The Brazen Hypocrisy of Bnonn & Foster

I got Bnonn and Foster’s newsletter this past Saturday. Subject is “Our notes from 2021 week #19”. In it, they say the following:

The West has descended into sexual chaos. But the Lord calms every storm in his own time.

Here are six things pastors should do to help address the madness and restore sanity in the long term:

1. Teach and exhort women to pursue feminine beauty and household management skills;

2. Teach and exhort men to pursue manly excellence in health, wisdom, finances, and leadership;

3. Address the sins of men and women equally;

4. Exhort both men and women to not unduly delay, but cautiously pursue marriage;

5. Encourage married couples to raise up lots of kids in the nurture of the Lord;

6. Teach the married couples the basics of discipline and family religion.

The third point stands out, as this was one of the things Bnonn and Foster explicitly refused to do at the very beginning of their ministry:

(It’s not rocket surgery. Weak men and brassy women are both screwing patriarchy up. Indeed, it’s so obvious as to be uninteresting. We’re not here to endlessly reiterate the problem. We want to fix it.

Who will do that?

Who should we appeal to?

Who should we reprove and rebuke and exhort and train in righteousness?

If we have to choose, should it be the men of God, or the women of God?

We don’t believe there’s even the slightest question about this decision. The answer is always the men. Caldo suggests that for “any leader who wishes to be taken seriously,” “no less than half of his engendered instructions should be directed at women to be quiet and have some respect.” But this flies in the face of the basic dynamic of power. A 50/50 split makes no sense because there’s a fundamental 80/20 here. Pareto’s Principle alone would tell us that if we’re trying to fix a structural problem within a hierarchy, we should start with the people who have the actual power to fix it (not the perceived power). And since God built patriarchy into creation, that means the men. Men are the ones who have the power.

The problem we face is not caused by brassy women taking power. By definition, they don’t have the power to do that, or they wouldn’t need to take it! It’s caused by soft men raising up brassy women, who then demand power, which the soft men trip over themselves to give.

Thus, to solve the problem, we must speak to the men. We can either treat the symptoms, or we can treat the disease; we haven’t the energy to do both. The symptoms are brassy women who demand power. The disease is fathers—pastors, leaders, husbands—who raise them up and capitulate to them.

Bnonn and Foster had decided to enter the fray to fight for biblical masculinity. They were readers of Dalrock, and they denounced feminism and complementarianism. But, there was a problem, because one way Dalrock distinguished himself was by his willingness to read and expose the poisonous teachings found in books and articles written by Nice Christian Ladies. He also proved that Christian teachers would find any excuse under the sun to get away from having to confront the sinful behavior of women. They were an obvious source of trouble that needed to be countered. It became clear to anyone familiar with his work that exposing and criticizing evil men and women within the church equally was a necessary component of any Christian red-pill ministry.

This is where the problem comes in, because Bnonn & Foster just weren’t up to the task. One would assume they had succumbed to cowardice like most complementarian phonies already had. If you ask them, however, that’s not the reason why. It’s because:

  1. It wouldn’t make mathematical sense.
  2. They didn’t have the energy.

I don’t think any regular reader of Dalrock believed #2. Which is ironic since the name of this article on their Patreon page is titled: “The Blame Game (or Step up or Shut Up)“. While Bnonn & Foster were busy trying to talk smack, they came up with the lamest excuse ever. They just didn’t have the energy. (Maybe they just needed to step up or shut up then!)

As far as #1 goes, as you can see, they were adamant on this point. Cane Caldo’s advice didn’t make sense, supposedly, because it flew in the face of the basic dynamic of power. An 80/20 split would make way more sense. And yet here they are over two years later telling pastors to:

3. Address the sins of men and women equally;

But guys, don’t you understand? Pastors just don’t have the energy! And besides, it doesn’t make mathematical sense anyway.’

I assume Bnonn & Foster’s rebuttal would be to quit making excuses. ‘Step up or shut up, man!’ And yet, that proves that their red-pill Christian skeptics were right all along. Bnonn & Foster were making lame excuses to get out of having to confront women on their issues.

Nowadays it seems they’ve changed their mind on that. Emphasis on “seems”. Remember, they haven’t removed their errant newsletters from the Internet. Both those links still work. There aren’t any addendums cautioning the readers against believing the phony excuses they’ve offered in the past. No apologies to the red-pill Christians they sneered down upon. This would be easy to do.

But who am I kidding. They probably just don’t have the energy.

The Dreadful Prospect of Calling Their Husband “Lord”.

