need to do a better job of faking my enthusiasm." Or "he actually thinks 'you're obligated to have sex with me, because of my manly needs, and if you don't do it good enough, you're not holding up your end of the deal' but he's a good person and he knows he can't say that out loud because it sounds rapey." Or "he wants to be the kind of loving partner who is okay with not forcing me into painful sex, but he underestimates the reality of his manly needs- even though he says it's okay for me to say no, he doesn't realize that that's not sustainable for him in the long term, that it's just not going to work."

Yes, evangelical women have been taught for their entire lives that "this is how men are." Then they marry a man who turns out to be a way better person than that- and it's just unbelievable. (Or, alternatively, they marry an abusive man, and they believe that's totally normal, that's how men are.)

From an asexual perspective: Yes, this is something that is debated in the ace community and/or debated by people who may or may not be supportive of aces. Some people argue that "if you're ace and your partner is not, then your partner *needs* sex, so you need to 'compromise' and have sex with them." It's a very similar argument to the Christian ideology about "men need sex, and women JUST CAN'T POSSIBLY UNDERSTAND, because women don't really like sex- so a wife is obligated to have unwanted sex with her husband."

I basically already gave my opinion on this in the previous post- basically, my advice is DON'T have sex if it's a bad experience for you. Just totally refuse. Draw the line there. If it's a positive experience, that's great. If it's a neutral experience, that's also okay- I know that's the reality that some aces are in, and it's not necessarily bad. And also, you have more options than just "have sex" or "don't have sex"- you should discuss with your partner what kinds of sexual or intimate actions you want to do together, to create a good experience for both of you. (For example, if PIV [penis-in-vagina] is painful, then don't do PIV. If you want your partner to give you a non-sexual massage, well definitely tell them that, and add that in to your "scene.")

But... speaking from personal experience, I didn't actually believe "if PIV is painful, then don't do PIV" was an actual option. It just didn't seem possible, that I could be in a hetero relationship, where we love each other, where we've already had sex (so there aren't any "purity" concerns), and I just refuse to ever do PIV.

And I took on the challenge of learning how to do it, how to work with my vaginismus (though I didn't know at the time that it was vaginismus), and I'm glad I did that because it led to me understanding my body better. But at the same time, one of the motivating factors was obligation- "men need it"- and I wish it hadn't been that way. Anyway, it's complicated, but that's what happened in my actual real life, and I don't have a tidy conclusion about "this is what I should have done instead."

Moving along to the next section I want to quote from "The Great Sex Rescue":

Sex is not the only need in the marriage relationship, and sometimes other needs must take precedence.

Much current teaching, though, elevates his need for intercourse above any of her needs. ...

The message that "whatever you are feeling doesn't matter, you need to have intercourse with your spouse" erases you as a person. It says that who you are, including your wants, desires, and feelings, doesn't matter. Then sex, which is supposed to be this deep knowing, becomes something far different. It's saying, "I don't want to know you, because your needs and desires are actually unimportant to me. I only want to use you."

Okay, yeah, this is a good point. Generally I don't agree with anyone saying that "sex is supposed to be" this or that, because everyone has their own life and it can mean different things to different people- so I would put this differently, but yeah.

Here's how I would put it:

When I was a teenager, and I heard about controversy about teaching sex ed in school... Well yeah, basically my understanding of sex ed was "we don't want you to have sex, avoid it if possible, but if you do have sex, at least use a condom." The background assumption was that it's so easy to have sex, so obvious how to do it, and of course we all desire it, so there's no need to actually talk about any details about how to do it- we only need to talk about how to NOT do it, or how to minimize the risk of pregnancy and STDs.

Years later, as a feminist, I found a whole different concept of what "sex ed" is: There's so much to learn and discover. There's so much potential for pleasure. Your body belongs to you, and it's good and wonderful to explore your body and understand your body. Go read about all sorts of things: orgasms, masturbation, sex toys, BDSM, etc. Maybe you'll find something you want to try. 

Instead of "don't have sex, but if you do, at least use a condom," it was viewing sex as a variety of potentially-positive experiences which could enrich your life, if you have access to good information about how to do them in a way that's enjoyable and healthy. (And a VERY IMPORTANT part of that is learning about CONSENT.) Like a positive thing to learn about, rather than a negative thing to avoid as much as possible.

And, yeah I'm asexual, so I understand if some aces aren't really interested in learning about any of that. That's fine- don't let anyone pressure you into reading about stuff you don't want to read about. And, of course there's a difference between reading vs seeing images vs actually doing things. And a difference between intellectual curiosity vs fantasy vs actually desiring to do something in real life. 

(I'm a sex-favorable asexual; I would be interested in hearing from sex-repulsed or sex-indifferent aces because they probably have a different perspective on this.)

Anyway. As I've said in other posts about "The Great Sex Rescue," the way I view it now is to know yourself and know what you want, and communicate with your partner to invent some sequence of intimate/sexual acts which are going to be a good experience overall for both of you. It should be positive and enjoyable. It should be about saying what you want, and believing that that matters.

And then I think back to how marital sex was presented in the Christian marriage books I read, years ago... how extremely negative it sounds to me now. Like "yeah you're a woman so you won't really like it, but just remember that you really love your husband, and that should give you the strength to power through this painful experience." [That's my paraphrase, not a quote from anywhere.] Like sex was this one specific thing- not something you could have your own preferences about, and customize to fit your own desires- and wives must do it even though it's not enjoyable. And that's what marriage is.

("The Great Sex Rescue" definitely talks about how sex can and should be so much better than that, but doesn't give any useful practical tips for how to get there- only that the husband should do more foreplay. They don't say women should masturbate to figure out what feels good. They don't say sex doesn't have to be PIV. They don't say you can maybe try sex toys. It's just "he needs to do foreplay" and that's it. So, I don't find that useful.)

