Maybe you’d better - he’s requested lawyers, guns, and money.
What I found most shocking about Driscoll’s remarks was their opening sentence:
If true, that’s not much of an advertisement for the evangelical Christian ministry, is it? As I understand it, evangelical ministers are generally supposed to be not only religious officiants but also exemplary models of godly and loving family life, which AFAIK is considered to include fulfilling marital (only marital, of course!) sex.
If most of the Christian pastors that Driscoll knows—and I bet that someone like Driscoll knows quite a few Christian pastors—have unsatisfying marital sex lives, something’s wrong somewhere. Whether the problem is selfish sleazeballery on the part of the pastors, or complacent lazy piggishness on the part of the wives, or puritanical repression and misogyny on the part of their religious culture, or some combination of any or all of the above, there’s a serious systemic problem.
(I’d also love to know how Driscoll’s pastor friends, and their wives and their congregations, are reacting to his public claim that most of the pastors he knows don’t have good sex lives. Isn’t that kind of an invasive and embarrassing thing to say?)
I’m kind of curious about that, also. What in the world is he doing talking about someone else’s sex life on a public message board?
Chauvanistic bastard…I need him like a fish needs a bicycle.
Or something.
Gorsnak --I agree. The misogyny is deep and thick, and seemingly overlooked by Driscoll. Perhaps he is oblivious to it? Or desires it. I have no idea.
If read an article in the news about someone’s car suddenly blowing up, I would hope I’d be allowed to write in my blog that “I have no idea why this guy’s car blew up, but y’know, a lot of people don’t perform routine maintenace on their cars. Here are some things I suggest you (and anyone you share your car with) should keep an eye on.”
The bear shitting in the woods?
I’ll be here all week. Try the veal.
Oh, how happy I am to see someone picking up that reference. 
I love The Onion!
You know that wasn’t his opening sentence right? You did follow the link to read it in context, right?
I think he’d agree with you. (Although I tend to think he was talking more about their sex lives per se, but instead talking about communication between couples; e.g. people afraid to share fantasies, talk frankly about positions, etc.)
Sure. If that situation arises, be sure and let me know so I can give my blessing to your blog.
Are you seriously suggesting that there’s no oblique suggestion that letting one’s self/car go is relevant to the infidelity/explosion in these cases? No, it’s not stating it as a fact. It’s just raising it as a possibility. So the asshat in the OP thinks that it’s at least possible that Gayle’s failure to stay sexy and put out is a contributing factor to Haggard’s misadventures. And even if he didn’t mean it that way, and was only talking in strict hypotheticals (which I dispute), his statements are still odious and misogynist. Why you’re defending him is beyond me.
Y’know, I recall referring to you as a dangerous man at one time.
Far be it from me to point anything out, though.
I see. So there are hypotheticals that should not even be raised to begin with, and whenever the premise of the hypothetical is odious, nobody must raise the possibility of other meanings? :dubious:
:rolleyes: Did you read it? If the guy had said, “Look, it’s important for married couples to work together to have a healthy sex life in order to maintain their relationships, and to avoid falling prey to temptation to screw around outside marriage,” then I’d have had no problem with it. But that’s not what he said. This is what he said:
This is just insulting. The idea that pastors’ wives let themselves go any more than any other women is pretty ridiculous.
Unlike all those non-pastor married men, who aren’t “trapped into fidelity”? So since I’m not a pastor, my (hypothetical) wife should worry about me being unfaithful more than she would if I were a pastor? And why the hell is fidelity a “trap”??? I thought married couples were supposed to be faithful out of choice, not because they’re “trapped” by their marriage. And the way this is phrased, it seems to be suggesting that being faithful is a burden on a husband, but not on a wife, and that what the wife gets out of the marriage is the man as her provider, which she should work for by putting out (but if he’s a pastor she can be lazy about this since he’s trapped).
See, this were the entirety of his statement, I’d have no issues with what he said.
And now lets look at some of the rest of his statement, the parts unquoted in the OP:
ZOMG, the poor helpless pastors are being preyed upon by those slutty single mothers, flirtatious hussies, and accommodating secretaries! Ooooh, I’ve got an idea! Maybe instead of never letting pastors be alone with a woman to which they might, possibly, be sexually attracted, let’s make women wear burqas. That will remove the temptation!
