Let's talk about fetishes.
(Stick with me, this will make sense).
I've been thinking about these texts Rebekah drew on for how some Christian circles traditionalist/patriarchal womanhood and how this combines with leaders in Christian positions being shocked when girls raised in
these systems don't exhibit the same agency and maturity as girls who don't come from these systems - ie, not strenuously resisting coercion and abuse from male leaders.
So I am a big fan of advice columns. They make me laugh a lot. One of my favorite genres of advice column
is the Guy Who Got More Than He Bargained For regarding some boneheaded idea he got from a fantasy. Basically, a guy begs his wife or girlfriend for years for some extreme sex act - watching another guy have sex with her, or a three way, or an open relationship for both of
them. She says no but the guy is all ramped up on p*rn and his fantasies and thinks it's going to be great, and finally one day he convinces her to go along with it. She does, and it turns out the fantasy doesn't translate to reality. Either he realizes that being in an open
marriage isn't nearly as exciting as he thought it would be, or he realizes he's jealous, or an experience that looked really cool online is not what he thought it would be in reality.
Anyway, makes me laugh.
So this brings me to Rebekah and the way she notices, I think that
a lot of "trad wife" material even in explicitly theological circles looks pretty fetishy. What if women were super open and agreeable?! What if they never said no to anything?! What if they were so innocent and virginal they didn't kiss until their wedding days?! Or know what
sex was until their wedding night?! What if they were just constantly agreeable little girls who would do whatever we told them, but never threatened us because they never asked for anything and never had any desires of their own?!
Wouldn't it be cool if women were like this?!
This is a fetish talking. It's not real life.
But I think the guys at Moscow made their fetishes real life. And they found out, like many men before them who sobered up real fast the fantasy became reality, that making your fetish real isn't as cool as it sounds.
If you read Emilie Dye's full blog article you'll find that, at age 18-19, she didn't know what sex was, she had no concept of consent or saying no to men, she didn't know the names for private parts, and she didn't understand ejaculation. For men who fetishize virginity and
girlishness, she was what this community was trying to produce.
But then the sobering-up moment (remember that these movements aren't that old! A lot of these trad communities were started in the 80s and 90s! They don't have long track records!) is when this 18 year
old completely shocked the men around her by not acting like the real live girls they grew up with and remembered from their own teenage years - girls who actually will blow you off or say "Not if you don't have a condom" or "ew, you're old."
The reality is, the fetish of the girl who never says no and doesn't know anything about sex isn't as cool in real life, because one of the guys around you who shares your fetish is going to take advantage of the situation, and now you have a problem on your hands.
So I think what I see Joe Rigby and Doug Wilson expressing now is the same feeling that guys in these advice columns have - "It wasn't ACTUALLY supposed to be like that! It wasn't like that in my head! I thought she'd snap out of it before there were consequences!"
Basically, it wasn't the way you imagined it in your fantasy. There actually is no such thing as a perfectly innocent, obedient girl who says no to everyone (but you), who knows nothing about sex but knows when to say no to it from everyone (but you), who trusts you completely
except when she's protecting you, who always follows except when she's mothering you, who always submits to you except when you need her to be in charge for a change.
That's not a real person. That's a fantasy. And trying to make it real is, in addition to being
gross, just not the way real life works.
*And I think it is important here to insist on novelty. There's a 0 percent chance my sheep-and-cow-breeding grandma didn't know what sex was when she was 18, or that my grandma who grew up working the counter at her parents' store didn't learn from her mother how to say
"your credit's no good here, and the price is firm."
This is an experiment with womanhood, not a return to form.
(Also the way these advice columns always work is that the guy with the boneheaded idea is mad at his wife for the fantasy not being as good in real life as he thought it would be. Same as these guys. "Why weren't you the thing I built up in my head?!")
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
So, some thoughts.
I appreciate that this literal camp of evangelicalism is fringe, but as often happens, the beliefs may not be.
The way too many churches are structured is that it’s both true that girls have to submit to their leaders and also outsmart them.
It’s both true that girls are supposed to obey right away, all the way, and cheerfully, that their feelings are supposed to be treated as unreliable, and their bodies belong to the church and not themselves - and that girls are supposed to know with no margin for error when to
not obey, when their feelings are reliable, and when they have bodily autonomy.
And girls are supposed to be able to outfox men who may be old enough to be their dads who will use those values against them, and they need to be able to do that before the age at
"Why are pro life policies so unpopular??"
So I'm just throwing this out there:
I know a lot of people who call themselves pro-life and think of this posture as part of a larger value system based on human life and peacekeeping. They're invested in fighting
poverty and violence. They're committed to justice and equity. Their concern for humans doesn't evaporate the second a human is revealed to be breathing. They don't giggle and sneer at murdered kids and injured women. They don't accept that things like food and housing and
education should be withheld for everyone who hasn't proved that they deserve it ("deserving," of course, meaning "rich"). They're not stupid, cruel, dishonest, and vulgar. They don't pander to people who share these significant defects with them.
This is for sure the one that will get me cancelled.
The unstructured nature of college time can encourage isolation, apathy, and lethargy in students and creates circumstances where depression breeds like rabbits.
A nurturing prof should be careful being too lenient with
deadlines and attendance -- not because students need to toughen up and learn to live in the real world, but because a depressed student who has nothing to do and nowhere to be is now an extremely depressed student.
I shifted pretty quickly from "take an extra day" to "can you give me the first two pages on the deadline" when I was teaching, because I realized pretty quickly that my students were drifting towards sitting in holes and I was just giving them shovels.
So, so we're clear about some stuff:
If you are insisting that your argument is not bigoted because you're not attacking X group (nationality, race, etc) but only an ideology or behavior that is sometimes associated with that -- but you use the word for the ideology or behavior
the same way you'd use the word for the group -- you don't get credits for nuance, that's just weasel words.
For instance:
If you say things like "I'm not saying we should just kill Palestinians, it's about defeating terrorists!" but all context clues indicate you actually
think "lives in Palestine" is a good definition of "terrorist" and you don't make any meaningful, actionable distinction between "a Palestinian who is a terrorist" and "one who isn't," then you actually are just using euphemisms to cover up what you really mean.
I really have had it up to here with evangelical Christians gasping at what an exclusive and exacting religion Islam is, in between rounds of trying to stop adults from reading books or watching shows they don't like.
I lived with a Muslim lady for years. You know which one
of us had people in her life worried about being exposed to a person of another religion? Not her! Nope, it was the evangelical Christian set from my side that was worried.
Now that I work in the public sector, you know who wants their own schools where other religions can't
come, or wants their beliefs to be taught by the state to people who don't believe what they do? It's not the Muslims!
You know who got mad about charitable treatment of other religions when I taught World Religions? Still wasn't Muslims.
Okay, so, we really need to be over this kind of baby’s first religious discourse by now.
If you look at the NT you will find texts that are virulently antisemitic. If you look at the Talmud you will find texts that are anti gentile. If you look at the Quran you will find texts
that are anti polytheist.
Religious practice is more and more diverse than any scriptural text. There is no “real violent Islamic straight out of the book” for the same reason you would understandably be annoyed with someone opening up to Matthew and saying that
a Christian who isn’t antisemitic isn’t actually a Christian or is somehow getting one over on you.