In his 2012 sermon The Willful Submission of a Christian Wife (Ephesians 5:22-24), John MacArthur preached on I Peter 3, and when it came to verse 5, he had this to say (35:27-36:08):

Holy women have always done this. Holy women, women who hoped in God, this means redeemed women, this is how they’ve always adorned themselves, by being submissive to their husband. Illustration: Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him Lord. Now, don’t get carried away, Men. Please. But you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear.

MacArthur’s warning to the men in his audience was met with laughter by the congregation. Whenever a pastor has to preach the text as written, he can bet money it will produce anxiety in the minds of the women listening. The condescending exhortation for men to get over themselves is meant to dispel this anxiety from the ladies’ minds. The laughter you hear is not one of humor, but of relief. “Oh, thank God. For a minute there I thought I had to call my idiot-husband lord. Ha! Like that’s ever gonna happen.”

But let’s say John MacArthur went in the other direction and said something like the following:

Ladies, there is no mistaking what God has commanded of you. Your husband doesn’t simply sit in the place of Christ in your marriage, but you’re to address him as lord. He isn’t The Lord God, but, he is your lord. And I gotta tell you, Ladies, I’ve never heard of a marriage ending in divorce after the wife started calling her husband Lord.

These statements would also be met with laughter, only it would be one of nail-biting anxiety. Pastors know full-well that women cannot abide being corrected for their failures in a relationship. In 2016 Doug Wilson wrote that he (and his wife in an unquoted portion of the article) encounters this phenomenon when counselling married couples:

Even though the world gets conviction of sin all wrong, this climate does mean that the simple message of repent and believe is one that can still be delivered to men. The men usually expect it, which is good, because they deserve it.

But that is not the case anymore with women.(…) Now I know that some women have done awful things to men also, and I take it as a given that this can and does happen. I do not assume that the man must be the worst offender. But in the counseling I have done over the years, the thing that usually wrecks the woman’s joy is not the fact that her sin is equivalent to the man’s, or greater than the man’s, or less than the man’s, but rather the fact that her sin is untouchable. We are dealing with a culture-wide insistence that women not be held responsible for what they do. This assumption has crept into the church, even into the conservative wing of the church, and has now been weaponized.

This obviously poses a problem for women when they’re confronted by 1 Peter 3:5. On one hand, the Christian church has taught them to demonize anyone who would dare criticize their failures towards their husbands. But then, the Bible does say that wives should call their husbands Lord. This naturally makes them worried, because a daunting truth is looming on the horizon. “Uh-oh… But if the Bible does teach this, doesn’t that mean I’m the bad guy?”

But this anxiety is a great opportunity for a preacher. He could take that very opportunity, knowing the fear that has been stirred in the hearts of the women listening, and say,

“Ladies, most if not all of you have failed in this area. You don’t respect your husbands, and if I bet money, none of you have ever dreamed of calling your husband lord. You may even hate your husband, but if you’re a Christian woman, your duty is clear. Obey your husband and call him Lord. I know, I know, you hate what I’m saying. Right now you may be thinking, “I won’t. I can’t. It’s just never going to happen.” That’s true, but only without God’s help. Maybe you’ve disrespected your husband for years, and you’re thinking it’s way too late to turn things around now. I’m telling you right now- it’s never too late. I’m confident that if you make it a regular point to beseech the Lord for his help, you will not just call your husband Lord, but your attitude towards him will change, and you will respect him like you never have before.”

This is the kind of preaching that women need to hear. This is the teaching that will help a disrespectful wife grow and mature in her faith. MacArthur’s approach is to stunt that growth, and to encourage women to snort at the idea that they should obey 1 Peter 3:5. We again see why the Christian church is feminist in nature. MacArthur has been preaching for a loooooooooong time. If he still can’t get this right, then it’s no wonder most of us are getting it wrong.

The Next Level…

While writing blog articles is fairly straightforward, it’s not going to profit much if the online presence of this blog goes unnoticed. To that end, I’ve created a Twitter and Gab account.

For some reason, gab links don’t turn into embedded links, so here’s the link to the Gab account:

I obviously recommend any readers here to follow those accounts if you have them on those platforms.

Another avenue of pursuing the mission of this blog is debates. I’ve been reluctant to do public interviews or debates, but as we live in a video-centric age, I can’t deny that the best marketers and influencers are all utilizing videos to get their message out there. That takes work, and admittedly, it’s not work that I want to do. However, I think participating in online streaming debates is a legitimate possibility I think I could do.

