OK, now that I am off the boss's computer system, I can be a little freer. It turns out that there is a rather surprisingly healthy subgroup (unintended) of fundies interested in a less conventional sex life. The site is sexinchrist.com, and it covers everything from fisting to threesomes (with a rather startling entry page about "Anal Sex In Accordance With God's Will"). And "submission," the last paragraph of which is this:

"Can a Man Be Submissive to His Wife?"

This is a tricky question but a very important one that needs to be addressed. We believe that a man can adopt a submissive and servile role and allow his wife to dominate him sexually, if it is absolutely clear that outside of the bedroom, the husband is the spiritual head of the marriage. Just as a woman gives the gift of submission to her husband, there is no reason why, for their mutual sexual gratification, a man should not submit his body to his wife for her use and serve her sexually. This is totally in alignment with the Biblical command that husband and wife give each other "due benevolence"; her body is meant for his sexual enjoyment and vice versa. However, this reversal of roles in the context of sexual relations is only possible due to the sanctity of the marriage bed, and an explicit understanding on the parts of both the husband and wife that they will adopt “natural” roles in the rest of their daily lives. We would counsel against couples living the wife dominant/husband submissive roles “24/7”, as this could lead to spiritual confusion.

Gender-equal god-sanctioned fundie perversity! You can mix your god with your perviness, on a gender-equal basis, so long as you keep the male spiritually "head" (whatever that means) of the family. Go figure.

Is the issue sex and god, the reality that fundies can be as nasty as liberals (or even possibly that they are eating away at the ground under liberal feet), or the unnerving idea that the complexities of who is on top, who is the boss, and who is the "head" in almost any flavour and sect of relationship is a very complicated question indeed? Even before we get to fantasy which messes matters up even further, which for sure is what like 90% of any sexuality related material on the internet is sure to be?

Like I have said before, the intensity of BroadSheet's troll clusterfuck reaction is in inverse proportion to the weight and seriousness of the original story.

I am beginning to think what really pisses them off is women with a sense of humor. Bad Women, to laugh at Stuff. Bad Bad Bad. Down Girl! Heel!

Oh, and incidentally, as a sometime anthropologist, could I point out that human evolution was not a one-time event in one place? It clearly happened over a great deal of time and space. And that we really don't have a freaking clue exactly who was doing what at any point along that line?

I absolutely can and do respond to people who are civil, and who don't hide behind anonymity. I don't respond to anonymice, but, Colt, I will to you. I attack trolls? What, I'm supposed to make kissyface with people that call me a dirtbag, drunk, and dolt, just for starters? I'm supposed to take their points seriously?

I try very hard to confine my comments to the article at hand; in this case, the article has nothing about the patriarchy, nothing about evolutionary psychology, nor arguments that women are superior to men, nor that all women are victims. It did not comment on anonymices' unfair love-life, nor on the quality nor purpose of BroadSheet, nor indeed the general state of feminism.

And to take your points seriously, I have been called a lot of things somewhat accurately, but "bitter, trivial people with meaningless (sic) and lacking integrity (sic)" are not some of them. (Incidentally, you seem to type better when you are anonymous, well, from what I can guess from only reading the first paragraph or two of your rants.)

Your biggest objection really seems to be that Joan & Tracy & Catherine et al won't talk to you, won't talk about what you want to talk about, and don't take you seriously. So why on earth do you keep reading this?

Actually, the Somali background does bear on it, I think. If you are from a 3rd world country, war-torn or not, phoning the police is NOT habitual or normal (or often, sane) response. The police are not your friends. On top of that, as recently arrived immigrants of color living in a poorer part of town, the inclination not to call the police is no doubt reinforced, justifiably so or not.

Failing that, it is a little unrealistic to expect a woman alone in her apartment to intervene and attack a rapist. Frankly, if she is from Somalia, the odds of her having been raped herself are rather high. So that leaves the guys. There, I have no idea; the previous poster suggests behaviour that in my experience is NOT typical for Somalis; true, they like most Africans can be pretty sexist, but in my experience perhaps less so that other East Africans. If the woman was a clan member, you can bet that they would have intervened. But if not, well, its dangerous, and she isn't my relative. Clan-based societies, for all the mutual support they give, do tend to foster a rather high degree of indifference to others.

Ooh, they are finally handing out stars again! BroadSheet has been awfuly chary with them of late, but ooh, I want one I want one! Please star hander-outers, gimme? Please?

Which was "My America by Ed Anger" which until Bush was elected I thought was pure, hilarious fiction. Oops, guess someone was reading it seriously after all.