Words Cannot Describe This

Ah Japan, land of cherry blossoms and abominations.

EMB: Fictional Addiction

Every Man's Battle: ch 3, pp 25-33

You know, it's been a long time I've subjected myself to Fred Stoeker's projections. Don't want to fall behind.

What about you? Maybe it's true that when you and a woman reach a door simultaneously, you wait to let her go first, but not out of honor. You want to follow her up the stairs and look her over.

I'm getting really sick of this, Fred, your projections and assumptions about people who don't share your "values". I'll have you know that when a woman and I reach a door at the same time, I dart in ahead of her, slam the door in her face, then turn around and laugh at her pain.

Maybe you've driven your rental car to the parking lot of a local gym between appointments, watching scantily-clad women bouncing in and out, fantasizing and lusting -even masturbating- in the car.

Wow, when Fred pulls shit out of his ass about people he has never met he sure goes into detail. Notice how it's not just a car the reader is masturbating in, it's a rental car, why not describe the make and paint-job while your at it.

Now, I happen to live close to a women's gym, and I just gotta say that ladies going in and out of the building isn't quite the nut-buster that Fred here makes it out to be.

Maybe you can't stay away from Sixth Avenue, where the prostitutes ply their trade. Not that you'd ever hire one.

I only go to Sixth Avenue to visit your mother, Fred. And yes, I am not above making a "yo mama" joke.

He just goes on and on like this.

You're still teaching Sunday school,

No.

still singing in the choir,

No.

still supporting your family. You've been faithful to your wife... well, at least you haven't had a physical affair.

I'm single. Odd how Freddy's definition of "every man" is rather narrow.

People look to me as an example, you reason. I'm okay.

Yet privately, your conscience dims until you can't quite tell what's right or wrong anymore, watching things like Forrest Gump without noticing the sexuality. You're choking in the sexual prison you've made, wondering where the promises of God have gone. You spin in the same sinful cycles, year after year.

That's right, folks. people who watch movies like Forrest Gump and focus on things like "plot," "story," and "characters" are "choking in a sexual prison".

And of course, it takes someone with a non-dimmed conscience to sell anti-masturbation books to churches so they can send them to soldiers in a time of war.

And nagging you is the worship, the prayer times. The distance, always the distance from God.

Let me get that for you.

And nagging you is the worship, the prayer times. The distance, always the distance from God a sexually repressed stockbroker with father-issues turned self-admitted un-credentialed sexpert and bestselling Christian author and an opportunistic evangelical John Norman/Dr Phil-wannabe who both project their own hangups onto others.

Fixed.

Meanwhile, your sexual sin remains so consistent you can set your watch by it.

I'd better be finishing up this entry soon, it's already quarter to onanism.

Fred then tells us two more stories of men "trapped in bondage", one about a guy named Sid who peeps at his next-door neighbor while she sunbathes ("She's so sexy I can hardly stand it, and I masturbate every day I see her") and this one, which in my mind stands out significantly:

Rick, for instance, walks down the hall at breaktime just to glance through the doors of another office, where a bosomy secretary answers phones and directs clients. "Every day at 9:30, I wave at her and she smiles back," he says wistfully. "She's beautiful, and her clothes -let's just say they really accentuate her best features. I don't know her name, but I'm actually depressed when she's absent from work."

Fred doesn't tell us whether or not Rick is married,* which I believe is very important. If Rick here is single, then it shows Fred's attitude towards not only sexuality separate from relationship (masturbation, ect.) but also the attraction itself. You know, that feeling some of your readers got when you first saw your spouse or boyfriend/girlfriend.

On the other hand, if Rick is married, then Fred Stoker is a poor writer and expects us to understand that Rick is "lurking at the door" of adultery when he has given us absolutely no reason to believe that Rick is married (and Mike Yorkey a poor editor for failing to point this out to Fred and Steve).

Fred and Steve then offer us a two-part test for sexual addiction. The first part is to see if you are "lurking at the door of sexual addiction" Let's begin, shall we?

1. Do you lock on when an attractive woman comes near you?

All you gay guys out there, don't worry, you're in the clear. And Fred & Steve, just so you guys know, it's rude to stare.

2. Do you masturbate to images of other women?

If I masturbated to images of other women, I'd be a lesbian.

3. Have you found your wife to be less sexually satisfying?

4. Are you holding a grudge against your wife - a grudge that gives you a sense of entitlement?

I don't see how much that these would lead to sexual-addiction as much as simply wanting to try new things in bed, marriage problems, or perhaps an affair. A sex-addict may cheat on his/her spouse, but not all who cheat are sex-addicts.

5. Do you seek out sexually arousing articles in photo spreads in newspapers and magazines?

Steve, Steve, Steve. Your book provides me with my spank-bait.

6. Do you have a private place or secret compartment that you keep hidden from your wife?

She will never find my precious timbits.

Kind of a vague question, don't you think? We don't even know if the "secret compartment" Steve is talking about is literal (like a drawer in a desk) or metaphorical (and if it is, then it's practically the same question as #8).

7. Do you look forward to going away on a business trip?

8. Do you have behaviors that you cannot share with your wife?

I have trouble understanding these questions, can you please make them even more vague so that it can be easier for me to partake in dangerous practice of self-diagnosis.

And the question about "behaviors you cannot share with your wife", doesn't that depend a lot on what exactly these behaviors are as well as what kind of person your wife is? Seriously, what is this? A magazine quiz?

9. Do you frequent porn-related sites on the internet.

Wow, an actual sex-related question on this borderline-sex-addiction test. I thought it would be a long time before I saw another one of those.

Yes, I do frequent porn-related sites on the internet. I started reading Amber Rhea's blog (she often writes about porn and other sex/feminism related issues) after discovering her critical and humorous review of Every Young Man's Battle. From her site I discovered Renegade Evolution's blog, which I read because I find the thoughts of a woman unapologetically working in the porn-industry about the anti-porn movement and the industry itself rather interesting. And then there's Bound Not Gagged, a blog on issues pertaining to sex-worker rights.** And Fred & Steve, if either of you two are reading this, don't click that last link there, I don't want you to ruin your precious purity by reading dirty things like "Sex Work, Trafficking, and Human Rights: A Public Forum".

Also keep in mind that "porn-related" is a rather large umbrella term that XXXchurch, Pureonline (the website of the guy who implied that my sister is a slut), and the authors' own websites can fall under as well.

10. Do you watch R-rated movies, sexy videos, or the steamy VH1 channel for gratification?

Fred & Steve then provide us with a shorter test to see if we already are sex-addicts.

1. Do you watch pay-per-view sexually explicit TV channels at home or on the road?
2. Do you purchase pornography on the internet?
3. Do you rent adult movies?
4. Do you watch nude dancing?
5. Do you call 900-numbers to have phone-sex?
6. Do you practice voyeurism?

