He didn’t know it was her turn.

We can get an idea of where feminists want to take converging domestice violence and rape laws from two recent articles about laws in Sweden*.  Celia Farber at observer.com explains that a husband “nagging” his wife for sex is now considered rape:

Sweden has both the most expansive rape laws (which extend all the way to marital bed nagging), as well as the highest number of reported rapes in the world.

This fits with the new concept of rape that feminists are advancing in the US, where the definition of consent now means desire.  Even if a woman consents to sex, if she didn’t do it out of sexual desire feminists are calling this rape.  Women who trade sex for food and lodging are under this new standard said to have been raped because they felt pressured to offer sex in order to continue receiving benefits from the man.

You can see a similar logic in the Daily Mail article Man is reported to police in Sweden for doing a ‘revenge fart’ after woman denied him sex.  The Mail article explains that while the man and woman had “previously discussed having sex”, the woman told the man she didn’t want to have sex right then.  This is what lead to the man’s act of criminal flatulence:

This disappointed the man who farted – and left the flat, writes Hallandsposten.The was allegedly of such a nature that it ‘disturbed the woman’s piece of mind’.

‘It smelled very bad in my flat,’ she wrote in her report to police.

This new concept of rape is tied in to our new definition of sexual morality, which in itself is tied to our reordering the moral relationship between sex, romantic love, and marriage.  It is also needed to facilitate maximum promiscuity by women by freeing them up to have sex with men they don’t know, men who aren’t invested in them.  In order to remove women’s fear of doing risky, foolish, and immoral things, the laws must be changed so that men are perpetually in fear of being brought up on charges by women.  Feminist Ezra Klein at Vox explains:

”No Means No” has created a world where women are afraid. To work, “Yes Means Yes” needs to create a world where men are afraid.

While it is radical feminists who dream up laws like this, ultimately it will be conservatives who pass them.  Conservatives have a profound blind spot when it comes to sin by women, and therefore will see laws feminists propose in order to encourage women’s promiscuity as a chance to punish the boorish cads and brutish oafs the promiscuous women are chasing.  Then of course, women will finally be free to seek out the nice guy conservatives they have always desired.

*I don’t have any way to confirm the laws in Sweden or how they are applied.  However, either way these articles give us an idea of where feminists hope to take them.

Posted in Daily Mail, Domestic Violence, New Morality, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye, Ugly Feminists, Yes Means Yes, You can't make this stuff up | 122 Comments

Not in the picture.

The Daily Mail has a new article on the ten year anniversary of Eat Pray Love (EPL): Eat pray love (and walk out on your husband): It’s the bestseller that inspired a generation to transform their lives. But it left behind a trail of broken relationships

The focus of the article is on the “empowerment” the book and later movie lead to at the cost of broken families.  But this is the text.  If you look at the pictures the most striking aspect of the story is that all of these women are alone.  None of them are pictured with their secret multimillionaire hunky handy man.  One of the three women featured managed a short marriage to a retiree before he tragically caught a virus and died.  The other two women weren’t actually married when they decided to EPL, and neither of them describes a current man in their life.

Then the article turns to the author of EPL, Elizabeth Gilbert.  Unlike the three women who followed her EPL prescription Gilbert is remarried.  But like the other women in the article, Gilbert is pictured alone.  Why is that?  The power of EPL is not that Gilbert managed to dump her loyal husband and travel to Europe and India.  Being rewarded with cash and prizes for betraying your marriage vows is something the US and UK offers all wives.  The power of EPL is that betraying her marriage vows not only made Gilbert more moral, it also allowed her to trade up to a better husband*.  Gilbert appeared to have defied the odds and stuck the landing.

The obvious answer to Gilbert being pictured alone is that her remarriage was no more a trade up than her divorce made her more moral.  In real life “Filipe” is 17 years older than Elizabeth, and appears to be shorter than her.  Featuring 46 year old Elizabeth with the mid sixties “Filipe” doesn’t fit with the image of the story.  The Daily Mail author doesn’t comment on the real Filipe, but she closes the article hinting at the disconnect between the EPL fantasy and reality:

Reading the book again I can’t help question whether Gilbert may have done as much harm as good for those following in her footsteps. There are of course inherent problems in trying to emulate someone’s else’s road to redemption, not least of all the inevitable disappointment when one discovers there aren’t enough Javier Bardems lurking at the end of the rainbow.