What would these debates be about? If you’ve read this blog at all, you might expect that it would a patriarch vs. a complementarian. That’s very likely, but what subject would we debate? It would be the same things I’ve written about here. Take mutual submission for example. I’m thinking a legitimate thesis would be “Is Mutual Submission A Biblical Doctrine?” I would take the negative position, and my opponent would take the affirmative. That’s only one example, of course, but it’s a start.

I have debated online before. If any reader would like to see how that went, I’ll direct you to this debate that I had on The Bible Thumping Wingnut channel with the Council of Google Plus, titled “Do Women Share the Blame when Men look at Porn?”.

This was not a debate surrounding patriarchy. However, it did involve an attempt to bring clarity to the struggle the Christian church has when it comes to how we treat men who struggle in this area. It also involved exposing the promotion of a feminist book directly related to that topic on another podcast on that same channel. The host of that show participated in this debate, and was sent packing by yours truly when I confronted her on the content of the book she promoted. All in all, I’d say it was a successful debate, despite the fact that it was 5-8 people versus myself.

Feel free to watch the entire debate, I obviously think I interacted with my opponents very well. It is very long though, so if you’d rather watch my review wherein I quoted the best parts, you can find that here.

But that was back in 2018. How would we go about trying to arrange debates with patriarchs versus complementarians on the pertinent topics? I have one idea, although I welcome others. There’s a new YouTube channel called The Gospel Truth, and the host Marlon Wilson frequently hosts and moderates debates between Christians and unbelievers, Christians and so-called Christians, and professionals vs. laymen. They don’t involve too much monologuing from their participants, which is good. These debates are mostly comprised of back-and-forth cross examination by each opponent. This debate on Re-marriage is possibly the best debate I’ve listened to yet, as far as both opponents being laser-focused on each other, no personal jabs involved, and a hyper-focus on the Scriptures.

That’s exactly the kind of debate I’d like to have. A sterling example of proper, Christian debate that aims right for the truth of the matter.

If you peruse this channel, you’ll see Marlon Wilson has brought on plenty of people who are completely unknown. One needn’t be some studious scholar or accomplished debater to be invited to be a participant on his show. I’ve reached out to Marlon on a few occasions:

As you can see, Marlon Wilson has expressed an openness toward the possibility of hosting and moderating a debate on a topic directly relevant to the issues we tackle here regularly. As of right now, he has not agreed to do so, and he has not indicated that there’s any likelihood that we will.

One major difficulty in setting up such a debate is the lack of participants. Just about nobody wants to signup for a debate where their complementarianism is scrutinized by an opponent. I’m still looking for someone who would agree to that, but the search is proving fruitless so far. We’ll see what happens.

I strongly recommend any readers here to go to Marlon’s channel or Twitter account and encourage him to look into setting up a debate in the future. I’ve already volunteered to be a participant, and if he’s still up for hosting and moderating, then all we need is another participant, and these debates could happen.

Now, all this being said, I could be wrong. Maybe a debate or two would do very little to encourage other Christians to re-examine the views of marriage and sexuality that they’ve embraced for so long. However, we’ll never know if we don’t even try. The opportunity is here, and I think we need to embrace it. I welcome any other suggestions in the comments section below.

Daring To Enforce Modesty Standards

Not so long ago I had a discussion with some family members about weddings being a church-sanctioned slut-fest for the women. For some reason, the bride, her maids, and even the women in the pews think it’s okay to wear low-hanging tops, super transparent dresses, skirts with slits, and so on. The bride especially seems to get away with the most blatant of it all, in terms of the low-cut tops.

Why do Christians allow this? It’s the same reason fathers in homes are reluctant to confront their teenage daughter when she starts breaking the boundaries for proper attire in his home. When daddy’s girl suddenly starts wearing inappropriate outfits, most fathers with rose-tinted glasses are stunned. They’re reluctant to confront her because they can’t comprehend what’s going on. Why is my baby girl doing this when she knows full-well I don’t approve of this?

The answer is simple: She knows you don’t want to confront her. It’s a dare- what the manosphere likes to call a s**t-test.

Daughters don’t usually ask permission to wear a slutty/near-slutty outfit. They just start wearing it to see what happens; To see if daddy will actually make them put on something more appropriate. This is a painful thing for a father to endure, even if he does muster up the willpower to call her out. No father wants to deal with that if he has to. He would rather delude himself that his daughter has a good reason for it, or even a lame but semi-plausible excuse. For example:

“It’s a prom dress! It’s only for one night!”

“I don’t have anything else to wear!”

“I’ll only be wearing it around the house!”