If you said yes to the last six questions, you very well could be sexually addicted.

What Fred and Steve do here is basically ask the same question five times in a row: "Do you use pornography and/or partake in other forms of erotic entertainment?" Six times if by "voyeurism" they are referring to consensual mixoscopia ("a paraphilia in which gratification is obtained by the sight of the object of one's desire engaged in sexual intercourse with another") rather than compulsive "peeping" without consent.

Also notice how Fred and Steve don't take into account factors like compulsion, desire to stop/continue these actions (although since the reader is reading a Christian book on "winning the war on sexual temptation" it could be argued that the reader's desire to stop these actions is assumed) and whether or not the reader harming his relationships by doing these things (i.e: a man ignoring his wife and using pornography vs. a couple who watch porn together).

Steve the tells us that those who feel they suffer from sexual addiction that they can call1-800-NEW-LIFE (639-5433)*** to be talked into shelling out $1,175 to attend a weekend workshop receive over-the-phone counseling.

Steve then talks to us about the characteristics of "addictive" sex, referencing his other book: Addicted to Love.

Before we go further, I need to make the point that it it's easy to confuse normal sexual desire and conduct with addictive compulsions and gratification. A person can have a stronger-than normal sexual appetite and not be a sex-addict.

• Addictive sex is done in isolation and devoid of relationship. This doesn't necessarily mean it's done while physically alone. Rather it means that mentally the addict is detached, or isolated, from human relationship and contact. Addictive sex is "mere sex," sex for its own sake, sex divorced from authentic interactions of persons. This is most clear regarding fantasy, pornography, and masturbation. But even regarding sex involving a partner, the partner really isn't a person but a cipher, an interchangeable part in am impersonal -almost mechanical- process. The most intimately personal of human behaviors becomes utterly impersonal.

Funny I thought addictive sex was, y'know, addictive. Believe it or not, Steve, but something being "impersonal" does not make it an addiction. Masturbation is actually quite healthy (Seriously Steve, I'm sure that one of the sex-therapists you cons... oh wait, you didn't consult any sex-therapists or sexology-trained marriage counselors before writing your book, just some pastors, James "Absolute Truth" Dobson, and your ass) and can even reduce the risk of prostate cancer.

• Addictive sex is secretive. In effect, sex addicts develop a double life, practicing masturbation, going to porn shops and massage parlors, all the while hiding what they do from others -and in a sense, even from themselves.

I hope this doesn't come as a surprise to you, Steve, but a lot of sex is, to various extents, secretive. I guess whenever Steve would send his daughter to her grandparents for the weekend he would tell his little-girl that he wanted a chance to actually fuck her mother and not merely "spend some time alone"? Oh well, I guess if I masturbate on a park bench I'm in the clear, eh?

Also note how culturally dependent this criteria is. A young man in Holland may masturbate just as often as a teenage pastor's son in the Bible-belt. However, the European lad, when asked, will feel no need to deny that he masturbates while the American fundamentalist minister's son is more likely to lie. This is because Dutch culture is more sexually open than American culture (yet has a lower teen-pregnancy, std, and abortion rates) and the subculture the pastor's kid was raised in treats that act as shameful. Likewise, many years ago it was considered shameful even for married couples to partake in oral sex. Now it's often taken for granted.

It is because of vague and arbitrary criteria like this being used to diagnose sex-addicts that there is controversy in the psychological and sexual-health community as to whether or not sexual addiction even exists.

• Addictive sex is devoid of intimacy. Sex addicts are utterly self-focused. They cannot achieve genuine intimacy because their self-obsession leaves no room for giving to others.

Here we see the one word that appears throughout the many of the Every Man books, especially this one. Thanks to EMB I cannot hear or read that word without cringing. That word is "intimacy."

According to dictionary.com, "intimacy" is defined as:

1. the state of being intimate.
2. a close, familiar, and usually affectionate or loving personal relationship with another person or group.
3. a close association with or detailed knowledge or deep understanding of a place, subject, period of history, etc.: an intimacy with Japan.
4. an act or expression serving as a token of familiarity, affection, or the like: to allow the intimacy of using first names.
5. an amorously familiar act; liberty.
6. sexual intercourse.
7. the quality of being comfortable, warm, or familiar: the intimacy of the room.
8. privacy, esp. as suitable to the telling of a secret: in the intimacy of his studio.
   

However, when reading EMB, it appears that "intimacy" differs from these definitions in that it can apparently be destroyed by touching one's wiener, having premarital sex, and watching Forrest Gump. When this word appears in EMB it doesn't seem to have a fixed meaning. At some points it appears to mean something like "trust" and there's even a point in the book where it appears to mean something along the lines of "stimulation" or "arousal" (EMB pg 114-115). In Every Man's Marriage the term is described as being synonymous with "oneness" which is in turn defined as being "every woman's desire".

Why yes, it is like they took a book on relationships, shook it up, poured the words into a hat, then reached their arm in and grabbed out a handful.

• Addictive sex is victimizing. The overwhelming obsession with self-gratification blinds sex addicts to the harmful effect their behavior is having on others and themselves.
• Addictive sex ends in despair. When married couples make love, they're more fulfilled for having had the experience. Addictive sex leaves the participants feeling guilty, regretting the experience.
  

Note how they snuck in the "married" there. There are also unmarried couples who are also "more fulfilled for having the experience" of making love.

Though I do agree here with Steve that sex that is victimizing and ends in regret is a bad thing (I also believe that fondue that is victimizing and ends in regret is a bad thing) I must say that even though victimization and despair do often accompany addiction, it is not regretting an action that in and of itself marks something as addictive, it is the inability to stop. Even Dr Patrick Carnes acknowledges this (Out of Shadows pg 34-35):

When discussing sexual addiction, it is necessary to recognize that not everyone who has a regrettable sexual experience is an addict. There are people who have regrets over specific events, realizing that their sexual behavior on a given occasion was not in their best interest. They add it to their experience and simply do not repeat it. There are numbers of people who have occasionally abused their sexuality. Going on a sexual binge, for example, might occur after graduation or in retaliation to a lover's indiscretion.

There are also those who have episodes of compulsivity. Those who study middle-age transition, the famous "middlescence", note that sexual bingeing can occur at that time. It is also often seen as a postdivorce pattern. The divorced person, who is suddenly free from marital obligations, may experiment to excess.

Back to EMB:

• Addictive sex is used to escape pain and problems. The escapist nature of addictive sex is often one of the clearest indications it is present.

"So be sure that you have solved all your problems and are not in emotional pain of any kind before you engage in intercourse, 'kay." But seriously, if sex is used as a way to avoid one's problems, then one does need help, much like one who uses food to avoid facing one's problems.

Fred Stoker tells us about when he suspected that he suffered from "sexual addiction", describing it as feeling like he had "athlete's foot of the mind".

But did I qualify as an "addict"?