*The Kendrick brothers were shrewd enough to sell a similar story of divorce empowerment leading to a new round of courtship, a better husband, and spiritual rebirth in the Christian movie Fireproof.

Posted in Aging Feminists, Daily Mail, Denial, Fantasy vs Reality, Hold my beer and watch this, selling divorce, Serial Monogamy, Status of marriage, Ugly Feminists | 119 Comments

The fear of confonting sexual sin by women.

This last week I’ve been writing about the fear of confronting sin by women in the form of abortion.  But the fear of confronting sin by women is pervasive, and therefore twists nearly all modern teaching on women and sin.  It doesn’t just show up with regard to abortion, it shows up with women’s discontentment in marriage, women envying and usurping men’s roles, wives denying sex, and wives usurping headship.  And of course, it also twists modern teaching on women and sexual sin.

At Dr. John Piper’s Desiring God, Pastor Matt Chandler describes a traumatic experience where he tricked an unrepentant adulteress into attending church, only to have the pastor teach that sexual sin is ugly.

My freshman year of college I randomly sat next to a twenty six year old single mother…

Me and some of my crew would go over to her house and babysit her daughter. She was actually in an extramarital affair at the time with a married man, and so we would talk through that and the wisdom in that. This is the relationship we had, just kind of serving her and trying to explain to her spiritual things…

And so I said a good friend of mine is in a band, he is playing, why don’t you come hear him.  And so she agreed, she thought it would be a concert.  I knew better, it was shady, it was excellent.

The music was excellent, but during the sermon the pastor preached on the ugliness of fornication and adultery;  this made the woman Chandler had tricked into attending uncomfortable.

Clearly this traumatic experience has impacted the way Pastor Chandler teaches about sexual immorality.  When discussing sexual sin, Chandler is careful to frame women’s sin as caused by a man.  Just like women are victims of the abortionist they pay to kill their unborn child, they are the victim of the men they seek out for illicit sex.  In his sermon Women’s Purpose Chandler speaks to single mothers:

…maybe, God help you, you got involved with a boy who could shave, where you got caught up with a guy who looked like a man but ended up not being one, and now you have a child, God is going to enter that space and he’s going to be merciful and gracious. So don’t lose heart.

Notice that there is no repentance required because the fault for the woman’s sexual immorality lies with the man she had sex with.  He either wasn’t good enough for her to marry, or refused to marry her after they had sex.  This is the complementarian spin on women’s sacred path to marriage.

Similarly, in Woman’s Hurdles Chandler prays for the men women didn’t find good enough to marry, or who wouldn’t marry when the woman decided she had found the one who needed to commit to her:

Father, for men in this room who prey on insecure women with wounded hearts, Father, I just pray over these men a type of weight on their souls that would be crushing. Father, I thank you that you do not take lightly wolves hunting down your daughters and that there would be a day that these men, hollow-chested boys in grown up bodies will cry out as you come for mountains to fall and that the mountains will flee before your coming.

I thank you that you are a just judge who will not handle lightly boys who can shave who take advantage of your daughters. I pray that there might be repentance for these men for the salvation of their own soul. Enter these spaces.  They’re complex and hard. I pray for my sisters. Help us.

Again, repentance for sexual immorality is only for the men, even though this is a sermon on women’s sins.  In fact, if you do a word search in Hurdles for the word repent, you will find four instances of the word.  On page 4 he tells men they need to repent if their wives feel the temptation of feminist resentment.  On page 18 he tells women to repent if they have been trying too hard to be perfect wives and mothers.  On page 19 he prays that God will sooth the women in the audience as they repent of their perfectionism.  Finally, also on page 19 he tells men to repent for causing women to sin sexually (the quote above).

As just another example of this, Matt Schmucker writes* in Sex and the Supremacy of Christ (edited by John Piper and Justin Taylor):

We do not want a brother standing at the altar on his wedding day looking at his beautiful bride only to imagine behind her the boys and men who took advantage of her and robbed her of the trust and confidence that she now needs for her husband. We do not want a sister standing at the altar on her wedding day looking at her handsome groom only to imagine behind him a string of relationships with girls and women he failed to honor, and knowing that images in his head from pornography use and past flings may stick with him for a long time.