“It’s just when I’m hanging out with my friends!”

Daughters give these kind of excuses, hoping that their dad will just let the issue go. They have good reason to hope that will happen, because very often, it does. They know their dad is their friend, and he doesn’t relish the prospect of getting into a confrontation. Should Daddy have the nerve to see through this nonsense and call his daughter out anyway, there’s something else to worry about. It’s when his daughter goes to her mother for sympathy behind your back, and the wife confronts her husband.

“Our daughter is 15! It’s not a big deal! She needs to have her freedom! You know we can’t control her forever!”

Most men can see through this B.S. The Mom is fighting for her daughter’s freedom to be a slut.* The response to this kind of confrontation is very simple. It could be,

“Stop. Our daughter isn’t allowed to dress like that. End of discussion.”


“Our 15-year old daughter is trying to dress like a whore. That is a VERY big deal to me, and I’m the man of this house. You will not team-up with my own daughter against me like I’m the enemy. I get it- We can’t control her forever, but we can now, and we will. If you find her wearing inappropriate clothes, you’re going to take them from her and throw them away the very same day. She doesn’t need “freedom”. She needs to act like the Christian she claims to be.”

It takes resolve for a man to stand his ground against his wife, but most Christian men simply don’t have it. When we cave early in life, are we at all surprised that daddy’s baby girl wears a strapless-dress with a super low cut top at her wedding? Of course we aren’t. By now that’s an accepted practice to which no one dare raise objection.

That’s what the battle for modest apparel boils down to: A dare. Go ahead, tell your daughter not to wear jeans- see how much WRATH you will incur from your friends/neighbors if you do! Tell your daughter her prom-dress is too-low cut, and tell her she will not be permitted to attend unless she dresses like a lady. Let’s see you do it, big man! You sure you’ll do it? Do you have the guts? You know she’ll hate you. She’ll cry. She’ll try and turn your wife against you, and then you’ll have to deal with HER next.

When I talked about this with my family, I realized that most men won’t even try to impose a modesty standard at weddings specifically because they’re facing this battle alone.

However, if only the groom and 2 other men agree that they will not tolerate immodesty at the wedding no matter the fallout… Then… Who is going to stop them?

I doubt most Christian men have ever considered this before, but it’s quite simple. Think about it- It takes 1, maybe 2 men to keep the doors locked and only allow select persons into the building. As long as those men are prepared to turn away any woman at all- even the mother of the bride herself on the wedding day, then the problem is solved.

Bear in mind that you will have women who will test your resolve. I expect that on my or my brothers wedding days, some nice Christian lady will hear of our rule against, say, low-cut tops, and decide to take this opportunity to flaunt her disrespect. As men, we wouldn’t expect her to. After all, we had been reasonable, so surely, she will be reasonable in return! This is our wedding, we were clear about the dress code, and she wouldn’t pull some dirty trick on today of all days! That would be horrible!

But then this nice Christian lady does exactly that. Why wouldn’t she? She’s going to dress the way she likes, and no MAN is going to stand in her way. She has every reason to expect that she can break the rules and get away with it. This isn’t daring for her- the only one being dared is you. Surely you won’t turn her away at the door- it’s the wedding day! She’s the mother of the bride! Just let her in!

Most Christian men would just give up imposing their standard of modesty at this point. There was no plan for something like this! They probably prayed, “Dear God, please don’t let her screw with us today. Just let this one day be one where she just does what we asked!” But God didn’t grant your request, and you just feel that sinking feeling in your chest when you realize it’s all on you to put a stop to this, and you know you don’t have what it takes.

That’s why you have to plan ahead to take the ultimate dare. If you’re going to impose a modesty standard, prepare as if the absolute worst case scenario is a guarantee. Prepare mentally, as though the wedding ceremony will have to proceed without the mother of the bride and/or groom. Hopefully, the worst will not happen. But should you dare to impose your standard, be prepared to accept the worst.

*God only knows how it is that mothers find it so important to fight for their daughter’s freedom to act like a whore. I don’t understand why. No husband thinks it critically important to defend his son’s desire to have sex with women. But even Christian mothers have this unique, bizarre desire to prove what a friend they are to their daughters by going to bat for them when daddy disapproves of her whorish behavior. I welcome discussion on this.

I’m not going to submit like those lousy slaves!

Back in the summer of 2009, a lady named Shelley Poston wrote several articles for addressing the topic of submission in marriage. She teaches that wifely submission in marriage is voluntary in nature, and thus, it’s not appropriate for a husband to demand it.