When I read one author's description of a four-step addiction cycle -preoccupation, ritualization, compulsive sexual behavior, then despair- I knew I'd lived that pattern. I was certain that what I'd experienced, and what these other men had experienced, was addiction.

But a thunderbolt hit me when the author outlined the three levels of addiction (keep in mind that this wasn't a Christian book):

I like how right here he practically implies what I've been saying all along: that "Christian books" are often notoriously unreliable pieces of crap filled with inaccurate information either due to their authors' ignorance and unwillingness to do research and/or a willingness to deceive others if it helps their pet causes.

Anyhoo, on to the list:

Level 1: Contains behaviors that are regarded as normal, acceptable, or tolerable. Examples include masturbation, homosexuality, and prostitution.

Level 2: Behaviors that are clearly victimizing and for which legal sanctions are enforced. These are generally seen as nuisance offenses, such as exhibitionism or voyeurism.

Level 3: Behaviors that have grave consequences for the victims and legal consequences for the addicts, such as incest, child molestation, or rape.

Did you read that list closely? Did you notice that not just masturbation, which most men practice at times, but also homosexuality and prostitution.

Here we see Fred Stoeker "cite" the work of sex-addiction counselor Dr Patrick Carnes. I put the word "cite" in quotation marks because at no place in this book does Fred Stoeker or Steve Arterburn provide us with the page number, book title, or even the author of this list. Even the expression "athlete's foot of the mind" comes from that book.

I don't believe it! The authors of Every Man's Battle have less respect for their readers than I do!

These "three levels of sexual addiction" are from pages 26-51 of the first edition of Carnes' Out of Shadows: Understanding Sexual Addiction, published in 1985.**** I know this because Dr Anne Wilson Schaef references and cites this list on page 12 of Escape from Intimacy.

And if that's not bad enough, they even got level 1 wrong. From what Fred Stoeker has written, it would appear that Dr Carnes (or as Fred here would prefer you to call him, Mr Notachristian Bookauthor) believes the presence of masturbation itself as a sign of harmful addiction. However, as shown earlier, Dr Carnes does not view masturbation itself as unhealthy (Out of Shadows pp 38-39):

Masturbation is an essential part of being a sexual person. Nurturing oneself, exploring sexual needs and fantasies, and establishing a basic self-knowledge are vital contributions that masturbation makes to sexual identity. As sexual therapists are keenly aware, without these factors it is more difficult to have a vital sexual relationship. In fact, for people who suffer from sexual dysfunction, therapy often involves a careful rebuilding of a patients attitudes and beliefs around masturbation.

And as for homosexuality, while in the first edition of his book he does list homosexuality as part of level one addiction, he has removed it from later editions of his book. In fact, one book edited by Carnes warns of the how dangerous it is for someone undergoing therapy to treat their orientation as the problem. Not only that, but homosexuality was taken out of the Diagnostic and Statistic Manual of Mental Disorders in 1973, so in a way Carnes was a bit slow.

Hey Fred, you talk big game about sexual integrity, how 'bout you practice some writing-integrity. Even when you're "pure" you're still a big sleaze.

If that weren't bad enough, Carnes' sexual-addiction screening test has come under criticism by sex and relationship psychologist Dr Petra Boyton and marriage counselor/sex therapist Dr Marty Klein for having numerous flaws that could lead to misdiagnosis, resulting in people either receiving "treatment" they don't need or people who need special treatment not getting it. Klein happens to be one of the most vocal critics of that model of treatment, criticizing it for reasons including the following:

• That it results in increasing numbers of people self-diagnosing and non-sexology-trained individuals providing treatment for sexual problems.
• That, due to it's reliance on the "12 steps", it sees "powerlessness" as a virtue.
• That it prevents helpful analysis by patients and therapists.
• That it allows people to "split" the less socially acceptable aspects of their sexuality, blocking adult functioning.
• That it pathologizes what is within reasonable limits of sexual behavior.
• That it doesn't teach sexual decision-making skills.
  

Then comes the part where Steve reveals to us that he owns a fair-sized piece of real-estate in a little place called Quackland:

From our Christian perspective, lets insert another level at the bottom of the addiction scale.

I like how he thinks that merely having a "Christian perspective" allows you to effectively insert levels on a list of sexual addiction screening criteria that is already criticized by those in the sex and psychiatric therapy communities.

From our Cynical perspective, let's insert a boot in Steve's ass.

If we categorized being totally pure and holy as the zero level, most Christian men we know would fall somewhere between Level 0 and Level 1.

Fred and Steve's adding the "zero level" -which apparently equals "holiness" (and all this time I thought it was a theological concept and not a level on an addiction scale)- allows them to pathologize any sexual activity that they perceive as sinful, which by the way even includes -as Jeff Sharlet points out- involuntary erotic dreams.

"Your goal is sexual purity," write Stephen Arterburn and Fred Stoeker. "You are sexually pure when no sexual gratification comes from anyone or anything but your wife." To achieve this, they argue, men must go to a kind of war. Citing Dobson, they note the "fact" that men experience a buildup of sperm demanding "release" approximately every seventy-two hours. For single men, wet dreams, if purged of sexual imagery, can act as "God's natural release valve." (Arterburn and Stoeker believe you can actually train yourself to remove the lust from such dreams.)

(Emphasis mine).

Back to Steve:

If your one of the many men in this area, it isn't at all helpful to label you as an "addict" or to simply imply that victory will take years of therapy.

Oh well, that won't stop you from pathologizing it anyway.

Wait, I'm confused. Earlier you guys said that "I" was "trapped in bondage" and masturbating in a rental car outside a women's gym, yet "I" don't need therapy?

Note how here Steve taps into the fear and stigma our society exhibits with regards to therapy (that it will take "years of therapy"), especially with regards to issues regarding sexuality. It is here where Steve attempts to dissuade the reader from attempting to acquire professional help from a secular psychiatrist and/or sex therapist (y'know, someone who isn't trying to sell them a music CD or a Mediterranean Cruise) because that might result in -heaven forbid- not viewing sexual desire in and of itself as sinful.

Instead, victory can be measured in weeks, as we'll describe later.

"After a few short weeks you'll be as pure as Freddy here, who went from being a douchebag with a life-consuming obsession with sex to, well, a douchebag with a life-consuming obsession with sex."

Your "addictive" behaviors are not rooted in some deep, dark, shadowy mental maze, as they are in levels 1, 2, and 3. Rather, they're based on pleasure highs. Men receive a chemical high from sexually charged images -a hormone called epinephrine is secreted into the bloodstream, which locks into memory whatever stimulus is present at the time of the emotional excitement.

What Steve doesn't tell you here is that epinephrine goes by another name, adrenaline. Y'know, before I read this book I had no idea that riding a roller-coaster or bungee-jumping could be an erotic experience. What Steve just described here not only happens when you read a nudie-mag, but also when you play an fast-paced videogame, watch a horror flick, or even walk by a large barking dog.

