Created To Be His Help Meet, pp. 156—159

“I’m About to Have a Nervous Breakdown.” That is how Debi titles this bit, which closes out her section teaching young women “to be sober.” This should be interesting, right? Well . . . as you might expect, she basically spends the whole time telling women that nervous breakdowns are their own damn fault for being so selfish and that they need to purpose to stop having them. Yay. As she often does, Debi starts with a letter, prefacing it with this:

This letter shows how not getting our way often causes us to have a nervous, troubled spirit instead of the quiet (sober) spirit God expects us to have.

Because apparently nervous breakdowns are the results of “not getting our way.” You know, selfish spoiled women that we are. It couldn’t be the number of children Debi advocates women have, or that she expects them to be permanently selfless in every sense of the term (including lacking an actual self!), or the financial struggles or the difficulty keeping up with homeschool work for eight children under twelve. Oh no! It’s all about “not getting our way”! It strikes me that this is the same simplistic and silencing approach the Pearls take towards children. You’re upset? You’re having a tantrum? Stop being such a spoiled little brat! How the toxicity of this thinking isn’t clear to Debi is astounding.

Anyway, here’s the letter:

I heard you article read publicly called “Carnal husbands, Cranky wives, and Cantakerous Kids,” while at a seminar in Knoxville. It was the first time I realized my anxiety controlled my husband and was a reflection of my lack of confidence in him. As we left the seminar and were fighting traffic, my husband spoke up that we needed to stop for gas. Miles passed and still the traffic was bumper to bumper. Suddenly we were free and in the mountains with no place to buy gas. I was in an extreme state of turmoil. I had worked myself up to a state that I wanted to scream to him to go back into the city and get gas. I could see the gas gauge; it was totally empty. I kept quietly raging to God that “this was the exact reason why I had to take control, since he is the most irresponsible man and does not make wise decisions. I felt that I should tell him what to do.” I was so nervous, I was almost sick, but for the first time I kept my mouth shut and looked interestedly at the hills. Ten miles up into the mountains, we finally came to an exit that had a gas station, and my husband turned to me, smiled and said, “What’s happened to you? You’re not a nervous wreck like you usually are. I’m so glad you’ve learned to relax. Isn’t life more fun when you’re not so full of fear? I’m proud of you.” I had to stop and think. Even if we had run out of gas, would it have been a tragedy? I could see that I had turned many things into monsters. I had the opposite of a meek and quiet spirit that we are supposed to have. I have learned not to let my fears and irritations over uncertain circumstances control me, and, much worse, my husband. I am learning to lean on my husband.

Sara

I can actually sympathize with this letter a lot. I’m much like Sara when Sean and I go on road trips. Usually I’m tense and upset because we’re running behind, and I hadn’t planned to get off as late as we did. Sean tells me it’s okay, and to try to relax, take a deep breath, and enjoy the moment. And he’s generally right. However, there are a couple of things completely missing here. For one thing, this isn’t a gendered thing. In some couples, it’s the husband who gets all stressed out while the wife is the one saying “it’s okay, take a deep breath and relax, it’ll be okay.” In fact, our close friends Joe and Natalie are just like that—Joe stresses out over everything and Natalie is always telling him to relax and just enjoy life. Inserting things like authority and submission into this makes no sense at all.

But also, Sara’s completely missing that there’s a middle ground. She thinks her options are keeping her mouth shut and not voicing her concerns on the one hand or telling her husband what to do and controlling and dictating to him on the other. To some extent, this silence/control dichotomy is a product of the very gendered nature of a patriarchal marriage. What Sara is missing is that she can say “We’re so low on gas and we don’t know when we’ll find a gas station if we keep heading out of town, do you think maybe we should go back into town and get gas?” or even simply “The fact that we’re about to run out of gas is stressing me out.” It’s possible to communicate and to discuss an issue without one person controlling the other person or telling them what to do. But Sara doesn’t seem to be aware of that.

Of course, a reading of the article Sara cites explains why this may be. In it Debi tells women to never never never disagree with or criticize their husbands in front of their children and to never never never say anything that might sound patronizing, ever. Given that Sara and her husband believe they’re supposed to have a patriarchal marriage, even Sara offering advice might be seen as her patronizing her husband or criticizing his actions, something the article says she’s not supposed to do. Basically, the Pearls’ marriage advice completely short-circuits actual communication or discussion and makes it impossible.

Finally, the correct response to anxiety and stress is not always to just relax. Sometimes the correct response is to do something. What if a woman’s husband doesn’t have a job, and they’re running out of money, and he’s not lifting a finger to job search? Is the correct response for the woman to just let things be rather than being anxious or worried, to just relax and take life as it comes? Or is the correct response for her to encourage her husband to get a job, do some looking for him, or even take a job herself if he is unable or unwilling to find work? Anxiety is the body’s way of saying something is wrong. Sometimes that short circuits and the best response is to try to relax, but often times there’s a real problem that needs fixing and the anxiety stems from that. In those cases, something needs fixing, and ignoring that isn’t going to change it.

Anyway, back to Debi:

Many women lack biblical soberness, as seen in the way they treat their houses as shrines to be protected, rather than as spaces in which to enjoy their families. They get emotionally upset if the carpet gets messed up or if the kids accidentally spill milk on the couch. They become emotional wrecks over their physical surroundings.

I’m sorry, what?! Does Debi have short term memory loss, or does she just think we do?

Debi only recently got through shaming Jill for not “planning ahead” enough to have supper on the table and the house clean when her husband got home. In that section, she had this to say:

I have had many sick babies, and I know sometimes it was not easy, but you can get the house in order and meals cooked and keep everything running smoothly all the same. As mothers, we will often be stressed over a sick child, but that is no reason to neglect our other duties. A sober wife makes herself the match of every circumstance.

And then she wrote an entire section on planning ahead when cooking. In that section she said this:

Sometimes, maintaining a good relationship with your husband simply requires the performing of simple tasks, like having a good meal ready on time and a clean house, even when it is not easy or convenient to do so.

And then she wrote a section telling women to go back to the 1950s. She included this tip on preparing for your husband to return home at the end of the day:

Clear away the clutter. Make one last trip through the main part of the house just before your husband arrives, gathering up school books, toys, paper, etc. Then run a dust cloth over the tables. Your husband will feel he has reached a haven of rest and order, and it will give you a lift too.

So first she tells women that it is their duty to keep their houses clean and orderly for their husbands, and that there is no excuse for failing at this . . . and then she says it’s wrong for women to become upset when their houses become disorderly messes? It’s okay for a husband to expect a wife to keep her house clean and orderly, but it’s not okay for a wife to expect she should be able to keep her house clean and orderly? I mean, seriously?

As a quick aside, I do want to address Debi’s actual point. It’s true that as a parent you can’t expect your house to always be in tip-top perfect shape. I’ve been working extra hard in recent weeks to keep our apartment in some semblance of order, and have been making sure everything is straightened and put away before bedtime. Even with that, it’s more than a little discouraging to feel like I just cleaned the kitchen, and then I turn around and it has suddenly descended into chaos again. I recently acknowledged to myself that our house simply won’t be quite as as clean as I would like it until the kids are grown and gone.

However, I do think it’s reasonable to strive for certain levels of cleanliness. Too much mess stresses me out and makes it hard for me to function, and I think that’s true for a lot of people, men or women—and that’s not bad or unreasonable. Sally is already conscious of cleaning up when she makes a mess. It’s not draconian or backed up with a stick, it’s about teaching children respect for both their home and for their parents’ needs. I respect my children and their desires, and I ask that they also respect me and my desires. At age 4, Sally can understand and should respect my desire for her not to color all over the walls. However, I also understand and respect her desire to draw on large canvases, so I direct her to our giant whiteboard. 

Anyway, back to Debi lecturing selfish women for caring too much about the state of their homes.

If you have that problem, let me ask you, how would you feel if your husband provided nothing more than an open barn in which to deliver your first baby? That was the case with Mary, the mother of Jesus. Do you think God could have used Mary to be the mother of Jesus if she allowed herself to become an emotional wreck when her environment was not calm or orderly? Think of the teenage girl, Mary, clinging to the back of a bouncing donkey, contractions pulling at her exhausted body, while her desperate husband searched for a place for her to deliver her child.

You’re not happy with your lot in life? Guess what?! It could suck a lot more! Who do you think you are to expect a clean and orderly home?! Mary didn’t have one when she gave birth to Jesus, so why should you?! Who do you think you are?! I mean, isn’t that basically what Debi is saying? That it’s not legitimate for a woman to want a calm and orderly environment? That wanting that is selfish and unreasonable? And yet, in a previous section she had this to say: “As wives, our life’s work should be to perfect how we may please our husbands.” Because men get to have a servant waiting on them hand and foot, and that’s totally not selfish! Grrr.

Many have speculated as to what virtues Mary had that prompted God to choose her to be the mother of our Lord. I can tell you what she was like.

Because Debi can read minds and characters across time and space. Totally.

She had eternity in her heart. She was self-possessed, thoughtful, and was always learning to make wise judgements. When a young woman learns to be sober, she will not live for immediate gratification. She will appreciate those things that will last for eternity.

I agree that it’s easy to get caught up in day to day annoyances and forget to take a deep breath and enjoy life. I even agree that it helps to keep in mind what really matters and what doesn’t, and what will matter ten years from now and what won’t. It helps to put things in perspective. But, there’s a problem here that actually stems from Debi’s theology. I grew up believing, like Debi, that it’s eternity that matters, and that shitty situations in the day to day were unimportant. This is why too many evangelicals see sending people Bibles as more important than sending them water and other supplies. It’s eternity that matters. So what if they’re living in an unsanitary shack, if they know Jesus they’ll go to heaven and that’s what matters, right? That sort of perspective gets in the way of bettering one’s life in the here and now.

And here we reach the end of this section. The basic summary is that having a nervous breakdown is the result of being selfish and wanting things your way instead of being able to relax and just take life as it comes. She completely and totally misses that her teachings that women have to perform perfectly for their husbands, whether it’s through perfect obedience or through always smiling or through keeping the house and children spotless and the proper food on the table, might actually contribute to or help create nervous breakdowns in women who follow her teachings. Her solution—to just relax and take life as it comes—only works if a husband is okay with having supper late, and Debi has already made it clear that that is not acceptable. In the end, Debi tells women that nervous breakdowns are their own fault for being so self-centered without, apparently, realizing that a nervous breakdown can actually result from giving and giving and giving until you lose both yourself and your sanity.

Debi finishes out the chapter a poem her daughter wrote. I’m not going to add commentary. I’ll leave that for you lot.

Mountain Ma and Pa

By Rebekah Pearl (age 16), April 1991

O, so much ter do,
So much ter be done.
The work’s never through,
An’ da work ain’t much fun.
No thanks fer yer labor,
No pay fer da job,
Jest, “What’s fer supper?”
“How ’bout corn-on-da-cob?”
Ya mop an’ ya sweep,
Ya dust an’ ya shine.
Then turn around,
An’ what do ya find?
His shoes on da floor,
His coat on da chair,
His rear in da couch,
An’ his feet in da air!
So ya kick off yer shoes,
An’ ya throw down yer broom.
An’ ya wink at yer ole man,
So he’ll make ya some room!

This is why my Ma and Pa are happily married!

Created To Be His Help Meet, pp. 161—164

In this post we begin on Debi’s chapter “To Love Their Husbands.” Remember that Debi is working her way through the things older women are commanded to teach younger women in Timothy 2. You want to know what this entire chapter on wives loving their husbands is about? I bet you can guess. Sex. That’s right, I’m not surprised either. I do need to start with a warning, though. If you’ve ever experienced intimate partner rape, I’d suggest you either read carefully or skip this post altogether.

Loving him means putting his needs before your own. I am a minister. If you are a wife, you, too, are a minister. Our ministry is directed toward our husbands and then our children. We were, and are, created to be help meets. Every day and every night we need to be ready to minister to his needs.

Because describing sex as “ministering to his needs” isn’t creepy at all!

And now we have a letter, which Debi gives the caption “A Normal Guy.”

Dear Mr. And Mrs. Pearl,

I am in a dilemma and need you guys to write my wife and tell her what I say is true. My wife thinks I am a sex pervert because I need sex. She feels I am not sensitive to her needs when I want sex and she doesn’t, which is most of the time. She will give me sex, but it hurts her feelings that I do not love her enough to consider her first. I tried to explain to her that to a man sex is just like having to eat. When I have missed a meal I unconsciously roam the kitchen, opening cabinet doors, and peer into the refrigerator, just looking and looking. I told her that a few days without sex leaves me in the same condition sexually. No matter how much I love her and respect her feelings and needs, I still have this overwhelming sexual need that drives me until it is satisfied.

There are very few times when everything is just right for her. She is exhausted, or has a backache or not healed right down there or whatever she comes up with. I tried to explain to her that she is setting me up for temptation, and that really set her off. Now I am not only a pervert, I am also unfaithful in my heart, so she is upset every time a good-looking girl walks by.

Please tell her I just down-right need my woman. That’s the bottom line; I am normal—all guys need a woman. She said I made it until I was 23 without sex, so why do I have to have it now? I told her when I was single, I did not have to see one undress or lie in the bed and know I could if I wanted to. I just want to come home and be a family man. I want to crawl into bed at night with a woman who is glad I am her man, and I want to make love every few days so I don’t have to think about the girls at work. Would you write her and explain all this to her. Maybe if she heard from you she might understand that I have feelings, too—physical feelings as well as emotional feelings.

Micah

First of all, unless Micah is a high school teacher (and I very much hope he is not), the strange female creatures (to use Michael’s term) he’s looking at at work are women, not girls.

Next, has Micah literally not thought of helping with the kids and the house after supper so that his wife won’t be so exhausted when bedtime comes? Can he seriously hear “I have a backache” and think about how awful his wife is for not wanting to have sex with him without even considering that she might need a back rub? And what in the name of all that is holy is this bit about Micah being upset with his wife when she doesn’t want to have sex because her vagina has not fully healed from childbirth?! You cannot—cannot—be more of an asshole than that. You try pushing a baby out of your vagina, ripping the skin of your vulva such that it has to be stitched back together, and then hopping between the sheets! I cannot believe how freaking insensitive Micah is!

The sad thing is that Micah started out so well. He’s right that having sexual urges doesn’t make him a pervert. I have to wonder if his wife grew up with such conservative ideas about sex that she’s been unable to shake them. It’s more probable that Micah and his wife are simply not sexually matched. From his letter, it sounds like he has a much higher sex drive than his wife. And you know what? That does suck. I’ve known women in the same boat—dating or married to men who simply don’t want sex as often as they do. Yes, you read that right—this sexual mismatched thing can go either way. Micah needs to know that it’s not just him, and then needs to be given healthy tools for handling this mismatch. And in case you’re wondering, “tell my wife to have sex with me even when she doesn’t want to” is absolutely not one of those healthy tools.

Also, Micah, telling your wife that she better put out or you might just be forced to cheat on her is totally not okay. It’s a threat, and it’s shifting blame. Your wife was damn right to be upset when you told her that!

Debi doesn’t follow this letter with commentary. Instead, she starts with this verse:

“For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church” (Eph. 5:31—32). 

Then she offers bullet points that, presumably, expound upon what this verse means:

• God’s ultimate goal is for you to meet your man’s needs.
• God’s original intention was that a woman would spend her life helping her husband fulfill his dreams and ambitions.
• From the beginning, God meant for us to be a comfort, a blessing, a reward, a friend, an encouragement, and a right-hand woman.

In other words, women were created to meet men’s needs, so they darned well better put out. If they don’t, after all, they’re not meeting their men’s needs, and that’s their whole purpose for existing. Debi then offers this dialogue:

“What can I do to help you, Adam?”

“Pick up the other end of that log, and help me move it over here.”

“What should my next project be, Adam?”

“Have my dinner ready every evening, and take good care of my little ones.”

“That is a very strong fence you are building, and the gate looks nice. I am so proud of you, Adam. What would you like now?”

“Take your clothes off real slow so I can watch . . . . Yeah, you’re a fine help meet.”

In Debi’s other life, she’s a porno writer.

Anyway, moving right along:

A man’s concept of love and marriage is different from a woman’s, especially after he has gone without sex for a few days. This is not a “how-to” book for a man. I will skip his part, and deal with the ladies’ part. God describes marriage as “they two shall be one flesh,” which is their bodies coming together. 

Many men feel that marriage is not quite what they thought it was going to be. Some men spend their youth dreaming about the wild passion they are going to experience with the woman they love more than life. It is their expression of the oneness they will have with her alone. This is truly God’s design for a man in the department of love.

The man remembers the passionate and loving looks his sweetheart had for him before marriage. He had naturally assumed that she would always think of him in that all-consuming, loving way. When they were courting, that is the way she made him feel. He saw it reflected in her face. All he wanted was to satisfy that hungry animal he thought she was, and, for a while, she was all he had hoped for; but then that faded away. She wasn’t interested anymore. Her disinterest in him sexually is a reflection of her heart, and he knows it. There are a multitude of excuses women use to explain why the would “rather not” or why the “cannot respond” sexually. I believe I have heard them all. Her husband knows in his spirit that all her excuses are just that: excuses for not wanting him. 

Uh . . . no.

First, let’s stop giving guys (and girls) unrealistic expectations about what their sex lives will be like when they grow up. My parents and my church talked about the glory of married sex to the extent that I was personally profoundly disappointed upon finding out what sex was actually like. I’m not trying to dump on sex or anything, it’s just that the view I was given was very unrealistic. I didn’t realize that it was something that took practice, for instance. Sex is great, but if you go into marriage thinking it’s going to be an eternal sexual pleasure fest, you’ve got something coming.

Second, what in tarnation is this idea that if a woman doesn’t want to have sex with her man every single minute of the day and at the drop of the hat, this means she no longer loves him? This is absolutely insane. Debi is saying that any time a woman doesn’t want to have sex, she is simply making up “excuses.” Excuses for what, I have to ask? Women aren’t obligated to have sex whenever their husbands snap their fingers. To the extent that women actually make up “excuses” for not having sex, it’s because they don’t feel like they can just say “no thank you, I don’t want to right now.” And that’s something they should feel like they can say without repercussions, because men aren’t babies, they’re fully grown men who should be mature enough to except a “no.”

Third, this idea that women shouldn’t be taken at their word when it comes to sex is a huge part of rape culture. And more than that, this suggestion of Debi’s that when a woman says “I don’t want to have sex with you right now” she’s really saying “I don’t love you anymore” is both complete bullshit and extremely destructive. Debi is creating a situation where men will interpret a woman saying “no” to sex one evening as complete and utter rejection and a situation where women feel like they can’t say “no” even just once without risking making their husbands feel completely and utterly rejected. And that’s a level of dysfunction someone ought to be able to see coming a mile away.

When a woman is not interested in his most consuming passion, he feels that she is not interested in him. When a woman just “allows, cooperates, and tolerates,” it leaves a man feeling sick at heart. If, to a man, sex were just copulation, he would make his deposit and be satisfied, but to him it is intimacy, a merging of spirits, a way of saying, “I love you . . . I need you . . . I like you.” A man’s most basic needs are warm sexual love, approval, and admiration. For his wife to be willing but indifferent, speaks of neither sex nor love.

A woman is a fool to believe her own excuses or to thinks he can convince him that what she says is truth. Her half commitment makes him feel incomplete and unloved. By not obeying God in this area of sex and love, a woman is putting a terrible curse on her husband. When a woman forces a man into that position, it is the equivalent of a man saying to his wife, “You are a stupid, ugly, lousy wife, but I will still be a good husband and kiss you today.” A man’s wife has more influence on his frame of reference than any other thing or person in life.

Holy hell. Not only do women have to have sex with their husbands at any moment or the drop of a hat, they have to also act as though it’s absolutely and completely the only thing they want to be doing. They have to be into it, active, passionate. Debi somehow sees nothing wrong with telling women that they must have passionate involved sex with their husbands any time their husbands want it, whether they themselves actually want to or not. More than that, how can Debi not see that what she’s telling women to do is to learn to be good at faking it?

Man is driven to succeed. Hormones drive him to be the best at work, to drive aggressively, to build the best building, or write the finest musical piece. But his most pressing drive is to be a successful lover. Making his wife feel glorious when he touches her is the ultimate test of his manhood—the very measure of the man. He cannot view life differently; that is the way God made him.

You know, this is the first time female pleasure has come up, and somehow Debi makes female pleasure all about men. Women, you better feel pleasure during sex, because if you don’t your man won’t feel like a real man! Really? Is that, like, the whole point of female pleasure? Seriously, what?

He needs a wife, a help meet, a helper who will meet the need God put in him. If a wife does not meet his intimacy and sexual needs, she is a help-not-meet, a helper not suitable to the task for which God created her.

I’m done. I’m so, so done.

Created To Be His Help Meet, pp. 164—167

We’re still in the chapter on loving your husband, which means this week is going to be all about sex once again.

No woman loves her husband if she does not seek to please  him in this most important area. If you are not interested in sex, then at least be interested in him enough to give him good sex. If you are not loving your man, you are in danger of blaspheming the word of God—“to love their husbands.” The Bible says, “Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin” (James 4:17). Hopefully you just didn’t realize that your lack of sexual interest in your husband was sin, but now you know.

