One Way to Confront “8 Ways to Confront Your Wife’s Sexual Refusal” (yes, I’m going meta)

An article entitled “8 Ways to Confront Your Wife’s Sexual Refusal” (http://www.donotlink.com/fc0m) has been making the rounds online, both by enthusiastic endorsers and by those criticizing it. It’s on a site called “Biblical Gender Roles” and is written, as can be gathered, from a stringently conservative Christian perspective. The article, in its entirety, is a striking example of everything that makes such a worldview abusive, vile, and emotionally toxic—both to the self and to others.

The author outlines a plan of escalating punishments that a “Christian” husband should inflict upon his wife if she regularly chooses not to respond to his advances (the author seems to assume that women are never the initiators, and that they should not be). He adds a quick qualifier to assure the reader that he’s not suggesting physical abuse, but his suggestions seem to stop just short of that. They still amount to abusive behavior, even if it’s not physically so. He recommends that the husband first “rebuke her privately.” This doesn’t mean trying to have an open discussion about why she seems to lack an interest in sex. It means castigating her for it and accusing her of sinning both against him and God (which makes it sound like his omnipotent father wants to be involved in their sex life).

The author prefaces, “This assumes you have already on several occasions tried speaking gently to her about this issue. You have tried time and time again to find out if there is anything you can help her with, and anything you can do different.” He is not recommending that, though. He’s talking out of both sides of his mouth. On one hand, he implies that the “rebuking” should only occur if the husband has already tried to work things out peacefully. But on the other, he also says, “What I am addressing here is the wife who consistently and routinely denies her husband sexually simply because she does not need sex as much or she thinks she should not have to do it except when she is in the mood or she thinks her husband should have to earn sex with her by “putting her in the mood” by doing various things she expects or likes…A wife cannot flatly refuse her husband, she may only ask for a delay (a raincheck) and then she needs to make good on that raincheck as soon as possible.” In another paragraph he states, “A husband ought not to feel guilty for having sex with his wife when she is not in the mood if she yields, even grudgingly.” (If he’s even capable of enjoying it when she’s clearly not, and if he deliberately fazes out her distress, then he’s selfish at best and abusive at worst. No wonder she doesn’t want him).

The author is saying that the hypothetical husband has no obligation to try to “put her in the mood,” but that his wife has an obligation to passively agree to unwanted sex. He doesn’t consider the painfully obvious fact that trying to please her will probably yield the results he hopes for, or at least make it a lot more likely. He does not see women as sexual beings, or even as people. He regards them purely as receptacles and encourages all husbands to take this same approach. And having sex with someone who clearly doesn’t want to amounts to rape. But since wives apparently exist to serve husbands, that’s nothing to feel any kind of remorse about.

The second step is to “rebuke her before witnesses,” such as a marriage counselor (although he specifies that it should only be a Christian one, presumably because they’re less likely to object to the “rebuking”). The third step is to bring her before the church; to have a pastor lecture her about her sexual obligations if she won’t concede to you. The author states here, “At any one of these points, your wife could have threatened to leave, or has already left. You may be separated or in divorce proceedings.” In that case, why would you still be trying to sleep with her?

Steps four, five, and six are as follows: “Stop taking her on dates or trips.” “No unnecessary household upgrades.” “Stop doing the little extra things” (such as housework, which the author firmly states is solely the wife’s responsibility, and giving her massages). In other words, emotionally freeze her out and stop being nice to her, because that will definitely win her over. Not that people in this situation should be looking at it from a purely self-interested perspective of “how do I get what I want?”, but the author clearly cannot think past that point and assumes no other man can, either.

The seventh step is, if possible, even more insidious: Remove her funding. “This step may only work if your wife does not have her own income. Change your bank account so her ATM card becomes worthless. Cancel your credit cards.” This brand of theology almost always demands that the wife be unemployed and completely financially dependent upon her husband, so doing this would be an even further act of isolation and abuse. If she’s so restricted that she can’t even spend any money without her husband’s permission, it’s no surprise that she might choose to reject him physically. That may be the only possible expression of autonomy she has.

