Let’s just call it what it is – rape

Rape, for the most part, is defined as the forced act of sex. There is also the idea of consent and proper consent. So, no date rapes or drunken orgies.

The Gospel Coalition is promoting Doug Wilson’s take on take,

When we quarrel with the way the world is, we find that the world has ways of getting back at us. In other words, however we try, the sexual act cannot be made into an egalitarian pleasuring party. A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts.This is of course offensive to all egalitarians, and so our culture has rebelled against the concept of authority and submission in marriage. This means that we have sought to suppress the concepts of authority and submission as they relate to the marriage bed….True authority and true submission are therefore an erotic necessity…

I wrote this post quickly last nightRachel Held Evans has responded to them as well. Scot McKnight has responded and so has Rodney. J.K. Gayle as responded as well.

How is that different than 50 Shades of Grey? Wilson, and the Gospel Coalition, is advocating that for a man to enjoy sex, he must be forcefully conquering the woman. For a woman to enjoy sex, she must be dominated. This is nothing more than a nice and clean version of rape. I do not mean to say that this is the violent rape or equal to it, but it is a psychological rape that forces the woman to have sex against her will. If rape is defined at the basic level as sex against one’s will, then what Wilson, the Gospel Coalition and others are supporting is flat out rape.

Read Rachel’s post.

Post By Joel Watts (10,110 Posts)

Joel L. Watts holds a Masters of Arts from United Theological Seminary with a focus in literary and rhetorical criticism of the New Testament. He is currently a Ph.D. student at the University of the Free State, analyzing Paul’s model of atonement in Galatians. He is the author of Mimetic Criticism of the Gospel of Mark: Introduction and Commentary (Wipf and Stock, 2013), a co-editor and contributor to From Fear to Faith: Stories of Hitting Spiritual Walls (Energion, 2013), and Praying in God's Theater, Meditations on the Book of Revelation (Wipf and Stock, 2014).

Website: → Unsettled Christianity

Connect

14 thoughts on “Let’s just call it what it is – rape

  1. Actually, I’m reminded of my time in college. I was in North Carolina while they were discussing changing the rape laws to cover spousal rape. There were actually people who opposed it.

  2. There is a notion in the feminist community that this is, at least in part, a language problem. We talk about and therefore think about (because language creates meaning) sex in terms of men being active and women being submissive. It’s a mechanism that operates at level as seemingly unbiased as biology: a sperm “impregnates” an egg. But this isn’t necessarily The Truth about sex; it’s just how our culture/language conceive of it (terrible pun!) This is one of many ways patriarchy is embedded in our very language, down to our grammar.

    Interestingly, it was long thought that two women could not have a sexual relationship because they lacked the necessary equipment. So apparently in, like, Victorian England lesbian couples could be relatively open – even while one or both partners were married to men – because people didn’t think they could exist. That’s per a college lit prof, not my own research.

  3. You said “Wilson, and the Gospel Coalition, is advocating that for a man to enjoy sex, he must be forcefully conquering the woman.”

    Jared Wilson has said the following:
    “Here is what the excerpt is NOT saying:
    Forcing a woman against her will is okay. (Indeed, it’s saying the opposite.)
    Sex is just about a man’s “getting his.”
    Sex is about a man dominating (or otherwise taking advantage) of a woman.
    Those things are not in the excerpt but have to be read into it against all context.”

    Doug Wilson states his position as follows: “And why? Well . . . follow me closely here . . . it was because I am opposed to the degradation of women as represented in the 50 Shades phenomenon, and have been consistently opposed to that kind of thing throughout the course of my entire ministry.”

    Wow is this blog a misrepresentation or what! Unbelievable. I suppose it’s too much to ask that objective fairness show its face in this debate? The whole ‘conquering’ ‘colonisation’ references from the Song of Songs are being taken out of context.

    If there is a controversy here -it is not man “must be forcefully conquering the woman”, but as Doug Wilson notes “the problem is not the language I used about penetration or conquest, but rather who is in charge of the whole thing. The objectors have wanted to slander me by pretending that I put the man in charge of it, but I most emphatically do not. What I actually do (as she accidentally acknowledges here) is to say that God is in charge of it.”