In other words, if you don’t “give” your husband “good sex” (her emphasis) you are, quite literally, blaspheming the word of God and sinning. I’m really not sure how Debi could lay it on thicker than this. And with that, Debi moves into a letter:

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Pearl,

We enjoy your writings and hope you can help us. Our question is what does a Christ-centered, sexually fulfilling, intimate marriage look like? We have an exceptionally wonderful marriage except for our intimacy on the sexual level. My husband feels that a “switch” turned off in me after having the children and that I no longer enjoy relations like I used to. I feel he is correct in his assessment of this. I sometimes feel embarrassed by the whole act and feel that oral sex is wrong, although I used to enjoy it. We have prayed to the Lord for some sort of guidance with this. My husband has turned off his desire for sexual relations, and so we live as best friends who do everything together except make love. Any help or advice you can give us would be greatly appreciated. We both want to get to the bottom of this matter once for all.

Mrs. C

I think the first thing I’d tell Mrs. C is that it’s completely normal to go through sexual dry spells in a marriage. There will be times when sex is hot and heavy, and times when it’s more sparse. And that’s okay. The thing about sex is that you have to figure out what works for you (and your consenting partner). If the Cs are concerned about their lack of a sexual relationship, they could go see a sex therapist about it, but if they’re both content with it I don’t see the problem. And who knows, maybe, down the road, once the kids are older and the house stays cleaner longer, Mrs. C may regain her desire for sex.

Anyway, now to Debi’s actual response.

Dear Mrs. C,

You would not be writing unless you are both unhappy with your current relationship. You know it is wrong. When you married you signed over to become a minister to his needs. Your life’s work is to minister to your husband. Marriage means becoming one flesh. It does not mean being best friends. In practice, you are not in a marriage relationship with your husband. You and your husband are effectively living in a divorced state, having put each other away. God commands in I Cor. 7:5, “Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.” God has clearly told us that not having regular sex is giving Satan an opportunity to tempt married couples. Wife, it is your God-ordained ministry to your husband to be his totally enthusiastic sex partner, ready to enjoy him at all times. To do less is a grave error. If you love your husband as God commands, you will always seek to give him pleasure. In so doing, you will fulfill your role as his suitable helper.

Because apparently it’s not about what works best for you and your relationship, it’s about following a set of prescribed rules whether they make any sense in your situation or not. Because, you see, rules are more important than people.

I should also reiterate that this “if you love your husband as God commands, you will always seek to give him pleasure” thing is profoundly dangerous. It is possible to love someone without giving them everything they ever ask for. In fact, the Pearls have all sorts of nasty words for parents who show their love to their children by fulfilling their children’s every want. It would seem that while it is wrong to spoil children, God has commanded wives to spoil their husbands.

And what in the world is this “Marriage . . . does not mean being best friends” bit? Michael has multiple times called Debi his “best friend,” and even Debi used the term herself over a hundred pages ago. Debi must mean that marriage does not only mean being best friends, but that’s sure not what she actually says!

When the angel announced to the 89-year-old Sarah that she and Abraham would copulate and have a child, she responded by laughing and saying, “After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?” (Gen. 18: 12). Pleasure is what Sarah remembered and experienced with her man. She is recorded in Hebrews 11 as one of the pillars of faith.

Sarah’s son, Isaac, found comfort for his sorrow after his mother’s death through sexual fulfillment with his new wife, Rebekah (Gen. 24: 67).

One entire book of the Bible, The Song of Solomon, is dedicated to singing praise to God for the joyful expression of love in the sexual union of a man and his wife. It is so graphic in its description of erotic pleasure that it is embarrassing for some to read or hear it read aloud. My husband wrote a commentary on it called Holy Sex.

Debi

Why doesn’t Debi directly address the question of female pleasure? She keeps sort of almost halfway referring to it. I mean, she says that wives must be enthusiastic sexual partners because husbands don’t want to have sex with  limp rag dolls. She never says whether it matters whether the women putting on the show of enthusiastic sex are enjoying it or not. And even if it does matter, she never says female sexual pleasure matters for its own sake. I mean, if Sarah experienced pleasure with Abraham, I’m pretty sure it wasn’t because she was faking it and pretending to be enthusiastic, and yet that is all Debi actually instructs women to do. Look, if Debi wanted to talk about female pleasure she could have. She could have said things like “you have this thing called a clitoris” or “lube is your friend” or “try some more foreplay” or “if it hurts, there’s something wrong, and you should go to the doctor.” But she doesn’t do that. Instead, she says “if you don’t give your husband sex you’re sinning against God” and then tacks on “oh by the way Sarah found sex pleasurable and she’s one of the pillars of faith, so you might want to try that.”

Oh and also? Song of Solomon wasn’t about a married couple. It was about lovers.

Anyway, next comes another letter:

Dear Pearls,

I have not felt close to God for a long time. Something was missing. I found myself empty and lonely. I really ahd no idea what was wrong. I was aimless as a mother, and my discipline of the children was inconsistent and fraught with anger. My household management was wanting. In the past, my husband and I have had a great relationship, but even that was limp. I often cried myself to sleep, not knowing what was wrong.

My husband had been attempting to get intimate with me during “that time of the month,” at which time I usually pushed him away. He knew it was “that time” again, but assured me that he wanted to just give me pleasure. Actually, he has attempted to give me pleasurable moments as opposed to “all the way” for years, but I have resisted him. I guess I must think in boxes; it is either all or nothing for me. As so, when I did not think it was “all” a good time, then it was nothing. Last night, after I resisted my husband yet again, my heart cried out to God, and I began to cry and pray. Eventually the sobbing subsided, and I calmed down (and my dear husband had sleepily held me and let me cry it out). It was then that I felt like God said in that still small voice, “Those arms that hold you so lovingly are MY arms.” I felt the warmth and strength of my husband’s arms around me. I realized that by pushing my husband away, I had been pushing the Lord away. No wonder I was so lonely! The very one given to be my savior and guide here on earth, I was refusing to receive comfort from.

How eagerly I went to my husband, and how eager I will always remain! Life is an education. Boxes, boundaries, self-imposed rules, they are all the same ink.

Today was like a new day! My children, my house, my chores, I saw everything with different eyes—thankful eyes, a grateful heart, and a soul full of joy and love.

Cheryl

Oh look! It’s about female pleasure! Sort of . . .

This letter isn’t from a woman who wanted her husband to give her sexual pleasure even as he refused, but rather about a man who wanted to give his wife sexual pleasure even as she refused. In other words . . . if your husband wants to give you sexual pleasure, you better accept it whether you want it or not. And what if it’s the opposite? What if a man only wants to pleasure himself and isn’t willing to pleasure his wife? IT’s almost as though Debi doesn’t realize such a situation could exist, because there’s nary a peep. And backing that up is the only thing Debi follows this letter with:  

A wise woman gauges her husband’s needs. She seeks to fulfill his desires before even he is aware of them. She never leaves him daydreaming outside the home. She supplies his every desire.

Apparently, if a husband’s “need” or “desire” is to pleasure his wife, she needs to be sure to meet that need. Because, yes, female sexual pleasure matters to Debi only insomuch as it enhances male sexual pleasure. Seriously, this would have been a perfect place for Debi to have finally addressed female pleasure. She could have talked about how important female sexual fulfillment is, and assured women that it’s okay and good for their husbands to give them manual or oral sexual pleasure. She could have let women know that it’s reasonable to expect sex to go both ways and be pleasurable for both parties. But she doesn’t do any of that, because that’s not the point. The point, it seems, is simply that wives are to be their husbands’ willing sex slaves, never saying no or rejecting either sex or a particular kink.

Also, I would be remiss if I let this letter go by without addressing the husband-in-the-place-of-Jesus stuff going on here. Cheryl calls her husband “my savior and guide here on earth.” And she says that “I realized that by pushing my husband away, I had been pushing the Lord away.” This is a huge huge problem, especially if any poor woman’s husband is reading this book. If a woman rejects her husband’s sexual advances . . . she is pushing God away? If a woman does not want her husband to pleasure her . . . she is refusing the “comfort” Jesus is extending to her? Somehow I don’t think I would have been comfortable with this idea even back in my evangelical days.

Anyway, on to a third letter, the last we’ll look at in this post:

Dear Mr. Pearl,

I have a question. Would it be a sin to castrate myself? I am a husband and father, and I just cannot satisfy myself with my wife because she does not want sex very often. The BIble says, “whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” Would it not be better in my case to be castrated? I talked with my wife, and she does not care. I am tired of sinning.

Mr. Miller

You know what’s really sad? While I can’t say for sure whether this letter is real or whether Debi made it up, I don’t see anything about it that screams that it is a fake. I’ve heard this sort of thing discussed, though not in as explicit terms. I mean, if you really believe that thinking sexual thoughts about women other than your wife is a sin, and you can’t seem to stop yourself, you really don’t have a whole lot of outs. Anyway, here was Debi’s response:

This is a real letter from a real man named Mr. Miller. We were shocked! What do we tell this man who is willing to lose his manhood to avoid the lust caused by his indifferent wife? The gravity of his wife’s sin is staggering. She has NO FEAR of God Almighty. She has blasphemed the Word of God with her selfishness, thinking only of her own needs and not loving her husband. Never, never, never be guilty of such a grave sin.

If you won’t have sex with your husband it’s a sin, sin, sin, and it might make him so desperate he seeks to castrate himself, and it will be your fault! Have you no fear of God? Ugh, Debi.

This husband needs to know what God says, “The wife hath not power over her own body, but the husband . . . . Defraud ye not one the other . . . that Sin tempt you not for your incontinency” (I Corinthians 7: 4—5). God grants the marriage partner full access to his spouses body for sexual gratification.

Wait. Wait. Wait. What exactly is Debi saying here? Is she seriously saying that what Mr. Miller needs to know is that God has granted him full access to his spouses body for his own sexual gratification? Because that’s not rapey, no, not one bit.

Ugh.

Created To Be His Help Meet, pp. 168—170

We’re still in Debi’s chapter on love sex, remember. In case you’re wondering, there will be two more weeks of devoted to this chapter. Next week will cover a few more letters from fans, and the week after will cover “sexual perversions.” So, let’s get started on this week’s section! Trigger warning for abuse and marital rape. In this section, Debi explains sex and men’s need for it—and women’s “duty” to provide it—and it’s not pretty.

God made man to need sex. He must be relieved of his built-up sexual desire, even if it means spilling his seed in his sleep. I Corinthians 11:9 states, “Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.”

Ah, so there it is! Women weren’t created to need sex. Men were. Women? Pfft. They don’t have built up sperm that needs release!

And you know what? I’m not a Christian, and yet I am again and again horrified by what Debi does with scripture. She suggests that since Corinthians states the woman was created for the man, and not the other way around, the woman is designed to meet men’s need for sex, and not the other way around. This ignores completely ignores the fact that Corinthians says that men and women are to meet each other’s sexual needs.

I Corinthians 7: 2—5. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

I don’t know about the rest of you, but this treats the sex relationship as mutual and not at all one-sided. In other words, and as we shall see as we move through this passage, very different from the way Debi treats the sex relationship. And to be honest, there is precious little else about sexual relationships in the New Testament, so I’m really not picking and choosing here—Debi is.

And now back to Debi.

Men are all somewhat different in their sexual needs. If they are sick, tired, stressed, scared, feel rejected, or are even distracted by a big project, their sexual need may be diminished or even put on hold for a week or two. Healthy food makes a positive difference. Vitamins, herbs, and exercise all play a vital part. Men have enhanced sexual drive after excitement or physical exercise. If he is keyed up with success, he may have a stronger than usual need. Even the weather affects a man’s drives.

Okay. This seems fairly straightforward to me.

A man is negatively affected by a halfhearted response from his wife. The poor guy is never fully relieved and therefore never feels totally satisfied, making him think he is a sexual pervert or something, because he needs sex so often. It is like eating a tiny snack, a little bit here and there, yet never sitting down to eat a big, juicy stake and salad. A good wife knows that the greater her response, the more pleasurable her man’s orgasm can be, and the more complete and long-lasting will be his satisfaction. When you respond halfheartedly, it says to him, “You have only half of my heart.” A halfhearted response from a wife can turn a sweet, teddy-bear of a man into a mean, old dog. It can make a man who is high-strung morph into an emotional jerk at work, home, and even at church.

If you’re not enthusiastic enough in responding to your husbands sexual advances, he’ll treat you terribly, and it’ll be all your fault, you hear that? Because really, that is what Debi is saying here. Notice that Debi says a woman’s halfhearted response turns her husband into a mean old dog and a jerk. The woman’s actions cause it. In what world this could possibly not be a bad lesson to teach, I do not know. Its message is “you better be totally into sex and not ever limp in your response . . . or else.

God created man with a regular need for a woman, and God commanded the man’s wife to see to it that his need is met. Do yourself and everyone else a favor, and devote at least 15 minutes every few days to totally pleasing your man.

Fifteen minutes every few days . . . from the way Michael talks in his book, I guess I thought it was a bit more often than that. And what if a husband wants it more often than that? Debi’s made it pretty clear sex should always be enthusiastic on a woman’s part, so I’m not entirely sure why she’s now putting a time limit on it.

For a wife to defraud her husband of this vital need that God has instilled in him should cause her to tremble in fear of the consequences. And remember, his entire ego is tied up in this sexual experience.

Oh no, no threats here at all! It’s just that . . . if you don’t respond to your husband’s every advance, and enthusiastically, you should be trembling in fear of God’s wrath and realize that your husband’s ego will be completely shot. Right.

To him it is the ultimate expression of his deepest love for you, the fullest measure of intimacy with you he can imagine. His entire body, soul, and spirit are caught up into earth’s “heavenlies” in this one act of sharing that love with you, the very measure of his person.

If sex is the deepest measure of intimacy a man can imagine, you’d think he’d care a bit more about making sure it’s genuinely mutual, and about not taking advantage of his partner. If love is to be “shared” here, again, you’d think it would go both ways and involve things like communication. Instead, Debi has painted a picture where men have sexual needs, and women are to fulfill those needs, full stop.

We ladies all have basically the same hormones. Over the last 50-plus years, my hormones have fluctuated some, but I have still been fully a female during all that time. Amazing, isn’t it? Through adolescence, marriage, pregnancies, births, periods, menopause, you name it, our hormones are always there, maintaining us as a female. For the most part, all ladies have the same sexual drives.

This bit is just a teensy bit confusing. When Debi says ladies all have the same hormones, and the same sexual drives she means that women are a universal as compared to mens’ more varied sex drives (back up a couple paragraphs). She’s not saying that women are sexual just like men.

Do you love your husband the way he needs loving, the way you were created to love him? If you don’t score high points here, you are providing an opening for your husband to be tempted by other women. It is a man’s duty to walk in truth and have high integrity, but a woman who trusts in a man’s ability to endure all things, while providing circumstances that test him to the max, is a fool. It is your duty to fill his sexual needs. His faithful responsibility to you, and yours to him are both equally important, and we wives must give an account before God for our faithfulness in this area.

Yes, Debi flat out says that if women don’t meet all of their husbands’ sexual needs, in whatever form those may take, she’s “providing an opening” for her husband to cheat on her. Note again that Debi says the woman does this, by her actions. Yes, she says a man is supposed to still not cheat, but she makes it pretty clear that there’s a whole lot of burden on the woman to help make sure her husband won’t be overly tempted by an unmet sex drive.

There was a lot of talk in the comments on last week’s post about what should happen if one partner isn’t meeting another partner’s sexual needs. Everyone generally agreed that the couple should communicate about the disconnect, and that if one partner continually has needs the other does not meet, some options include an open marriage or even divorce. Obviously, this should be up to the individual couple, and obviously, some form of counseling may be called for in some cases, but I do think it’s worth noting that being sexually fulfilled is important and that marriage as currently set up is generally supposed to be the avenue for a married person’s sexual fulfillment. But what Debi is doing here is different. It’s completely one-sided and leaves no room for communication, counseling, or options outside of marriage. Instead, Debi’s sole piece of advice is you’d better have sex with your man and you’d better act like you want it. 

Anyway, moving on.

I call it “ministering” to my husband. He says I am a mighty fine minister. 

In case it wasn’t always clear, Debi views sex primarily as a way of serving her husband. It’s not that sex is never about serving, but Debi makes it completely one sided. It’s not about a couple serving each other, it’s about the wife serving the husband. And to be honest, I generally just see sex as a mutually pleasurable experience is often very intimate, not something centered on service—even mutual service.

For a woman, sexual expression starts in her mind and heart. Love is giving up your center, your self-interest. It is choosing another’s needs above your own. A woman chooses to be interested or not interested in her husband’s needs.

The reason Debi is saying sexual expression for women starts in the mind and heart is that she wants to insist that if women just act like they’re into sex, the feelings will follow. There’s a little bit of truth to that, of course. If Sean initiates and I brush him off, he will often ask “is that actually a no, or are you open to being persuaded?” Sometimes even if I don’t feel like having sex at a given moment, a back rub or some cuddling will change that and put me in the mood. Of course, in this case it’s not me faking it till I make it, it’s Sean helping create the mood. And of course, sometimes the answer really really is no and that’s that. And I should add, sometimes when I initiate he brushes me off because he’s too tired or in the middle of something or whatnot, and sometimes in those cases too he is open to persuasion—to my helping put him in the mood—but then, I’m pretty sure Debi doesn’t actually recognize that as a possibility.

But there’s something about these sentences that really bugs me, and it’s not the fake it till you make it bit. Loving someone does not mean giving up your center. In fact, that’s generally called codependency and it’s not considered a good thing. And more than that, I would argue that it’s hard to really love someone if you’re not firmly grounded in yourself as a person, or at least that the most mature love is that which occurs when both partners are also grounded in themselves. That said, love does include sacrifice, and being willing to put another’s needs above your own. Of course, this has to go both ways or it becomes a serous problem—and there’s really very little in this sex section that suggests anything about going two ways. Wait, did I say very little? I should have said nothing. Even in Michael’s book, it’s all about what you can do to get your little wife to put out, not about putting her needs above your own.

So, when a woman’s first commitment is to her own needs and feelings, she is necessarily going to view sex as strictly a carnal experience, for then she does indeed have an entirely hedonistic outlook—her self-gratification. But if a woman views sex as a ministry to her husband, then it is a selfless act of benevolence.

Again, this makes me uncomfortable. I think it’s because of Debi’s dichotomy—that you either care primarily about your own feelings and are therefore selfish and carnal, or you care primarily about your partner’s feelings, and are therefore selfless and benevolent. Is it not possible to care about both your own needs and pleasure and those of your partner? Is there no way for sex to truly be mutual, rather than being either cut off from each other or one-sided?

She need not wait until she is stimulated to desire eroticism; she need only seek to fulfill her husband’s needs. I have a tip for you: when you make your husband’s needs central, you will get turned on to the experience and enjoy it yourself. That is the way God meant it to be.

In some sense, this is the only time Debi actually directly addresses female pleasure, and even then she dances around it, using only the promise that a woman will “enjoy it.” There’s nothing in here about orgasm, nothing about the importance of lube or foreplay to get a woman warmed up, no actual tips on how to enjoy it. There’s only the insistence that if a woman only seeks to fulfill her husband’s needs, she will have the side effect of actually enjoying it.

I should point out, too, that there are some forms of BDSM that play on this idea, the idea that one partner should utterly dedicate themselves to serving the other and that they will find doing so pleasurable or arousing. While their form varies, I’m especially talking about dom/sub relationships. It’s almost like Debi’s taking these BDSM principles and turning them into proscriptions for the “heavenly marriage” she says all Christians can achieve. And that’s just weird.

The principle is universal. Compare our Christian duties. We don’t minister to others because we are blessed—we minister to others because we want to bless them. It is completely incidental that the by-product of selflessly blessing others should result in our being blessed also. Eve was created to be Adam’s helper. It is not in seeking personal fulfillment that she is fulfilled, rather, it is in doing her duty to bless him, that a blessing is returned to her.

This idea that Eve was created to help Adam, and that therefore any personal fulfillment separate from her serving role is wrong, is a central one for Debi.

Hormones respond to stimuli. You remember the story of Ruth. She gave her baby to old Naomi to nurse. It is a fact that an old woman who has not had a baby in twenty years or more can produce milk in her breasts and be able to nurse a baby. It just takes the physical stimulation of the baby attempting to nurse to provoke her glands into producing milk. Even a woman who has never been pregnant can nurse a baby if a baby stimulates her breast by nursing. It might take a few days, or even a few weeks, but if she sticks with the stimulus, it will work.

I’m really not completely sure what the point of this is, except that it once again demonstrates Debi’s extremely literal approach to the King James Version of the Bible. And indeed, she creates a problem for herself—Ruth, elsewhere held up as an example of godly womanhood, gives up her baby to be nursed and raised by her mother rather than by herself? Just how exactly does Debi fit that into her view of proper womanhood and proper motherhood?

I will repeat a known medical fact: Hormones respond to stimuli. A woman whose heart and mind are focused on pleasing her man has hormones ready to be awakened to answer her husband’s desires. Before those hormones kick in and get active, a good woman should respond with great enjoyment toward her husband, simply because she finds joy in his pleasure.

This is really just more of the same. Note, though, that Debi says women’s hormones are waiting to be awakened . . . “to answer her husband’s desires.” Not to answer her desires, not even to give her desires. To answer her husband’s desires. And once again, even when she isn’t feeling it a woman should “respond with great enjoyment” to her husband, and “find joy in his pleasure.” Look, there are times I’ve had sex not so much for me as because I wanted give some loving—and sexual pleasure—to the man I love. I get it! There’s nothing wrong with having sex as a sort of gift to one’s partner every so often, but it should be done freely and not as a result of the sort of threats Debi throws up around women—and it ideally it should be met by one’s partner reciprocating in kind at other times.

And now we’re in for the last shebang of this section. It’s a doozy.