The last resort he suggests is to divorce her for “sexual immorality.” He references this earlier by saying, “Sacrificing yourself for your wife, as Christ sacrificed himself for the church does not mean toleration of this kind of sin on the part of your wife. Many counselors throw out the “husbands you just need to sacrifice yourself for your wife like Christ did the church” but they don’t tell you WHY Christ sacrificed himself for the Church.” (Following this line of thinking, it sounds like he’d say, “Because the church wouldn’t have sex with him.”)

The author insists that this is “discipline”, rather than manipulation. He defines manipulation as something that an underling does to achieve a desired result from someone of a higher status. By this definition, he also classifies union protests as “manipulation” and compares it to children throwing temper tantrums. What a lovely way of infantilizing the poor and trivializing the need for workers’ rights. And, in this sense, he also compares husbands and wives to employee/employer, and to parent/child. If someone doesn’t see how deeply troubling it is to make those parallels, I don’t even know where to start. But I will point out that this teeters awfully close to the edge of pedophilia.

He then goes on to romanticize the ancient “biblical” days in which people barely knew each other before they wed, and when the husband bought the wife as property. (Yet he takes issue with the concept of paying for sex.) He even wrote a separate blog entry called, “You don’t have to buy the milk when you own the cow.” 

All of this may sound incredibly bizarre and extreme, and it might be hard to imagine anybody genuinely following this line of thinking. But in my life, I have known an alarming number of people who share those values. There were ones whom I tried to persuade differently, but eventually came to the painful realization that I cannot “free” anyone from those types of values. Many times, they don’t want to change.

The marital scenario outlined by that blogger seems to result from a great deal of problems that are directly created by conservative Christianity, rather than resolved by it. A couple who are forbidden to have sex before marriage are far more likely to wed before they’re ready and to make a commitment they don’t fully understand (especially with the way these communities idealize marriage and provide very little sex education). They won’t know if they’re emotionally, mentally, or sexually compatible until they’re already in a legal contract. It’s even worse when they’re prohibited from divorcing in almost any circumstance.

Furthermore, the restrictions inherent in religious fundamentalism contribute a great deal to sexual frustration. They’re only allowed to have the most white bread sex imaginable. No kink, no porn, no toys, no non-vaginal penetration. It's fine to not incorporate any of those things if they don't want to, but they are specifically told that they can't. In some religious communities, they’re not allowed to engage in any sex act that doesn’t directly result in pregnancy (which most often means nothing that can give the woman an orgasm). Many of them are banned from using birth control, which means sex is always laden with the possibility of pregnancy looming in their minds. If they want to try anything new, they’re advised to “pray on it”—which just sounds so spontaneous and fun. If one of them is not up for it, the other is not even allowed to take care of their own needs, so it’s no wonder that a lot of resentment builds up and both parties are left with the expectation of meeting all of their spouse’s urges all of the time. If one of them has a higher drive than the other, this can become an incredible burden for the one with the lower libido and a significant void for the one who has no other sexual outlet. And, within this framework, the man is the only one expected to have a libido. The woman is thought of as a “whore” if she likes or craves physical intimacy, so it’s no wonder that so many of them refuse.
               So, in summary, this is oppressive bullshit. A great deal of Christians vocally disagree with this author, which is very encouraging to see. Let’s keep the dissent going, no matter what religion you might observe (or not observe). Let people like that author know that he is not the spokesman for his faith, for marriage, or for any kind of morality at all.

Racist mentalities can change with shifting values, not just "an appeal to the facts."