If this overly simplistic presentation of arousal wasn't bad enough, check this out. Steve goes on to say that "the vast majority of men stuck in sexual sin are living between level 0 and level 1" in something called a "fractional addiction" because, unlike women, men can be interested in sex without being molested as children and/or having poor relationships with their dads.

Another way to look at the problem is to picture a bell curve. According to our experiences, we figure around 10 percent of men have no sexual-temptation problem with their eyes and mind. At the other end of the curve, we figure there's another 10 percent of men who are sexual addicts and have a serious problem with lust. They've been so beaten and scarred by emotional events that they simply can't overcome that sin in their lives. They need more counseling and transforming washing by the Word. The rest of us compromise the middle 80 percent, living in various shades of gray when it comes to sexual sin.

(Emphasis mine).

"According to our experiences"? Dear God! This guy provides counseling to people and right here he practically admits that he's pulling statistics out of his ass to bolster his position.

I gotta admit, Steve here has stumbled onto the perfect system. Not only does Steve condemn sexuality that goes outside the limits of his purity code, he also pathologizes it. Whereas before it was just "sin" (by his fundamentalist interpretation of scripture), now it is "sickness". And now that it is sickness, a "fractional addiction" (because it's not like there is a natural sex-drive or anything), Stevie here can charge for "treatment" of not only porn usage, but masturbation and involuntary erotic dreams. That's right, folks. Steve Arterburn is a man who has found out how to sell "holiness" (as defined in a purely anti-sexual sense).

However, from what we see next it appears that Stevie here may indeed be huffing his own jenkem. Steve goes on to tell us about how, as a child at the ages of four and five, he would go into his grandfather's machine shop in Ranger, Texas and see the pinups his grandfather hung on the wall. This apparently made him be a dick to women later in life. Don't ask how, it just did.

As I grew older, I saw women more as objects than people who had feelings. Pornography became for me an enticement to forbidden love. Many young women I dated in high school and college were and sexually pure stayed sexually pure when we dated, but I was always manipulating and conniving, going for what was forbidden.

Sure is nice that porn was there for you to have something to blame your being an self-centered, inconsiderate ass-hat on.

I later tasted the forbidden fruit when I entered the promiscuous period of my life. When I did have premarital sex, it gave me a sense of control and ownership, as if these young women belonged to me.

Good thing Steve has long since left his "women are property" mindset behind him. Wait, nevermind.

One thing that disturbs me about Every Man's Battle is how the authors are so focused on their own little worlds that they can't really understand people thinking and act differently than them. Earlier we saw Freddy flip out over Forrest Gump because he can't wrap his mind around the fact that some guys -heck, most guys, no wait, almost all guys- can watch the movie without popping a chubby for Forrest's mom (and thereby destroy their marriages). Here we see Steve imply that since when he engaged in premarital sex he was a manipulative, self-centered douchebag all men who engage in premarital sex are manipulative, self-centered douchebags. In Steve's world there are no responsible, consenting adults in love who, after waiting until they believe they are good and ready, decide as a couple to have sex. Heck, judging from what he and Shannon Ethridge wrote in Every Young Woman's Battle, Steve here can't really wrap his mind around the reasons why some couples practice cohabitation (as Amber Rhea said: "Surely our esteemed and holy authors are not so naïve to think that you can't fuck unless you have the same mailing address").

If reading that has made you depressed, have no fear. Steve will now cheer us up by giving us something to laugh at: his marriage with Sandy.

When I met Sandy, we made a commitment not to have sex before we were married, and we didn't. I didn't tell her about my past, however, nor did I disclose all those secret compartments named Past Relationships or Promiscuity. As a result, I dragged my past into our marriage, which produced problems, just as she dragged her own set of problems into our martial union. Our marriage almost didn't survive those first few tumultuous years.

True, it fell apart years later, sometime after writing this book. I guess it takes more than prudery, repression, projection, sex/gender-stereotypes, platitudes, decontextualized Bible-verses, war analogies, duty-sex, and stupid "what part of this book do you feel helped you the most?"-style workbook questions to save a marriage. Oh well, third time's the charm, eh Steve.

One of my pet-peeves about the sexual purity movement in modern evangelicalism (and more explicitly these quack "Christian counseling" circles) is the notion that a person, by having engaged in premarital sexual activity (in and of itself), has doomed themselves to horrible consequences when they do end up with the one God has "specially chosen" for them because -thanks to that incredibly awesome wild kinky erotic super mega carnal sinful sex they were having before- they will never be satisfied with the the oh-so mediocre lovemaking skills of their spouse. If these people had any consistency widows and widowers would be equally regarded as tainted.

"You slept with your late husband before he died in that car-accident. Oh dear, you've made it so difficult for you to experience true intimacy with your current husband by carelessly throwing away the precious gift of your virginity to a man God did not choose to be your second husband. The marriage bed has been defiled. If you have any memories of times you made love or ever think of him again you will not only be committing adultery, but also spiritual-necrophilia in the eyes of the Lord."

This is why we have bullshit like people "reclaiming" their virginity so they have "something" special to "give" their spouse on their wedding night. If you're not a virgin and are going to abstain, then abstain away, but don't say you're a virgin because you went through a workbook and your youth pastor gave you a piece of tacky jewelry.

Which brings me to what Steve said. What I see in what Steve's has told his readers is not so much a marriage almost destroyed by "impurity" (defined here as sexual activity outside of marriage), but a marriage almost (well, eventually I suppose) destroyed by "purity."

Allow me to explain. I believe what Fred did was wrong. He should not have lied about his past relationships to Sandy, and he definitely should not have selfishly manipulated women to get them in the sack. However (keep in mind I am not defending him) why would Steve lie to Sandy about his sexual history? He slept with those women before he met her, and why marry someone if you can't share your life with them?

My two cents on the subject is this: Steve lied because he was ashamed, but ashamed about what? Was it how he had manipulated and deceived people in past relationships (that I find understandable) or was it simply that he was involved in previous sexual relationships before meeting his wife? Due to his specific mention of "Past relationships and Promiscuity" that appears to be the case.

But then again, why be ashamed? Because in the world of the "pure" a person who has already had sex is worth less as a partner than someone who is "pure". To the "pure" a person who has had any sexual relationships before marriage is a "poorly wrapped, saliva-fouled sucker."

One of the things I hate about the world is how we believe we have to trick people into loving and accepting us. One thing I hate even worse is that the evangelical culture of sexual-obsession, which many call "purity", is how it perpetuates this kind of thinking, which is contrary to the very Gospel itself.

That's the great thing about the Gospel, Jesus doesn't give a fuck if you know your way around a dick or a pussy. Hell, Jesus said that prostitutes will inherit the kingdom of God ahead of the "pure" teachers of the law, not "prostitutes who have reclaimed their virginity because if they don't they won't be able to have the precious intimacy with their future husbands." But the Purity Pimps want you to forget that, as we will see next time when Fred and Steve will tell us about "The Heart of a Woman".