Don’t talk to me about menopause; I know all about menopause, and it is a lame excuse. Don’t talk to me about how uncomfortable or painful it is for you. Do you think your body is special and has special needs? Do you know who created you, and do you know he is the same God who expects you to freely give sex to your husband? Stop the excuses!

Remember Micah’s wife? Micah complained that “she is exhausted, or has a backache or not healed right down there or whatever she comes up with.” Debi never addressed the pain Micah’s wife seems to have been experiencing during sex except to deride women for making “excuses” for not having sex with their husbands and to say that “her disinterest in him sexually is a reflection of her heart, and he knows it.” Well, here we see why Debi never directly addressed Micah’s wife’s statement that she was “not healed right down there.” It’s because she doesn’t think it matters if sex is painful. Saying no to sex because it hurts is just an “excuse.”

And then Debi invokes God—if God made your body and also made you to meet your husband’s sexual needs, she says, then he knows sex is painful for you and wants you to have sex with your husband anyway and doesn’t give a damn about your pain. This is where you really start wondering if Debi is okay with modern medicine in general. Why is it that she can’t tell women that if it hurts to have sex, something is wrong and they should see a doctor? This is also where you gain more understanding of just what a terrible, hard God Debi worships. 

Determine to find a way past your “Excuses,” and provide the pleasure your husband wants only from you. Your creator knows your heart. When you truly love and reverence your husband, the very thought of him loving the likes of you should thrill your soul and make you long to give him pleasure. If your heart is in the right place with God, you will focus on his needs and lay aside your own selfish, prudish attitude. The hormones are there, ready to be unleashed. Go to your husband with the intention of having a good time with him. A sober woman PLANS ahead.

Oh dear. So, if you aren’t thrilled by the idea of pleasuring your husband through sex . . . you don’t truly love or reverence your husband. Way to heap all the blame, ever and always, on the woman, there, Debi! It couldn’t possibly be that the woman has some physical problem that is preventing her from enjoying sex and that she should see the doctor for, or that her husband is a brute who only uses her body to gain release and doesn’t care about her pleasure or her feelings. No! It must be that she just doesn’t love her husband enough. Because if she really loved him, she would want to drop her skirts and have enthusiastic sex and thrilling sex with him at any and all times.

Oh, Debi. Debi Debi Debi.

You know, I actually feel like Debi has struck out perhaps most colossally in this section on sex than in any section of her book so far, with perhaps an exception for the Command Man section and the section on what to do if your husband tries to kill you with a butcher knife (stay with him, of course, and love him). This section makes it extremely clear how ill equipped Debi is to be giving any sort of marriage advice. Most marriage manuals written by evangelicals or fundamentalists today embrace the concept of female pleasure, and offer advice to both men and women on creating and experiencing female pleasure. Debi barely even gives it a nod. Indeed, for Debi, female sexual pleasure seems to come solely from creating male pleasure.

And Debi’s threats to women about the dire consequences of failing to have frequent and enthusiastic sex with their husbands . . . it’s like she sees a problem and then takes the exact worst path to solving it. Yes, it’s generally a problem if a wife has absolutely no interest in sex, but it’s not a problem for the reasons Debi thinks it’s a problem. Rather than actually getting at the reasons a woman might not enjoy sex—perhaps it is painful, or her husband is a brute who doesn’t give a thought to her pleasure, or perhaps her husband is zero help with the house and the children, and she is constantly exhausted—Debi instead simply commands women to commence having enthusiastic sex with their husbands, and to enjoy it.

This section has made me really curious about Michael’s book, Holy Sex. As I see it, the only good in this section has been Debi’s insistence that there is nothing dirty or wrong about marital sex. Evangelicalism teaches girls to say no, no, no to sex before marriage so adamantly that it can sometimes be hard for evangelical women to switch gears on marriage, and especially for those raised in the most conservative homes. Sex suddenly goes from being dirty and wrong . . . to being holy and right. This can create a lot of hangups for women who never manage to make that transition, and respond to sex after marriage with revulsion. Of course, Debi never really dissects this problem or offers tips for dealing with it, but she does address it and assure women that there’s nothing at all wrong with marital sex, and that’s at least something. My understanding is that Holy Sex does a lot of this, focusing on removing any stigma or hangup and assuring couples that hot and heavy sex is indeed a part of God’s plan, and is in fact holy. What I want to know is how it handles female sexual pleasure. It either doesn’t, reflecting the thrust of this chapter, or it does, reflecting a bizarre disconnect between that book and this.

I was given my copy of Created To Be His Help Meet at my wedding. The young woman who gave it to me was a friend from growing up, and is now married. She told me when she gave it to me that it was the best book on marriage she had ever read, and that it set the pattern for her own future marriage. I think of her often as I read through this book page by page, and this section makes me worry for her.

Created To Be His Help Meet, pp. 171—173

This week’s section brought up a lot of fairly random thoughts for me. For instance, is possible that the Pearls’ discussion of sex as “holy” has helped some couples get over the sexual hangups they’ve developed from years of seeing sex as sinful and wrong? (I actually think yes.) And, is Debi printing letters she actually received, or is she making them up to illustrate her points? (I really really want to know this!) But perhaps most importantly of all, am I the only one disturbed by the idea that God designed sex between a man and a woman to be an illustration of his relationship with us? (I think no.)

But enough of such musings! Let’s get started!

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Pearl,

When I picked up your book, Holy Sex, I was afraid to read it. I thought you would tell me that what I was feeling was wrong—but you didn’t, and instead you have given me a wonderful gift.

We have been married for twenty-six years, and our love is getting better as we grow older. Sex has always been fulfilling; we each seek to please each other. I have a wonderful partner in bed, and I am blessed!

Enjoying my husband has always been fine with me, but I have experienced a deeper longing and a “hunger” for him. I thought this was wrong. Times when I kissed and touched him from head to toe, for me were feelings of adoration and sometimes worship of him, and I felt it was wrong. I loved him so much, and I desired to pour all of my being into him, but I struggled with whether it was right to do so.

There are times when I am so into him that at the end of our loving, I weep. He has asked me why, and I can’t explain, other than, with all that I am, I feel grateful for his love, I feel completely satisfied.

You have helped me accept that our Creator designed us to be spirit, soul, and body, and that “oneness” in flesh can be more than physical; it can have a spiritual and emotional essence that is pure.

It was two this morning when I finished your book. I woke my beloved and shared myself with him without reservation. I wept in his arms afterwards, and all was good. Thank you for your book, Holy Sex.

Brenda

First, did Debi make this letter up? Maybe? Second, if the letter is real, did Debi’s books help this woman deal with some sexual hangups? Maybe? This letter left me with questions.

I can’t help but feel that Debi is still avoiding female pleasure here. Maybe this is unfair of me. After all, Brenda does say that “Sex has always been fulfilling; we each seek to please each other.” However, this letter taken as a whole made me think of what Debi has written earlier, actually—that a woman is to be an active and engaged sexual partner for the sake of her husband’s pleasure. Brenda writes that she adores her husband, and is totally into him, and even that she worships him, but she never really talks about her husband’s orientation toward her.

Overall, this letter’s tone made me uncomfortable. Of course, there are some things to like here. The brief mention of each seeking “to please each other” and the suggestion of sexual hangups left to the wayside are both positive things. Still, I found the one-sided talk of worship, proceeding from wife to husband, a bit problematic, and I found the last paragraph more suggestive of an invented letter than a real one.

After this letter, Debi adds some words of her own.

Marriage between a man and woman is a picture of our relationship with Christ. It is a great mystery. The physical union between a man and a woman is so beautiful, so otherworldly, that God uses sexual intercourse to illustrate our relationship with him.

No.

I’m trying to figure out how to even make sense of sexual intercourse as an illustration of our relationship with Christ. Christ . . . penetrates (and Debi is talking about penetration here) the Church? Christ and the Church mutually pleasure each other? But that’s part of the problem, isn’t it? Christ and the Church do not have an equal relationship—at least not in fundamentalism or evangelicalism. Christ has all the cards, and the Church’s role is to worship and reverence him. Yes, Christ loves the church, but there’s a tremendous power differential there (again, we’re talking about the evangelical/fundamentalist view). This is what Brenda’s comment about worshiping and adoring her husband was meant to refer to—if the sexual relationship between her and her husband is to be a reflection of the relationship between Christ and the Church, her worship and adoration of him is clearly an integral component.

The great mystery includes spiritual closeness, emotional openness, the intensity of feelings, and the act of loving copulation. Marriage in all its completeness is what God chose as an example of Christ and the Church. It wasn’t something figured out by Adam and Eve passed down through the ages to us.

In other words, God designed sex, on purpose.

“Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled” (Hebrews 13:4). 

This message, like that of the previous paragraph, is a very positive one when delivered within evangelical and fundamentalist culture. For some evangelicals and fundamentalists, who grow up feeling guilty about their “lust” and sexual feelings, it can be difficult to embrace sex within marriage without struggling with feelings of uncleanness, or of doing something wrong.

Brenda’s great satisfaction did not come because her husband was so spiritual, sensitive, or endowed with some special gift. This couple is experiencing what God intends for all married couples. In husband-and-wife relationships, God always speaks first to the wife, telling her to submit, and then to the husband, to love. Brenda’s relationship with her husband started with her attitude of honor and thanksgiving toward him. You can see where it took her.

I’m really not sure where Debi gets this idea that God speaks to women first from, and it seems just weird that she says God speaks to women first . . . and simply tells them to shut up and obey their husbands. Notice, too, that Debi follows this with the idea that Brenda’s relationship with her husband “started with” her love and honor of him. This is the idea, again, that if a woman just honors and submits to her husband, her husband will come to love her as Christ loved the Church, but that her submission comes first—something Debi has said before more than once.

Finally, if we’re to assume that Brenda’s letter is real, I don’t see how what Debi says here completely fits. Brenda doesn’t say that her relationship with her husband started with her honor and thanksgiving toward him, or that he was unloving to her until she showered him with adoration—these are Debi’s suggestions and Debi’s suggestions alone. Brenda, in contrast, says her sexual relationship has always been good, and frames the problem as one of her own hangups, not as a problem between her and her husband that required her adoration and submission to fix. Whether this suggests that the letter is real and that Debi is misreading it, or that the letter is fake and Debi is adding backstory, I do not know.

Next comes this introduction to a second letter:

As I was finishing up this book, I received a large box in the mail. It was full of nice, home-canned apples and pumpkin-bread mix. The office ladies who receive the mail could smell the wonderful aroma through the unopened box! Since I did not recognize the name of the sender, I searched and finally found a letter explaining the wonderful gift. Here is her letter for you to enjoy. We ate apple pie the next day.

And here’s the letter:

Dear Michael and Debi Pearl,

Hello! My husband and I are very thankful to you both! We have just finished watching the videos on marriage (Husbands Love Your Wives, Wives Honor Your Husbands). I found myself apologizing to my husband many times. We watched the wife tape first, and a week later my husband said it was time to watch the husband tape. As he put it in, he jokingly said to me, “I’m a little scared.” It was great.

What was great, the video, or hearing her husband admit to being scared?

Well, then I read the Holy Sex book and, WOW, thanks a lot! That is when I decided to send you my apple pie in a jar and the pumpkin spice bread, which are two awesome aromas to have baking.

Question: Why was this letter not packed in the box with the apple pie filling and the pumpkin spice bread mix?

My husband recently commented on how great God is, and he said that a year ago he would have said it was God who was breaking us up (my fault for trying to play his conscience), but NOW it is God bringing us closer together!

I cannot tell you enough how grateful I am. I can see the peace and joy even in our children. I personally think every woman should read the Holy Sex book, and I have already passed it on to several friends, and they and their husbands are also very thankful. I am currently talking to my pastor’s wife to see if she would read it.

This is a very accurate example of how the Pearls’ ideas—and their books—spread.

My friend and I joke that when we are older, she will teach wives how to submit and I will teach them to belly dance in front of their husbands. Smile! Oh, what a joy life is becoming in our house! I praise God for being so patient with me and for the many blessings we have. It always amazes me how great and vast the Father’s love is. Well, enjoy your treats, because we are enjoying ours! Thank you, thank you, thank you!

Basically, in Debi’s view, a woman is supposed to act as a stripper or porn star dedicated to meeting the needs of one specific man—her husband.

His Help Meet,

Melanie

Again with the conflation of God and husband in these letter endings. It’s traditional for evangelicals and fundamentalists to end with “In Him” or “In His Love” or some such statement referring, of course, to Jesus. Melanie uses the word “His,” but she’s actually referring to her husband, not, as would traditionally be assumed, to Jesus, and that’s just weird.

I feel like I’ve been all over the map in this one. In sum, Debi appears to view sex as an act in which the wife worships, adores, and reverences her husband, rather than as a simple act of mutual pleasure and intimacy. Next week we get to the exceptions—sexual perversions.

Created To Be His Help Meet, pp. 177—178

Debi is walking us through each of the things Titus 2 says older women are to teach younger women, and this week we begin the section titled “To Love Their Children.” I have to say, it’ll be nice to get a change from Debi’s constant focus on how women are to act toward their husbands. I mean, in Debi’s world, women are to be submissive wives, but are also to raise their children, and in 177 pages we’ve had very little mention of children (except that it’s more important for women to have dinner on the table than to care for sick children, Debi did say that). So now, finally, Debi turns to the children.

The most important thing a mother will do for her children is to create an atmosphere of peace and joy by deeply loving their Daddy and being satisfied with life.

Oh. I see. So even the chapter on mothers loving their children is actually about wives loving their husbands. I should have expected this.

Several years ago, my husband did a Family Life seminar for homeschooling families at a large, very conservative church. The people were given age-appropriate questionnaires before we got there. Each homeschool child (from every child who could write, up to single adults still living at home) was asked two questions:

1. Is your home happy?
2. What one thing would you like to see changed in your home that would make you a happier person?

We were not expecting profound answers. We thought the children would say that they wanted name-brand clothes, or more freedom, or maybe more access to video games. We hoped we would get a few serious answers, like some kids saying they wanted to spend more time with their parents or they wanted to be trusted. Their responses shocked and saddened us.

I’ve talked before about my doubts about the veracity of some of the letters Debi prints in this book. Debi might be similarly making up this incident as an illustration. But then, she might not be—they do hold such seminars. I really have no idea, and am not going to mention it further, except to say that I think a lot of the type of parents who would go to this sort of thing would be very suspicious of having their children fill out such surveys. For the remainder of this piece, however, I’m going to assume that this story is true.

Also, note that Debi calls single adults still living at home “children.”

Out of about 75 responses, only two or three kids considered their home happy.

Debi takes this as a sign that these families need to get better at following her patriarchal ideology. I would, rather, take it as a sign that the patriarchal isolationist fundamentalist homeschooling promoted by those like Debi is extremely bad for children’s wellbeing and happiness.

Nearly all 75 answers of the second question were basically the same. Ten-year-olds (who could barely spell) to single college-age adults had the same hopes and anguishes. They all said something to the effect of, “I wish Mama and Daddy would love each other.”

Really? Nearly all of the 75 children gave the same answer? That seems highly unlikely. Oh, and they all gave the one answer that perfectly backs up Debi’s entire argument! How convenient! Wait, I said I wouldn’t spend this piece questioning Debi’s story’s authenticity. Okay, stoping now.

Honestly, I’m surprised that these children would feel they could be honest enough to admit that their homes were unhappy in the first place. In circles like this, there is a lot of value placed on putting on a face, and these children had no guarantee that their parents would not somehow learn what they wrote. Would they really feel they could be this honest about their families’ dirty laundry? I mean, my parents fought relatively frequently, and it bothered me a lot as a teen, but I would never have admitted either that it happened or that it bothered me on a survey like this, at any church. In fact, I don’t think I actually understood it well enough to verbalize it. Oh wait. I’m back to questioning this story’s authenticity, aren’t I? Oops.

The younger kids wrote answers like these: “Our home would be happier if Mama and Daddy would not fight,” “I would make my Momma and Daddy like each other,” “We would have a happy home if Mama would not talk bad about Daddy” and “I wish Mama would not talk back and make Daddy get mad and yell.” The older ones wrote along these lines,” “Our house would be more peaceful if Mom did not walk around with this frozen bitterness. I feel like we live in a war zone.”

What. How in the world can Debi read “I wish Mama would not talk back and make Daddy get mad and yell” and take away from that that the problem in the family is with the mother? I mean I’m not surprised, but I’m still rather horrified! And that a kid is seeing that and interpreting it that way, as her mother “making” her father get mad and yell . . . there is something seriously wrong there. In fact, I would bet the father is saying that the mother’s “back talk” is the cause of his outbursts of anger, and that that’s where the kid is picking it up.

Oh and also, the bit about the mother walking around in “frozen bitterness.” How about encouraging the woman to talk to her husband about what’s bothering her, and encouraging her husband to listen and communicate with her as an equal? How about fostering a relationship of mutuality and openness rather than forcing people, especially women, into tiny boxes? How can Debi not see that her own ideology contributes to this problem? Can she seriously believe that all that is needed is more of her advice, which boils down to “close your mouth, stop being bitter, and smile”?

I mean, I know the answer to these questions, but it’s just maddening to feel like Debi can’t see what’s staring her straight in the face. It’s like she can’t see that these kids’ parents not getting along might actually be, at least in some part, a result of the very patriarchal beliefs she espouses.

How do you love your children? Let these 75 homeschool kids lead you to this important truth: Love their daddy. Honor their daddy. Obey their daddy. Forgive their daddy.

Again, I’m rather horrified at how quick Debi is to turn a chapter that’s supposedly about mothers loving their children into yet another chapter about wives loving their husbands—and at how quick she is to equate love with obedience.

But more than anything else, I just feel sorry for those 75 children.

Created To Be His Help Meet, pp. 178—180

This section is weird for me. Why? Because, well, I found myself agreeing with it, for the most part. And not just that, but I found it speaking to my own personal life and experiences. This week we are looking at a letter, and the one sentence of commentary Debi attaches to it. This is still in the chapter on women loving their children, which make it odd, because at first glance (and second glance, and third glance) it has very little to do with, well, women loving their children. But enough of this introduction. Let’s have a look, shall we?

Dear Pearls,

I would like to share my story with you. It is simple but probably common, and it needs telling.

I’m not going to speculate about the authenticity of this letter, except to say that most of these letters follow a very specific formula. Perhaps that’s because people write this sort of thing in a formulaic way. I really can’t say.

When I was a child, I was always aware that my mom was distrustful of my dad. If one of us children did a bad thing, she was quick to deal with us, “so Daddy will not whip you too hard.” If Dad was going out to buy something, she would worry outloud that “he will be foolish in how he spends the money.” When he got laid off, I remember her saying over and over, “I guess I need to learn a trade. Someone in this house has to work.” I cannot fault her in any area of motherhood. She kept us fed, clothed, and warm. But when I think of my mother, I think of a worried, fretful woman who was always ticked off at Dad. Our house was tense. I have only a few memories of her smiling. I cannot remember a time when she sat in Dad’s lap or danced around the room in playful fun. He was not a mean man. I remember hard whippings, but not harder than the neighbor kids got. I remember him being interested in me. He taught me how to do simple, fun things, but because of her, I always avoided him. All of us kids are grown now.

There are plenty of relationships that work this way, and it’s toxic. No good can come from a relationship where one party is continually tearing the other down, and a home filled with tension and constant worrying is not a good atmosphere for a child—or anyone else for that matter. I do have to say though, I’m turned off by the author’s glib defense of her father’s beatings. It’s totally possible that her mother had good reason to be protecting her from her father’s beatings. Of course, the rest of this—the constant barbs about money and work—these things do suggest that there was more going on here than just that.

My brother did great in life. his marriage has been good, and his children seem well adjusted. When he was growing up, he was gone to work with Dad all the time. Us girls never went with Dad, and so we were at home listening to Mom talk about how hard our life was.

I get that this sort of thing can happen, and that calling out cases where a father is good for his children while a mother is bad for her children is important, but coming in the context of Debi’s book, where women can do no good and men can do no evil, this just rubs me the wrong way.

All of us girls had terrible youths, and we had bad marriage troubles. Our kids have not done well. We don’t talk about it much, but we know Mom played a big part in our misery. She still lays all the blame on Dad, although we know he was just an average guy.

An average guy who beat his children, that is. I’m actually really curious to know more about this family. Did they homeschool? I know of homeschooled boys who stopped doing school of any sort when they hit their teens and instead went to work with their fathers full time on construction crews or other manual labor.

I always knew I did not want to be that kind of wife and mama. I wanted my children to remember me as loving their dad and enjoying life. I did not care if we lived in the back of an old van and ate junk food, I wanted my children free of tension and the feeling that their dad was a dummy who had to be tolerated. My first marriage ended after a few short months. I was determined when I married again that I would do it right. When I got married the second time, I lost my way and didn’t even know it. When I realized that we would have to move because my husband’s company was down-sizing, and he was out of work, I packed in bitterness, while silently accusing him of not being a good provider and forcing me out of my lovely home. Then one day I looked up at him and saw the same lost look on his face that I had seen on my dad’s face a thousand times when mom was “taking care of the family.” I was just like my mom. Something inside of me broke, and I hated the “wonderful person that I was.” It was then that I remembered my promise to myself to never be like my condemning mom.

The weird thing about this is how much I can identify with it. I get uptight and stressed when things go wrong. In contrast, my husband Sean is laid-back and take things as they come. Sean is also a bit absentminded and sometimes takes a while to get around to the things he’s said he’ll do. My tendency is to nag, or to let resentment simmer. I’ve learned over the years of our marriage that my own attitude plays a huge role in how we work together and in the tone of our family. If I get upset over any imperfection and forget to actually look at the awesome man I married and see him for who he is, I am unhappy. More than that, I then treat him poorly. Our whole family suffers. In contrast, when I maintain a positive perspective on life, keep my eyes on the big picture and what is important and what is not, and occasionally just step back and go with the flow, I am happier—and so are Sean and our children. In other words, this bit really hits home for me and reflects some of the things I myself have learned over the years. And given that this is coming from Debi, it feels weird.