Good Christian girls are taught that that's what sex is. But since I'm queer, I've found out that sex can be so much better than that- when it's something that you choose, something that you make the way you want it. And the farther I get from that ideology, the more I'm shocked at how extremely ****ed up it is. How bleak a picture they paint of sex- even though they also say it's "a beautiful gift from God" and if you follow all the rules correctly (be straight, don't have premarital sex, etc) then your sex life will be perfect.

You know I don't like it when people say "sex is supposed to be" whatever, but: sex is supposed to be a good experience that you create together with your partner. Not something that some authority figure sets the parameters for, and then you're required to do it to be a "good wife", even though you won't like it. Oh it can be so much better than that.

Okay, I realize this blog series is supposed to be my asexual take on "The Great Sex Rescue," and this stuff I just said about "sex can be so much better than that" probably doesn't sound very asexual, but yeah that's how I really feel, so there it is. Obviously if you're ace and you don't want to have sex at all, I totally support that. I support everyone knowing themself and figuring out what they want, and confidently believing that their feelings and desires should matter.

So, back to "The Great Sex Rescue." This section is mainly about the idea that men's "sexual needs" are more important than any need that a wife may have, and there are a bunch of anecdotes along those lines. I'll highlight a few things from these anecdotes:

Rebecca Lindenbach, one of the co-authors of the book, talks about how she experienced pain during sex for a long time after giving birth. Her husband supported her and gave her the time she needed to heal, and didn't pressure her into sex. When she pressured herself into sex, because of her concerns about his "needs", he said "I'm not interested in anything that causes you pain" and he didn't consent to sex then.

Here's a good line about Lindenbach's husband, Connor:

In fact, as he says, he never even viewed it as "his" sexual needs that were put on hold, but "our" sexual needs.

Yes, this is what men should do. If sex is painful for your partner, then don't do it that way. Find some workaround that you both can enjoy, and/or just don't have sex for a while.

Conservative Christian marriage ideology teaches that it's not possible for a man to love like that.

Here's a section from another anecdote, also about a woman who had postpartum sexual pain:

[content note: her husband is coercive and doesn't care about her pain]

My husband has a very fundamentalistic view of the Bible, and I think he would like me to suffer through the pain and fulfill my duty for his sake. ...

It is interesting to me that when it is my body that got injured during birth (pelvic organ prolapse) and my body that now experiences pain during intercourse-- he acts as if he is the only one hurting. I know he loves me, but I feel so objectified. The fact that my husband wants me to have sex with him despite intense pain disgusts me, and I really question who I chose to marry.

The authors of "The Great Sex Rescue" say this about the above anecdote:

How did we get to a point where the husband thinks he is biblically justified to expect her to "suffer through the pain" to "fulfill my duty for his sake"? Maybe because books have intimated exactly that when they give the obligation-sex message with no caveats.

Yes, they are exactly right. This is exactly what Christian marriage books teach- wives need to have sex with their husbands. Even if you don't want to, even if it's painful, men need it, so you have to. Of course this results in horrible situations where a woman is in extreme pain and nobody cares about her, they only care about if her husband is having enough orgasms.

And even as I read these stories, I feel like... I've internalized this obligation-sex ideology so much, that I'm not even confident I can argue that a man's "sexual needs" are NOT more important than a wife's need to not be in pain. I ... I'm not a man, what do I know... what if it *is* true that a man's need to have an orgasm is more of a big deal than women's sexual pain? That's what all the good Christian role models said- how can I claim that they're wrong, since I don't have the experience of being a man? How can the authors of "The Great Sex Rescue" argue for that?

I mean, it's misogynist bullshit, is what it is, and that is really obvious... and yet... this is what I've always heard from Christians, and I've internalized it to the extent I'm like "but how do we really know it's wrong?"

Ugh.

Anyway, another anecdote from the book. This one is from a woman with a high-risk pregnancy, who was ordered by her doctor to be on bed rest, but she's concerned about her poor husband's sexual needs. And, yeah, the authors of "The Great Sex Rescue" point out how ridiculous it is. Everyone's first priority in this situation should be the pregnant woman's health, and the unborn baby's health. The husband's "sexual needs" don't even come close to that level of importance. But women in this ideology feel like they have to put their own health at risk, and their unborn baby's health, because "men need it." It's so ****ed up.

Then there's a section about the "do not deprive" verses in 1 Corinthians 7, which are some of the key bible verses that are always used to argue for this "wives are required to have unwanted sex" ideology. The book already addressed these verses in chapter 3, so I won't go into a ton of detail here, but I like this quote:

Can you imagine any other area of life in which God would tell a person, "You have the right to use someone else for your own gratification, even if it causes physical or emotional pain"? Or in which he would tell a woman, "It pleases me when your husband acts selfishly toward you"?

PREACH!

So, that sums up the second part of chapter 9 of "The Great Sex Rescue." Basically I agree with what the authors are saying here. It's extremely messed-up that Christian marriage advice teaches that women are obligated to have unwanted sex because men's "needs" are SO IMPORTANT.

---

Links to all posts in this series can be found here: Blog series on "The Great Sex Rescue" 

Related:

Conservative Christians Teach That Wives Are REQUIRED To Have Sex Even When They Don't Want To. Here Are The Receipts.

He Just Loves Me (a post about Sex, Pregnancy, and My "Wifely Duty") 

6 Ways Purity Culture Did NOT Teach Me About Consent

Let me tell you about a fanfic that reminded me of my marriage

So this is new