Dalrock, Sheila Gregoire, and internet debates

I'd like to start the discussion by posting the video below. In all future internet debate type posts please mentally refer back to the video. It's not so much that I think I'll change someone's mind as that I like poking ideas with a stick and then reflecting on how clever I am. In short, I have dude brain :)

Ok, now that's out of the way I'd like to point y'all in a couple different directions. First, go visit Dalrock to see what the trouble is all about. Then I suggest you go poke around Sheila Gregoire's blog.

So as you can see the main trouble is that Dalrock and Sheila have two very different ways of writing about marriage, and according to Dalrock Sheila's way is wrong and detrimental to the state of marriage as a whole. Many of the commenters vehemently agree. I did comment with my two cents, but in an effort to stay on topic I thought I'd toss this little post up here.

To open with an academic cliche, I think that Dalrock and Sheila both have their points. On one hand, I love how Sheila has encouraged me to love my husband and put thought into our marriage. On the other hand, people like Dalrock are like a deluge of cold water in the barren wastelands of today's modern marriage - rather shocking but extremely necessary if we're to restore beauty and fertility to today's marriage culture. To that end I would love to see more collaboration from men like Dalrock when they encounter other public figures like Sheila (to anyone from the manosphere who may read this - collaboration doesn't necessarily mean whatever dreadful hell corporate America has turned it into as I'll explain shortly) instead of the wholesale denouncement of her person, marriage, and ministry that is so common. When I say collaboration I mean that men/marriage bloggers should indeed challenge her when they believe it's necessary, but they should do so in a manner that acknowledges they're challenging a woman writing in a different context from theirs to what is possibly is a different audience and with the expressed goals of helping Christians have more fulfilling sex lives. On other words, Sheila and Dalrock might be fighting on different fronts, but they're still on the same side.

So how do I think that would look? First let's consider what they are saying. Take Sheila's post on what it means to deprive a spouse of sex. Part of her context is that there are men who think they hold all the cards and can dictate universally the quantity and kind of sex they have, and there are women who go along with this and build up a reservoir of hurt and frustration. So she gave men and women what I felt like was a pretty decent take on what it means to sexually deprive someone and how women can take a little ownership of the sexual relationship. Naturally, this is problematic for manosphere bloggers because their context is almost universally inverted. In their experience women are the ones taking all the sexual prerogative and who assume the right to dictate the frequency and nature of all sexual contact, and these men's approach is largely aimed at helping men regain sexual initiative and fulfillment. So we have men talking about getting more sex and women talking about having less sex, and everyone gets highly freaked out and points fingers saying "There - that's the problem. See! S/he said that men/women need to start pushing for more/less sex!" 

I think the most helpful approach someone like Dalrock could take in writing about someone like Sheila would be to re-contextualize her position in light of what most modern marriages face and point out where she could strengthen and/or further her argument. Here's a quick example of how that might go:

Sheila's argument about "do not deprive" can be valuable under certain circumstances. My concern is that those circumstances aren't widely reflected in the circumstances facing many married men. In fact, for these men the opposite is frequently and sometimes aggressively true, and the advice given here will likely only add more fuel to the fire of selfish entitlement that threatens to sweep away society's most basic foundations. That given, there are instances where this advice applies. However, I would frame the argument with the clear understanding that sex is a fundamental tenet of marriage and that no woman worth the title "wife" would ever consider her sexual preferences as more worth meeting than those of her husband.

This could be followed with an outline of the specific circumstances which might merit a wife pushing back sexually (illness, particular practices, etc) and continue into a discussion of responsive desire and describe how women who aren't "in the mood" can change their minds when they experience a display of desire from their husbands. I think this is important because what did bug me most about that article was the man who commented saying that he had essentially trained or convinced himself to wait for his wife to initiate. I really just wanted to shake him by the shirt collar because I know his wife, however unfair this may be, is probably insanely frustrated that "he never wants her." This is why being high drive can be hard on a woman. We were, by and large, made to respect and respond to a man's leadership. This mean that "leading" in the bedroom can be as frustrating as leading in other areas of marriage. This is also where blogs like MMSL (explicit warning) and Dalrock can be so crucial because, whereas your average Christian marriage blog emphasizes "service" (ie flowers and chores and the like), MMSL and Dalrock emphasize building leadership/husband skills that result in things like men having more sexually responsive wives. While I don't buy everything I read other there (hence in large part my desire to write more about marriage) I do believe they are a invaluable resource for understanding and dismantling the reigning gynocentric culture. Part of my work here is looking towards what will replace it.