But we need to go on, because what you’re getting here is a redemption narrative.

I had bought your The Joy of Training DVDs and marriage tapes months before our move, but had not watched them. I knew the time had come. I settled down in the living room among the boxes, and before long the whole family had joined me. We laughed and laughed at the big old mountain man telling the funny stories. We sent the kids to their rooms and finished up the Wives Honor Your Husband tape. My laughter turned to weeping, and my kind husband held me in his arms while I begged for forgiveness. I cannot tell you how changed our family is. My husband is thinking of starting a business. He has wanted to for years, but my fear of failure has held him back. NO MORE. If we end up living in a van, that’s OK. I am sad for lost ground with my children. More than anything, for my daughters, I want to break this ugly chain of bitter, critical womanhood. I have asked their forgiveness and found they were glad to be over the tension. They know that from now on, they are going to have a mama who thinks Dad is great, even when he is not what I think he should be. He really is a great guy. I am so ashamed when I think of all the earthly hell I have put him through. Our children are going to grow up secure in love, NOT secure in a spotless house, insurance paid, and name-brand clothes. Life has never been so good. Better late than never. From all of us, a great big thanks.

Shelia

Okay, here’s the thing. When I said that bit about realizing the importance of maintaining a positive outlook rather than a critical demeanor, well, that all goes hand in hand with communication and compromise. If I simply willed myself to be joyful and let anything and everything roll off my back, that wouldn’t be healthy. Maintaining a positive outlook does not mean not talking to Sean about things he does that bother me or areas where I think we could work together more effectively.

I suppose I would say it like this: Debi seems to suggest that there are two options, “bitter, critical womanhood,” or permanently positive smiling yes-women. There are more than two options. It’s possible to avoid being bitter and overly critical without being sacrificing things like honest communication. And whatever happened to iron sharpening iron? Constantly cutting each other down is a problem, but building each other up does involve a willingness to be truthful about each other’s weaknesses.

This really does make me think of the Pearls child training advice. Over and over throughout To Train Up A Child, the Pearls what really actually is bad parenting to task. Yet instead their offered alternative—enforced absolute obedience from infancy up, backed up by beatings with a rod—is no better and even arguably worse. What they don’t seem to realize is that there are other ways out there other than permissiveness backed up by angry slaps on the one hand and complete and absolute authoritarian control bordering on a police state on the other.

The other thing that’s bugging me is that too often in evangelical and fundamentalist culture, women are silenced by being proclaimed “bitter.” If they call people out, or make a stink about something that really does matter, they’re called “bitter” and minimized, dismissed, and neutralized. The word “bitter” is a tool that is used in evangelical and fundamentalist circles to stifle women’s voices. So yes, I think that the sort of constant cutting down of a partner described in Shelia’s letter is toxic, but I worry about the messages evangelical and fundamentalist women reading this book may come away with. They may end up believing that being dissatisfied with anything about their husbands or challenging any of their husbands’ actions is automatically being a “bitter, critical” woman and therefore something to be avoided. And that sort of silencing is a problem.

But we need to switch topics before we close, because I think it’s really easy to forget the ostensible focus of this section. This section is supposed to be about encouraging wives to love their children. I bet you had forgotten about that for a moment until I brought it up! So far, Debi hasn’t actually talked about ways for a mother to love her children that don’t involve going through a third party—the children’s father. Here is the only sentence of commentary Debi offers on the letter discussed in this section:

Shelia is obeying the words of God; she is loving her children by loving their dad.

How is a woman to love her children? By loving their father. Now yes, I agree that it is healthy for children to see their parents modeling a healthy, mature, and loving relationship. However, in light of Debi’s constant focus throughout her book on women binding up their entire lives, identities, and wellbeing in their husbands, Debi’s incessant assertion that women must show their children love by showing their husbands love just rubs me the wrong way. Also, I’m pretty sure that the Bible says that women are to love their children by loving their children’s father . . . exactly nowhere.

Fortunately, I just glanced ahead and we do eventually move on to other things in this chapter. In future weeks we will learn about how mothers of large numbers of children can ensure each gets individual attention and about how mothers can protect their children from sexual abuse. Stay tuned!

Created To Be His Help Meet, p. 174

This brief section—only one page—is titled “Exceptions: Sexual Perversions.” This is the very end of Debi’s chapter on loving your husband (which is, of course, all about sex), and it’s what you’ve all been waiting for. Let’s take a look.

Anal sex is a homosexual act, and no normal man or woman desires this. The use of pornography has increased this abomination. It is a filthy practice and medically dangerous.

Oh, well, that didn’t take long.

For the record, Debi appears to be aware that there are heterosexual couples that have anal sex. Of course, it rather sounds like she argues that the men in those couples aren’t heterosexual at all, but rather secretly homosexual (and apparently the women too, though how that makes sense I have no idea). And not how fast she brought in that she finds it disgusting! Move right along, no homophobia here . . . as for anal sex being dangerous, a large part of that depends on whether you practice safe sex or not. 

God, the master creator, made a “natural use” of the woman for sexual expression.

Oh, great, now I feel like an object. Lovely.

Any man who practices anal sex is automatically suspect for other deviant activity.

Your husband wants to try anal sex? He may well be a pedophile, or into bestiality!

If your husband has been perverted in this manner, you must respectfully decline to participate. Explain to him why, and then give him a good time in all that is natural.

And that’s it. Because apparently it’s that easy. Just say no, have happy times vaginal sex with him, and he’ll be a-okay. And if he’s a decent man who respects women and consent, he will be okay. But if he’s a man born and bred to believe his wife is to submit and do what he says—or if he’s an abusive man—he may not take this so well, and he might not let it go, either. And no, offering lots of happy times vaginal sex isn’t going to fix it. Also, this reminds me when the author of a bestselling comparatively mainstream book about large families and the natural family planning admitted that her husband anally raped her when they were abstaining from vaginal sex during her fertile periods. This is just . . . Debi doesn’t give women any tools. She’s mentioned calling the authorities in cases of physical abuse (but only if the woman is sure she’s not accidentally causing it by being a bad help meet), but she’s never addressed things like marital rape.

Next Debi quotes this Bible verse:

“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another; men wiht men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient” (Romans 1:26-28).

Now Debi closes the door on anal sex and turns to a new topic:

If your husband ever sexually handles your children, call the authorities. Testify against him in court, and pray that he gets at least twenty years in prison, so that the children will be grown when he gets out.

Good for Debi! Unfortunately, the next bit of advice is . . . weird.

Visit him there, and be an encouragement to him.

See, if your husband is a pedophile who abused your children, you’re not allowed to leave him. You have to stay with him, as a good faithful wife. Lock him up, yes. But leave him? No. You have to sit on your hands and wait for him, doing what you can to minister to him as a good wife should in the meantime.

Get him books and tapes on good Bible teaching, and let him see the children three or four times a year in the prison visiting area. Children heal better from sexual assaults when they know the perpetrators (even their fathers) are punished for it. They’re also less likely to follow in his steps.

See, this part just seems . . . icky. I’m not a child psychologist and I’d be really interested in hearing an educated opinion, but I don’t think it’s necessarily true that children heal better from sexual abuse if they’re made to face their molester three or four times a year. In fact, I would guess that, depending on the child, that could be extremely traumatizing.

Also, just so we’re clear, I’m having trouble finding the reference but I know I’ve read elsewhere that wives are to accept their child molesting husbands back after they get out of jail, but that they are to ensure that he never has a chance to be alone with a child again. So once again, women aren’t allowed to leave a child molesting husband.

But there’s also something else here. What is a wife to do while her husband is in jail? How is she to support herself, given that Debi believes women should not hold jobs outside the home? Debi centers every bit of a woman’s life around her husband, and then tells a woman with a child molesting husband to send him to jail without giving that woman any practical advice on what to do then, how to support her children, etc. On the No Greater Joy website, Debi’s husband Michael gave this advice to women with husbands into pornography or child molesting:

You must be willing to endure humiliation and to remain patient indefinitely. You must be willing for God to terminate your husband’s job and destroy him financially. You must be willing for him to go to jail. You must be willing to see him – the whole family – suffer humiliation. You must be willing to see your husband come down with a terrible disease.

In other words, when you put your husband away for child molesting, you must be willing to see yourself destroyed as well. I really wish Debi had told women that in this situation it would be okay for the wife to get a job, or to divorce and remarry, but she doesn’t. Women really do get the short end of the stick in this book.

Debi finishes with this verse:

“It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he be cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones” (Luke 17:2).

Because this section was so short, I went looking through No Greater Joy’s database of articles for more addressing topics like homosexuality, pornography, and child molesting (putting these three together in the same list feels icky, but that’s what Michael does). Let me share some of what I found.

First, this, from Michael and Debi’s daughter Rebekah regarding pornography:

Many times as a child I remember standing at Dad’s side when he would go into a gas station to prepay fuel. If the station carried pornography, Dad would scrape his money back off of the counter and tell the cashier that he could not buy gas there because he just noticed they promoted rape and child molestation. The cashier would look shocked, and Dad would point at the porn magazines behind him. The cashier ALWAYS looked guilty and ashamed. He would glance at us kids; we would all be looking at him with suspicious shock (are you a child molester???) before we turned and walked out.

For Michael, pornography = rape and child molesting. Now I know, there’s a lot of vary bad pornography out there, including child porn and adult porn in female actor the woman is trafficked rather than consenting. I also know that pornography is one of those topics people disagree on a lot, and that feminists are not in complete agreement on. But I still think Michael’s reaction is interesting in how over the top and in your face it is.

This also from Rebekah: 

When I was 14 years old, we (my brothers and I) were swimming in the creek with our neighbors. They had three boys the same ages as we were: 14, 12, and 10 years of age. A perverted looking local drove by our swimming hole repeatedly, leering out the window at us. My brother Gabe made a comment about his probably being a queer. The 14-year-old friend looked curious and asked, “What’s a queer?”

My brother replied, “You know – a faggot.” The boy shook his head in confusion. Gabe said, “A homosexual.” Still not understanding, the 14-year-old, homeschooled neighbor boy just shook his head. Gabe laughed, sure that his friend was playing dumb.

“Come on! You got to know what a queer is. You know, guys that mess with other guys or boys. Perverts!”

To this day I can remember the look on the other boy’s face. It was NOT a look of surprise and curiosity. It was a look that said, “There’s a word for it? You know about that? Do other people know about it? Do you know…?” I felt sorry for our friend that day. I wondered what experiences he had run into—unprepared and unwarned.

Again, not sure that any of us are surprised by this. Gay man = predator.

Next, this from Michael’s pamphlet, Pornography: The Road to Hell:

Now I am speaking to you, fathers. If you isolate yourself in a room and indulge in pornography, you are not sick; you are evil. You are having intercourse with a computer, or with the pages of a publication. In effect you are having an erotic experience with the editor—probably another man. While you are fanaticizing with that commercially produced image, know that there are thousands of others engaged in eroticism with the same image, at the same time as you. You are part of a disgusting group of perverts, all piled onto the same image together. And somewhere there is a sexually dysfunctional editor enjoying the extent of his erotic powers.

And then there’s this bit:

I recognize that some wives whose husband’s are porno-addicts will read the above article and feel extremely frustrated, helpless, and perhaps angry. You may be well aware of your duties as a wife, but you are so disgusted with your husband for his despicable behavior that you find it extremely difficult to honor him. How do you reverence someone who is risking the souls of your children? How do you joyfully participate in your nuptial duties when you know that you are simply a receptacle for the eroticism stirred up by his vice? I have to admit that it stretches the limits of my faith to tell you that your duty remains the same. You must honor the office, even when it is commandeered by a wicked man.

Understand that you are part of a chain of command. God is at the top, then Jesus, after that the husband, then the wife, and finally the children. Children are not given the option of deciding if their parents are worthy of their honor. When a child obeys his parents, he is obeying God. Likewise, when a wife obeys and honors her husband, she is obeying and honoring God. If your husband misuses his office, God is the one responsible to discipline him. You can honor God by honoring the scoundrel God has permitted to be your head.

The Bible is clear: If you are married to an unbeliever, you are not to leave him and you are not to turn down his intimate advances. If circumstances are so intolerable, say in the case of violence toward you or the children, or sexual abuse toward your children, if you must leave your husband, you are commanded to remain unmarried as long as he lives, or be reconciled to him.

Yes, that part is underlined in the original. Anyway, what I find most interesting is what comes a bit later in the article, because it contradicts what Debi says about going to the authorities if your husband messes with your kids.

If your husband is sexually abusing the children, or if he is bone-breaking violent, take it to the church. If he does not immediately repent and come under discipline, call the law and have him arrested. Whining promises followed by promises and broken promises and more promises is not acceptable. After being confronted for sexually abusing the children, if your husband does not repent in sackcloth and ashes, to never do it again, turn him over to the authorities. Testify against him, and when he gets three to twenty years in the pen, go to visit him and faithfully wait for him to get out.

In this section, Michael tells wives to go first to the church if their husbands are sexually abusing their children, and only to the authorities if he does not repent and change. Given that the church does not always handle these things well, and given that it’s unlikely that a person who has once taken up child molesting will so easily and quickly change, this sounds like a colossally bad idea.

Getting back to Debi, I’m glad she says to turn in child molesting husbands, but I’m having two issues here (well, two main issues). First, grouping anal sex and pornography with child molesting is a problem. Anal sex can be completely consensual, and there are times when pornography (and erotica) can be fine too (if you disagree with me on this, just run with me and let’s save that for another time). But child molesting? That’s something different altogether. Putting these things together conflates consensual and nonconsensual activities as similarly wrong, and that is a serious problem. Second, Debi never once addresses marital rape. Never once. I don’t think she thinks it exists. I mean, I get it, I never heard marital rape mentioned growing up but I certainly heard the three “perversions” discussed here condemned up and down. But now that I see it, I’m, to put it nicely, extremely put out.

Next week we start the chapter titled “To Love Their Children.” It will be interesting to read this against To Train Up A Child.

Created To Be His Help Meet, pp. 180—182

So, Debi gets mail. Or rather, Michael does, but whatever, it made into Debi’s book.

Dear Mr. Pearl,

I am a busy mother whose children go to a Christian school. I am realizing that without another close female in my life who could share house duties, it is harder on me than it should be.

Do you by any chance have a husband? Because believe it or not, they can help out with things like housework and childcare. I know, right? It’s crazy!

I meet with two prayer groups each week and have them pray for me and my family by name. My biggest need is for help physically in caring for the housework and someone to sit in quiet worship with me. I need at least 4 hours per week of meditation time, self-actualization time.

This letter feels . . . fake. It reads like it’s written to prove a point.

It is 4 am now and I’m up writing my friends to ask for prayer and see if they know of any gals with five children of their own who might be as stressed as I am. I am frustrated because of my culture and my isolation from regular and close fellowship with wise women. I have a heart desire to change my current lifestyle and to live a rich, full, and meaningful life, and am motivated so because I want the best for God. I trust you will send me some good advice.

Love in Him,

T.P.

Oh my lord. Debi is the last person I’d turn to for “some good advice.” Let’s have a look, shall we?

Dear Sister T.P.,

Your divine calling is to serve your family. True worship of God is not dependent upon other people or special circumstances, nor does it require a time of meditation. The Spirit of God is present when you wash the dishes or pick up the dirty clothes, and he is there while you prepare meals for your family in the evening. God never intended for you to have intimacy with another woman, whether in worship or otherwise. Stimulating your own inner feelings in the name of worship is selfish mockery, approaching idolatry. Your seeking of “self-actualization” in the name of spirituality is a mixture of foolish psychology and emotional insecurity.

I’ve heard the bit about worshipping God through service to others and through work performed well, but I don’t think it’s usually used as a way to deny any need for dedicated time of Bible reading and prayer. My mother used to get up early and read the Bible and pray for an hour before we children got up, and she taught us to follow her example, each having individual “quiet time” with God at the beginning of each day.

As for the bit about intimacy with other women, well, we’ll get to that a bit more as we continue in this passage. And turning to the other topic here, I generally use the term “self care” rather than “self-actualization,” but either way, it shouldn’t be surprising that Debi thinks so little of it. Debi’s entire book is about forgetting yourself to give to others. What this ignores, among other things, is that you can’t give of yourself if you’ve lost yourself in the process.

You are part of a trend sweeping through church women’s circles—a pursuit of intimacy and deep feelings apart from your husband. This inner-self-stimulation is what my husband calls “spiritual masturbation.” it has nothing to do with the God of the Bible. It is spirituality more akin to Eastern mystic meditation.

Debi really has very little understanding of the history of Christianity. Things like meditation and mystical spiritual intimacy are very much a part of the Christian tradition. Also, what is this about it being wrong to seek spiritual intimacy apart from one’s husband? Is that like, cheating on your husband with God? Interestingly, the middle ages are full of female mystics who eschewed earthly marriage and claimed that they were married only to Jesus. This passage brought this to my mind. And “spiritual masturbation”? Really? I’m trying to grasp the full implications of the analogy, but I’m failing. I’m sure it will come to me tomorrow.

When your spirituality competes with your service to others (especially your husband and family), it is just that—”your spirituality.” Jesus said to Peter, “Do you love me” . . . then “feed my sheep.”

Wait. Wait. Debi is extremely selective in her Bible reading, isn’t she? Because I feel like she’s forgetting something. You know, maybe, like this:

Luke 10: 38-42—”Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house. And she had a sister called Mary, which also sat at Jesus’ feet, and heard his word. But Martha was cumbered about much serving, and came to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me. And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things: But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.”

When your spirituality competes with your service to others (especially your family), Jesus says . . . pick your spirituality. Maybe it’s just me, but this really seems to contradict Debi flat out and completely. And also, this is a very common store. Directly contradicting such a common Bible story seems . . . risky. I mean, I can’t be the only one to notice it, can I?

God does not call women to be mountain top gurus or to seek one out for their personal benefit. He commands them to be “keepers at home,” to “obey their husbands,” to “render due benevolence (give him good sex),” and “reverence” him. Remember that the sin of Eve was to seek deeper knowledge and to be like the gods. Independent of her husband, she sought to go deeper. Her ambition was personal spiritual fulfillment, which is the most selfish drive that can possess a person and the easiest to justify, humanly speaking. It is the foundation of all sin and rebellion.

I’ll grant that there are varied interpretations of the temptation and the fall, but this definitely isn’t the one I grew up with. I’m also rather horrified by the suggestion that spiritual fulfillment is the most selfish desire that can possess a person. I think you have to understand that Debi is speaking to women here. She’s telling women that rather than seeking to grow close to God, they should focus instead on manually serving their husband and children. This is a means of control. I think you have to understand that in the evangelical world, God often functions as people’s method of decision making and source of the working out of individual beliefs. What Debi is doing here is separating women from their ability to make their own decisions and work out their own beliefs.

Learn to read the Scriptures just a few minutes here and there throughout the day, and meditate on what you read as you work. Sing to the Lord. Don’t let the “lonely women’s club” mentality sweep you away from your role as a wife and mother. Your time at church and prayer meeting is sufficient enough time with other women. Focus your life on your home, husband, and children.

Don’t pray too much. Don’t read the Bible too much. Focus on serving your family by making sandwiches and sweeping the floor, and don’t let God get in the way of that.

There is a very grave danger in becoming emotionally dependent on other women. Too many times I have seen this lead to something abnormal and sick. Your husband and God should be the ones to whom you turn for emotional support and intimacy. Women who seek higher spirituality end up feeling and acting spiritually superior to their husbands and others in the church, and it is a death knell to a healthy marriage relationship. Spend that “desired” spiritual time with your husband, where real growth and maturity with God will be found.

This is an attempt to separate women from a female support system and make them instead fully dependent on their husbands, to whom they are to submit absolutely. Women talking to other women—you see, that can put ideas in women’s heads, ideas other than those their husbands put there.

Seek to serve your family by tying your little one’s shoe strings, reading a book to your toddler, telling a simple Bible story to the whole gang, and making sweet love with your husband. These are the things God counts as important in knowing and loving him.

Debi

Having sex with your husband, Debi says, is a more important part of knowing and loving God than is reading the Bible or spending time in prayer. Yup. That totally makes sense. As in, not.

Honestly, in reading this passage I am just so struck by the extent to which Debi separates women from everything else in their lives—from God, from other women, from themselves—to focus them entirely on their husbands. How anyone doesn’t see this as idolatry or priming the situation for an abuse of power I do not know. I do have to wonder—is it selfish for men to seek to be close to God too? Or is it only selfish for women to seek such? Because I feel like there’s a serious double standard going on here. Men get to seek God. Women get to work.

Created To Be His Help Meet, pp. 182—183

We’re still in the chapter on loving your children. Remember, Debi has told women to love their children by loving their husbands, and to love their children by not concentrating too much on loving Jesus. Now, for the first time, we actually turn to loving the children themselves.

“Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it” (Proverbs 22:6).

God has honored mothers with the blessed privilege of being the daily trainer of their young children. He did not place this responsibility in Grandma’s hands or with good friends, teachers, or baby-sitters. All of us mothers will stand before God one day and give an account of how we trained our children. To love our children is to devote ourselves fully to their training. If we fail, we fail as a help meet. Husbands go away to work and leave their young children in our care. They trust us to train them up to be all that they can be. If we fail our children, we fail our husband, and we fail God.

