In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

My Beloved’s Garden

Reader Anne sent me an email yesterday. “I don’t know if you’ve seen this,” she wrote, “but you’ve got some serious competition.”

Because I am evil, and my heart is shriveled and blackened from being barbequed on Satan’s gas grill during Hell’s annual Memorial Day Cookout last year (the devil is notorious for ruining perfectly good cuts of meat. You’d think he’d be better at working with fire, but then again, he is the devil. Disappointing people is his forté), I thought it was going to be a delightful trainwreck. But you know, honestly, it isn’t.

My Beloved’s Garden, owned and operated by Paul and Sherri Berner, is an online sex toy store for conservative Christian couples, and they seem to be trying to single handedly derail the conservative hysteria regarding sexual activity and are making a serious effort to provide their customers with factual information regarding sexual activity as well as heeding Biblical law.

Quite frankly, as we all know, with regards to human sexuality, a lot of the conservative Christian leaders out there like to do a little thing known in the secular world as “making stuff up.” Not so with the Berners. They have an FAQ page where they discuss topics such as anal sex and masturbation, and although I thought it was going to be factually inaccurate and judgmental, they proved me wrong, wrong, wrong on both counts. Even the things they do not agree with on grounds of it being an activity that either violates Biblical law or because it’s across the board disgusting, they manage to be very smooth and level-headed about it.

Now, because their worldview is framed in fundie ideology, there is a certain framework they work within that quite frankly, sucks. There’s just no getting around their hatred of gays and fucked up views on women’s submission. As my girl Twisty says about her radical feminist blog, “It discusses feminism from the point of view that the value of the liberation of women is not itself a matter of debate. Therefore, while opposing viewpoints are encouraged and welcomed, in order to be considered suitable for posting here, these views must proceed from within a framework of feminist theory.”

In order to appreciate what they’re doing, you have to accept that it’s a given that their business is going to be filtered through their fucked up worldview. Despite their unfortunate attitudes vis a vis The Fabulous who walk among us – the gay men and the bitchy broads – they are providing a truly valuable service, and I wish all fundies had similarly positive attitudes.

Honestly, it’s refreshing to actually be able to give them a peer to peer critique. First, get rid of that annoying, aggressive popup ad. I promise you, God hates it, too. Seriously, the website is a business. They’re already selling stuff, it’s the entire reason the website exists. Put the book the pop up is hawking in with the rest of the inventory and get it out of my face.

Second, it’s obvious from their FAQ that anal sex isn’t their bag. Which is absolutely, totally fine. And I can’t tell you how pleased I am that they logically realize that anal sex does not equal gay, and therefore should not be prohibited (there’s that fucked up worldview again. We’re just going to have to deal with it for now.) However, it’s coming across very clear that they don’t really condone it, and although the secular information given is not incorrect, they’re not really doing the anal-curious any favors. I have the same problem with answering technical questions about foot fetishism. Because I felt like I couldn’t answer the question in a manner that was knowledgeable and comprehensive, I asked a New York City sex worker, the superfantasic Audacia Ray, to answer the question for me. And answer it she did! I’m still getting email about that one.

**Tangent – I am of the opinion, and I am quite serious about this, that Audacia Ray is the Cutest Thing Ever. Just look at her. Adorable!**

bw1

What was I talking about? Right, they just seem to be spreading a little more doom and gloom in that section than strictly necessary. I probably would have done the same thing with answering the foot fetish question, so I let someone else with a better attitude handle it. Of course, it is possible that they don’t know any cute-as-a-button New York City sex workers, which as you can clearly see, is their loss.

In the interest of fairness, I must tell you they stomped me into the ground with their answer regarding Adult Nursing. I’m telling you right now, if you have a question about this, do not ask me. ASK THEM. I beg you.