----------------------

*A married "Ricky" is mentioned in Every Man's Marriage. I don't know if Fred is referring to the same guy or simply uses the same fake-names at random to protect people's-confidentiality.

**Man it's weird how much I've changed since I first started working on this series. Perhaps I should send Fred and Steve an email and tell them how much their book has "helped" me. ;-)

***That phone number is for serious New-Life counseling for people who have threatened their marriages by watching Forrest Gump. It would make me very upset if I found out that any of my readers made a prank phonecall to that number-



-without recording it and uploading it to youtube.

****I feel that now is a good time to point out that my copy of Out of Shadows is the third edition so all the references I make to Out of Shadows are to that book.

Sorry for the Lack of Recent Updates, So Here's Some Filler From Youtube

Sorry, I haven't been able to update as often as I wanted to this month. I got a huge Every Man's Battle entry in the wings that I am currently putting the finishing touches on (I am not worthy to lick the boots of Fred "Left Behind Fridays" Clark). To tide you over here are a couple of vids I found on Youtube.

Sarah Silverman is a comedy goddess, and Jimmy Kimmel is pretty darn hilarious himself.

The Lying Video-Game Hating Turd

I was reading Penny Arcade a while back and came across this entry by Tycho:

On Monday, I mentioned an article by the irrelevant Kevin McCullough entitled "The 'Sex-Box' Race For President," a poorly titled, poorly sourced, and generally just poor piece of journalism. As the game has now been available for months without attracting his attention, I can only assume that his flailing response was based on this other report, itself already far removed from Mass Effect, the game which is ostensibly being described.

...

After breathless prose in the original piece about orgies and sodomy, acts which are manifested nowhere in the product he's discussing, he literally begins to fantasize in the body of the text about a machine that can rape people - and rape them "orgasmically" - at a distance. He does not warrant our time, but I will speak in the clear manner that one must when managing animals: these things are not simulated by this or any other piece of entertainment software available at retail. Indeed, it was precisely the lack of sodomy that created a stir before release.

What, then, is the source of this imagery? To find it, you must drill deep down through the artifice and find the undulating reservoir of sexual fetish that boils beneath. This scheming, grotesque caricature of a "concerned citizen" is about as transparent as it gets.

This sparked my interest and I decided to check out McCullough's article over at Townhall.com ("where your opinion counts" and not facts) and this is what I found:

It's called "Mass Effect" and it allows its players - universally male no doubt - to engage in the most realistic sex acts ever conceived. One can custom design the shape, form, bodies, race, hair style, breast size of the images they wish to "engage" and then watch in crystal clear, LCD, 54 inch screen, HD clarity as the video game "persons" hump in every form, format, multiple, gender-oriented possibility they can think of.

The objections to such filth should be simple to understand.

Starting with the disgusting idea that one can "create" their own versions of what people look like, removing warts, moles, and bald spots while enhancing - shall we say - the extended features of the game's characters tends to objectify women, sex, and human relationships. Right? We can all agree on this?

Then there's the dishonesty behind the game' title. "Mass Effect" sounds like a war game with a deadly virus that is spreading unless the GI-Joes are able to defeat the evil and deadly substance and it's covert war plan. By it's design, kids could ask for it, or for their parents' Best Buy Card to go purchase it with nary a raised eye-brow. Generic, non-descriptive, and relatively harmless.

But it IS marketed for the X-Box 360, perhaps the most visually stimulating gaming system ever made. The software for such allows the blending of DVD video, component graphics, and the manipulation of actual pictures so that an alternate reality engulfs the fifteen year old boy playing it without much objection.

Now if I have trouble with my son taking his James Bond 007 games a little too emotionally, imagine the powerful effect that hormones add to the mix when the player's own character is copulating like jack rabbits with super-models, actresses, and anyone else they can spend the patience to create, name, and "put into play."

...

I hear the nay-sayers claiming I'm being the wild and crazed Bible thumper I've always been - but its a worthwhile question isn't it?

If a pre-teen, teen, young adult, or adult male plays such a game in which the women DO submit without choice, are made to appear as Barbie streetwalkers, and perform whatever act can be imagined, what's to stop that same male from assuming that the women in his "other world" shouldn't be forced to do the same.

We now know because of the lengthy track record of serial killer after another that addictive use of pornography was prevalent in case after case - long before the switch got flipped and what their masturbatory imaginations have given into became what they were forcing real live human beings to do.

And because of the digital chip age in which we live - "Mass Effect" can be customized to sodomize whatever, whoever, however, the game player wishes.

With it's "over the net" capabilities virtual orgasmic rape is just the push of a button away.

Holy crap! Was Tycho ever right, even about McCullough's fucking Orgasmic Rape Machine fantasy! And looking at the follow-up on his blog (aptly titled Kevin McCullough Musclehead Revolution) it appears the prophecy in Tycho's comic has been fufilled.

Now keep in mind I haven't played Mass Effect (mainly because my PC is a piece of junk that I can barely get Resident Evil 4 to work on it) but Yahtzee, in his video-game review column Zero Punctuation, has.



What Yahtzee describes is a very dialogue-heavy RPG where you can choose your protagonist's hair and facial features -and, yes, even bust-size (but not the porn-star proportions that McCullough apparently has in mind here)- and a brief sex scene that can, if chosen, take place as part of the larger narrative. No "copulating like jack rabbits with super-models, actresses and anyone else they can spend the patience to create, name, and 'put into play'," no women that "submit without choice" and are "made to appear as Barbie streetwalkers, and perform whatever act can be imagined", but some very vanilla one-brief-glance-of-a-butt-cheek-and-sideboob sex in an M-rated (18+) game.

He's still living back in the past
a douchebag neo-con who sucks ass

He'd rather drink expired milk from a decomposing dead warthog's snout
than do the needed research to know what the hell he's talking about

He's most repressed prude you ever seen
fantasizing about an Orgasmic Rape Machine
Saying the craziest bullshit you've ever heard
He's The Lying, Video-Game Hating Turd*

To be fair, McCullough apologized. But my problem isn't with McCullough. There's more to it than that. McCullough's "review" reminded me of another criticism of the game by author and talk-show host Cooper Lawrence:



Notice how Lawrence admits to never having had played the game, yet that doesn't stop her from making assumptions (which in turn makes an ass out of her and, well, her) about how the game's protagonist is a man (you can choose your sex) and on how the game treats the female characters. Videogamers, observing her wisdom, reviewed her book on Amazon in a simmilar manner.