The Greek word for submission is hupotasso, “to subordinate…put under…”   God exhorts women to voluntarily follow their husband’s leadership (Ephesians 5:221 Peter 3:1).  A woman is actively doing this– choosing to put herself under leadership, choosing to be subordinate in a circumstance or relationship.  This is not forced upon her by the recipient.  Biblical submission is chosen, no coerced.

Mary Kassian and Nancy Wolgemuth made this same argument in their book True Woman 201: Interior Design – Ten Elements of Biblical Womanhood:

Hupakouō means to yield to a superior command or force without necessarily being willing, whereas when Paul tells a wife to hupotassō herself, it means to willingly put herself in the proper position.3(…)According to the Bible, a wife’s submission is her choice alone. A husband has no right to demand it or to try to extract obedience from her. His only responsibility is to love her, woo her, and humbly sacrifice himself for her as Christ did for the church.

True Woman 201: Interior Design – Ten Elements of Biblical Womanhood Mary Kassian & Nancy Leigh DeMoss (Page 189)

I’ve already debunked this argument here. I want to approach this from a different angel. In this same article, Shelley Poston wrote (bolding mine):

First, submission is actually a voluntary action by the wife.  Wives are commanded by the Lord to submit to their husbands (Ephesians 5:221 Peter 3:1).  This is a commandment from the Lord.  However, there is nowhere in Scripture in which husbands command their wives to submit.  A wife chooses to follow her husband’s leadership.  Slaves, on the other hand, choose nothing.  Their decisions are chosen by their master.  When a woman submits to her husband, she is actually submitting to the Lord.  It is an act of worship and love for her Savior, not as one of a weakened slave.

The most glaring flaw in this article begins with the title. It asks if a wife’s submission is like slavery. You might expect that Shelley, having chosen such a title, would naturally proceed to quote and analyze 1 Peter 3:1, since that is a key text in Scripture that explicitly compares those two things with each other.

I Peter 3:1 Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives,

That’s the text, and yet, Shelley only references I Peter 3:1, and never quotes it. She also did not even reference I Peter 2:18-25, which are the verses directly preceding I Peter 3:1. Those verses explicitly talk about the submission of slaves before immediately commanding wives to submit in the same manner. They would been a perfect launching pad for the topic Shelley wanted to write about. She could have taken those texts, expounded upon their meaning, and showed how a wife’s submission is not analogous to that of a slave’s. However, she didn’t do any of those things. In avoiding delving into those most relevant texts, she wound up making the ludicrous statements she made above, which I will delve into now.

The notion that a wife must submit like a slave to her husband is clearly abhorrent to Shelley. For her, a slave who obeys isn’t “choosing” to obey. Nor is this obedience born out of strength, but weakness. This is in direct contradiction to I Peter 2 which says:

I Peter 2:18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. 19 For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. 20 For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God.

Shelley’s wrote that slaves, “…choose nothing.” That’s false, as verse 18 clearly shows not only that they can choose to submit, but they have the ability to do so in a particular manner- respectfully. They can choose to respectfully submit even when being beaten. And not only when being beaten fairly, but when they’re being beaten unjustly. There’s a great deal of choosing being mandated for Christians who are slaves.

Also, while Shelley attributes such obedience to weakness, Peter attributes it to grace. He even says it’s following in the footsteps of Christ.

21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. 22 He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. 23 When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly.

For Shelley, this cannot be true. For her, a wife’s submission to her husband is to perform an act of love and worship for her Savior, in contrast to that lousy weak submission a slave might perform.

When a woman submits to her husband, she is actually submitting to the Lord.  It is an act of worship and love for her Savior, not as one of a weakened slave.

And yet verses 19 and 23 directly state that a slave is doing both. A slave would submit to the master specifically because it is also an act of mindful obedience towards God.

19 For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly.(…) 23 When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly.

Even a scratch-the-surface approach to these texts might have helped Shelley avoid saying what she did. Then again, neglecting to do so could very well be purposeful. Her attitude is typical of Christian women who have been raised to think they are God’s princesses on earth. They aren’t doormats, gosh-darn it! Sure, they must submit to their husbands, but not like some weak slave!

But consider how callous this would be to slaves in the Christian church. Let’s say Jeremiah-Mc-Slave-Boy has a master who beats him even when he doesn’t deserve it. He may well wish to kill his master in retaliation. And yet, having heard the command from Peter, he does what his master says and shows him respect in spite of it all. This would require a level of humility and self-restraint we can only imagine in our minds. This would be an incredible demonstration of strength of mind and character, not to mention devotion to God. Then Shelley comes along, and sneers at Jeremiah’s lot in life. His behavior isn’t something to be praised and lauded for the sterling example of Christian faith that it is. No, it’s something lowly. Something weak. Has nothing to do with obeying God, just mindless obedience to his master.