Facts won’t dissuade people who are stubbornly invested in racism. The fact that Freddie Gray’s death was ruled a second degree murder and that six cops have been arrested won’t mean anything to them. The fact that his arrest was deemed illegal won’t make a difference. They will be unmoved by the fact that even Fox News of all networks is now acknowledging this happened. They’ll still say, “Oh, that ruling was only made to appease the black people. More proof that they’re privileged and oppressing whites.” I’ve heard this point of view expressed loudly from white people who are still somehow convinced that they’re “not allowed” to say it. I’ve also seen Fox’s desperate scramble to try to imply that this wasn’t a race issue because several of the cops involved were non-white. Those accepting this explanation don’t recognize internalized racism and how, in the end, it still serves white supremacist aims.

Talking about this is not “making it about race.” It was already about race and class; talking about that is just acknowledging it. And it’s funny how CNN commenters will make that claim, yet think that making sweeping criticisms of the black population and accusing them of “separating themselves” is somehow not making it about race. This public discussion, of course, is littered by cries of “Why do you have to keep bringing up the past?” Abridged answer: Because the past leaks into the present and future, and because talking about history is a way of recognizing patterns. It’s noticeable how the white people who say they feel no guilt or responsibility for things that other white people did throughout history are the ones who feel so threatened by others bringing up that past. If they really thought it had nothing to do with them, they wouldn’t get defensive.

It’s not hard to be a white person, whatever some might say. I can understand how it might be really hard to be a cop at this time—not a white cop specifically, but a cop in general. It probably feels like people are making assumptions or that these kinds of posts are directed at them individually. But if a cop is not doing or supporting these things, then these posts don’t apply to them. And part of being a progressive, helpful cop is not only refraining from corruption and abuse, but reporting it when they see it in other officers. Part of it is not immediately assuming that another officer must have been in the right, but taking a careful and honest look at what they did. And it’s recognizing that those of us who are against this are not necessarily “against all cops” or solely blaming police officers, but seeing that the police abuse that does exist is part of a larger pattern of oppression. It’s also recognizing that while it may be hard to be a police officer, it’s a much greater challenge to live as a non-white person in America—and yes, there are also those who fit both categories. They need to be recognized, but not used as tokens to derail the topic.

Facts won’t matter to everyone, but that doesn’t mean that those who won’t accept facts are hopeless. Before they can be receptive, they need to come to a point where they no longer feel inclined to cling to white defensiveness (whether or not they are white). That turning point may differ from person to person, but the results are the same and will lead to a true and healthy unity.

Notes from under the weather

It’s not as if anything in particular went wrong. Nothing dramatic or unusual happened to me. I’m on my Zoloft, so I’m not hauling my life around unmedicated. But this week I’ve cracked, and couldn’t even feel the tension building beforehand. There was no warning.

Some of you might know this process all too well. Your garbage cans are overflowing and there are crumpled paper towels wilting all around them on the floor. The dishes are piling up into a great wall of china. You haven’t showered or gotten dressed yet today. All you can do is bury yourself under the covers with your headphones and wait. If you’ve ever been there, whoever you are, please know that I’m there with you. We’re in different trenches, but we’re both buried. There is no hierarchy underground.

I had to call out sick from work. I’m going back tomorrow, but just couldn’t do it today. When you work with the public, so much of it involves smiling and engaging them and not exposing others to an emotional virus, especially children. So I quarantined myself. You might know the feeling. If you do, then you know anyone who would tell you to just pull it together can fuck right off. So can anyone who accuses you of “attention whoring” for posting about what’s going on. Even if you’re not directing your thoughts to anyone specific, which I’m not, casting them onto the web can seem like a lifeline. You might even be afraid to talk to anybody individually. Whatever you say might come out overbearingly emotional, as if you’re leaving them with some final goodbye. I’m in that place, too.

I don’t want to die, and I’m not going to. I just want an intermission. Just a frozen year. If only I could sleep for a year without dreaming and wake up to a world where nothing but me has changed, picking up right where it left off.

Mike has been incredible in his support. I lay down with him in his armchair for hours last night and he told me, “You’re a beautiful ball of life.” If you’ve ever been in the same place, please know that you are, too.