Huh. So it’s still being about the husband, and not about the kids. Lovely. Also, this idea that if a mother fails her children, she fails God—it’s toxic. What if you are a woman in this environment, and you do your best, and your children turn out to be gay or atheists? Well, then you’re a failure. This is the problem with putting everything into your children, and not having any other outlets or interests.

Some of the new commercial translations say, “Discipline up a child in the way he should go . . . . ” We will not put that text in bold because it does not deserve status as Scripture. Only someone who knows little about God and the Hebrew language and even less about children would translate what God said in such a way. God said train up, not discipline up. The Hebrew word translated “train up” appears only four other times, and each time it is translated “dedicate.” Parents must train up their children by dedicating themselves, their time, and their children to that which God desires for them to become as an adult. That is not discipline.

So I decided to look up the version that translates the word “discipline.” Honestly, I was just curious. Well, there wasn’t one. So I tried googling it as a quote. None. Not there. There is no Bible translation that translates that word as “discipline.”

This isn’t just stretching the truth. This is lying. No translation renders it “discipline.” Sure, some people do assume it is talking about discipline, but I could not find a single Bible translation that translated it that way, and I did look. Now, Debi is right about one thing—the Hebrew word does mean “dedicate.” In fact, the other times it is used it is used of dedicating buildings.

I’m continually confused by the Pearls differentiation between training and discipline, because in To Train Up A Child there doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of difference. There, training is intentionally tempting a child and then punishing her when she goes for the bait. Discipline is punishing her when she disobeys in public. It’s bizarre.

Training up a child means showing them how to: make corn tortillas, pedal a tricycle, make up a bed, put toys away, cook for forty people in one hour, read, demonstrate respect for others, and a thousand other wonderful things. For a mother who loves her children, training is not a chore, it is a full-time all-consuming passion. They are worth every minute of time and trouble to every “dedicated” mother.

See, I generally consider those things teaching, not training. They’re important things, of course, that both parents should be doing for their children. So, Debi gets something right—almost. Note the dig—if you sometimes feel like your children aren’t worth it all the trouble they put you through, or feel discouraged and burnt out, you are not a “dedicated” mother. Being a mother is often incredibly poignant and awe-inspiring, but it can be downright difficult and training at some points, and Debi should admit and affirm that. Otherwise, she’s setting her readers up for failure and self-loathing.

Little Esther

Little Esther is only five years old. She is quite confident and competent in setting the table and folding the clothes. She knows the difference between the applications of cabbage and lettuce, because when she helps make salads and slaw, her mother discusses the whys and wherefores of all that they are doing. When she is asked to wash the broccoli and cauliflower, she knows both how and why.

I’m trying to figure out why this rubs me wrong. I mean, involving your children in your daily chores and making ever moment a teaching experience is really good advice! Sally likes to help fold the towels when we fold laundry (until she gets tired of it). Sally also likes to help me cook and bake (especially cookies!). I think what’s bugging me is that all of the examples Debi is giving are domestic.

Esther helps fold the clothes and put them away. She knows all her colors, because from the earliest age she has helped separate dirty clothes into different color piles. When Esther takes a book off the shelf, she chooses carefully, because she wants books that have words she can read. She can read many words, not because she has been officially schooled, but because her mother has always taken time to read to her, occasionally stopping to point out words and how to say them. All this has been fun. When Esther “starts school,” she will already know how to read many words. Therefore, learning will not be a tense, fearful exercise, but a continuation of her first five years of informal learning. Her mother spends all day stimulating her developing mind with intriguing ideas. 

Intriguing ideas like . . . what kind of soap to use with the laundry? Yeah, it’s the fact that all the examples are domestic that is bothering me. Engaging children is great, and engaging children in domestic activities is great, but in the context of Debi’s sexist and even misogynist views, this bothers me. It reads like she’s emphasizing what a good little wife-in-training Esther is. [A reader pointed out that the reading example isn't domestic, and that in advising her readers to read to their children Debi is giving them really good advice. This is true.]

I would point out that for most children learning to read is not as simple as it is portrayed here. If Esther learned to read as described here, she’s an exceptional child. But what Debi’s doing is giving the impression that it should be that easy for every child. And if it’s not, well, you’re not loving your children as much as Esther’s mom loves Esther.

Esther’s mom has ten children, yet she is not too busy for Esther or her younger brother. Many little children are not so blessed as Esther. Some mothers treat their children as I treat my cows. I make sure they have good things to eat, clean water, and a place to exercise. If they show any signs of sickness, I attend to them immediately. This is good for cows, but if you raise kids like that, you’re going to have a brood of little dummies. Unlike your care of the cows, the training of your children is the deepest expression of your love for them.

Debi’s point about cows is a good one, but what she misses is that the reason some mothers in Debi’s readership may treat their children as Debi does her cows is that they have so many of them that raising them that they can’t effectively raise them as children. Look, I grew up in a family even bigger than Esther’s (assuming Esther is an actual child, which I doubt). My mother worked really hard to give each of us individual time, but there’s only so much you can do when you have that many children. There were plenty of times my mother was too busy for me, or for one of my siblings. Yes, there were other times when she did have time, but Debi makes it sounds like Esther’s mom always has time for her, and unless Esther’s mom is neglecting her other children, she doesn’t.

Also, all that bit earlier about having plenty of time to read to her, and point out the words? Ha. Hahaha. Let me explain to you how this works in families this big. My mother did read to the younger children quite often. This is one thing she did very well, actually, and for which I will always be grateful. However, she was always reading to three or four children at a time. The children were always wiggling, fighting over her lap, trying to get close enough to see the pictures. This idyllic picture Debi painted of Esther and her mother is missing something—her nine siblings.

Created To Be His Help Meet, pp. 184—185

We are still in Debi’s chapter on loving one’s children. Last week we got to the first part of the chapter that actually contained some actually good advice. This had to do with the importance of a mother working one on one with her children, and teaching them little things all through the day—what goes in soup, how to sound words out, and how to fold laundry. I really did like that Debi said a mother should work directly with an individual child even in a large family, though I felt she didn’t follow that up with helpful how-tos and risked leaving overwhelmed mothers of large families feeling only more overwhelmed.

In this section we get some more on the importance of teaching children things (again, good advice, albeit rather imperfectly stated), and we also get to the part we’ve all been waiting for—a discussion of daycare.

Mama, Why Am I So Dumb?

I have been around some real dumb kids. I ask them, “Did you see the eclipse last night?” Stare. “I heard your daddy is designing a new program for the flight school?” Stare. “Did your mom put whole wheat flour in these cookies?”  Stare. Mama answers, “She doesn’t cook yet, and he doesn’t know his daddy works at the flight center. My husband and I both enjoyed the eclipse, but it was too cold for the children to come out, besides, they were watching a video.”

We visited a different family whose father also works at the flight center and spoke to a child who is two, almost three years old. “Donnie, did you see the eclipse last night?” “Yep, and the Milky Way too. We looked through a ‘telyyyscrope!’” “I heard your daddy is designing a new program for the flight school?” “Yep, my daddy is showing them how to build a better airlplain ’cause he is smart, and I am smart, and I can make an airplane with my leggos, but it cannot fly because . . . ” “Becuase, why?” I asked him, fully expecting an intelligent answer. After all, any two-year-old who can make an airplane out of legos has to be brilliant. He didn’t disappoint me. “It hasn’t got a motor,” he explained.

I decided to check out his knowledge of the kitchen, “Did your mom use whole wheat for those cookies?” Right on cue he responded, “Yep, they are sooooo healthy. Do you want to see my muscles? Mom let me mix up the cookies cause I’m strong.”

I’m glad Debi has branched out from domestic examples. While she does gender her questions about the flight center, I get the feeling she thinks children of both genders should be seeing the eclipse. I’m not surprised at that, honestly—when I was a child stargazing wasn’t something that was gendered, it was just a fun family activity. In our family legos, too, were a fun family activity—and I’m pretty sure Debi has before mentioned girls playing with legos in passing.

The bigger point here, for me at least, is how quick Debi is to jump to assumptions. Debi appears to assume that any child who doesn’t have knowledge in the specific areas she considers important is “dumb.” Look, when I was little I thought my dad worked at a printing press, because my mom told me he went to work to “make money.” And you know what? This didn’t mean I wasn’t also reading book after book, building innovative fort systems, and fascinated by learning about geography. As for the eclipse example, I don’t feel like we have enough information there to judge. I remember times when my parents took us older or middle ones out to watch a meteor shower while the littlest ones were left in their beds sleeping. Further, coming from my current perspective I wouldn’t force Sally to come out and see a meteor shower if she didn’t want to (though I would sure talk it up!). The fact that the parents don’t involve the children in seeing a meteor shower does not mean that they aren’t teaching those children plenty. And as for the cookies, my Sally doesn’t know whether there is whole wheat in the cookies either, but that doesn’t mean she isn’t involved in cooking and baking a variety of dishes.

Yes, parents (of both genders) should involve children in daily tasks and use every opportunity to teach them about the world around them. Fostering curiosity, asking and answering questions—all of these things are extremely important. And yes, some parents do this better than other parents. I guess I just feel like Debi could find less judgy ways to say this. I feel like everything she writes is laced with judgment. Or is that just me? Perhaps I am being too hard on Debi on this score.

But now we get to move on to discuss daycare, and here we get to see Debi heap the judgement on even higher than normal for her. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I knew this was coming eventually!

Will the REAL Mama Please Stand Up

Just because you happen to be the birth mother of a child does not make you THE mama of that child. If you hurriedly get up in the morning and rush your little one off for someone else to dry his tears, feed him lunch, and read him a book, please do not call yourself his mama. That child is being “adopted” out every day, with the added insult of being yanked around from one adopted mama to another. In order to bond properly and grow up emotional stable, a small child must spend the majority of his time with his one true, permanent mama, whom God has ordained to daily pour knowledge and love into that little life.

Debi may not realize this, but this whole thing with the mother being the sole childcare provider is historically abnormal. Historically, children have always had multiple childcare providers, including siblings, aunts, grandparents, neighbors, and hired help. Most children have multiple caregivers, even when they don’t go to daycare—there are still grandparents, babysitters, and other friends and relatives who have an impact on their lives. And this really shouldn’t need saying, but this is actually very healthy. Children benefit from having multiple adult caregivers in their lives, multiple adults they can look up to, emulate, and trust.

My Sally is in preschool and my Bobby is in daycare. My Sally started daycare years ago, when she was younger than Bobby now is. Neither Sean nor I attended daycare, and in fact we both grew up with a negative view of it. When we first put Sally in daycare, we were both nervous. But our experience has been so positive that Sean told me recently that if we were to have a third child at a time when one of us was working from home and capable of watching the child there, he would still want to put the child in daycare for the benefits we have seen it offer us, our children, and our family as a whole. I concur. Every family is different and has different needs and I am by no means saying every child ought to attend daycare. I am simply saying that Debi is so far off base here that she’s left town altogether.

Daddies are different from mamas in many ways. They provide security that is so vital to a child’s emotional health, but no dad can take the place or fill the need that the only the feminine personality can supply.

I was actually wondering about this—I mean, isn’t a father who goes to work and leaves his child all day thereby “adopting” that child out to another every day? Why is it so important for a child to be with her mother 24/7 but not important for a child to be with her father 24/7? And of course the answer is predictable—it’s because of the mother’s special woman hormones. I’m still confused, though. If a father is capable of maintaining an emotional connection with a child, and still being that child’s parent, even while being away from that child eight or nine hours each day (or more), then why is a mother incapable of doing so? Perhaps it’s daddies that actually have the special hormones.

A mother’s constant presences—the same comforting, nourishing breast, the same room, the same blanket, the same sippie cup, and the same toys—makes a child feel secure. You cannot jerk a child around from one baby-sitter to another and expect him to be secure and well  balanced at four years old.

Children who attend daycare are not in some sort of default unstable state. Take my Bobby for instance. When I take him to daycare in the morning, he smiles as he walks into his classroom and sees his teachers and friends. He feels comfortable there. It’s his space, and he knows what to expect. Then, in the late afternoon, he smiles when I pick him up, and puts his little chubby arms around me. I take him home and he walks into our home with a smile, as it is also somewhere where he is comfortable, cared for, and happy. There is no “jerking” involved. He knows I’m his mama, he loves and trusts me, and he also has other caregivers in his life who also invest in him, and whom he also bonds with. This really isn’t all that complicated.

Can there be bad daycare experiences? Sure. But this is why parents generally spend a great deal of time researching daycares and trying to find one that works for them and their child. Putting a child in daycare isn’t the same thing as chucking them at the nearest stranger when you walk out the door.

But you can expect a child raised in that manner to not cherish his mother later when he is 8, 10, 15, or 25 years old, just when she begins to need some cherishing herself! If your child is to later cherish you, you must cherish him every day, every hour of his development.

I currently have a number friends who attended daycare as children and talk about it fondly, speaking appreciatively of their daycare caregivers, and yet are also incredibly devoted to their parents. So yeah, this is wrong. Also, nice scare tactics there, Debi.

For a moment, if we skip forward to the list of commands in Titus 2:5, we read that women are to “love their children” and to be “keepers at home.” There is a context in which we are to love our children to the max, and God says it is when we are keepers at home. Consider this fair warning. You cannot improve upon God’s deisgn. In life, there are a few things that must be done right hte first time around.

Do you want me to show you how context works? This is how context works. Debi has a very shallow and notion of idea of context.

Next week we finish out the chapter on loving one’s children with Debi’s advice on protecting one’s children from sexual abuse.

Created To Be His Help Meet,  pp. 185—186

This week we get to read the end of Debi’s chapter on loving one’s children.

The Hall

There is no permanent cure for genital herpes and many other forms of STDs. Yet one in five young teens in the USA has a sexually transmitted disease. Many statistics also tell us that one in four little girls will be sexually “messed with” by the time they are four years old. One in four little boys will be the victims of homosexual abuse. Our children are in grave danger in today’s world, not only from emotional trauma, but also from many of these diseases.

Am I the only one who feels like Debi’s primary concern vis a vis children being sexually abused is them contracting sexually transmitted diseases?

How many times will your little toddler wander down the hall (while you sit in a roomful of friends engrossed in a video) before some young “trustworthy” teenage boy slips silently in behind him or her and maneuvers her into the bathroom for a four-minute “session”? When the four minutes are up, your little child will emerge forever broken and diseased.

I’m pretty sure victims of sexual abuse would not like to be referred to as “forever broken and diseased.” And is it just me or is this more graphic than it needs to be? Also, what actual good advice is being provided here? What is Debi doing besides scaring her readers, and making them view every teenage boy with suspicion?

You cannot pray and expect God for supernatural intervention and protection. God has already provided for her through you. You can and must pray and ask God to make you a more attentive and sober parent, that you might better protect your children. You are your babies’ keeper. Please, keep them well.

And that is it.

Debi’s section here is brief and fairly terrible, but I do appreciate that she at least does give attention to this issue when so many others like her do not. In fact, she gives it so much attention that she has written two books for children called Samuel Learns to Yell and Tell and Sara Sue Learns to Yell and Tell. The byline of each book is “A Warning for Children against Sexual Predators.” So now I am going to turn to those books to get a better idea of how Debi handles this topic. Unfortunately, I do not have a copy of either book and have not seen a copy of either. I am therefore going to rely on reviews of the books gathered from various places, mostly from Amazon. Perhaps at some point I will get a copy of each and do proper reviews.

First the positives. Debi works to cover this topic openly and honestly and in a way that isn’t scary. She works to come to the child’s level and do something many parents can’t figure out how to do. She encourages children to come tell their parents when something bad happens to them. This is good (except that there is apparently nothing in the book about what to do if your parent is your abuser, but we’ll get to that). She also tells children that “what’s yours is yours, what’s mine is mine,” which sounds very similar to some of the messages I try to teach my own preschool aged daughter—that her body is hers. There are parent resources in the back of the book that are not much discussed by the reviews, so I don’t know whether this message of bodily autonomy is backed up there or not, but it is at least presented to children, and that is positive.

Now the negatives. For this I want to quote from some Amazon reviews. Remember how there are two books, one for girls and one for boys? Well, it seems the content in each is completely different. The girls one features two sisters making puppets as the older one shares some advice with her younger sister. Among other things, it suggests that little girls should wear bloomers under their dresses for their protection. The boys one features a mother having a conversation with her son while the two do some work outside. Among other things, it puts having sexual thoughts in the same category of bad as being sexually molested (the girls one does not appear to discuss having sexual thoughts yourself, because duh).

Here is from a review of the Samuel book:

The book contains counsel from a mother to her son Samuel to warn him of ways sexual defilement could come into his life. The first is from a fellow playmate who shows Samuel his privates and asks to see his. Mother’s counsel is, “Now you know my little Samuel This is truly bad. So, I ask you now, Samuel son, Will you think it’s all in fun? Will you stay, or will you run?”

The second comes from a friend or family member who wins the trust of the family but secretly wants to sexually molest Samuel in some way and then convince him not to tell. “Will you do just as he says and keep his evil secret? or will you run and tell and yell? Will you be brave, my Samuel?” The goal in each situation is to make the deed public.

The third is an invitation to look at pornography. The fourth is similar to the first except that the boy is older and threatens Samuel if he tells. The fifth deals with lustful thoughts. In each case, Samuel is encouraged to tell his parents what has happened. He is not to heed threats or keep “little secrets” between friends.

In the book Samuel is not taught why the act is wrong or how to deal with the other person involved. He is simply taught how to identify a bad situation and how to respond, by fleeing and telling his authority what happened.

Yes, looking at pornography and having lustful thoughts are totally the same as being sexually molested and threatened. Except, you know, not. But this gets at something I’ve talked about—the two boxes. Fundamentalist Christians like Debi put sexual acts into an approved or not approved box based solely on whether they involve sex inside of marriage or sex outside of marriage rather than paying any mind to things like consent. Rape is the same as consensual premarital sex and, in Debi’s telling, sexual molestation is the same as having lustful thoughts. This is so horrifically twisted and toxic I don’t even know where to start.

Here is another review from the Samuel book:

While I don’t disagree with the basic advice to yell and tell, and I like that the book advises parents to talk openly with their children and to take measures to protect them, I would not recommend this book for parents or children, because I believe it to be inaccurate on many points. Here are some of the claims I think are inaccurate:

• The pictures in pornographic magazines were taken by the devil.
• “Peepee” is the appropriate way to teach a child to refer to his genitals.
• “No one else should ever touch them” with no exceptions for hygiene or medical reasons.
• Very young boys should worry that evil thoughts might overtake them.
• The author will be present when God punishes all the child molesters on the day of judgment.

I’m not a resource expert in this field but I definitely think there are more accurate books on the same topic.

Not giving children anatomically correct names for their private parts is a problem, as is the blanket statement that no one should ever touch them. And of course, here again we get the bit about having lustful thoughts. Why is this even in a book ostensibly about protecting children from sexual predators? And then there’s the bit about evil and the devil.

Here is an excerpt from the Sara Sue book by the same reviewer as above:

While I don’t disagree with the basic advice to yell and tell, and I like that the book advises parents to talk openly with their children and to take measures to protect them, I would not recommend this book for parents or children, because I believe it to be inaccurate on many points.

Here are some of the things I think are inaccurate:

• Dressing your daughter in pantaloons will prevent her from being molested.
• “Down there” is the appropriate way to teach a child to refer to her genitals.
• “No one else should ever touch them” with no exceptions for hygiene or medical reasons.
• Very young girls should worry that peepers might be watching them when they play on the playground.
• “Child molestation is sharply on the rise.” Citation?
• Child molestation is sharply on the rise BECAUSE of porn (regular porn), daycare workers, and baby-sitters.

I’m not a resource expert in this field but I definitely think there are more accurate books on the same topic.

This bloomers thing bothers me, and I think it’s because it plays into the idea that women can protect themselves from rape by dressing in a certain way. It also suggests to girls who are molested that if they had just protected themselves by wearing bloomers under their dresses this wouldn’t have happened to them.

Here is another review of the Sara Sue book:

I have two precious daughters and a son so when I heard about “Sara Sue Learns to Yell & Tell” by Debi Pearl and have a chance to review the book, I quickly agreed. This 40 page fully illustrated and colored paper back book begins with a big sister, Sara Sue and little sister, Pearlie going out to make a puppet together as the big sister begins to tell of the warning she was given on sexual predators. This word is never actually used in the book and in place of specific body parts Debi uses the words “private parts” – so this is good for both younger children as well as slightly older children.

The book is done in rhyming style which I think helps keep the children’s attention as well as the repetitive nature will hopefully help aid in the retention of the facts given in this very important book. I like how they make pantaloons for their puppets but this also serves a greater purpose in reminding young girls in their dresses that we have to be modest because we never know who may be standing under us. The story ends with Pearlie practicing her yell and tell – so that she is prepared should anyone try to do anything bad to her.

And there the bloomers thing is again, this time explicitly tied to modesty teachings. Again, this makes me severely uncomfortable. When the best course of action is to teach children that they are in charge of their own bodies, the bloomers discussion makes the solution modesty.

Here are excerpts from a few more reviews of either book:

This book . . . talks about spoiling your soul and dirtying your mind, god and the devil, not the message I was wanting to send to my kids.

This book really fails on all levels. . . . It puts all sex in a negative context and skirts the issue of masturbation by only hinting at the idea that a child might explore but calls it evil. It fails to discuss any positive aspect of sex or the natural curiosity children have about sex. The only description of anything anatomical given is a “peepee” and “down there” which then leaves children requiring an explanation of what a “peepee” and “down there” are. And then everything is associated as “evil” or from the “devil”.