    Please stop stirring the pot, or at least stir the correct one.

  4. Right. Snarky Ad Hominem comments aside doesn’t make it any less true. Whether the word are of a snake or not, they are still true.

    This blog post is still a massive misrepresentation (so says the snake). This is exactly the problem – no want wants to address the issues fairly and objectively.

    There is a justifiable ‘debate’ to be had on the issue of biblical authority, but to simply obfuscate the issues with misrepresentation and ad hominem fallacy, shows that at least one side is not sincere in their approach to truth.

    • I take it you think that wilson’s views on slavery is just allegorical too, right?

      If you don’t know the meaning of your words, don’t use them. Wilson J suggested that he knew he was making ega’s mad. Why? Because he knew the meaning of his words. With the backlash, he has proven only that he can’t stand by his convictions. No doubt, tho, he enforces it at home.

  5. The title of this blog is “Let’s just call it what it is – rape”. Therefore, like you, I was addressing the brouhaha about Jared’s Wilson’s use of Douglas Wilsons views on sexuality – not slavery.

    Speculation about my views of Wilson’s take on slavery then, is simply one more strategy to change the subject. I pointed out that this post’s attempt to contribute to the debate was little more than the propping up of a ‘strawman’ and a very good misrepresentation.

    To this assertion there was no response other than an exhibition of fallacious logic. Even dangling the tangential bait of ‘slavery’, still nothing of substance has been offered either on Wilson (and Wilson’s) actual point that both actually support mutual respect in the bedroom, but that human consent is not what underscribes human sexuality, but that God is.

    Wilson knew ega’s would be mad with his post simply because he understood the fundamental flaw in their thinking was not a genuine desire to resolve the ‘equal but distinct’ vs ‘equal but indistinct’ debate, but rather a knee-jerk reaction to the ‘a’ word (authority).

    As it turns out, misrepresentation of their position, and ad hominem logic against those who appear to defend them, does little to undermine that stereotype.

    • Oh… so in other words, the man either doesn’t know what he said or was purposely deceptive?

      Wilson(s) are by those words advocating what can only be described as martial rape.

    • Matthew,

      Rape-games are physical violence. Rape occurs as well in the mind when one person is dominated by another so that the imposition of wills occur. This takes place in date rape, marital rape, and the such where one person does not have the freedom to express no, but is dominated by the other.

  6. Neither Doug, nor Jared Wilson advocated rape (of any kind, physical or rape of the mind), as had already been pointed out (through Doug Wilson’s own words). Your continued use of ‘rape’ as a shock word is simply part of your strategy to misrepresent. The controversy is not about rape (as Rachel Evans’ most recent blog even admits), though it has been central to the strawman position you keep propping up, to argue against.

    Given that the actual issue is not being discussed here, but being danced around, avoided, I’ll go no further into your rabbit hole. You may have the last word.

  7. I know this was all a long time ago, but Rachel Evan’s blog stresses that it isn’t about SEX. She states that it’s about power, which is what rape is based on as well. What Wilson is saying is that rape exists because men do not have the power that they were rightfully given by God, and women want to be raped (oh yea, so many of…note EXTREME sarcasm) because they have some kind of void from denying the men their rightful power. So yes, it is about rape, but it’s not about sex. On another note…I’ve known some very submissive women who were raped by their husbands, Wilson does not address this in any way, shape or form. One can only assume that it was much easier for him to ignore it. Wilson lays the blame for rape on women’s fight for equality, when nothing could be more wrong. You say we are using rape as a shock word, I say no more so than we would be using murder as a shock word for the school shootings in Connecticut elementary school shootings. It is what it is, And what he describes is rape. In a healthy sexual relationship, there is no conquering, no colonizing. That’s not what sex is about. That is, however ironic it may be, what 50 shades is about. You say we’re not addressing the real issue, but we are. The real issue is women held in a subordinate relationship where they are told that their calling is to be conquered, colonized, penetrated, and inseminated. The real issue is rape being sanctified as Godly sex.

Leave a Reply, Please!