Love and respect: excerpt from the misogynist book popular among US Christians (more than 2m copies sold)

[CForCake]

In another post I said that the fact that the book Love and Respect: The Love She Most Desires; The Respect He Desperately Needs , very popular in American Evangelical circles, sold more than 2 million copies is a sign of how pervasive misogyny is in US Christianity, since one of the key messages of the book is that godly wives submit obey and let their husbands fuck them whenever they want. I was accused of misunderstanding the book, so I figured I'd post an excerpt from the chapter on sexuality, so that people can judge for themselves.

CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE
SEXUALITY—APPRECIATE HIS
DESIRE FOR SEXUAL INTIMACY

I can agree with that on one level, that is religious MPs should work for and respect all their constituents as should all MPs.
However there are conscience issues which people have to reckon with.
I don't agree with the ADB and I'm an atheist. I think it's a dogs breakfast. What does that say about me other than that I disagree with you. Am I allowed a different view?

^You are starting to sound unhinged.
Please, please, pretty please, can you please kindly explain what makes you say that? Can you either explain how you have reached this conclusion, or apologise for having put horrible words in my mouth?^

Those were questions, meant to illicit an answer. What is it you want, what are you arguing for? Should the book you're quoting from be banned, censored? I don't think anyone on this board is unaware of this kind of misogyny.

I would frame it differently, and I would say that religious approaches to morality are hard to share with those who don't share the same religion, because it's all so dogmatic that it's impossible to have a discussion. My God wants me to slaughter animals in a certain way. Your God says that killing animals is immoral. How do we settle that?
Has it ever occurred to you that just maybe you are a tad dogmatic?
I really don't think either of us have anything more to say.

Only on mumsnet can one be attacked (by an alleged atheist!) for criticising a religious, misogynistic book, and get asked "what is it you want"

Sad, really.

I notice you have backed off from your previous outlandish claims, without of course apologising.

@Imnobody4 What is it you want, what are you arguing for? Should the book you're quoting from be banned, censored? I don't think anyone on this board is unaware of this kind of misogyny.

Do you give the same reply to anyone posting about incidents of misogyny?

If someone else posts about another case, do you tell her: so what, what do you want, do you think we are unaware of this kind of misogyny? yes or no?

Has it ever occurred to you that just maybe you are a tad dogmatic?

Can you explain what you mean and why? dogmatic is someone who is unwilling to consider other opinions. What opinions would I have refused to consider, could you please clarify? Thank you!

I really don't think either of us have anything more to say.

And this is not because you cannot justify your accusations, right? Ah, no, they were just questions, right?

If you'd been voted in to represent your constituency, should your humanist views trump what your constituents wanted or their best interests?

We're seeing it happen time and time again with votes on women's reproductive rights. If you have a commercial conflict of interest (e.g. shares in a company producing abortion pills), people wouldn't think it unreasonable to expect you refrain from voting - why should religious dogma be any different?

Where did I say I supported the ADB? I didn't.

What I said was that there were a number of MPs who refused to engage with anything their constituents were saying about it, just because of their religious beliefs. I don't have to support the bill to believe that's wrong.

@EmeraldSloth We're seeing it happen time and time again with votes on women's reproductive rights. If you have a commercial conflict of interest (e.g. shares in a company producing abortion pills), people wouldn't think it unreasonable to expect you refrain from voting - why should religious dogma be any different?

A commercial conflict of interest is something completely different

If you'd been voted in to represent your constituency, should your humanist views trump what your constituents wanted or their best interests?

I would have made my humanist values clear in my campaign, so anyone voting for me would have known where I stand on this. You cannot claim that there is a conflict between an MP's values (be they secular or religious) and his constituents, if the MP made these values clear in their campaign

So I don't understand the question. If a politician says: these are my values and I would vote this way on this matter, and then does exactly that, where is the issue?

My issue is when people want to ban stuff which affects no one else.

I mean, most MPs do not discuss their religious beliefs - or how that would impact how they voted - as part of their campaign.

Going back to your original post, would you be okay with an Evangelist voting to make marital rape legal again because, as per their religious values, they don't believe it's a thing anyway?

@EmeraldSloth would you be okay with an Evangelist voting to make marital rape legal again because, as per their religious values, they don't believe it's a thing anyway?

No. Would you?
In many countries something like this would be considered unconstitutional, and it's one of the reasons why constitutional reforms tend to require qualified majorities.

I wouldn't be OK for the same reasons I wouldn't be OK with an MP voting to outlaw another religion, or atheism for that matter: because it goes against the very values I consider to be the basis of our society.

I would also question why they need it.
If an evangelical woman wants to let her husband fuck her every single time he wants, it's her choice. No one is preventing her from doing just that.

But why force non-evangelical women to do the same?
We go back to religion and imposition - why impose their beliefs on the rest of society?

I would have the same reservation on atheist impositions, of course..

So, you're uncomfortable with religious values influencing voting when it's an issue you have strong views about? Can you not see the double standard here?

Of course I wouldn't be okay with it, I've just told you I'm not okay with any MP putting their personal religious beliefs above their obligation to their constitutents when voting in parliament.

Your logic can be applied to any current issue where religion is interfering with political decision making: women's reproductive rights, assisted dying, etc.

If you don't want to have an abortion for religious reasons? Don't have one.

If you don't want to choose assisted dying when faced with a terminal illness? Don't choose it.

To be honest, I'm struggling to think of a scenario where your humanist views would be opposed to acting in the best interest of your consistuents, given the nature of humanist values... Can you think of any?