Which is made all the more ironic considering what Shelley said in her opening paragraph:

Culture views submission as a weaker person allowing a stronger person to use them, a person of lesser value giving up his rights to someone of greater value. This is not what the Bible means when referring to submission.

And yet when slaves submit to their masters, this is exactly how Shelley sees it. The cognitive dissonance is strong with this one.

How would you respond if your husband lead/loved you like Christ?

This is the first time I’ve ever re-blogged an article. This is an old one from Dalrock in 2015, but it’s worth its weight in gold. Christian women are constantly tricked into thinking that a husband who is properly leading her will automatically make her want to submit to him. If she doesn’t want to submit to him, that’s defacto evidence that her husband isn’t leading properly. This article is the antidote to such poison. If only more pastors preached with as much perception as Dalrock wrote.


In the discussion of Effortless the conversation turned to how wives should expect to be lead, and how they would naturally react if their husband lead them as the Bible teaches.  There are two parts to this, which correspond to the separate instructions to husbands and wives:

  1. Wives are to submit to their husbands even if their husband doesn’t obey the word.  The idea that a wife should expect her husband to first lead (and lead correctly) before submitting is not only not supported by Scripture, but it is in direct contradiction to 1 Pet 3:1-6.
  2. Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loves the Church (Eph 5:25-29).

The first point is generally ignored, although it is worth noting that modern Christians are quite enthusiastic about 1 Pet 3:1-6 with a twist.  The second point is much more popular, and this is what I want to touch on with this…

View original post 1,199 more words

Doug Wilson Plays the Motte and Bailey

Last Friday, Doug Wilson came onto The Gospel Truth to discuss his book Reforming Marriage.

At 30:15, the host, Marlon Wilson, brought up a question I’d typed in the form of two chat messages. Unfortunately, he brought them up in the wrong order. Here’s what I said:

After reading the question, Marlon first asks Doug if what I said was true. I think it’s interesting that Marlon first asked to confirm if Doug really did write what I said he wrote. The easy answer should have been, yes, that’s true.

Instead, Doug answered thusly at 30:50 (I’ve tried to cut out extraneous words, ums, uhs, stammering, and other things to make it more reader-friendly):

The word “despot” there is the word that Paul uses, “despotes”. And so, those statements from “Reforming Marriage” and from “How To Exasperate Your Wife”, harmonize. And they harmonize this way: The wife is the executive of the home. Alright. So, when I was in the navy, I served in the submarine service. The captain was the captain of the ship, but every ship had an executive officer, the XO. And the captain was the final authority in the home, but the executive officer was like, in a company, you’ve got the CEO, and then you’ve got the chief operating officer, the COO. My understanding is that God’s pattern in marriage is that the husband is the protector and provider for the home, and he’s the captain, the head of the house. But, when it comes to the management of the house, like, what goes in the dishwasher when. “Don’t put paper plates in the dishwasher,” Mom says, right. Or, since Mom is the one keeping everything clean, she says, “I really want everybody (to) kick your shoes off by the door, by the front door.” You know, things like that. She’s the executive of the home, and she’s running the home. And that can happen without the husband relinquishing his headship or his authority. So, if she says, let’s say it’s a rinky-dink kind of thing, where she’s the one that does the grocery shopping, she stocks the fridge. I remember when our kids were teenagers, and Nate was moving into the age where he would drink lots and lots of milk, Nancy’s impulse was to, “I just went to the store yesterday, I just bought that! Limit the milk!” And I said, “No, our kids can drink as much milk as they want.” So, I make an occasional decision as the head of the home, this is what we’re going to do. But when it comes to the running of the house, that’s her area of expertise. That’s what she does. Now, if she thinks that I would have any question about something, Nancy runs it by me, but I believe that… Wifely submission is something we believe and practice, but, in 43, coming up on 44 years of marriage, actually, we’re coming on 45. 45 Years of marriage(…)So, um, coming up on decades of marriage, the instances where Nancy and I differed about something, and I made a decision and she needed to submit to it, has probably happened less than ten times. Everything else is just ordinary (lack?) together, talk-it-thorough, that sort of thing. Submission is assumed in everything we do. Headship and submission is assumed. But, if you are having a showdown every other day, and you’re pointing to the Bible verse in Ephesians 5, and you’ve got bigger problems. You’ve need to go get counseling.