This guy has some serious issues with women. Again, it’s one thing to point out that the role of pastor as counselor to congregation members may result in situations where the intimacy of counseling might give rise to temptations that need to be resisted, and to take care in such situations. It’s quite another to say that pastors should cower in their homes away from “flirtatious women”, or that maintaining a professional relationship with a female assistant is so difficult that pastors should as a matter of policy have male assistants. He’s perpetuating stereotypes of men as helpless to resist their sexual desires, and of women as sexually aggressive. That’s not just pointing out the need for healthy marital sex lives, that’s a deeply misogynist worldview.
Forgot to add:
And what’s wrong with women “letting themselves go” anyways? Do men ever get chastised over gaining a few pounds? I guess it’s just a woman’s Christian duty to be sexy. Although as we’ve seen, those evil women are oversexed and dangerous to men of virtue. Talk about your double standards.
Well, here’s something I don’t get. Driscoll is complaining about how a lot of pastors don’t get any. But as was cited in the first dozen or so posts, they have this basic doctrine about relations between the sexes:
This sounds an awful lot about the Southern Baptist Convention’s notion that women should submit to their husband’s will as their husband submit’s to Og’s will. So, what’s to prevent pastor/hubbie from saying, “You know, wife of mine, I’ve been communing with God lately and I’ve discovered that it is God’s will that you go on a 1000 calorie a day diet, go to Aerobicize classes four days a week, and start my morning off with a nice blowjob every morning. And there’s a few other things, here I’ve made some diagrams and a shopping list …”
It doesn’t sound like this is happening, but since they’re married and all and God wants 'em to have sex, and the husband is right there in line with God …
Eve was framed.
Excellent posts, Gorsnak.
Everyone makes choices, and if a woman makes the choice to quit having sex with her husband? That choice is likely to cause problems in her marriage. If a man chooses to have an affair, that is HIS choice. Both of them are responsible for those decisions, and will have to live with the consequences of those decisions. Of course, the best course of action would be for the man to divorce his wife before he moves on.
It certainly isn’t the best course of action to turn to prostitutes (of whatever gender) and use meth in order to deal with whatever the problem is. Not that there has ever been any indication that Haggard’s wife refused to have sex with him. Since he apparently realized he is gay, it was more probably the other way 'round.
How did this poor woman, whose life has almost certainly been turned upside down with all of this, get to be the “bad guy?” And BTW, it is entirely possible that she had NO IDEA of what was going on with her husband. It happens all the time. Maybe there was denial involved, but maybe not. It has happened before, and it’ll happen again.
I know a couple who went to their 30th High School Reunion and the man met his HS sweetheart there and thought he ought to have a better deal than he had with his wife of 23 years. [sub]The HS sweetheart was twice divorced and was more than willing to take him.[/sub] Since the wife had put on a few pounds and all. And the thing is, this guy was more overweight than his wife was! I mean, she was maybe 15 pounds overweight…but he had packed on a whole lot more than that. At least 25 lbs would be my not very scientific estimation. And furthermore, she may have been 15 lbs overweight, but she still looked GOOD. She was still pretty and was doing the best she could with what she had going on at the time. Him? Not so much. Again, in my opinion. So they had this talk, and he told her this…and she went on a diet and got back to the weight she was when she married him. She loved him very much, you see. BUT…he didn’t change one bit. So, she lost the weight and kept her husband. Personally, I was thinking she should given him to the HS sweetheart, but then I wasn’t her so I didn’t presume to express my opinion. They are still married, she is still thin and he doesn’t appear to have changed a bit. I don’t know what happened to the HS sweetheart.
I “get” NONE of this. Except that apparently SHE loved him the way he was, and he didn’t love HER the same way. But again…what the Sam Hill do I know about their relationship? Nothing.
Still, it baffles me.
Oh, and I think this Mark Driscoll person is a twit.
JMHO
Well, in this case, that may be true, but it’s hardly the wife’s fault she doesn’t have a PENIS!
Heh…good point!