If you’re a friend or well-wisher, don’t be afraid to talk to me. But also, please don’t think you’re being rejected if I don’t write back for a while. It helps to hear other voices, instead of my own thoughts swimming in circles and dragging me underneath. But if I don’t have the energy to respond yet, it’s nothing personal. There are so many other people reaching out who have problems a lot more urgent than mine, but I can’t reciprocate at the moment and am so disappointed in myself for that.

I’m not okay. And maybe that in itself is okay, because I trust that eventually I will be. If you’re in the same place, which ironically feels completely solitary, please know that you’ll be okay too. This shadow can be a blanket, and we can all sit together, bundled in the quiet until we're ready to come out.

Self-sabotaging sexism

Warning: brief mention of sexual assault and harassment

*    *    *

Whenever I come across a site or blog overrun by misogynistic rants, its strikes me just how insulting that perspective is toward men, and how misogynists lack the self-awareness to recognize it.

For example, there are those who claim that men and women are fundamentally, diametrically opposite and that those differences are purely a result of biology rather than social conditioning. They use this to rationalize professional discrimination against women, saying that women are simply unfit for leadership roles or jobs in science and math because of biology. They say that women tend to avoid those fields by choice and that it’s perfectly reasonable to hire more men for those positions because women are less suited for them. They dismiss the influence of social conditioning and the discouragement and harassment that so many women receive when entering those fields, shrugging it off with a flippant “that’s life” and “get used to it”. However, they would never be so dismissive about a man who was facing discrimination. They complain about men not doing as well academically or having more trouble with subjects like English, yet they never blame that on the same gender stereotypes that also affect women. They’re oblivious to the fact that it comes from the same source.

If you believe that women are naturally more inclined toward language and writing, as so many gender essentialists claim, then it would make sense for women to rise above men in those fields. But: 1) male authors are still more widely represented in academia and literature, so there is no phenomenon of men being silenced in those areas, and 2) sexists only want to tout gender essentialism when it can be used to justify anti-female bias and institutional discrimination against women. They only decry that same belief system when it disadvantages men. They point to programs that are specifically arranged to create more opportunities for women and call it preferential treatment, but those programs exist to counteract the effects of discrimination. They would otherwise be unnecessary. Programs geared specifically toward helping men get ahead in STEM fields don’t exist for the same reason that there is no financial aid for wealthy students.

Misogynists also say that men are better suited for high-risk fields and that women should be excluded from them, yet complain that more men are killed or injured at work and say the male sex is seen as “disposable” because of these jobs. If you believe these jobs are only appropriate for men, then you are the one who sees men as disposable.

Sexists say that the types of jobs which are most heavily populated by men are the more important ones, and that’s why men tend to get paid more. But they fail to see that those jobs are only deemed “more important” because they are associated with men.

There are myriad ways in which misogynists negatively stereotype men in other areas of life as well. Sexual assault is a glaring example. I’ve heard so many “Men’s Rights Activists” and other anti-feminists excuse rape and sexual harassment by calling it “male sexuality.” They use it as an umbrella term, rather than acknowledging that there is no singular form of male sexuality. (What about men who are sexually submissive? What about men who value consent? What about non-hetero men? Trans men? In the eyes of misogynists, they are not “real” men and don’t count.)

Misogynists are fond of saying that feminists and the legal system “criminalize male sexuality,” but they are the ones conflating male sexuality with sexual assault. They’re the ones saying that “real men” yell obscene comments to women on the street, grope their female coworkers, drug and rape women at parties, and try to solicit sex from fourteen-year-old girls. They are the ones defining that as manhood, just as they accuse feminists of doing (and, for the record, I have never heard a feminist say that all or most men commit these acts). The difference is that misogynists laud, or at least excuse, that type of behavior. Misogynists constantly accuse rape survivors of lying about their assaults, but they don’t see that this victim blaming also does enormous harm to male sexual assault survivors—despite the fact that they frequently (and accurately) point out that men are raped, too. Unfortunately, they don’t seem to want to discuss male rape as an issue in itself. They only want to bring it up when it can be used to talk over women who have been assaulted.