You know what else should be required reading? The article they wrote on Domestic Discipline, which is either Biblically sanctioned wife beating or Biblically sanctioned fetishism. Nobody’s really sure which one it is, but either way you slice it, it sucks so it doesn’t matter. It’s a fine, fine article, and the Bermans dissect the entire practice beautifully.

I dunno. Although I’m completely unable to accept major parts of their belief system that structure the way their business is run, (due to the fact that I’m a feminist who finds lesbians to be magically delicious. Whee!) on the whole I was very pleasantly surprised.

P.S. – Did you see how I managed to make it all the way through a post about “My Beloved’s Garden” without making one cheap pubic hair joke? Let me tell you, it was not easy.


29 thoughts on My Beloved’s Garden

  1. “Surely we have not covered everything in this article, but hopefully we have given you a framework for discussing things and a way of determining whether something will build or harm your marriage.”

    This blew me away, the focus on a framework for discussion, and the value on whether or not something will build or harm a marriage. Any responsilbe sex-positive person has to work within the value system relevant and meaningful to them, and that’s exactly what these people seem to be doing, good for them and the people who they are helping. Maybe they will be able to help some people come to accept gay issues better too without meaning to, with all of that ‘framework for discussion’ and thinking about what is part of what builds or harms a person’s relationships?

  2. Wow. Despite that fact that I *should* know better, I so often let my knowledge of sane, healthy Christians (like my boyfriend…I’m such a bad person) be overwhelmed by how much louder the nutjob extremists are. I’m glad this site is out there, it’s a very good step towards realistic treatment of sex from a religious viewpoint. And they sell condoms!

    I like their emphasis on “if you both like it, go for it”. A very good philosophy, for all that I think they’d be terribly shocked to know to what ends I apply it in my bedroom.

  3. I’m avoiding the main point of the article, simply because what fundies find they can justify to do in bed within the realms of their repression isn’t something I want to even think about, let alone read.

    So;

    due to the fact that I’m a feminist who finds lesbians to be magically delicious. Whee!

    And that we are! We are most magically delicious! Actually, come to think of it, I’m yet to come across one that wasn’t.

    Course, I am sure you are too Flea 🙂

    Oh, and I have to definitely agree about Audacia Ray! *swoon!* Would she mind a femme girlfriend from Chicago? 🙂

  4. I dunno, I’m vaguely reminded of the Creationist books for kids that have big pictures of dinosaurs because kids like dinosaurs.

    What I mean is that it seems as if they are using a venier of sex positivism to attract people to their inherently mysognist take on their religion. The whole section on domestic discipline, while not really endorsing the idea, was still centered on the idea that women are inherently inferior to men.

    Looks like a pretty faux sex positive lure for an ugly and hateful dogma to me.

  5. What I mean is that it seems as if they are using a venier of sex positivism to attract people to their inherently mysognist take on their religion.

    Which gets us back to flea’s post about The Family and their X-rated recruitment pamphlets.

  6. Concerning Ms. Ray: Wow. Wow. I concur: she’s utterly adorable.

    About My Beloved’s Garden… I dunno. Being sex-positive is nice and all, but it’s not that hard to be both sex-positive and horrifyingly reactionary. Which, apparently, they are. I’ve been poking around their answers to sex questions, and it’s kind of appalling. At least for me, their “sex is fun” message gets lost in their insistence that sex is approved only within marriage. More accurately, sex is approved only between heterosexual couples. No one else is allowed to have sex. Here and there they make mention of ‘valid biological reasons’ to support their personal likes and dislikes.

    And then there’s this para:

    Anal intercourse involves inserting the penis into the anus instead of the vagina. Many believe that the Bible speaks against this, but it does not. Homosexual anal sex is forbidden, but then so is homosexual manual sex or even homosexual kissing – thus we can not use homosexuality as a way of proving that anal sex is wrong.

    Kissing. Kissing is forbidden. flea, how is this not “factually incorrect and judgmental?”

    They could stand to run their site through a spellchecker, too.