I have issues with the fact that they do not address abuse within the family. I felt the implication was that the abuser would usually be a stranger or slight aquantiance, but most of the time it is actually someone who is quite close to the family. It also emphasizes the “badness” without clarifying that the child themself is not bad, the abuser is seeking to do bad things.

Because of Debi’s comment about sexually abused children being forever broken and diseased, I’m more than a little concerned about what these reviews say about the emphasis on things being dirty and evil. Children who are sexually abused often keep the secret because they feel that they are now dirty, used, and worthless. If there is nothing in Debi’s books that contradicts this, and if instead her words appear to confirm it, that is a very serious problem. When you combine that with the fact that masturbation is cast in the same light as sexual molestation, and that girls can protect themselves by wearing bloomers under their dresses, I just don’t see anything at all redeemable about these books.

I poked around Amazon a little bit looking at the competition. I Said No! starts with a preface affirming children’s normal, natural, and healthy sexual exploration. Your Body Belongs to You has a preface warning parents against forcing their children to give hugs or to kiss grandma. I’m willing to bet quite a bit that either of these books would be head and shoulders above anything Samuel Learns to Yell and Tell and Sara Sue Learns to Yell and Tell even pretend to be.

From what I have read by Michael and Debi, it’s evident that they really do abhor child sexual abuse. However, it appears that for them sexual abuse of children is wrong not because it runs roughshod over consent but rather because it’s sex, and God says sex and sexy thoughts outside of marriage is evil. Interestingly, another thing the reviews pointed out is that neither the Amazon description nor the book’s cover mentions that there’s anything in the book about God or religion. In fact, it appears from the reviews that a sizable number of people bought the books thinking they were completely legitimate and written by an expert on the subject, only to be blindsided by the constant discussion of “evil” and “the devil.” I have to wonder if this was intentional.

There is now only one last line to Debi’s chapter on loving your children:

The book To Train Up a Child by Michael and Debi Pearl is a must-read for every mama who loves her kids and wants them to be happy, obedient, hardworking, and smart. Check it out at the nogreaterjoy.org website.

Now that one’s a whole additional load of toxic.

Created To Be His Help Meet, pp. 188—189

Here we begin the chapter titled “To Be Discreet.” Debi of course starts by quoting Titus 2 once again, given that she is going through it’s pieces one by one and the phrase “that they may teach the young women . . . to be discreet” is the subject of this chapter. She then defines “to be discreet”:

To be discreet: Prudent; wise in avoiding error and in selecting the best means to accomplish a purpose; circumspect, courteous, polite, honest dealings.

There’s nothing terribly wrong with that. Now, though, I’m bracing myself for Debi’s spin on it, because Debi so very frequently takes concepts that aren’t so terribly wrong and makes them terribly wrong.

We learned the practical side of marriage when we studied the word sober, the sexual side when we studied to love our husband, and that our job is to be instant in season and out of season when we learned how to love our children.

What does “instant in season and out of season” mean? My only guess is that it means to be always on the ball, which seems quite a demanding task.

The next word on God’s list is discreet. One usually thinks of discretion as the ability to avoid saying or doing that which si inappropriate—to know when and how to conduct oneself so as not to offend. If this is all that is intended by the text, then a person intending to commit fraud would always attempt to do so discreetly, but much more is obviously contained in this word.

Funny, Merriam-Webster defines “discreet” as “having or showing discernment or good judgment in conduct and especially in speech.” Sure, being discreet is often thought to have a lot with speech, but I’m not sure where Debi’s getting that bit about fraud there. Note though, that she’s about to write an entire chapter drawn from a single word. That might help explain why she wants to milk more meaning out of the word.

The Greek word that is translated discreet is also translated, in the Authorized Version, “taste” several times. In other instances, it is translated “behavior” and “judgment.” Discretion, therefore is, having good tastes . . . good judgement . . . useful . . . to be of good understanding.

In case you’re wondering, “Authorized Version” is another term for the King James Version.

God says that a woman who lacks discretion is like a jewel in a pig’s nose. She is ridiculous, out of place, embarrassing, a joke. Something otherwise lovely is rendered ridiculous in the context of indiscretion. She might be pretty, a real beauty, but if the jewel is in the nose of a pig, what good is it?

Does God say a man who lacks discretion is like a jewel in a pig’s nose? No? Well okay then.

As I studied the word discreet, I realized how easy it is for us women to miss having the character trait of discretion, and I marveled that so many of us so often have been guilty of its lack in our character.

Why am I so afraid “discretion” means “sit down and be silent”?

Seek to be Courteous (consideration of others) 

^ This is the first of a list of headings in which Debi further explains what it means to be “discreet.”

If you read the life stories of prisoners who have been rehabilitated, you will notice one thing they all have in common. It doesn’t matter if the man is God-fearing or not, they all write that the day they learned to be considerate of others was the first day they stopped being the kind of man that put them behind bars. Rehabilitated men write of learning to be considerate of other men’s right to walk unharmed down the street, the right of the lady to live without fear, the old man’s right to drive slowly through town without being reviled or teased, and the right of the young child to grow up unmolested. Consideration is just another way of saying, “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.”

I’m skeptical of Debi’s salvation narrative regarding prisoners (is it really that simple?), but I do agree that “do unto others as you would have others do unto you” is a worthwhile goal. I’m not finding a whole lot to disagree with here, which is a welcome change.

A child learns how to be considerate by watching his parents be considerate—the same way they learn how to be “good” hypocrites. If a parent exhibits a great deal of politeness toward a guest while he is present, but speaks ill of him when he is gone, this teaches the child to be dishonest and hypocritical. Being polite and being considerate are not necessarily the same—or even related. Politeness is just performing in a culturally acceptable way. The motivation to be polite can be quite selfish.

Yes—but. I just keep feeling that these ideas when wrapped with ideas about female submission and proper femininity have the potential to quickly turn toxic.

The Old Red Truck

Almost 20 years ago, my husband decided we would leave our lifetime home in Memphis and move to the country 170 miles away. At our new home, many of our neighbors were Amish or Mennonite-born. It did not take us long to realize that discretion was a character trait highly valued among these plain people. Our Amish neighbors never used anyone unfairly and would never cheat or steal.

Debi then tells a story of lending an old red pickup truck to a young Amish man, who returned it not only with a full tank of gas but also with repairs it had needed for a long time. This young man, she says, was discreet.

When you are discreet, wise, and kind in your dealings with other people, you will reap the benefits throughout life. If you treat someone shabbily or unfairly, even when you have a good excuse, it will never be forgotten.

Oh okay, here’s part of what’s getting to me. When you’re completely and totally “discreet” according to Debi’s definition of the word, it’s also really easy for others to take advantage of you. You end up being a smiling flower, a pushover.

Seek to be Honest

^ This is the second heading in Debi’s explanation of what “discreet” means.

If a woman uses her friends by asking unnecessary favors or by borrowing and not returning, she is showing a lack of basic courtesy, which is an important element of discretion. When a woman manipulates people or situations, leaving others feeling used, all the while smiling in triumph at getting her way, she is the one actually losing.

Yes, this is true. Friendships should go both ways.

Women who want the best food, clothes, chair, jewelry, car, etc., are fodder for Satan. ” . . . envy slayeth the silly one” (Job 5:2). (Silly one: rude, simple, contemptuous of character). Silly women are so easy to deceive into believing a lie. Satan will provide ample opportunities for her to use people. He wants to make fools of us all, but the woman without discretion is easy prey, making it easy for him to lead her astray.

Ouch. Note too the conflation between ambition in a woman and being “silly.” Perhaps Debi would also dub the man who wants the best food, clothes, chair (just what does that even mean?), jewelry, and car “silly,” but I rather doubt it.

The woman without discretion will go to the local eatery and get ten packets of sugar while sweetening her coffee, and use only one, taking the others home. She will use other’s resources and think she is “cool” for pulling it off and then will brag to her “friends.” Those who hear her might laugh, and she interprets it as admiration, but they go away knowing that there is something disgusting about their “friend.” She is not considerate, courteous, or thoughtful. She uses others with no thought to the hurt it might cause. You can see why God calls her a jewel in the end of a pig’s nose.

Double ouch. Disgusting? Really?

Also this whole pig thing is making me uncomfortable. It feels very . . . demeaning, what Debi is doing. (Yes I know it’s from Proverbs. I don’t know if it feels demeaning because it just does, or because it’s Debi writing all this.)

Men are aware that women are sometimes spiritually acute and sensitive, so unless the woman has proven otherwise, men tend to hold them in a kind of reverence. They like to believe their women are good, wholesome, and clean and that their consciences are pure.

Men who think that aren’t relating to their wives as people, person to person, equal to equal, friend to friend, or they would know that “their women” are as human as they themselves. Also, are women more spiritual or not? Whatever happened to lambasting women who said they were especially spiritual or sensitive? It’s suddenly okay and a fact now?

Many a fight has occurred over a woman’s honor.

And many a fight has occurred over a man’s honor. Aaron Burr, anyone?

Down at the prison where my husband goes each week to preach, all the men hold their mamas in high esteem, but few care about their daddies. If a many of integrity has the misfortune of having a wife who has a suggestion of dishonesty about her, that man will be ashamed, but it will be a silent shame, and it will eat away at him, at his soul and at his honor.

Well, hey, Debi made it all the way to here before making it all about the men after all. That must be a record. Go Debi!

So far this chapter hasn’t been so awfully bad, especially compared to other chapters. On that note, I just flipped ahead, and next week we’re back to our regularly scheduled programming! It’s a letter that was seared into my brain the first time I read it because of just how crazy Debi’s response was. Next week we get a real example of what being “discreet” actually means, and it’s not pretty.

Created To Be His Help Meet, pp. 192—194

In this section we get a letter from a woman named Ruth, and Debi’s response to it. Remember that we are in the section on being “discreet,” so presumably this relates (somehow).

Dear Mrs. Pearl,

I know that joy comes from complete submission to God and to your husband. Does that mean I should not be frustrated and just plain tired? I have a question. Should one be quiet when you know your husband is making a poor decision? Doesn’t being a helper mean that I need to help him make better decisions?

Last week my husband went to buy a new stove that we badly needed. He picked out a top-of-the-line stove and was willing to spend too much money in order to have the best. He called and asked me to go look at it and let him know what I thought. I shared my deep concern that it was simply too expensive. We do have the money, but I saw no need to buy the best, when the next scale down would do just as well. He called and told me that he had canceled the order and bought the one I recommended. We both felt better with what I picked out. Should I have kept my mouth shut? I didn’t tell him NOT to get it. I just thought it unwise to spend money unnecessarily. Do wives have to submit in everything? For example, what color to point the walls or what kind of furniture to have? Are we to be just mindless robots?

He sent my two oldest children to public school against my better judgement, and I can now see some negative effects. I guess I have to live with that. I think I save him, myself, and my careless youngest daughter from many skirmishes. I really want to do the right thing. I battle this all the time.

I want genuine joy, but it is not there.

Ruth

If I were responding to Ruth I would tell her that she had done just fine, and that giving advice on key decisions is important—and, in fact, that the best decisions are made collaboratively. But then, I’m not writing the book, Debi is.

Dear Sister, Ruth,

You wrote about a stove, but the thing that caused you to write to me was your lack of joy. The uneasy void you feel is your conscience testifying to you of your blame in many matters of life. You want to change, to be the kind of person who doesn’t try to control, who is at peace and can let go of issues like this. But there is another part of you that wants to hold on and justify the very actions that bring you such misery of conscience.

Okay, I have to say, I definitely didn’t get that from Ruth’s letter. I got the feeling that Ruth wants in on decision making and being a partner with her husband, and that the only thing that is holding her back is her belief a la Debi that women are supposed to submit. In other words, it reads as though the contrast between her desire to be an active partner to her husband and her religious adherence to “submission” is what is causing her the tension she feels.

Your husband’s choice of stoves is a statement that he is trying to express his great appreciation of you and to please and delight you. Your countermanding his choice, even if it were a better choice, speaks to him about how little you value him, more than it does about how you value the dollar.

What. Okay so wait a minute. If I think of a way to save money and suggest it to my husband even though he hadn’t thought about it and had been going the expensive route, I am valuing money over my husband? Really?

In effect, your actions said that, like so many times before, he was not even capable of making a choice as simple as purchasing a stove. Your history of “cautious leading” says to me that you see yourself as a wise woman, but you view him and your “careless” daughter as lacking good common sense. You feel your husband lacks discretion in spending money, raising children, and in many other areas, but it is not your husband’s lack of discretion that troubles your conscience. It is yours.

Again, I’m really not getting that. Ruth didn’t say her husband was totally stupid. She wrote asking if it was okay to sometimes give her husband advice and collaborate with him on decisions. Those are not the same thing, and no, wanting to give someone advice is not the same thing as accusing them of lacking common sense or being incapable of making decisions. I mean, really? This is not how relationships work.

Your lack of joy tells the true state of your soul. You don’t like yourself, yet you don’t know why. Most women could tell their husband which stove they wanted or what color paint they preferred, even debate with him over it, and it would never be an issue. It is an issue with you because it is not just a stove, it is the fact that you view your husband as inept. He knows this is how you feel. This is why life is a constant struggle, why you are unhappy, why your daughter is “careless,” and why (just a guess) you do not have a good sex life. It is all tied together. Regardless of the issue at hand, your actions seem to say that you think of yourself as being somewhat wiser and him more of a fool. Your conscience speaks louder than the worldview you have adopted—louder than your logic, louder than your “wisdom” in “saving” the family from foolishness. Your conscience, at least, is telling the truth, which is why you wrote to me.

I . . . what? I mean really—what?

Debi Pearl . . . sex life reader extraordinaire! Send her a letter, and she will tell you how often you do the dirty! 

Note that Debi says that “most women could tell their husband which stove they wanted or what color paint they preferred, even debate with him over it, and it would never be an issue.” Well, let’s go back and see exactly what it was that Ruth said. “He called and asked me to go look at it and let him know what I thought. I shared my deep concern that it was simply too expensive.” That’s all. Her husband asked, and she replied. Debi suggests this is wrong because Ruth has a desire to share in the actual decision making rather than being totally cool taking a back seat.

You have forgotten the pleasure of having a man do something special for you. You have left off the important things in life. “A gracious woman retaineth honour” (Proverbs 11:16).

Yeah, no.

If you had been wise, gracious, and loving when your husband called to inform you of the stove he had in mind to buy, you would have laughed and been delighted with your husband’s choice of stove. If you had viewed the extra expense as one would a gift of flowers—a wonderfully beautiful waste of money, and an extravagant gesture of devoted husbandly love—yours especially, but his life also, would have been richer and fuller for it. After all, it was just money, and you said yourself you had the means to afford the one he chose. He would have been so delighted that you were pleased with what he had picked out for you. Something that simple could have changed your relationship into something wonderful. Every time you stood at the stove cooking, it would have reminded you of your husband’s love. And, whenever he saw you cooking on it, just imagine the deep satisfaction that he would always feel for having expressed himself so lavishly toward you. But now, every time you cook on the stove you picked out, you will feel your own wisdom and economy; he will remember your rejection and his foolishness, and the food will never taste good. The stove that you must use will always be a constant reminder of what a fool your husband is.

Wow. Just—wow.

It’s a stove, Debi! It’s just a stove!

Do you remember earlier in this book the girl who pulled her husband’s arm from around her shoulders because he messed up her hair? In effect, that is what you did with the rejection of his choice of a stove. It is no wonder that you are frustrated and “just plain tired.” I’m plain tired from thinking of the damage that you have done and what you have been missing. Your husband is probably tired, too . . . tired of this marriage.

What. There is no way Debi could tell something like that from this letter, especially when this letter doesn’t suggest anything like that. There is nothing in here about how her husband feels, except that he felt better about their joint decision to go for the cheaper stove than he had about buying the more expensive one. In fact, you could probably more accurately read into this that the husband wants his wife to share with him in the decision making—why else would he have asked her about which stove to buy, after all?

Also, wait a minute. Debi is writing a letter as though it’s her reply but she’s referring to other places in the book? Doesn’t it make more sense for her to just offer her response rather than making it look like a fake letter? Doesn’t that throw the credibility of other letters into question?

You think in terms of this stove or that stove, this choice or that, whether you have to be silent or say your piece. The real issue is your heart’s perspective. If your attitude were right in all the little areas, you could safely discuss with him about “which stove,” and no one would feel rejected. It is just that issues like the stove become the point at which you recognize the problem that exists in your mind and heart about your relationship with your husband.

So, Debi says it’s okay for women to give input on what stove, but only if they have the right attitude to begin with. Where did Ruth’s attitude go wrong, exactly? According to Debi, Ruth has gone wrong in not “reverencing” her husband enough. In other words, she needs to start from the assumption that her husband is, as my mother used to say, “so smart he must be right.” Only then can a woman give input. But doesn’t that rather defeat the purpose? It’s like saying that a woman is allowed to give input only as a fawning admirer, and not as a partner or equal.

It will not be enough for you to just force yourself into silence and start surrendering your will. It is time for you to start practicing reverence toward your husband. Go back and read the story found earlier in this book about the girl named Sunny, and ask God to do a work in your heart as he did in hers. I know you are seeking God. As you seek to do it God’s way, he will help you establish a heavenly marriage. Read again the story of Jezebel found in the first section, and make a list of responses in your life that you are going to change. Read the section on joy and learn to practice joy and thanksgiving. Then, read the section on loving your man and perhaps you both can cook up something really nice, without a stove of any kind.

Debi

And . . . it comes back to sex. Again.

I think I’ve reached the meat of what Debi is saying. She’s saying that if you don’t properly reverence your husband, you’re not allowed to give him advice when he’s making decisions. Only if you are properly submissive and subservient and fawning can you offer any input, and presumably then your input will be cloaked in sufficient awe of your husband’s wisdom so as not to make you an equal contributor to that decision. The whole idea appears to be that a wife may never, ever offer her husband advice as an equal. Even if he asks for it. And you know what? That rather defeats the purpose.

And this is apparently what being “discreet” means.

Created To Be A Help Meet, pp. 

This week we continue with Debi’s questions not to ask your husband.

7. Do you ever think of just loving me in the spiritual way instead of always the carnal? I am so hungry for some deep spiritual understanding and communication.

Something deep inside him is so dissatisfied, so frustrated that she responds intimately only when she feels right about it. It speaks nothing of his manhood. His soul is sick all the way to its core. He falls asleep fantasizing about the woman he met in the store today. God, help his filthy soul.

Translation: If you tell you don’t sexually satisfy your husband, he will question his manhood and head down the road to sexual depravity. While, as a nonbeliever, I wouldn’t have any reason to ask this question as stated, I could see asking my husband if he wouldn’t mind just cuddling and talking this time instead of having sex. This isn’t a question I need to ask as it isn’t a problem we have, but there’s nothing wrong with wanting to bond and connect in a way that is nonsexual. Except if you’re Debi, of course.

8. Sweetheart, why won’t you have devotions with us? We want you to lead us in prayer and help us grow spiritually. The Bible says you are our spiritual leader. Why, why will you not lead?

He laughs inside himself, “Are you kidding? I can’t do that. I would feel like a total hypocrite. I can’t teach them about something I don’t know. I’m out of here.” He leaves, or works, or watches TV all the time; it is his escape.

Again, as a nonbeliever, I would have no reason to ask this. But, if you belong to a religious community that teaches that the man is to be the spiritual leader, it is a fair question to ask. And yet, Debi says women can’t ask it. She doesn’t even say that women should ensure to ask it in a way that isn’t passive aggressive, she says women should not ask it at all. And again, Debi’s portrayal of men is as mutes. Why could a husband asked this question answer honestly—why could he not say that he doesn’t feel like he is spiritual enough to lead? Wouldn’t honest communication between husband and wife be better than some sort of tension-filled standoff?

9. Why do you think the pastor said that about Charles? Don’t you think it was cruel? Sometimes I wonder if we should go to church somewhere else.

Angry bile seethes in him as he listens to her tell the story for the fourth time. He silently contemplates, “The pastor’s a hypocrite. He’s not any better than anyone else. I don’t know what makes him think he’s so righteous.”

This is one area where I’m out of my depth. I grew up in an evangelical megachurch where it was impossible to know everyone. The pastor would never have called out a parishioner by name. But what Debi seems to be saying here is that a woman should not say something critical of either pastor or church, as that might lead her husband to become critical of them himself. Is it just me or does Debi make men seem extraordinarily easily led? I mean, is a man not capable of saying “No, actually, I think Charles deserved it”? Or, “You’re right, I was thinking the same thing”?

10. Poor Charles, it is so sad to see what the preacher’s mean words have done to that family. Don’t you think we should do something about it, like call and let them know we love them and don’t agree with the pastor? Besides, I am so hurt at the pastor myself.

Frustrated at his own failures, and being full of bitterness for others has run its course and is now baring fruit as he silently surmises, “All those self-righteous people make me sick. I don’t care what they do, but they will not do it to me.”

At this point I am wondering—what in the world did the pastor say about Charles?!

11. Honey, it’s church time. You need to get dressed. What! You’re not going? But you always go to church. Do you think you should let a silly thing like that business with Charles keep you from worship? Besides, you know, the pastor was right, that Charles was up to no good all along! You have to go to the church. What about the boys? You’ll be a bad influence on them. Don’t you care?

Um, what? I think the basic idea Debi is trying to communicate is that if a woman is critical of pastor or church, she will drive her husband from Christianity entirely. Which, really? Men are so fragile in Debi’s world!