BTW, don't forget to LOL at the guy who openly admits to playing Princess Enchanted Brides, and the chick who wonders why the game didn't receive an "AO" rating (which is meant to keep people under the age of 18 from purchasing it) instead of its "M" rating (which is meant to keep people under the age of 18 from purchasing it)** and then goes on to pine for the long-lost days of "Atari and pinball and Pac-Man". Especially LOL at the guy at FOX who decided it would be a good idea to allow the most game-illiterate pundits ever to ask the question "where's the 'A' button?" to comment on a videogame-related story.

Anyway, back to what I was saying: The thing about "moral guardians of purity" like McCullough and Lawrence is that they are, well, immoral. When McCullough saw the youtube clips of the sex-scenes, he -as a journalist- could have done more research into it, represented it accurately, and then share his opinion on it. But he didn't, he made stuff up. And Lawrence based her judgement not on direct experience or even information from a credible source, but gossip. She was not speaking as an "expert" on Fox News, she was speaking as a gossip. The words of these two were slander (well, if it's in print it's libel, but you know what I mean).

And the real scary thing is that people actually listen to people who do this. Just toss in a "think of the children" and you got yourself an army of breeders ready to follow you to hell and back. This is what sleazeballs like James Dobson do. This is why you will find people that honestly beleive that gays actively conspire to recruit children and destroy families and that feminism turns women into lesbians (and on the other side of the coin, people who believe that the US gov't was behind 9/11).

Back to the videogame: So you can judge for yourselves, I present the three sex scenes from Mass Effect (NSFW):

• Guy-Shephard and Ashley Williams.
• A lucky private gets to serve "under" Commander Lady-Shephard.
• Yes, even the inter-species lesbian sex is vanilla.
  

--------------------------------------
*Poem parody of the intro song to The Angry Video-Game Nerd.

**EDIT: My bad, turns out an M-rated game is for 17+.

EMB: Storytime and Some Disorganized Ranting About Their Other Books

Every Man's Battle: ch 3, pp 23-25

Fred and Steve share the tragic stories of five men with us in order to warn us of the dangers of setting out to write a book on a subject when you have not done ample research and have to fill up empty space with several personal stories where only two or three would suffice.

Thad - a guy recovering from drug dependency at a local Christian ministry:

"I want to be free, but I'm becoming frustrated and angry with the church. The Bible says women should dress modestly, but they don't. The women soloists are always wearing the latest, tightest fashions. I look at them, but all I see are curves and legs. You know, that one who always wears the slit way up the thigh? That thigh flashes with every step she takes. I just get enraged! Why do they make it worse?"

I've got to start attending church more often. Now I just want to mention that Fred and Steve are a lot of things, but they are not inconsiderate male-chauvinist pigs who place 100% of the blame on women wearing immodest clothing. I mean, just look at what he wrote about the Rebelution Modesty Survey:

Who can blame the girl who throws up her hands and snaps, I’m through worrying about this modesty thing! Their eyes are their problem, not mine! I certainly can’t blame them as long as we are being so lazy about it ourselves. We must take care of our own responsibilities first by disciplining our eyes and our minds to line up with scripture if we expect our women to line up in modesty. We are men. We must lead in all this.

And that is what I love about the Modesty Survey. It allows guys to take some responsibility and leadership. We can honestly help train our sisters in Christ about where those boundaries lie and, hopefully, as we think through the issue ourselves, we can begin to stand up as men by joining the Rebelution against low expectations.

(emphasis mine)

If anything, Fred and Steve are Sensitive New-Age Male-Chauvinists who place approximately 40-60% of the blame on women.

Howard -a Sunday-school teacher, who describes for us "a life-changing event in junior-high" (aren't they all):

"I was walking home, and Billy and I stopped by the store to pick something up to drink. I didn't really like Billy, but I felt sorry for him. He didn't have many friends, and he was trying hard to make some. On the way to the store, he told me about something called masturbation. I'd never heard that word, and he explained what it was. He said all the guys had been experimenting."

Well, it's not really that much of a surprise that Billy didn't have many friends.

Howard: So, what flavor of soda do you want?

Billy: HAY HOWARD U KNOW WHUT MASHTURBATION IS IT IS TEH FUNNEST THING IN THA WORLD U RUB UR PENNIZ WIT UR LEFT OR RIGHT HAND I PREFER MY LEFT HAND CUZ IM RIGHT-HANDED AN IT FEELS LIKE ITS NOT ME AND IT FEELS THO GOOD AND THEN UR PENNIZ BECOMES LIKE THPIDERMAN AND SHOOTS WEB THO YOU NEED A KLEENEX OR A THOCK LOL!!!!!10101010101

"I couldn't get what he told me out of my mind, so that night I tried it. I haven't gone for more than a week without masturbating for over fifteen years now!"

Here Fred and Steve present masturbation as a trap that men fall into in their teen years, brought on by the evil "flip-side" of puberty. The problem with this is that there are those of us, both men and women, that start masturbating even younger, without even "learning" about it from others. In her The Alchemy of Love and Lust: How Our Sex Hormones Influence Our Relationships, in the chapter dealing with stages in sexual development (ch 2, pg 24-27), Dr Theresa Crenshaw writes:

Parents tend not to understand that children are very much sexual beings from birth; and those who see the sexual dynamics clearly usually don't know how to deal with them constructively. Both sexes masturbate, sometimes in the most embarrassing places -in the grocery cart in full view or in church alongside Grandma. Little boys have erections on and off throughout the night, and more often than not, each time you change their diaper. The original Kinsey Report, written in 1948, describes men who recall experiencing orgasms before the age of five, even though they could not yet ejaculate. Young girls discover sexual pleasure sliding down poles on jungle gyms, or from strategic maneuvering around a Jacuzzi jet...

...

It is important to note that sexuality among children is different rummaging in the trash or shoving a stick in a gopher hole. It is sexual. They become aroused. In fact, it feels so good they would do it a lot more if they weren't discouraged. But don't confuse a normal child's quest for arousal with sexual exploitation. The sexual abuse of children by children is not uncommon, particularly as young boys achieve puberty. Both sexes can be terrorized by those intent on exploiting them.

From reading a section titled "Watch for Early Sexualization" on pages 91-95 of Preparing Your Son for Every Man's Battle, it appears to me that Steve Arterburn believes that "sexualization" is something that is happens to children as a result of outside influence. Here I will post some brief snippets so you can get the gist, but keep in mind that the thing about Preparing Your Son is that despite containing good advice, it is still an Every Man book and is therefore still serves as an ample source of lulz:

With our society saturated with sexual imagery and content, your job is to protect your children from as much of it as possible. Here are some suggestions for protecting your children from early sexualization:

Do Not Allow Them to See Movies With Explicit Sexual Content
Younger children should be prevented from seeing sexually provocative movies, even when they are not explicit. You cannot depend on Hollywood's standards.

I like the way guys like Fred and Steve here talk about "Hollywood" and "Hollywood's standards" as if entire city had some sort of Council of Nicea-style meeting in Mann's Chinese Theater to decide what all the writers, directors, actors, and producers believe.