  7. Kissing. Kissing is forbidden. flea, how is this not “factually incorrect and judgmental?”

    Well, you know Moira, it’s just because us queers are just so damn GOOD at it … if people found that out, there would be no stopping the ‘homosexual’ kissing … and THEN where would we be? Cats and Dogs, and all that …

  8. It appears that the FAQ page from the store “My Beloved’s Garden” actually takes one to a site: “The Marriage Bed.” I think these sites have similar philosophies, but are not, in fact, the same organization.

  9. If this is a trojan horse for fundamentalism like Brad says, I’m not sure that it might not be equally effective the other way: a trojan horse for tolerance through fundamentalism. I might be being optimistic here in the extreme, but it does take the fundamental stance that sex is a.) not inherently sinful, and shouldn’t remain only a duty to create children b.) something that women should enjoy, and isn’t exclusively a service provided for men, therefore acknowledging women’s sexual agency and c.) not necessarily something that should be the cause of thundering judgements.

    Once you get to that point, even if it’s unintended, it starts spreading difference and I hope tolerance alongside it.

    Can you be sex-positive and conservative/reactionary? Of course. But there’s a reason why the hardliners crack down on it and wh Big Brother didn’t like it.

  10. Actually, I’m really considering the sex-positive movement to have been thoroughly appropriated and colonized. What was originally a movement dedicated to opening up discussion about sexuality and encouraging negotiation of individual needs has become a platform for promoting Hugh Hefner sexuality.

    This really isn’t anything radical or new. Puritans typically had their first child within 6 months of the wedding, and Puritan midwives talked about the importance of female orgasm.

    Where I think the rubber hits the road in regards to sex-positivism is not just a passionate defense of those who chose to do it, but a passionate defense of those who don’t as well. Sex-positivism was not about promoting sex, but about the freedom to openly talk about what we want and need from our sexual relationships. Sex-positivism was about validating the entire range spectrum of sexuality, including not only the queer and kinky, but the straight, vanilla and asexual as well.

    And that is what made the sex-positive movement a radical break. “Sex is fun?” Of course. There has been no lack of people saying that sex is fun over the centuries. What is radical and defines sex positivism is the concept that people have a right to seek sexual fulfillment according to their own needs and desires within the bounds of mutual consent.

  11. Could someone please blog about video posted on CNN titled Do Working Moms Cause Obese Kids before my wittle bwain explodith. Thank you.

  12. We [lesbians] are most magically delicious! I’m yet to come across one that wasn’t.

    ~snort, giggle, laugh~ Lucky you!

    Sorry, sorry.

    Please get back to real discussion now…

  13. Mikey S: You may be correct, and I hope you are. Honestly, I’m more than slightly disturbed by the whole concept of a relationship based on female submission due to Christian principles, and that’s probably poisoned me re: the whole site.

    To me it looks like the end result will be “sex positivism” twisted into “if the husband wants to try sex act X than his submissive wife should agree regardless of whether she wants to or not”. Sex is fun, but only with a fully empowered and equal partner [1]

    OTOH, you are correct, sex is great, and if more fundies start enjoying sex maybe they’ll relax a bit.

    [1] Not trying to knock folks into BDSM. If the “submission” is a real choice, not one coerced by religious threats, then its just a kink and that’s your business.

  14. BMC, it’s a twofer: Bad Mommy Blaming (stay in the kitchen flavor) and Fat Hysteria. I don’t need to watch the stupid video. I know from the stupid headline that they have charrypicked and invented shit to fit a pre-conceived notion.

  15. Actually, the bible doesn’t prohibit homosexual kissing, it only prohibits men from having sex (with each other). Lesbians are a-ok as far as Leviticus is concerned.

  16. God did not give out an equal sense of humor to every person, did he.
    I think the people who wrote that website got more than you, Flea.

    But if it’s about sex, it must be serious!
    Sex and God? That’s as serious as a heart attack.
    Or even a heart attack while praying during sex, if you know what I mean.
    And I think you do!