Doug said that the word despot is the word used by Paul, which is despostes. In How To Exasperate Your Wife, he didn’t say Paul used despotes. He said oikodespotein. Here’s the quote (bolding is mine):

As the apostle Paul is urging young women to marry, he lets a very interesting comment fall in passing. “I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully” (1 Tim. 5:14). The word translated here as “guide the house” is oikodespotein. The wife is to be the ruler or despot of the home. This means that when she tells you to take your shoes off at the door, you will take your shoes off—and cheerfully.

How To Exasperate Your Wife (Page 11)

Perhaps Doug has argued for the word “despotes” in another book or article. Or maybe he was thinking of “oikodespotes“.

That aside, my assertion was more than that Doug used the word despot to describe the wife’s authority. I made sure to mention that he meant the wife, as despot, could order her husband around. The obvious point being that Doug, in the book this episode was named after (Reforming Marriage), condemns bossiness on the husband’s part, but allows the wife to do just that in another book (How To Exasperate Your Wife). Doug asserted that the two statements harmonize. But if you look at his answer, he harmonized nothing at all.

Remember, there’s two conflicts asserted by me in my chats. One is hypocrisy when it comes to allowing bossiness for the wife but not the husband. The second is a challenge to Doug to explain how he can allow the wife to order her husband around when he knows full-well that wives are to submit to their husbands. Keep that in mind, and now look over Doug’s entire response. Listen to it in the video. Despite speaking at great length in response, he never even tried to show how he resolved either of the issues I raised.

Instead of harmonizing what he wrote, Doug resorted to professing a completely different view. In How To Exasperate Your Wife, he didn’t write all this nonsense about XO’s and COO’s. He wrote that a wife is a “despot” and proceeded to grant to wives the authority that a despot would naturally have. Several pages later in the same book, Doug Wilson only fortified his belief:

A wife therefore has true authority over her home which no one, including her husband, can take away from her. She must be obedient to him, as this verse states, but this is a clearly delimited obedience.(…)In a certain sense, a husband (as the head of his wife) is an honored and permanent guest, but he should learn to see himself as a guest. He wipes his feet at the door, he eats what is served to him, and he seeks to conform to the pattern established by her

How To Exasperate Your Wife (Pages 17-18)

A husband is a guest in his own home? His wife has authority to tell him to stop in his tracks and remove his shoes? She decides what he eats? He conforms to her pattern? And he better do it with a smile on his face? Wow. It sounds like the wife is ruling over him. Sounds pretty bossy if you ask me. One might even call it despotic, which is exactly why Doug would shrink away from defending it.

However, he doesn’t have to defend what he wrote in How To Exasperate Your Wife. He could always just renounce what he’s written, but he can’t do that. His whole scheme as a feminist-in-patriarchal-clothing relies upon him playing the motte and bailey. In person, he’ll assure you that a wife should submit to her husband, and any authority she has over his household is, of course, subject to his veto. Then you buy How To Exasperate Your Wife expecting to find the same biblical model being proclaimed there, and you find this bizarre monstrosity has taken its place.

But honestly, what else is Wilson to do? Well, if you’re familiar with his work, he talks about masculinity being the glad acceptance of responsibility. If what he wrote is indefensible, then he could just withdraw the book from sale, say that he was wrong in this area, you know, basic stuff a man would do if he were gladly accepting the responsibility for correcting his error. But Wilson simply cannot do that, so the game must go on.

Marital Sex MUST Be “Mutual”!

Sometime back Sheila was going on a Twitter-campaign to let the world know just how eeeeevil the book Love & Respect is.

I’m not interested in defending the book Love and Respect per say, but rather, this assumed belief Sheila has that sex must be mutually gratifying or mutually fulfilling in some manner.

I challenged Sheila to provide Scripture to prove this assertion of hers- that “sex should be mutual.”

Unsurprisingly, this stalwart rescuer of Christian women around the globe eventually just blocked me.

For a man standing behind what the Scripture says and only what the Scripture says, he can see Sheila’s nonsense with perfect clarity. The Bible never says that if you have sex purely for physical reasons that you are committing a sin. Nor does the Bible say that it’s a sin for a husband or a wife to have sex purely for their own satisfaction and not their spouse’s. On the fundamental level, there isn’t a verse that even hints at such a concept.