For instance, the PG-rated Runaway Bride has no nudity, but the film has plenty of sensual joking that is out of place for Christians in light of Ephesians 5:4. How many sexual fires has Julia Roberts kindled by playfully teasing that she'd already "charmed the one-eyed snake" long before marriage.

He used Runaway Bride as an example? Who Framed Roger Rabbit was released in 1988 and was rated "PG" despite containing scenes like this one and Steve Arterburn is harping about Runaway Bride's protagonist using a metaphor to indicate that she is not a virgin?

It's a shame that blogspot.com doesn't have emoticons, because I could really use a "crapping your pants in laughter" one right now. Guess I'll have to do with the next best thing:

Fred and I are appalled at the number of parents who allow their kids to see PG-13 movies that would have been R-rated just ten years ago.

And I'm appalled to see you -Steve, someone offering psychiatric help to hurting people in the name of Christ, using and promoting a quack therapy that a stock-broker pulled out of his ass as a way of disguising his compulsive sexual-obsession as Christian morality (more on that in later entries).

Okay Steve, I'll keep in mind that what you guys mean by that "God's standard" you're always harping on about is the MPAA's ratings standard for a PG film ten years ago. I guess this means I have to wait ten years after it comes out in theaters before it's okay with Jesus for me to see The Dark Knight.

Watching such films reinforces the idea that in boys that women are objects for men to use. Taken to its extreme, such behavior can also plant the idea that boys themselves are objects for men to abuse. The leap from one to the other is not far.

I just want to point out that I did not remove any text between this and the quote above it, you are reading that in context. Steve Arterburn just said that a teenager (I'm assuming that the age of the kids watching the film are between 13 and 17 because "PG-13" mean roughly "13+") watching a PG-13 movie "that would have been R-rated just ten years ago" (never mind what specifically is in the film: story, plot, message ect.) will get the idea that it's okay to sexually abuse women and perhaps even boys.

Yeah, it set off my bullshit alarm too.

Heck, even a seven-year old could watch something rated PG-13 and not get that message. Keep in mind I'm not saying that PG-13 movies that "reinforce the idea" that women and little boys are sex-objects for men to use can't exist, but of all the PG-13 films I've seen, I can't remember one where sexual abuse of women was portrayed as okay (maybe if they took one of those Japanese cartoon-pornos and edited it so it could be aired on TBS).

Keep in mind I'm not saying that I think that parents should let their kids watch anything and everything; I do believe that a kid being exposed to something he or she is not ready for can have negative effects, but not because it sexualizes him or her. Parents need to put things into context and decide what's best for their kid; the "PG" stands for "Parental Guidance" people. Once again, I am merely a ranting humorist, not a shrink or expert in any way. Moving on.

I find Arterburn's protestation that seeing PG-13 films can cause boys to view women as sex objects ironic, considering how in chapter 20 of Stoeker and Arterburn's Every Man's Marriage,* the author (I can't tell if it is Fred or Steve speaking as it doesn't say) goes into a weird passive-aggressive rant on how husbands own their wives' bodies and that women are sinning when they say things like "Oh, I'll bet you're going to want sex again tonight! I'm going to bed before you get home, so don't wake me up and ask for it." and "I'm so tired. Let's hurry up, okay?"**

Steve also gives us this tidbit of advice:

Train Their Eyes
If you are always pointing out certain body parts of attractive women ("Get a load of those -----!")

"Tracts of land"?

you will be stirring up things inside them. You will be feeding their budding interest in sex rather than helping them understand and manage it. Instead of indicating that women are a collection of attractive body parts, help them to look at what a young woman or girl is like on the inside.

Huh huh huhhuh, he said "look at what a girl is like on the inside."

"That's right, religiously conservative and sexually prudish parents who have purchased this book because you read on the back-cover that this book can help your son 'overcome temptation' brought about by 'the sexual onslaught of their culture', don't point at women's chests and shout 'TITOLE BIGGIES!' and then proceed to mimic cunnilingus using your index and middle-fingers. I also can't mention enough how important it is not ask your seven-year old son to smell your fingers after you engage in intercourse. And if you are going use a fried chicken breast to teach your son how to orally-satisfy a woman, at least try to maintain his purity as long as possible by waiting until the day before his wedding."

When young men react to women as complete, honorable creations of God, the chance for early sexualization diminishes.

Uh, no. Children are already "sexual" (biologically, even before puberty kicks-in), they will just learn to respect women and their ownership and agency of their own bodies. That is, unless they are given a cheesy piece-of-crap marriage counseling book with such a collection of such godly homespun wisdom as: "Your wife did forsake her individual freedom in clinging to you, believing you would provide love and strength" (Every Man's Marriage, pg 135), "We're one flesh, so our sin in fact becomes her sin!" (pg 223), "A wife has no right to hold back sexual fulfillment from her husband. If yours does, she's robbing you." (pg 238), and "No wonder we lead such mediocre lives where women take control of their own bodies and husbands are 'forced' to masturbate." (pg 241). Dear God! I think there might actually be men working in the pornography industry that have more respect for women than these guys do!

Stand Guard Against Molestation
I never dreamed that this one would have to be one of my major goals as a parent, but it is.

"I always thought I would be one of those parents that sell their kids' bodies on the street for crack-money."

But seriously though, Steve is spot on here. Molestation does harmfully affect children.

You must talk to your children about this, but you must also help them avoid situations where molestation could occur. The impact of this level of sexualization is lifelong,

So close. Molestation does not "sexualize" the child (God-willing there's a semantics mix-up going on here that can explain all this, but I just don't know), it negatively affects the child's sexual, emotional, and psychological development; resulting in depression, anxiety, sexual dysfunction, re-victimization in adulthood, and other negative effects (check out this piece by the American Psychological Association for more info).

and your vigilance is worth the trouble, especially considering the research reveals that a good percentage of homosexual behavior begins with early male-to-male sexual abuse.

"Yeah sure, child molestation's negative effects include depression, sexual dysfunction, relational anxiety, guilt, suicidal thoughts, and the tendency to hurt children as an adult, but that's not important. What's important is OMG YOUR SON'LL BE GAY AND HE'LL WEAR CHAPS AND WATCH SEX IN THE CITY WHILE DRINKING MARGARITAS AND SUCK AT SPORTS LIKE BASEBALL AND FOOTBALL AND PENISES!!!!"

Sorry, Steve, but according to the American Psychological Association what Fred and Steve said there about child-molestation turning boys gay is, well, let me just allow the good Dr Cox to explain:

What causes Homosexuality/Heterosexuality/Bisexuality?
No one knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality. Homosexuality was once thought to be the result of troubled family dynamics or faulty psychological development. Those assumptions are now understood to have been based on misinformation and prejudice. Currently there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality. Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse. Sexual abuse does not appear to be more prevalent in children who grow up to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, than in children who identify as heterosexual.