@EmeraldSloth Your logic can be applied to any current issue where religion is interfering with political decision making: women's reproductive rights, assisted dying, etc.
If you don't want to have an abortion for religious reasons? Don't have one.
If you don't want to choose assisted dying when faced with a terminal illness? Don't choose it.

Precisely!!!

You'll have to concede that the religious will claim that in some of the cases they oppose, vulnerable third parties are involved, eg abortion. Note I'm not saying I agree with that view. But with things like same-sex acts, which are illegal in some countries, it's obvious that no one else is affected.

So, you're uncomfortable with religious values influencing voting when it's an issue you have strong views about? Can you not see the double standard here?

It's not a double standard at all. I am uncomfortable with fundamental rights and values being trumped. If a fundamentalist atheist wanted to make, say, Islam illegal, because those are his "values", I would fight that tooth and nail

To be honest, I'm struggling to think of a scenario where your humanist views would be opposed to acting in the best interest of your consistuents, given the nature of humanist values... Can you think of any?

Yes, when vulnerable people are involved. Eg I am a huge advocate of the right to die. But I'll confess I don't know enough about the matter and don't know what to think about the risk that vulnerable people might be pressured by doctors or family members to end their lives because they are a 'burden'. Unlike dogmatic zealots (on all fronts), who claim they know everything, I will happily admit ignorance when I am not familiar with an issue

I think what you've said here essentially captures why I feel so strongly about this. I work in palliative care, and the impact of the ADB on vulnerable people is something I feel really strongly about. But feel like the religious dogma surrounding the debate meant we've ended up with something that's actually quite terrible - when those people could've engaged to make it better. They could have used their christian values to shape the bill, rather than refusing to engage properly.

I don't think what we're saying is too dissimilar really. There's a difference between refusing to engage in something because of dogma and being influenced by Christian "values" (which most of the time are really just about being a good human, right? probably not too dissimilar to your humanist values or my values as an agnostic person who just wants the world to be a bit less rubbish for everyone involved)

What is your opinion on the risk that vulnerable people might be pressured into ending their lives?

For the record, my point is not only about pain, but about how bearable life is.

If I remained entirely paralysed I would not want to live, even if technically not in pain. I know many people would make a different decision, and that's fine, because these things are hugely subjective. But the religious would not recognise me the right to decide what to do with my life.

I agree that sex is essential to keep most marriages going, and if desire is going, both partners need to try hard to help rekindle it. But I don't believe in anyone, male or female, basically forcing themselves to have sex to 'serve' their spouse, as in this very disturbing passage :' She didn’t have that need for sex. It wasn’twithin her, but she realized that this was her husband’s need, and the Lord had
spoken to her about meeting his need first.
So she said, “All right, Lord, I will serve him and I will meet that need
gladly.”
There must be ways to cooperate to rekindle the sexual bond without having sex one person doesn't want.

I certainly wouldn't want a partner to force themselves to have sex to 'serve' my needs, that's disgusting. How can you want someone you love to do that? You want them to want you mutually, not to force themselves out of 'service'.

It's certainly true plenty of non religious beliefs about sex can be just as harmful. I think it's fair to say some beliefs, both religious and non religious, have more potential to be so than others, though risk is probably always there.

Books like Disobedient Women mentioned by OP do certainly show the dangerous situations that can arise from evangelical beliefs about women & sex. Douglas Wilson's Idaho community, one of the cases explored in that book (and also in recent podcast Sons Of Patriarchy) is hopefully fringe but otoh it's worrying when he seems more widely influential, including apparently even over Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth. Purity culture also seems to have had far-reaching negative effects.

I think a hand job's a bit different from forcing yourself to have intercourse etc you don't want. I'm not very knowledgeable about evangelical sexual beliefs but I wonder if they're similar to Catholic in thinking male seed shouldn't be spilled outside the vagina, so sex must include intercourse?

Douglas Wilson doesn't seem fully niche, as head of Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC, a network of over 150 churches), and Hegseth is in government. I agree though it's hugely unlikely to happen, and fringe for most evangelicals. People like Stephen Wolfe & Joel Webbon aren't mainstream. There are evangelicals advocating household voting but this isn't most.

It's actually not very different from marriage guidance books published a few decades ago that were not aimed at Christians. I once found one of these at my parents' house. It made a big impression on me and after reading some of it I incinerated it! It said that the man must ALWAYS be in control of the sex in the marriage. Even if this meant him giving his wife control over something else, for instance the family finances. And the woman must always be open to sex when the man wants it, whether she feels like it or not. It's okay for her to reject sex in a playful manner, to tease her husband in a sex game kind of way, but only on the basis that he knows he is going to get sex and she then gives it to him. However, the husband should not insist that she pretends that she's keen to have sex when she actually doesn't want it - only that she does provide sex on demand. And the penis is very important. When having sex, there are basically 3 people in the room - the man, the woman and the penis, and each should be given equal priority. When explaining that the wife must always supply sex on demand, the book actually reminded the woman that her husband was the one who brought the bacon home.

That's terrible...was this book written in 1970s? 80s? I suppose books then could have been written by people who'd grown up with mores from earlier times, but it's still disturbing to think that things many of us would criticise in some subsets of evangelical US culture now were not that different from more mainstream advice in past..

I don't know, but I think it's likely to have been written in the 50s or early 60s. That would tie in with the idea that the husband provides and the little woman doesn't work and focuses on keeping her husband happy. I have a horrible feeling that the book used the term "little woman."