Saturday, March 15, 2008

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.

7 comments:

Amber said...

Ha!! I really need to start my EMB fisking again. I'd forgotten how much fun I had with it. Well, I don't have anything to do today... maybe I'll make a trip to Barnes and Noble and see what they've got on their shelves.

Hysterical Woman said...

Masturbating in broad daylight in a rental car (what about clean-up?) just because you saw some women walking out of a gym? Why are these people always so fucked up?

Geds said...

Why are these people always so fucked up?

I think it goes back to the whole "masturbation is actually healthy, ya dimwits," thing. There tends to be a correlation between sexually repressed societal groups and really, really bizarre sexuality squirting out the sides. I'm told the really insane Japanese sex stuff offers a good example of this, but I don't know first-hand.

Either way, if you become obsessed with sex but don't do even the tiniest thing to help your obsession, the things that the mind supplies with regard to sex get a little, well, fucked up. The power and uniqueness of sex, meanwhile, is such that almost anyone can be screwed up in a sex-deprived thought cycle, but it doesn't necessarily work that way for anything else. I highly doubt, for instance, that a starving person would end up fantasizing about food in anything close to the equivalent of masturbating in a car outside a gym.

Although perhaps that's just Stoeker's admission that he has a horrible memory. Maybe he went to the gym with the intention of adding to the spank bank one day but by the time he got home he could only think about waffles and long division. So he thought he'd video tape women entering the gym, but remembered what that judge told him after he got caught in front of the Piggly Wiggly, so he invested in the heavy-duty window tint and headed on down to the Curves...

Rubyfruit said...

And this is why I keep coming back to your blog, man. I don't know how long I'd be able to read those books until I chucked it out of a nearby window.

Anonymous said...

Beautiful as always <3 <3 <3

Lord DoomRater said...

The more I read the more I'm convinced it bleongs up there with the New World Translation.

The Cynic Sage said...

@Hysterical woman:

What really confuses me about what they wrote here is that they describe the reader as masturbating in a car, then discourage him from receiving therapy. Someone who feels such a lack of control over sexuality as to so much as wait until they get home could very much benefit from proper counseling rather than shaming and empty pep-talks.

@Geds: The Japanese are repressed?