(emphasis mine)

Also notice how Arterburn does not tell us exactly how much this "good percentage" is. But then again, Steve Arterburn might have read the that somewhere but have had must have had trouble finding the exact numbers. I mean, it's not like he's in a profession that provides therapeutic counseling services to people where such information is important. Oh wait, he's the founder and chairman of New Life Ministries. Oh well, I guess he had to leave it out to make room for one of Fred Stoeker's tortured football analogies.

Now, where was I? Oh yeah, Every Man's Battle.

Joe- A fan of women's sports who has dreams that involve hot nekkid chicks volleying his balls:

"Heavy with guilt, I wonder where my wife is, sure she has left me over this affair and wondering how I could have done such a thing. Finally, as the cobwebs clear, it slowly dawns on me that it was just a dream. But even then I feel uneasy. You want to know why?"

I'm guessing it's because you were raised and/or indoctrinated into a sub-culture where sexuality was vilified, causing you to feel immense guilt for natural and involuntary sexual functions like erotic dreams.

"Because while I know it was just a dream, I'm not certain it wasn't some form of adultery."

In one of my dreams I saved my 1st-grade elementary school from a T-Rex by using shooting lightning at it from a magical popsicle-stick. By your logic, I deserve a parade.

Wally- who is afraid of hotel rooms because, well, they allow you to order movies like Co-Ed Slumberparty, Naughty Nuns 3: The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, and Forrest Gump:

"I'm flooded with lustful thoughts and desires. I stare wide-eyed at the ceiling. I see nothing, but I literally feel the bombardment, the throbbing desire. I have no way to get to sleep, and its killing me. So I say 'Okay, I'll masturbate, I'll have peace and I can finally get to sleep.' So I do and guess what? The guilt is so strong I still can't get to sleep. I wake up totally exhausted in the morning."

And you should feel guilty for committing the sin so horrible that God didn't mention it in the Bible as it would give us ideas.

And then there's John, who whacks off to exercise vids. But enough about that, lets move on.

These men are not weirdos but your next door neighbors, your fellow workers - even your in-laws. They are you. They are Sunday-school teachers, ushers, deacons. Even pastors aren't immune.

You know, in hindsight, maybe I shouldn't be so negative about Every Man's Battle. I mean, I'm pretty sure that these guys can receive the help they need by paying over a thousand bucks so that Fred and Steve can guilt them for watching Forrest Gump.

EDIT: I want to apologize to Steve Arterburn for what I wrote about his criticism of PG and PG-13 programming.



Clearly he was in the right and I was in the wrong.

-------------------------------------
*I picked up the book on my Christmas break. I know, I feel horrible.

**Their words, not mine (Every Man's Marriage, pg 238). I also want to bring attention to the fact that the rant occupies pages 237-242. A five page rant. But -once again focusing on the positive- keep in mind that they also warn the man not to be inconsiderate of the needs of his fragile, dependent, little wife (pg 247):

She [the wife] must open her most intimate private place to a man who not only has kept her from blossoming in marriage, but who has picked on her weaknesses and selfishly asserted his rights at every turn. This person sounds more like a prison guard than a husband, which means sex can feel disturbingly close to being raped by a prison guard. After all, she has no right to say no, and the guard enters frequently at his whim and pleasure. So when our wives are asked to submit their bodies to us, God knows He's calling them to do something that may be brutally difficult for them. As a husband, it's your job to make sex easier for her by building oneness with a bondservant's heart.

(emphasis mine)

I agree the Fred& Steve here. Ladies, if a your husband "builds a bondservant's heart" by following the advice of Fred and Steve in Every Man's Marriage, sex won't be like getting raped by a prison guard. It will be like blowing a prison guard that smuggles in drugs and smokes for you.

What an age we live in. A man can go to an erotic boutique and pick up a book on how to please both you and your partner in bed that was written by some fornicating heathen feminist, or he can go to a Christian bookstore and pick up a book written by a Pure, Godly, wife-honoring Christian man on how to make sex feel less like rape to his wife.

Don't Drop the Study-Guide!

I had mentioned Chuck Colson's Prison Fellowship in my Christmas blog entry. When mulling this over during the holidays, I recalled an old Al Hartley comic based on Colson's autobiography, Born Again.

And what better way to start off the new year than the same way I started this blog back in 2007, with Things I've Learned from Christian Comics:

• Being shown in a church basement on a Saturday night to five teenagers whose parents won't let them go out on dates makes a film "a major motion picture".

• Richard Nixon was a man of peace, and his dream was that Chuck Colson's sons and other young men like them will never be sent to war. That's why only the sons of those not wealthy or in politics were drafted.
• Explosions and gunfire make Asian children smile.
• Young artists, take a tip from Al Hartley: There is no such thing as too many smiling, floating severed heads.

• Nixon never swore.

• Partaking in political corruption is patriotic.

• Boredom is FUN!

• Colson had not seen his friend Tom in three years, but he knew something was different about him because he asked how his family was doing, and non-Christian people don't do that at all.

• Nixon knew nothing about Watergate.
  

• He was the 37th President of the United States of America. He was a simple "hatchet-man"...

• Evangelicals run Washington the way the Mafia runs Las Vegas.

• A "hatchet-man" serving seven months of a one-to-three year sentence in a low security prison for a crime he committed is comparable to the suffering the first century Christians went through at the hands of the Roman Empire.

• If you ever find yourself leading a Bible-study in prison, don't drop the study-guide.

• Thanks to Colson's Bible study and prayer group, the Holy Spirit instigated change in the prison. Sick bodies we're healed, sick spirits were lifted, and black people turned orange.

• Christians are better-looking than non-Christians.

Triple Threat: Ray and Kirk Fail at Evangelism, Kent Hovind Gets "Squeezed", and the Gay-Hatin' Spirit of Christmas

Celebrity Evangelists Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron use their super-special patented intellect-bypassing straight-from-Jesus (who rather ironically discussed and debated the Torah the teachers of the law in his day) evangelism method to bring the Gospel to people who are already Christians. And by "bring the Gospel to" I mean "nag into reluctantly siding with you in the most insignificant issue even remotely related to the culture war".

C. Michael Patton over at Parchment and Pen has a few interesting thoughts on the vid.

The problem is focusing on the trivial sin of saying G-D. Well, let me correct this. He is focusing on listening to someone say G-D, not actually saying it yourself! If that is not straining out a gnat while ignoring the camel, I don’t know what is. Our postmodern culture is smarter than this. Not only can they smell hypocrisy from a mile away, they are on the hunt for it. All this does is serve to confirm the postmodern suspicion that Christians live in a naive world that has no real depth or understanding.

In the end, there are much bigger fish to fry than a faulty folk interpretation of the third commandment. Whether or not one listens to someone say G-D in an entertainment flick is a non-issue. The message of