Back to the main point however. Naturally much of this particular discussion is frivolous if you believe that "do not deprive" means "never say no." Short answer, Allen and I don't. It's just too tricky in practice. For instance, how sick is too sick? As a woman I could technically be nearly comatose and still "participate." This is where people would likely say to "use some common sense." My response would be that, in which case, I'll use my common sense to say that either party can, in the context of a generous and healthy marriage, small "r" refuse the other person with the understanding that the other person's tacit consent is solicited and that feeling the need for a hard, capital "R" refusal signals a deep rift in the marriage. Either way, I feel the discussion could be carried out in a more constructive manner than it currently is.

Thoughts from a thinker - regarding sex ed.

Lately I've been spending a whole lot of time reading the Thinking Housewife. Talk about information overload! She is a prolific poster on many aspects of Christian and Western European/North American culture. For the most part I highly recommend her blog, but every once in a while I came across a comment that just made my fingertips itch. Right now I plan to get in a little scratching. I'm going to schedule some of them out though so that it doesn't become an extended monologue :)

In the comments following a post about some crazy Canadian educators who think sex ed should cover ways to tell if a drunk girl is really "consenting" I found, what I felt to be, a rather disturbing statement of the hyper-conservative kind.

Mary posted the following:

Parents abdicated because they were convinced by educators that one must discuss the *mechanics* of sex with their children. This is patently absurd and most unnecessary, as obviously the human species has managed to proliferate without classroom instruction for time immemorial. There is nothing embarassing about telling children that the procreative act is beautiful and sacred and reserved for marriage; delicate language delivers the message home without awkwardness because the children are not hearing nonsense or embarrassing detail from a stranger in a classroom full of people, but they are receiving eternal truth from the person designed by God to instruct them in eternal truths; and so they are beautifully receptive to it.

Especially in this day and age when they’re bombarded with images to the contrary, it’s a actually relief for children and teenagers to be told that this is something they don’t have to worry about yet, that they can take their time and grow up; that physical intimacy is one of the goods of married people and until they are married they need not be concerned about it. They are free to wonder in innocence and look forward to something lovely and to in confidence move beyond the pervasive sexual pressure present in our society. (emphasis mine)

.

Frankly, I think Mary has been parenting with a bucket on her head if she thinks she can just allude to some rather pleasant "procreative act" and leave her teenaged children to a sort of pre-Christmas blissful ignorance. Heaven help the poor kids if they visit a farm, pick up a book from the library (or the bookshelf - Dr. Dobson's book for adolescents anyone?), or spend a couple hours walking around the mall. Regrettably, we live in a highly sexualized culture, but we can't just wish it away. While I think that telling kids sex isn't something they shouldn't really be thinking about (ie concerned with) for a few years it probably good encouragement, I think that discussion should be framed with the understanding that kids will get as much information as they want (and is appropriate) from their parents. An older woman I know once told me she thought a girl could get pregnant if she was wearing a swimsuit and sitting next to boy also wearing a swimsuit. We hear stuff like that and laugh, but I'm sure it probably caused more than a little unnecessary anxiety on her part.

I don't have kids yet, but I don't plan to let my daughters (and sons) wander around in an information vacuum. Kids are curious little buggers and will often keep asking questions until they get an answer. Be glad they're asking you and not running off to a librarian or the internet. I wasn't told more than the bare minimum (which I already knew thanks to the good doctor mentioned above), and when I looked for more information I didn't always find the good stuff. I'm not saying that you should sit your kids down for a full move by move discussion, but it should be more than "Tab A, Slot B, feels good, makes babies, but don't until you're married." Talk to them about temptation and chastity. Don't leave them vulnerable to someone who might prey on their ignorance. Give them a true innocence that sees the good in God's order and dismissed all mankind's perversions. And if you can't parent up and deal with a little embarrassment then at least find some Mother in Israel who can answer their questions and fears and desires with humor, dignity and wisdom. Heaven knows someone needs to do it.


P.S.