  17. Read the whole thing, but I’ll confess I found the link to Dacia’s description of how to give a footjob more educational. I wasn’t even really aware there was such a thing.

  18. I also agree about Audacia. She radiates a confidence, sex appeal, and intelligence**.

    **Is it the glasses that do that?

  19. Thomas, what is over the top is they use the headline to grab attention, and then in the video you have two idiots saying 1) children have been getting fatter since women started entering the workforce and 2) women don’t stay home cooking healthy meals all the time any more THEN without really examining the flawed premises of those statements they follow up with a weak, there are those who think obesity is caused by many other things. Think maybe the popularity of home video games and TV, hnmmn? The highlight is one real woman saying the premise that mom’s cause obesity is stupid. There is a goofy reprise of the movie 9 to 5 and NO ONE discusses the assumption that women are the cookers and if they ain’t cooking then everyone must go to McDonalds and immediately order 5 happy meals instead of MAYBE men should take some responsibility in this area? My poor husband who manages to feed his own kids 3 squares a day, mostly at home, is totally ignored by the whole thing. Banging head on table now.

  20. This is the best part, also from the section about “anal stimulation:”

    Aside from anal intercourse, some folks stimulate the anus with an inanimate object, their fingers, and (sorry about this) their mouths.

    Sorry about this indeed.

  21. I love the hand-wringing about “dirty words.”

    Do phrases like, “Please initiate coitus immediately” or “My sexual climax is imminent” communicate the thoughts and feelings as well as a more “colorful” phrase would?

    No. No, they don’t. But I’m still gonna try them next time.

  22. Pingback: big tits
  23. I’m avoiding the main point of the article, simply because what fundies find they can justify to do in bed within the realms of their repression isn’t something I want to even think about, let alone read.

    Flea,

    I had the same reaction, although I did read a little bit of the site. Actually, I’d encountered both this and the Marriage Bed years before while lurking on a Christian forum during the more boring periods of online classes in graduate school. It was the same thing then–people working very diligently to figure out how to selectively cherry-pick the bible to justify their own desires or repressions.

    Which is why somehting like this site almost makes me more sad about the atrocity of religion than outright fundyism. These people look like they are so advanced beyond the usual flavor of christianity, but they’re still constrained by the same ridiculous worldview and mythology. That whole section on DD (which, honestly, I couldn’t finish from laughing after they got to the part about hordes of women trying to convince their husbands to spank them “christianly”, when it’s absolutely not about sex) is actually the worst example of this. They totally miss the point that the master/slave relationship between men and women encouraged by religion is warped and anathema to the idea of women as equal, autonomous human beings, and instead focus on trying to prove that DD is not biblically supported. I get the feeling that if a few verses had been translated differently, they would go along with it.

    I hope MikeS’s point is right, but sex positivism based on biblical interpretation isn’t really sex positivism. It’s special pleading to your sky daddy to feel less guilty about your own particular kinks. Yes, it’s nice to hear from a christian that thinks female enjoyment of sex is a good thing, but they can’t see that as somehting that’s good in and of itself, regardless of what (they think) the bible says.

  24. sex positivism based on biblical interpretation isn’t really sex positivism. It’s special pleading to your sky daddy to feel less guilty about your own particular kinks.

    Oh, absolutely. That’s why I think this couple has their work cut out for them. What they’re trying to do is almost impossible. I think it’s obvious from their very carefully worded essay on DD that they strongly disapprove of the practice for both the fetishism and the misogyny, but their worldview (and the worldview of their primary customers) is framed in such a way that the only permissible way to discourage this practice is to say the Bible doesn’t support it.

    They’re in a leaky boat and bailing with both hands. The boat’s still going to sink, but at least they’re trying. Everybody else on board is either just sitting there or scooping up the water from the ocean and throwing it back in.

Comments are currently closed.