12. Jane, I want you to know that without your close, loving friendship, which I turn to every day, I would never be able to get through this loveless marriage. He is so cold and distant, He doesn’t care about the children. I don’t know how I could have been so deceived into thinking he was a fine, Christian man when I married him. Will you ask the girls to pray for him this week at our women’s meeting?

Oh look! We seem to be back to the creeping lesbianism issue! Also, how exactly is this a question not to ask your husband? Regardless, what Debi seems to be doing is cutting women off from any sort of a support network. I agree that gossip can be a problem, but if you’re in a bad marriage having the support and care of friends and family can be extremely helpful, and having someone to talk to about your struggles can be absolutely essential. 

This section can be summed up quite simply: Don’t communicate. No really, don’t communicate. It will make your husband second guess himself, pull away from you, and turn away from God. Silence is your friend.

Created To Be His Help Meet, pp. 194—195

This intro matter confuses me a bit.

The Skinny Swine

Lack of Judgement

“Every wise woman buildeth her house: but the foolish plucketh it down with her hands” (Proverbs 14:1). 

“A wise woman doesn’t attempt to instruct her husband through feigned questions. Her questions will be sincere inquiries concerning his will.” 

The skinny woman who inspired this next list of questions doubtless saw herself as a kind person, wonderful mother, and first-rate wife, yet she was tearing down her house one question at a time.

I do not get the swine bit, or the skinny bit. Debi is about to launch into a list of 12 questions a woman should never ask her husband. I find her point about women not asking “feigned” questions interesting, because she has never allowed for women to ask actual questions either. Besides, her list of questions that a woman should not ask are not all “feigned” questions. And note the rhetoric—a woman’s question should be “sincere inquiries concerning his will.” Master/servant relationship much?

Anyway, let’s move on. We’re going to take these questions one by one, but we’re actually going to take two weeks to do it—six questions today, six questions next week.

Twelve Questions a Wife Can Ask That Will Tear Down Her House

1. Do you feel comfortable spending that much money buying that ____?

He begins to doubt his ability to make wise decisions.

Normal people are able to hear their partner ask if they’re comfortable spending that much money and actually respond, not suddenly determine that any such question is a stain on their ability to make decisions. Actually though, this sounds very familiar. Let me quote from earlier in Debi’s book:

I remember the night Michael and I married. My new husband decided we needed to go shopping and cook a meal before we went to bed. I had no idea how much money he made, or how much he had for our honeymoon. Yet, here we were in the grocery store at 10 P.M. on a Sunday night, having been married for less than an hour, when I first felt the critical spirit rise within me. He was picking out ground beef and was about to pay a very high price. I tried to reason with him. “Don’t you think that is priced too high, and wouldn’t it be better to buy a cheaper priced meet?” He was twenty-five years old and had never had a woman question him about how he was spending his money, and I will never forget the bewildered look on his face. It was as if he were trying to remember who I was and why he had put himself in a position to be criticized.

I must have sounded as though I was patronizing him, speaking to him as if he were a stupid kid, because that is how I felt about what he was doing. I was suddenly shocked at my attitude. What right did I have to treat him like a stupid jerk? How did I know how much money he had? I wasn’t his wife yet, in the biblical sense, yet here I was thinking, “You stupid nincompoop. I wouldn’t spend MY money like that!”

Satan didn’t even give me a chance to get properly bedded before he introduced himself to me, just as he did to Eve, and I, like my big sister Eve, fell for his line. I was amazed at my critical spirit. There, standing at that meat counter, I made up my mind that I would not allow this to be the story of my life. I would learn to be a woman of God, regardless of what my husband bought or how dumb he seemed to be in the way he spent money.

In Debi’s view, a wife’s input or suggestions regarding how money is spent is just too much for a man to handle, but apparently this may stem from the fact that that was her experience with Michael. Which of course does not reflect positively on Michael.

2. Are you sure God wants you to work at that job and be away from us all the time?

He wonders about his reasons for working there, even though it is a good job. He remembers he has had opportunity to witness. Yet? He grows unsure of his own leading.

Is a man incapable of saying to his wife either “you’re right, I’m working too many hours, let’s brainstorm about ways to fix that” or “I’m making good money right now, I really think this is where I need to be, let’s do what we can to make the time I do spent at home as rich as possible”? And does a wife seriously get no opinion on this?

Sean can make good money by working evenings, in addition to during the day. About a year ago he got to where he was working three or four evenings a week, and I told him that was just being a bit much and I wanted him at home with the kids and I. So we talked, and we decided that he would work two evenings a week—Monday and Wednesday. It was a very productive conversation and it worked well for us. But if Debi had her way, I wouldn’t have said a word and my marriage would have suffered for it. No thank you.

3. Honey, I need to ask you something very important that really tears me up inside. Doesn’t this activity you are engaging in grieve your spirit?

The Spirit of God had been prompting him concerning this, but he was trying not to hear; he almost brought the subject up himself last evening, but now she is disappointed in him. He suspects he is not spiritual, but somehow the whole thing makes him angry. He feels pushed. Now he resists her just to maintain control.

Debi is fairly transparently talking about pornography, by the way. The thing is, while I understand the psychology Debi is talking about, what she is talking about is also a very immature response on a man’s part. If he feels she’s nagging him, he can say “I understand your concerns and am myself conflicted. I’m working on it. Can you give me some space on this issue?” To be honest, Debi’s list of questions is making men sound like they spend their days mute. Can a man not actually communicate his feelings to his wife? I mean, Debi’s already saying women shouldn’t tell their husbands their feelings. But are men not even capable of doing so?

4. Why don’t you ever want to go with me to ___?

He doesn’t feel comfortable around these people; they seem so artificial, and their kids are whiny. The man talks in a quite, humble way, which grates on his nerves; it just seems so “put on,” but his wife doesn’t see it that way. He guesses he must be carnal. Somehow, eh just doesn’t care anymore.

Starting a question with “why don’t you ever” is often passive aggressive, but that doesn’t appear to be what concerns Debi here. She appears to find it a problem for a wife to ask her husband to go with her to another family’s home or to ask her husband why he doesn’t like going to another family’s home. Sometimes Sean does things with his friends and I don’t want to come along, and sometimes I do things with my friends and I prefer to stay home. But contrary to every piece of advice Debi ever offers, we communicate about this. You know, like what is done in normal, healthy relationships. We also see each having our own things (including our own friends) in addition to having couple or family things as something that is normal and okay.

5. Before we were married, you read your Bible or at least you said you did. Why don’t you ever read and teach me and the children?

He has a vague memory of enjoying and reading and relating to how scared Moses was of a job God gave him, but somewhere he just lost interest. He supposes he is backslidden—at least his wife seems to think so.

See, once again this is phrased in a passive aggressive way, but it needn’t be. It could go something like this: “You used to read your Bible frequently but I’ve noticed that you don’t anymore. I’m curious, did something change?” But see, Debi doesn’t appear to have a problem with the tone of the question. Debi appears to have a problem with communication in general. In Debi’s world, a man isn’t capable of answering simple questions about his beliefs or habits. I’m not saying spouses should tell each other everything and never have parts of their life that are private or personal, but again, that in itself is something that should be communicated about.

6. Why don’t you spend more time with our sons?

The thrill of having boys has faded. The few times he has disciplined them, his wife later talked with him for being harsh. Maybe he was. He likes being with the men better; anyway, they are mama’s boys. Not that they are sissies, they just have this close, talky, relationship with mama. He feels separated from them. He’s just not that type. He can see the accusation in the boys’ eyes; it is reflected from their mothers. He sees the same questioning looks, which provokes in him the same feelings of condemnation he gets from being around her. He thinks, “I am a real loser. I wonder if I’m even saved.”

Okay, I think I’m starting to catch on. I think what’s really going on here is that in Debi’s world men can’t take criticism, and to Debi’s mind every one of these questions is not a question but actually criticism. That in and of itself—assuming that it’s impossible to ask these questions in a way that isn’t unkind or critical—shows how far from actual communication between the spouses Debi has placed herself.

Communication is perhaps the most important thing about having a good and healthy relationship of any kind. And yet, not only has Debi never told women they should communicate with their husbands, she actually appears to take every chance she can get to tell them not to. Indeed, in Debi’s world men are so fragile that they cannot be expected to listen to and respond to simple questions from their wives. Men are so fragile that they are crushed by even a wisp of criticism. The odd thing is that, if I am remembering correctly, in Michael’s companion book for men he tells his readers that their wives should be early alert systems helping them know when there is a problem. But how is a wife to be that when Debi is telling her she shouldn’t ask simple questions of their husbands for fear they question their husbands with perceived criticism?

Next week we’ll get to the remaining six questions.

Created To Be His Help Meet, pp. 199—201

This week we start Debi’s chapter on being “chaste.” Remember, she’s going through the proscriptions in Titus 2: 4—5. Last week we finished her chapter on being “discreet.” Let’s get started!

Dear Mr. Pearl,

I am a 24-year-old male and looking for a wife. It is not as easy as it seems to find a decent girl. I want one who not only says she is decent, but LOOKS as though she is. A friend of mine married one of the girls of the church. She wasn’t the most chaste dresser, but he was sure that once they were married she would sober up. She says she does not feel convicted about how she dresses, and he can only push so far to change her. I avoid him since he married, because I got aroused the whole time I was around them due to the way his wife dresses. It leaves me disgusted, frustrated and angry that a stupid, silly girl can cause so much trouble. Sometimes I feel my own body betrays me, but I know I am a normal male with a normal need, and the problem lies with females dressing so godless. Talk about dishonoring a man, all the rest of the younger females in church dress as bad or worse. I had rather not get married than end up with a silly wife like her. Seeing Jacob embarrassed by his wife scares the rest of us unmarried men, because, as much as we want to get married, we sure do not want to end up being dishonored as he has been. I want a girl who has not encouraged a thousand other guys to commit sight adultery with her by how she dresses. I want a woman I can be proud to call MY OWN little hidden treasure. How could a man ever trust a woman who, before she got married, “let it all hang out” for everyone to see? I guess the big question for me is, how do we single men find chaste girls to marry, girls who are not interested in how sexy they can dress?

James G.

Debi’s response is short:

Dear James,

The Bible asks, “Who can find a virtuous woman?” The question implies, “Not an easy find.” It will be worth the search to find a chaste, virtuous girl. Until then, here is your letter advertising your concerns. I pray that the married ladies and mamas raising girls who read your letter will know and care about how you godly men are thinking. I wish I had room to print 25 more letters like this, but one will have to do.

She who has ears . . . LET her hear!

Debi

I don’t want to deal with Debi’s response, and we’re about to jump into Debi’s pages of modesty talk, so instead I want to take a moment to talk back to James G.

Dear Mr. Pearl,

I am a 24-year-old male and looking for a wife. It is not as easy as it seems to find a decent girl. I want one who not only says she is decent, but LOOKS as though she is.

Exactly what do you mean by “decent”? Do you mean, a girl who has a healthy sense of self? Do you mean, a girl who thinks of others’ needs too? Do you mean, a girl who has solid dreams and hopes for the future? Because I’m guessing not. I’m guessing all you mean by “decent” is a girl who dresses frumpy in an effort to hide her figure—a girl who never carries herself as though she is confident in who she is and how she looks. This is not cool.

And actually James, why exactly are you wanting to marry a “girl”? Most heterosexual men, especially of your age, prefer to marry what we generally call “women.” But then, I suspect that’s what you want too, so can we cut the infantilizing crap please? Unless, that is, you’d like me to call you a “boy” from here on out.

A friend of mine married one of the girls of the church. She wasn’t the most chaste dresser, but he was sure that once they were married she would sober up. She says she does not feel convicted about how she dresses, and he can only push so far to change her.

I am very curious, James, about just how your friend’s wife actually dresses. If you attend a conservative evangelical or fundamentalist church, as I suspect from the content of your letter, you’re not talking about dressing like a stripper. I suspect that what you actually mean is that your friend’s wife sometimes wears shirts without sleeves, and skirts that show her calves. She probably does not feel convicted about how she dresses because even by your church’s standards there’s nothing at all wrong with the way she dresses. The problem is not them, James, it’s you.

I avoid him since he married, because I got aroused the whole time I was around them due to the way his wife dresses. It leaves me disgusted, frustrated and angry that a stupid, silly girl can cause so much trouble.

You remember that thing I said about the problem being you, James? Yeah. The problem is you.

Let me tell you a little story. When I was in my undergrad, I had a good friend who was very evangelical. She was genuine, the real deal. I was trying to explain to my now husband, Sean, about evangelical modesty teachings, and I pointed her out across the room and used how she dressed as an example. She didn’t dress frumpy and was confident in her looks, which I knew made her different from much of what I saw growing up, but her clothing always fit my definition of “modest.” When I pointed her out, though, Sean laughed and told me that my friend was actually really hot in the outfit she was wearing. He explained that while she wasn’t showing skin and while her clothing wasn’t skin tight, her confidence in her body made her incredibly sexy. I was rather shaken.  

And so, James, I’m afraid the solution here is not your friend’s wife covering up more but rather you getting a grip on yourself. Other men are capable of hanging out with women they find themselves attracted to without feeling disgusted. In fact, most men are capable of that. And would you believe, I have friends whose husbands I find sexually attractive, and I manage to maintain those friendships without any problem at all. The way you are feeling, James, and the way you are acting—these things are not normal. May I suggest therapy? It might do you some good.

Also, that you call her a “stupid, silly girl” makes me suspect that you are merely one of Debi’s many sock puppets. That is, after all, how Debi writes throughout her book. Or perhaps you have spent too much time reading Debi’s past writing, and have picked up the phrase from her. Either way, it’s a bad phrase, and should be dropped.

Sometimes I feel my own body betrays me, but I know I am a normal male with a normal need, and the problem lies with females dressing so godless.

Oh, James. So close and yet so far! Yes, having sexual feelings and sexual attractions is normal and natural. But that’s where you should have stopped that sentence. You are blaming your lack of a healthy sexuality on women’s clothing choices. You need to go back to the drawing board, because your sexual problems lie elsewhere.

Talk about dishonoring a man, all the rest of the younger females in church dress as bad or worse. I had rather not get married than end up with a silly wife like her. Seeing Jacob embarrassed by his wife scares the rest of us unmarried men, because, as much as we want to get married, we sure do not want to end up being dishonored as he has been.

If it was so very important to Jacob that his wife dress in a certain manner, he should have talked to her about this before they got married. Marriage is about cooperation and compromise, and it is completely reasonable for Jacob to talk to his wife about something that is bothering him, but it is not reasonable for him to think he can dictate his wife’s clothing choices. And actually, James, I every much wonder whether Jacob actually feels embarrassed by his wife, or whether the problem is you, and that you are imputing that on Jacob.

Let me tell you another story, James, because I don’t think you’re aware that your ideas about women dishonoring their husbands are not universal. My husband, Sean, likes it when I look attractive, and when I dress sexy. He likes to see me confident in my appearance and in how I look, yes, but he tells me he also likes other men to know how lucky he is. I don’t know whether this outlook is widespread or necessarily healthy, but I do know that I appreciate that Sean is so pleased with my physical appearance that he likes to show me off.

I want a girl who has not encouraged a thousand other guys to commit sight adultery with her by how she dresses. I want a woman I can be proud to call MY OWN little hidden treasure.

Oh James. I’m very sorry for you that you feel that every time you think a sexual thought about a woman not your wife you are committing adultery. What a very hard life that must be! How closed up and sad! You must always feel that your are on your guard, and it seems you see every woman as a potential predator, forcing you into adultery with you by her very clothing. This is a terrible outlook on life. It is unfair to every woman out there, and it is also unfair to you. Please James, get therapy. You need it, because your ideas about sex, lust, and modesty are warping and twisting your life, sucking out your joy, destroying any chance of having a balanced or healthy sexuality, robbing you of your friends, and turning you into an altogether unlikeable person.

How could a man ever trust a woman who, before she got married, “let it all hang out” for everyone to see? I guess the big question for me is, how do we single men find chaste girls to marry, girls who are not interested in how sexy they can dress?

James G.

James, please, don’t get married. Or at least, don’t get married until you deal with your issues.

You have a very funny idea of trust, but you also fundamentally misunderstand something about women. We as women have to fight a long war to maintain any sense of a positive body image. Often times, what is actually sexy is not so much the clothing that is worn but the way that it is warn—things like confidence. I grew up with the same modesty teachings you currently espouse, and one thing they did was rob me of any chance of a positive body image. My body became something to be opposed, something to be escaped, something to be loathed. I’m afraid you may be mistaking confidence and a positive body image for dressing sexy. Remember my story about my friend and my husband? Modest clothing does not automatically remove a woman’s sexiness. Frequently, though, a woman’s lack of confidence in her own appearance reduces that sexiness. And that, quite frankly, is what I find saddest here.

Next week, patient readers, we will move on to what Debi has to say about modesty. James G.’s letter gives only a foretaste of what is to come.

Created To Be His Help Meet, pp. 201—202

We’re in Debi’s chapter on being “chaste,” and not surprisingly, we’re discussing modesty. I actually found this passage really interesting myself, because there are several times when Debi departs from the conventional evangelical script—though not in good ways.

A chaste woman is a modest woman. God speaks of a woman maintaining her chastity and purity by the clothes she wears. “In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works” (I Timothy 2:9—10).

Debi assumes that, in these verses, “modest” means no tank tops, no skirts above the knees, etc. But if you read the verses she quotes here, you’ll see that this makes no sense, and is something Debi is reading into the passage.  The examples of apparel that is not “modest” presented there are “broided hair, or gold, or pearls,” not low-cut or sheer clothing. What is meant by “modest” is actually not dressing in such a way as to flaunt your wealth and one-up other people. The author of I Timothy was concerned about women in the church who were flaunting elaborate hairstyles that took hours to create in order to one-up each other. The passage has nothing to do with dressing sexy and everything to do with flaunting wealth.

God says that a woman’s apparel should profess godliness. Her clothes, hair, and adornments—not just her mouth—make a loud profession to all who see her that she is modest and godly, or that she is immodest and ungodly. Our Heavenly Father has dress standards!

Actually, no, that’s not what this passage says. Reading comprehension is your friend. I promise. The passage says that good works become women professing godliness, not that a woman’s apparel professes godliness. And that is an important distinction! Debi is turning the way women dress into a way to express godliness, when this passage is most explicitly advising against that, and arguing that women should show their godliness with their works and not get hung up on clothing! In other words, Debi is reading it backwards!

Would you employ the standard argument and dismiss God as “legalistic” when he tells us that there is a proper way to dress and there is an improper way?

I’ll buy this argument when the Bible includes illustrations of said dress code, and explains plainly what is and is not to be worn. But it doesn’t, and that’s why, when people make rules—if your skirt doesn’t touch the ground when you kneel, it’s too short!—those rules are really actually “legalism” rather than something straight from the mouth of God. Is there anything in the Bible telling women not to wear sheer clothing that shows the figure, or not to wear outfits that show the midriff? I didn’t think so.

And it’s not like God didn’t say anything about this because wearing revealing or sheer clothing is a modern invention and wasn’t an issue at the time. Let’s look at some pictures, shall we?

Clothing what this, and what is castigated is not dressing in revealing or sheer clothing but rather dressing in such a way as to flaunt your wealth and one-up other women. That says something, and it’s not what Debi seems to think it says. It’s rather the opposite, really.

Clothes speak to all who see us. Clothes make a constant profession. That is, they declare out loud—drowning out our words—our one true heart condition and our attitude toward ourselves and toward those who see us.

Whatever happened to it’s what’s on the inside that really matters? And, drowning out our words—really? It is our clothing choices that matter most? Because, again, I’m pretty sure this is what that Bible passage is actually speaking against, this idea that people should be judged and categorized by their clothing rather than by their words or actions.

When I want to entice my husband, a slight change in my clothes, hair, or demeanor is all that it takes to arouse him.

So wait. What are the implications of this? That changing your clothes, hair, or demeanor around men other than your husband is immodest, because it will arouse them? Better not get a haircut or change your makeup, ladies. Oh wait. Debi is probably against both anyway.

Men are very different from women. Jesus warned men, not women, when he said “Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matt. 5:28).

Funny story, that. Last night I had a dream that contained quite a bit of sex, actually, with a man I know but who definitely isn’t my husband. In my dream I was single, so what can I say! All this is to say that women look and “lust” too, and from where I’m sitting women don’t look all that much different from men on this score.

Then God tells a man what to do about it if he cannot keep from looking and lusting. “And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from the: for it is profitable for thee that one of they members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell” (Matt. 5:29). This is very serious business!

Do you remember when Debi wrote about a letter she got from a man who took this passage literally and was considering castrating himself because his wife wasn’t interested in sex and he was starting to “lust” after other women? Yeah, I remember that too. I also remember Debi’s response—that his wife’s body belong to him and that God had granted him full access to his wife’s body. Which read like a veiled endorsement of marital rape.

It is impossible for a woman to understand a man’s visual drive. She can only believe what an honest and candid man tells her, but few men are willing to admit to their weakness.

And here Debi adds to the long list of things she has said that make me want to avoid men entirely. My father always told me that “guys are visual,” and it was said in a fairly obvious attempt to warn me away from guys. It worked, too. For a long time I viewed guys with a lot of fear, even when I didn’t understand what “guys are visual” meant. All I knew is that it meant guys were dangerous, risky, untrustworthy, something to be avoided.

A woman’s body, moving within visual range of a man, unless it is modestly covered in a way that says to the man that you have no interest in him taking pleasure in your appearance, can be as stimulating to him as disrobing completely.