I find it hilarious that she refers to a "sacred" "procreative act." Sex might be all that, but it's not only that. There's a whole lot of warmth and humor and enthusiasm and just plain old play as well. Sex is a pretty boisterous part of life and not something you pack away in dried lavender along with your first locket and Nana's lace hankies.

Created to Be His Help Meet: Part 2 (Love that Man!)

Yes, I do realize that at this rate I'm probably going to be finishing up around Thanksgiving. Someone at this address doesn't handle stress or multitasking very well. Guess what skills I've been working on since we bought our new house? (Pictures are forthcoming. I promise.)

Chapter 16 is all about teaching younger women to love their husbands. It's a great chapter because in many ways Mrs. Pearl has a refreshingly frank and cheerful manner in discussing sexual relationships between husbands and wives, and it's great to hear a women teaching wives to be cheerful, enthusiastic, playful helpmeets in this area. Unfortunately it seems that no one remotely normal ever writes to Mrs. Pearl, and the the frequent lack of nuance in her replies does little to normalize the issue. While her overall point (sex is something that should a cheerful, frequent part of life with your husband) is good, some of the specifics are troubling or odd.

I found it rather interesting that Mrs. Pearl makes no provision for husbands and wives to discuss when they have sex beyond the husband saying, "How about now?" and wife responding, "Sounds great!" Although I think she's generally wise to challenge women to rethink their excuses for not having sex, I think there's really more to it than that. Perhaps this is a couple where the wife is consistently frustrated at being woken up either late at night or early in the morning and ten minutes of talking about when the baby needs to eat or how much sleep she needs to get before packing four lunch boxes (or perhaps whether lunch should be packed the night before) would resolve that little tangle and result in two well rested and satisfied people instead of one. There are ways of saying, "Hey did you remember I have to be up at 5:30" or "I'm feeling fat and grouchy and unattractive" that indicate one's desire to have a serving, willing heart and yet let the other person know that maybe planning to sleep late the next day would be more satisfactory. It's a heart issue that Mrs. Pearl doesn't address.

My critique at this point might sound a little more disjointed than usual because in the chapter more than ever it's in the corners and crannies that we find Mrs. Pearls idiosyncrasies. For instance, in several places (p 164,168) Mrs. Pearl refers to men's egos being entirely wrapped up in being a successful lover. As she puts it: "Making his wife feel glorious when he touches her in the ultimate test of his manhood --the very measure of the man" (p164). Really? I asked Allen and he agreed with me that this seemed sort of odd. She's essentially decreeing one relational mode for all men everywhere based on her observations. More a "citation needed" moment than anything. There's another one on page 169 where she says that all women have basically the same sex drives. Really? I've read more than one book about sex and marriage, and I never gotten the impression that sex drives were assigned by gender. (Newsflash: All women have lower sex drives than men is a myth.) The biggest "citation needed" blooper comes at the very end though where Mrs. Pearl says, "God always speaks first to the wife" (p172). Sometimes God works by having a wife submit to an ungodly husband, and sometimes it's a Godly husband who loves his ungodly wife. Having a submissive wife may help, but one could almost extrapolate that a man can't either love an unsubmissive wife or win a lost wife through loving her as God loves the church. Either one might be somewhat rare, but they are fully in accord with the narrative thrust of Scripture. Moving on.....

In addition a few odd, unsupported claims, towards the end Mrs. Pearl says that she doesn't want to hear all the reasons why women don't feel able to fully participate in sex --injuries during childbirth, menopause, sheer exhaustion from chasing five kids, etc. She tells women to stop the excuses and put out forth haste. Not bad general advice, but I'd feel a whole lot better if she had any practical suggestions (consulting healthcare professionals, counseling, a better sleeping schedule, more comfortable positions or times). All too often we hear of women struggling not only with their own sexual dysfunction but with deep shame and even callous or disbelieving medical professionals. How much better at this point if Mrs. Pearl had taken time to reiterate to these women the importance of sexual intimacy to their husbands and brainstorm some ways wives can help maintain that intimacy as they seek more permanent healing. However that (as I have noted before) would require nuance :)

Next time: Wives - love ya kids! (Assuming you have kids. And I'm just realizing that I don't think Mrs. Pearl mentions infertility once in this book. Not that she necessarily should have. Just a realization.)