*HT Darwinian Armenian

Posted in Complementarian, Dr. John Piper, Pastor Matt Chandler, Turning a blind eye, Ugly Feminists, Weak men screwing feminism up | 270 Comments

Devil’s Advocate

William Saletan has a devastating article at Slate arguing that the pro life movement can’t really believe abortion is murder.  Saletan points to recent cases where women were sentenced to death or long prison terms for hiring hitmen to kill their adult children:

Hiring someone to kill your adult son or daughter is different from hiring a doctor to terminate your pregnancy. But you can also see familiar themes. Sometimes a woman seeks an abortion because she thinks the child would break up her relationship, destroy her marriage, or ruin her life. Sometimes she worries that the father won’t support the child financially and that without his help, she can’t afford to raise the baby. Sometimes she’s in a new relationship with a man who doesn’t want some other guy’s kid in the picture, so she gets rid of it. Pro-lifers often describe these situations as abortions for “convenience.”

Still, pro-lifers say the woman must not be punished.

He points out that all of the excuses pro lifers offer for women who abort their children are made by women who kill their adult children, but in those cases we hold women accountable anyway.  He argues that the pro life movement treats abortion differently because they don’t really believe it is murder:

If pro-lifers shrink from this conclusion—if they continue to make excuses for women who procure abortions while rejecting the same excuses for women who procure the deaths of their born children—then there’s only one logical explanation: They don’t really believe abortion is morally equivalent to killing a person. They sense that something about abortion— the fetus’s limited development, or its location inside the woman’s body, or the moral seriousness of weighing parenthood before you’ve actually taken it on —mitigates the gravity of the deed and the culpability of the procurer.

In their rebukes of Trump, you can see signs that pro-lifers share his doubt. Officially, the National Right to Life Committee asserts, “The baby living in her mother is as distinct and unique a separate person/human being as I am from you. This human being, as we all do, has the unalienable right to life and deserves full protection under the law.” But in its reply to Trump, the NRLC stressed that it “has long opposed the imposition of penalties on the woman on whom an abortion is attempted or performed.” The woman on whom an abortion is attempted. Apparently, the NRLC forgot that abortion, as an act of termination, is aimed at the supposedly distinct baby, not at the woman.

Kasich, Moore, and the Susan B. Anthony List committed the same slip, describing women, not their babies, as the victims who “receive” and “undergo” abortions. Never mind that the woman pays to have the baby killed and leaves the clinic alive…

That’s how you talk when you know, somewhere in your brain, that abortion is a medical procedure, that the woman is the primary patient, and that the physical and moral relationship between her and her fetus is complicated.

Saletan’s conclusion is an obvious one.  Even though this isn’t the real reason for the pro life movement’s bizarre inconsistency on the issue, most people will come to the same conclusion.

This will be as devastating for the pro life movement’s credibility as the recent series of sting videos on Planned Parenthood were to the pro abortion movement.  It may ultimately end up being even more damaging.  Women and men who are on the fence on abortion will see the pro life movement itself acting in contradiction to what they say they believe, and this fits perfectly with the argument that opposing abortion is really just about restricting the freedoms of women.  Moreover, the pro life position that women who seek abortions are merely victims offers women a pre-made rationalization for what they already want to do.  The Serpent couldn’t hatch a better plan to comfort women into believing that abortion isn’t that big a deal after all.

Posted in Abortion, Rationalization Hamster, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye | 81 Comments

Maybe in a thousand years.

As promised, Pastor Doug Wilson revisits the question of whether women should ever be punished for having an abortion:

So the question is this. Should women who procure abortions be charged with anything? Should there be any penalty? Ever?

Wilson breaks this into two parts.  The first part involves the foreseeable future, and for this Wilson maintains his previous answer;   no, since even after a law has been passed making abortion illegal we can’t expect women to know better.

But he does allow for the possibility of holding women accountable a thousand years from now, assuming everything lines up just right:

But the second question concerns an ideal biblical republic, and involves the logic of the thing. If abortion is murder, then who is the murderer? And even if the murderer is the abortionist, on what grounds could we possibly say that the mother can never be complicit?

So say that all this postmillennialism stuff is true, and a thousand years from now we have believing magistrates, a faithful people in the main, biblical laws, and all those unfortunate people who were born with a critical spirit have no scope for their blogging talents. Everything in the civil realm is exactly as it ought to be. What would the case be then? Could there be any penalty then? The answer here is of course, but it is an of course that requires very careful exposition.

Posted in Abortion, Pastor Doug Wilson, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye | 177 Comments