Ah! Here we see what Debi means by “modest”! Modest means wearing clothes that say, visually, that you do not want men viewing you as sexually attractive. But of course, it doesn’t work like that. Today, I was wearing loose pants, an unshapely coat zipped up in front, and a scarf, and yet I still had a random man on the street comment appreciatively on my appearance. Just how far am I supposed to go in my efforts to avoid male attention? See, the solution is not to cover up and cover up until men will no longer be sexually attracted to you, but rather to teach a healthy view of sexuality where feeling sexual desire is not stigmatized and consent is made central.

Further, it’s totally false that dressing in a way that is uninterested in male attention is somehow synonymous with modesty. There are plenty of women who dress, whether all the time or on occasion, for themselves and themselves alone, and yet dress in an attractive and sexy manner. Believe it or not, women don’t usually go to the closet and say “what can I ware that will make men stare at me today.” Sometimes, sure, but it’s not generally an every day thing. Further, as I’ve said before, “sexy” often correlates more with “confident” than with clothing choice. In fact, I would argue that women are generally more sexy when they’re confident and casual and don’t look like they’re going out of their way to impress.

So . . . yeah.

He may be a better man than the woman who is dressing immodestly and may have the fortitude to deny his eyes the stimulation you offer, but it makes you a source of temptation to sin, rather than someone to whom he can relate.

In other words, unless you wear a sack, men will view you as a sex object rather than as a person. Thing is, when I’m dressed sexy and I know it, the men in my circles amazingly don’t usually have a problem treating me like a person. It’s evangelical and fundamentalist men who make me uncomfortable in those moments, because I can feel them exuding judgement. In other words, if you teach men to treat women as people regardless of their clothes, it actually works, but when you tell men that women who are dressed in a way you perceive as “sexy” should be dehumanized, they’ll dehumanize them. The problem here isn’t with women. It’s with the men who are taught by people like Debi to dehumanize attractive women.

I once held a managerial position with several individuals under my supervision, and one of those individuals was extremely sexually attractive. I saw him every day of the week, and frequently worked one-on-one with him as part of my job. I couldn’t not notice how attractive he was. I don’t know what it was exactly, but even his clothing was always incredibly hot. And do you know what I didn’t have a problem doing? Effectively carrying out my responsibilities as his supervisor and interacting with him as a person. It turns out you can find someone extremely hot and be very attracted to them and yet keep a handle on yourself. Yes, really. Also, yes, women can be visual too. Really.

If you find pleasure in being a source of temptation to men, you are definitely an ungodly woman and are in desperate need of repentance.

Oh jeez. It’s only natural to like being attractive—to like feeling attractive. It’s not about trying to be a source of temptation, it’s about wanting to feel good about your body, comfortable in your skin. I swear, this entire passage is an ode to a negative and destructive body image.

Jesus said that a lusting woman commits adultery WITH a woman, not against her, meaning that the woman is included in the lusting adultery.

In other words, if a man looks at you and is sexually attracted to you, God will credit that to you as having had adultery with that man—even if you had no idea that man was even looking at you, even if you were wearing your most unattractive and frumpy outfit, even if you were asleep or spied on against your will. This is absolutely terrifying—or it would have been if I were still an evangelical. I am so glad no one made this argument to me ten years ago, because I’m pretty sure I would have believed it.

Women have told me that they are “not convicted” about the way they dress, as if God has to chase them down and torment them about it before they will obey his Word. Many are offended when their “style of dressing” is called into question. They say they are not going to be legalistic about it, even when God has clearly stated his will. The Holy Spirit convicts according to the will of God. If you are not convicted by the Holy Spirit for your immodest dress, then you are not being led by God. “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God” (Romans 8:14). If you are God’s child in more than just name, you will be led by the Spirit of God. If God is not leading you consistent with his Word, then you must face the fearful truth that you do not have the Spirit indwelling you. “Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his” (Romans 8:9).

O_o

So . . . if you don’t interpret the Bible’s supposed legalistic dress code exactly as Debi does, you are not saved, and do not know God. That’s powerful mind control spiritual abuse mojo.

God gave us ladies bodies that men desire as much as they desire life itself. It is a precious gift that keeps us “pretty” and desirable to that husband, that man of our youth who loves us, long after our youth is gone and our skin looks like alligator boots. We have a power that could cause many men to sell their souls and blindly run down the path to hell. Or, we can use that power to soothe, heal, minister, and act out the intimacy that exists between Christ and his bride.

Using that power to soothe, heal, and minister is speaking of having sex with one’s husband. Debi has before spoken of sex as “ministering” to her husband. I prefer to see sex as something couples do mutually, together, for mutual pleasure, but then, maybe that’s just me.

As my husband said in his book, Holy Sex, “The devil didn’t invent erotic pleasure, God did.” But God also placed boundaries upon the exercise of sexuality. All of life is living within boundaries. The world sometimes provides boundaries to prevent us from acting the fool or from suffering in our pursuit of pleasure, but it never provides boundaries that are as strict or as reasonable as God’s. This aged woman is telling you ladies that is is the will of God for you to always be modest in public. It is your profession of godliness.

You know, even at the end of this passage, I kind of wish that Debi had laid out her “legalistic” dress code point by point, because I’m still not entirely sure what it is. She says modesty is dressing in a way that makes it clear that you are not interested in men’s sexual interest, but what does that mean, exactly? She seems to operate on a “I’ll know it when I see it” policy that, I would imagine, gives her a lot of leeway in condemning the “worldly” women around her.

Anyway, this whole section has not been surprising, but it has been an interesting read nonetheless. Next week we move on to Debi’s position on pants, and then a bit about fat women that is really not very nice, and then “Bad Bob,” which has got to be the most ridiculous part of this entire book.

Created To Be His Help Meet, pp. 202—204

We’re still in the section on modesty, and here we get to the question of pants, which is a heated topic in so many fundamentalist circles. Once we’re through that, we’ll get a taste of what Debi thinks of fat* women, and in getting said taste we’ll touch on an important Catch-22 women face in the purity culture Debi promotes.

What About Pants? 

We cannot leave this subject without dealing with an issue that comes up over and over again. Is it permissible for a woman to wear pants? Deuteronomy 22:5 is cited as a prohibition against a woman wearing pants: “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are an abomination unto the LORD they God.”

I did not grow up in a skirts only family. We frequently wore skirts and dresses, but we also frequently wore pants. When I hit my teens I switched to skirts only because of all the messages I was getting about femininity and modesty, but it was my choice, not something forced on me, and I didn’t believe it was commanded in the Bible. That said, I remember going to a camp with other homeschool teenagers, and there was a girl there who quoted this verse as her proof text for only wearing skirts. Even then, I thought it was a bit off, for, weirdly, the reasons Debi provides.

To cite this verse as a prohibition against women wearing pants, one must assume several doubtful concepts. Do pants pertain to men? What verse? According to the Bible, the common garment for a man is a skirt or cloak. Seventeen times the Bible speaks of men wearing skirts, such men as Boaz, King Saul, and Aaron. One time, the Bible speaks of a woman’s skirt, and another time it speaks of God’s skirt. So, even God wears a skirt, as did the Scottis  men and the Roman and Greek men of old. American Indian men wore mini skirts. During Bible times, as far as secular history reveals, the only people who ever wore pants were Eastern women. 

Oh, so, apparently Debi is aware of things like context and history, even if the rest of her book would suggest otherwise. Interesting.

We want the Bible to be strictly our guide, but there is always a danger of reading something into it to suit our personal sense of propriety.

Speak for yourself, Debi, speak for yourself. No really, in the passage we covered last week she jumped to the conclusion that a command to dress “modestly” meant not wearing skimpy clothes when it clearly in context meant not wearing clothes that flaunt your wealth, and in the same passage she said that the verse that says men who look at women with lust commit adultery with them in their hearts meant that it counts against those women as adultery too, even if they don’t know they’re being lustfully watched.

Anyone with an open mind knows that the passage is speaking against transvestism—cross-dressing so as to appear as the opposite sex. The manner of dress would differ form one culture to another and from one era to another.

Come on Debi, say it—standards of “modesty” differ from culture to culture and era to era either. Yes really!

Men and women are not to pervert and besmear the Creator’s designation of their sexuality, which essentially challenges God’s “and it was very good” declaration of the distinctiveness of his crowning “male and female” creation.

I wonder if Debi would be so excited to go with the historically informed interpretation if it didn’t directly support another one of her talking points?

It is disturbing to see women blurring gender distinction in the way they dress, and it is absolutely disgusting to see a man dress effeminately. Males and females dressing out of their gender is clearly troubling to God, which is why he addressed the subject in his Word. It is an abomination to him, an affront to his sovereignty in the creation of mankind. Keep that in mind as you choose your wardrobe.

Ah, here we get it. You don’t have to wear skirts, ladies, but you better dress in a feminine manner or you are blurring gender distinctions, which is an abomination to God. Classic Debi.

Modesty is the principal of female dress. If you want to get provocative, do so in private with your husband. In fact, I recommend it, but when you come out of the bedroom and go to church or the local store, dress as you would dress for the Judgement Seat of Christ. 

More classic Debi—but at least she does consistently stress that sex in marriage is a good thing and not something to feel shame about. Not all do stress this. But then, Debi also endorses marital rape and sees sex as something a woman does for her husband, so, I’m not giving her a high five on this one.

Next we get a letter, printed without commentary by Debi. I assume this means Debi agrees with the content of the letter and feels it has an instructive message for her readers.

Dear Pearls,

I am sick of looking at fat. Females dressing with short tops and low-riding pants or skirts with a roll of fat around the middle remind me of “pop and serve” biscuits that busted open. Gross.

Then look away. You do not have the right to dictate fat women’s appearances, and fat women do not dress for your benefit. Really.

I’m a pig farmer, and when I see these “biscuit” females, it makes me see what the Scriptures mean about pigs with jewels in their noses. They are just about as desirable as one of my sows! Ugh!

Okay now wait. If these women were sexually attractive to you, wouldn’t you start going on and on about how they are causing you to stumble and forcing you to commit adultery in your mind? Shouldn’t you be grateful that you do not find these women desirable? I mean, that whole last section was about how women better not dress to be desirable to men, because, lust, sin, and depravity. In fact, Debi flat out said that a woman should dress in a manner that says to men that she has “no interest in him taking pleasure in your appearance.” So why not accept the fact that you find these women appalling as a gift? Less worry about lusting, after all!

It is not so much the fat as it is the way they sport it around—like it’s hot stuff.

Oh, so it bothers you that they are proud of their bodies and don’t act properly ashamed of their fat? And again—it is no business of yours what these women do. The last thing they need is your constant judgement. Have you ever stopped to think that you, rather than they, may be the problem?

I am profoundly thankful my wife dresses like a lady, a virtuous lady. Everytime I go to town, I come back home so glad to have a good woman who knows how to dress like one. sIf you print my letter, be sure to include my name because I want to go on record as a grateful husband.

Jonathan Beachy

Cue the perennial questions regarding the authenticity of these letters.

But here it is, the Catch-22. If women dress in an effort to please random men on the street, they’re wanton whores who are committing adultery with every man who looks at them. But, if women dress without enough care toward pleasing random men on the street, they’re pigs.

And while we’re on the subject, I remembered something I didn’t get to last week. Debi said that if a man looks lustfully at a woman and thinks about having sex with her, it is credited to that woman as committing adultery with that man, regardless of whether she had any idea he was looking at her. But here’s the thing—if this were true, shouldn’t all women be hiding out in their houses trying to stay away from the male gaze? After all, if a man looks at you with lust, regardless of how you dressed, you have just committed adultery. The more I think of it the more I am incredibly glad that I do not remember hearing this interpretation as a teen. If I had, I may well have accepted it and taken it seriously, and the results could have been bad.

Next week we move on to Bad Bob. When I have read this section aloud at dinner parties, I have been told that it reads like pornography. Just wait.

—————

I am using the word “fat” here because it is a preferred term for size acceptance activists.

Created To Be His Help Meet, pp. 204—207

Alright, story time! I’ve been waiting for this section for ages because . . . well.

If you’re new here, you’ve stumbled upon my page by page review of Debi Pearl’s how to be a good wife manual Created To Be His Help Meet. Debi Pearl and her husband Michael run No Greater Joy Ministries, a fundamentalist ministry popular among conservative Christian homeschoolers. Michael is also the author of To Train Up A Child, a child rearing manual which I have also been reviewing page by page. 

For me, Bad Bob has long served as the passage that best incapsulates how off base and frankly toxic Created To Be His Help Meet is. When introducing new friends to the extremism of the antifeminist views I grew up with, I have often pulled out Created To Be His Help Meet and read them Bad Bob. There is just something extra special about this story—and not in a good way.

But enough of that! Let’s get started!

Bad Bob

In the following story, the characters, Bob and Lydia, are composites drawn from counseling sessions of two different couples. We have heard the same basic story many times over while ministering to countless married people. 

Bob had an upset stomach and was not hungry, so his family dropped him off at the motel where they would be staying, and then they went to get something to eat. His dad never let them watch the motel TV, but Bob knew they would be gone for at least an hour, and he was bored. The first scene that he saw held him riveted. The music was sensual. Bob stared, trapped in his own shocked silence. There before him in slow motion was a woman walking up steps. All he could see was the woman’s behind encased in a short leather skirt that was slit up the backside. The camera slowly shifted down her long slender thighs until he could see the backless high heels. Then it traveled slowly up her long legs focusing on the open slit as she climbed. He watched as she reached the top of the stairs and stepped into a room; still the camera stayed on her legs. Bob’s heart pounded in anticipation. The soft music began to swell as the camera climbed. A sound on the outside of the motel door jerked Bob back to the present. He hit the off button with such force as to crack the remote and then flung it across the room as if it were a poisonous spider. False alarm, no one was there, but after only two minutes of a mere introduction to soft porn, Bob would never be the same. That day was the first day that Bob masturbated. He was 13 years old.

Two years later, Bob was sitting in church when Lydia, the youth director’s wife, stood up directly in front of him to take her youngest child to the bathroom. His mouth got terribly dry as he stared at her round behind encased in a tight leather skirt with a slit up the back. It is true that Lydia’s skirt was several inches longer than the one that was no part of his daydreams, but when Lydia bent over to pick up the child, several of the young men sitting behind her slowly covered their laps with their songbooks. Bob almost hated Lydia after that day. She was responsible for his torment and temptation. The force of those few seconds of soft porn 2 years earlier, along with the stretched material pulled dangerously high as Lydia leaned over, caused him to empty his semen into his pants, right there in church, resulting in a large wet spot. He found a use for his Bible that day after church. It covered his shame as he rushed out to the van to take the back seat. A week later Bob dropped out of the youth group. His sudden departure puzzled and saddened the earnest youth director. He went to Bob to ask him if there was anything Bob wanted to talk about. Bitter bile filled Bob’s mouth at the memory of the youth director’s wife slowly walking up the church steps with her tight skirt and high-heeled shoes, just like the woman on the TV. Lydia, with her sanctimonious smile, did not deceive him; how could she be so dumb as to not know exactly what she was doing to him? No, he had nothing to talk about, he told Lydia’s stupid husband.

Lydia never knew she had shamed her husband, hurt his ministry, and caused a young man to smolder with bitter hatred and almost falter on the edge of quitting the faith. She would not have believed me (or perhaps she would have been secretly pleased at what she thought was her beauty) if I had pulled her aside and explained how the young men at church were reacting to her and why several treated her with such distain. She would have explained to me that her style was just “her style,” and they needed to get a grip. I know this because I have talked to many Lydias.

Bob had not looked at porn since that first night, but his mind was in a constant struggle, and his battle with masturbation was never-ending. Opened or low-cut shirts were a misery to him. Bare midriffs were bad too, but a girl who had long slender thighs coming to the meetings in mid-length shorts or skirts made him miserable beyond belief.

When Bob was 22 years old, he met a sweet, little peach of a girl with soft, warm eyes and a good, clean heart. They married, and Bob was relieved that his miseries were finally over. For the first three years she was sexually exciting, and he was able to fully enjoy what before had shamed and frustrated him in his youth. He known knew blessed relief from his old enemy, lust, which was finally brought under control in his pure marriage relationship.

Life never seems to roll out easy, and after Bob’s wife had her second child, she stopped being so responsive to Bob in the bedroom. Her excuses were exhaustion, sickness, didn’t want to get pregnant, didn’t feel like it, it hurt because “something seems wrong inside me now,” etc. She knew she had to give him sex once a week, but she came to him half-heartedly, which caused him to never really get total satisfaction. The women at work always dressed sexy and had tried to provoke Bob, but he saw them as a bunch of diseased animals, so although they provoked him, he resented it.

Church was different. Church ladies seemed clean and wholesome. At 25 years old, Bob was in his prime, and he needed his woman. God had designed his body with a sensitive trigger that needed release at least 2 or 3 times a week. He had developed certain habits in order to avoid unexpected temptations. His wife had no idea why he had such strange habits, like picking the spot where they would sit in the church, but she just sat where he led her. Lydia was not a problem anymore. Thankfully, the few years that had passed had played havoc on her beautiful behind and thighs. Bob smiled and said “hi” when he saw her walk by. She still tried to pull on that stupid “what did I do” look, like she really didn’t know why he had always disliked her. It was true, he still did not like her and found a certain sense of gratification at the demise of her beauty. Seeing her made Bob remember when her husband, the youth director, was teaching a small group meeting of young married men, explaining to them that all women go through times of total disinterest in sex, including his own wife, and how important it was to be vigilant against lust during those times. He had felt sorry for him at the time, but now Bob’s own little honey had turned off her water spigot of sweet loving.

“Vigilant, I must be vigilant.” Bob was scanning the church building looking for a safe place to sit when he felt his wife pulling on his arm. “I want to sit over behind the Chandler family.” Bob’s alarm went off. Three tall, long-legged, beautiful teenage girls, who liked tighter, shorter skirts, were members of the Chandler family. He groaned with irritation. His wife caught the groan and took offense. He wished he could explain all this complicated mess to his wife, but she would only get jealous and spend the rest of his life watching where and who he was looking at. He looked down at her, whom he loved with all his heart and wished she were a little more sober-minded and not so quick to get hurt feelings. He wished she loved him the way he needed to be loved, he wished she would be his help meet when he needed her most. He wished she had enough wisdom to be discreet and discerning and would look out for him at times like this. He wished she would just obey him, not because she understood, but because she cared for him enough to obey. He wished she knew how much he needed her and how in a way, she held the power of heaven and hell for him in her hands. He allowed her to lead him into the row of temptation. If anyone could see his mind while he sat behind the Chandler girls, they would have had him arrested. He knew he was Bad Bob, full of lust, anger, frustration, and defeat. Somehow he always thought bitterly of Lydia when he was feeling defeated: “What a fat cow, no, not a cow, she’s a pig.”

I wish I could tell you that Debi set up this story to tear it down. It reads as though it is in someone’s head, an illustration of a disordered mind to be followed with information about therapy or understanding the condition that results in this sort of mental disturbance. But alas, it is not to be.

Bob, Frank, Tom, and Your Pastor

Bad Bob is the story of a thousand Bobs and Franks and Toms. If you think that Bob is some kind of freak or deviant, you don’t know men. Listening to these struggling men pour out their stories and their bitterness is a counselor’s job. It is our duty to “help” them overcome. Over the years, my husband and I have wished we could tell all the young women who, by their immodest dress and unladylike behavior, cause the lust of countless men to explode into participation in visual adultery. Bad Bob is intended to inform you and warn you of your complicity. Bad Bob is the regular guy at your church. He is your preacher and your daughter’s Sunday School teacher. He sits behind you in church, or, just maybe, he is the one who avoids sitting behind you and your daughters.

Okay, so let’s talk about this. I mean, part of me feels like we don’t really need to talk about this. It sort of stands on its own and makes itself ridiculous. Still, we must talk about it, because there are people out there who really do buy into this.

At the root of Bob’s problems is actually his belief that any sexual thought or feeling that is not carefully contained to marriage is both a serious sin and a slippery slope to utter depravity. This belief has him so freaked out that he cannot develop a healthy and balanced sexuality. Instead, he spends so very much time focused on not thinking about sex that that’s all he thinks about. He also sees masturbation as a problem and something he must fight against, which means he has no way to get any sort of natural release before marriage or even within marriage during those times his wife isn’t in the mood. He ends up so holed up and repressed inside that he lashes out by resenting essentially, well, every woman in his life, and blames his own problems on them. That’s bad.

I’m trying to think what else to say, but everything is circling back ground to Bob’s repressed sexuality. He is obsessed with the way women around him dress not because he was exposed to two minutes of soft core porn but rather because he is so focused on avoiding sexual thoughts that he can’t look at a woman without immediately having the forbidden thoughts and then blaming her for them. To compensate for his lack of ability to control what women wear, Bob dehumanizes them, referring to them as “diseased animals,” “fat cows,” and “pigs.”

Bob also resents his wife for not understanding that it is her duty to have sex with him whether she wants it or not, because he has a “need.” He shows no concern for locating the reasons she has become uninterested in sex—if she is tired because she is worn out from watching the kids she could probably use some help with that, if she doesn’t want to get pregnant she should probably get in birth control, and if she’s complaining about the sex act causing her pain she really should go to the doctor about that. But Bob doesn’t care. Indeed, Bob doesn’t appear to care about Lydia’s sexual satisfaction at all except in as much as it relates to him—because when her effort is “half-hearted,” he doesn’t get “total satisfaction.” Bob is a selfish jerk to the very wife he tells himself he cares so much about, and he doesn’t even see it.

Bob needs counseling, big time, and preferably before he snaps and rapes one of those Chandler girls while taking her home after babysitting. It’s not like it hasn’t happened before.