Sheila didn’t care to acknowledge this fact. Instead she resorts to good old-fashioned poisoning of the well. “It is pornography that talks about sex as being about a man taking what he wants.” No, Sheila. That’s the way God talks about sex. It’s straight out of the book of Proverbs:

Proverbs 5:15 (ESV) Drink water from your own cistern, flowing water from your own well. 16 Should your springs be scattered abroad, streams of water in the streets? 17 Let them be for yourself alone, and not for strangers with you. 18 Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth, 19 a lovely deer, a graceful doe. Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight; be intoxicated always in her love. 20 Why should you be intoxicated, my son, with a forbidden woman and embrace the bosom of an adulteress?

The Holy Spirit who inspired King Solomon to write this book felt quite comfortable talking about sex being about a man taking what he wants. The man wants sex, and so he is commanded to drink from his own cistern/well. He’s even being explicitly told to use his wife’s boobs to satisfy him at all times. No such mention of the mutual gratification/fulfillment on the wife’s part is mentioned, and for Sheila, that just won’t do.

Proverbs 5 “never once talked about how sex should be mutual and how it was created for her too” either. As you can see though, that isn’t important to Sheila. She never offered a verse proving what she kept asserting was a required feature of marital sex. Does that phase her? Not one wit, because the Scriptures simply don’t matter to her. If we’re going to talk about pure and simple abominations, I’d say that comes pretty darn close.

Christian Women Shouldn’t Even Be Actresses.

Joss Whedon has been publicly accused of inappropriate sexual and psychopathic behavior by female acresses he has worked with over the years. Vox Day wrote about it in Never trust a male feminist. In the comments section he said the following in response to a reader:

Carpenter was complaining about Whedon long ago. No one took her seriously in Hollywood because she is known to be a Christian. Also, Angel fans knew her character had been ruined and killed off, but no one understood why, although there were rumors at the time that Whedon was unhappy about her getting pregnant. It’s all on record.

I’m going to set aside the question of whether Charisma Carpenter is falsely accusing Joss Whedon or if she has only waited till now to make a fuss of it now that her career is hopelessly dead. Let’s examine her having been known to be a Christian. Is that what she was known for? Really? A basic Google images search will show you she was quite comfortable getting naked in front of a camera. To this day she is a flaming liberal female rights activist. The truth is that she’s not a Christian in any way shape or form, nor could she be known to be one since she never behaves like one.

However, let’s say Charisma Carpenter wasn’t a liberal cam-whore, and she simply showed up to work a 9-5 acting job five days a week. No whoring about, no liberal activism involved. That’s still not permitted by Scripture. Remember what older women are to teach to younger women:

Titus 2:3 (ESV): Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, 4 and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.

Just by looking at how much time you have to put into being a popular actress, you will already realize just how inappropriate such a lifestyle is for a woman who pretends to be a Christian. If most of her time is spent outside the home, then she is unable to be working at home. From that standpoint alone, she is, according to Titus 2:5, reviling the word of God. The reviling only multiplies when you add on her being unable to love her husband, children, to be self-controlled, pure, etc.

Charisma Carpenter is not a Christian, but let’s be honest- Christian women shouldn’t even be actresses in the first place.

Tyranny is unacceptable… Unless the wife is the tyrant.

UPDATE: It turns out that Marcus has been suspended from Twitter, so his Tweets will not appear behind mine as usual. Not sure what to do about that right now. We shall see what happens.

Here’s one of the statements by Marcus Pittman that I’m referring to:

Here’s his response to me.

I had a few interactions with him later on. I tried to get him to accept a copy of The Rational Male, but he would have none of it. I’m sure this man thinks he was just telling a funny story, but in doing so, he unwittingly revealed that his wife exercises authority over him, not vice versa. In fact, if they’re in public together and he wants to do something, she will physically remove him from a building if she has to.

Who is the real tyrant? A government that allows Marcus the freedom to go where he pleases, or the woman living in his house who physically compels him to go where she wants against his will?

I remember responding to Tom Buck’s Tweet about husbands exercising tyrannical control over their wives. The example he offered on Twitter was a husband imposing a benign dress code on his wife:

If making your wife wear a particular dress on a particular day is tyranny, then physically removing your wife from a building would probably be ten-thousand times worse. Christian wives will do that very thing to their husbands, but no one flies into hysteria and calls it tyranny. Marcus doesn’t, but the reason why is because he’s already become the one thing he fears so greatly- adjusted and comfortable with tyranny.

As I’ve said to Marcus, I don’t hate him at all. Knowing his relationship for what it is, the man is suffering deeply in his home life. He’s not some satanist or heretic- he’s an emasculated brother in the Lord like most of us. Hopefully God will humble him and he will reach out to another brother for help.