Those are just a few ways in which I've noticed that anti-woman beliefs are self-sabotaging, but there are so many more. Misogyny is an endless feedback loop of wanting to have their cake and eat it too, but then poisoning their own cake and blaming women for allowing a man to bake for himself.

When the highways sleep

(View from the passenger seat in Mike's car)

Foggy days are often described as eerie or gloomy, but to me they have always felt safe.

A misty landscape has a quality that makes you want to whisper. It’s partly because of the stillness that inspires reverence, and partly because the world seems asleep and you don’t want to disturb it. It’s also because your surroundings are playing hide and seek, and you don’t want them to hear you approaching. Fog is what happens when nature decides to become a puzzle or perform a vaporous striptease. It’s a game in the same way that changing leaves are dress-up.

Photos of the fog never seem to do it justice, because it irons it out onto a flat surface. This cloudiness is anything but flat. It was never meant to be confined to a two-dimensional space.

Like snow, fog is compared to a blanket, but it’s different than the blanket that snow provides. Snow is static, while mist is in constant motion. It lets you enter and shows you things if it trusts you. The view becomes crisper as you move close. You earn it, like getting to know someone who is usually guarded.

Any light in the haze looks ethereal, even if it’s from cars on the highway. They’re like alien fireflies. This kind of fog makes the highways seem so stark; a near-abandoned alternate world. Every trip out is an adventure in discovering old things in a new light.

Lights become guides, and the sky turns into a milky ocean with a moon eye. It’s unseeing and draws you closer with the tides. Indiscriminately, it draws everything home.

Driving through mist can make you feel embryonic. It’s safe in the way confined spaces are. Of course, mist doesn’t really confine a space by veiling most of it. It just creates that sense while opening more possibilities.
                Many times I feel like I’m walking through a fog in a world of my own. When there’s a tangible fog embracing the landscape, I’m not alone. Everyone is in that same space with me, exploring together. We're in an all-enveloping cocoon, waiting while our surroundings evolve and then finally resurface.

I'm a resident of Tot Town

When you're working with small children, there's a very distinctive kind of dread caused by handling plastic food in the play kitchen and discovering that it's soggy. There's also a particular relief in bending down to pick up toys, catching a whiff of an anonymous diaper, and knowing you're not the one who has to change it.

You're asked questions you never thought you would be, like "Why do deaf people have ears?", and you explain to someone that old black and white pictures didn't mean the world actually used to be in grayscale.

You see preschoolers in T-shirts that say "Single and Loving It!" and wonder why there are clothes for little kids featuring statements about dating. You wonder if it's fair to dress a child in a proclamation they don't understand, then wonder if that's comparable to putting a band T-shirt on a baby, and eventually conclude that band shirts lack the presumptions of heteronormative and sometimes blatantly sexualized toddlers' clothes, so you don't have to feel ambivalent about dressing your hypothetical future baby in a Sonic Youth onesie. (Or maybe that's just me.)

And you're continually amused by the things that young children get so emphatic about. The other day a four-year-old girl in the arts and crafts area was vehemently resistant to the suggestion of putting glitter on her cardboard unicorn ("Unicorns DON'T SPARKLE!!"), but insisted that they do have tails made out of confetti.

Most of these things could also apply to being a parent, but I don't know anything about that yet. I'm just loving working with them for the time being.

             At present, my life includes a lot of glue sticks and hand sanitizer, and I come home glad to have spent time with the kids but relieved that I can give them back at the end of the day.

Crossroads and crosswords

I've decided that my life is essentially a crossword puzzle. Those of you who saw my essay about living with NLD know that I have a lot of trouble navigating space and make my way around with no sense of direction, so words are used to compensate for the void. And that's exactly how a crossword puzzle is filled out; finding the right words to fill in blanks and trying to make them fit together. That's where words and space converge; crosswords and crossroads. It's the interim where my life stands on tiptoe, trying to find a harmony between the two.