Douglas Wilson and Orgasmism

Again, ladies, please pass this by.

A corollary of the thoughts I laid out on homo-orgasmism is that various perversions commonly thought of as “sexual” perversions are actually something else altogether, namely, a perversion that has as its pivot orgasm, not sex. Thus, there is an approach to marital love that seems to be “normal” but is actually not marital love at all, but simply alter-orgasm in contrast to homo-orgasm. On this understanding, the biblical, creational, poetic, teleological view of sex (hereafter abbreviated as “the healthy view”) is called “heterosexual” only as a metonymy that can be very misleading. It misleads if in using the term, one thinks that “homosexuality,” or pederasty, child molestation, or various other orgasmic perversions, are correlative to heterosexuality, just misdirected, or “going too far,” or “failing to be properly restrained,” or whatever. Instead, we should say that the orgasmism nexus, in both its homo- and alter- forms, is an entirely different phenomenology than the healthy view: it is not on the same axis or playing field at all. The sinful alteration of the healthy view is basically limited to (if I may be forgiven for using such a term) “normal” fornication and adultery. It bears superficial resemblance to the orgasmic view (in either its homo- or alter- form), only because sharing that one single thing in common.

In view of the current (but actually, periodically recurring) controversy involving Douglas Wilson, the  thought just summarized can be developed further using Douglas Wilson’s writings as the case study. In short, his writings are practically textbook examples of adopting the orgasmic, rather than the healthy model.

The first thing to notice is the seriously overbalanced dwelling on sexual (read: orgasmic) themes on his blog. I have commented on this to friends over the years. There is a serious preoccupation with (orgasmic) sex. Before the blog was reorganized, he even had a couple special rubrics for such posts, out of maybe a dozen total. If any regular reader of his blog disagrees with that judgment, I would ask if you are “plugged in” to the TV and movie culture. Said differently, I would challenge you to unplug the TV and movies for six months, during which period you will read classical Christian literature instead, then go back and scan Blog and Mablog and see if you don’t agree. It is actually quite shocking how often it is the theme, and also the glib way he publicly discusses things in mixed company that would have made his grandparents of both sexes blush. The sick feeling I get is the same as what I get when I am traveling and flip on broadcast TV after months of cold turkey.

What gives me a thin ray of hope for that man is that occasionally — very occasionally —there is a hint that he has not completely lost the poetry of the healthy view. I remember one statement he made, though I cannot now find it via google, something like this:

when a young man is smitten by a girl, her laughter sounds to him like a tinkling spring

This sentiment is the poetry which is the essence of the healthy view. But it is very rare in discussions by Douglas Wilson.

Much more common is his assumption that “homosexuality,” and more recently, child molestation, are basically the same thing as what happens between a healthy man and woman; only it has just gotten turned to the wrong object, or the urge has just run amok, due to failure to be constrained by some law of God. Moreover, such “failure to be constrained” is just one besetting sin, hardly different than gossip or bitterness. Thus, if a child molester has an opportunity to marry, well and good; go for it; I Cor. 7:2 and so forth. Here it is from the horse’s mouth:

Do I think that marriage is an “automatic” cure for the temptations of pedophilia? Of course not. Marriage is not an automatic cure for anything. But the apostle Paul does teach that marriage, approached rightly, is given by God as one of His assigned helps against immorality (1 Cor. 7:2).

There are ample citations in other posts that prove the same.

Whereas I say that this is just as absurd as supposing that, say, a Satanist that ritually drinks urine, has simply perverted a healthy “thirst.” The analogous Wilson therapy would be to suggest that if such a person could just get on a regimen of drinking a gallon of reverse-osmosis water per day, perhaps he could overcome his urge to drink urine.

The Satanist’s urge to drink urine has nothing to do with the normal urge to drink water, and the orgasmist’s perversions have nothing to do with “male and female created he them.”

The prurience of the modern readership that is drawn to Wilson’s screeds, and the worldview that underlies Wilson’s viewpoint is, I submit, simply the unbridled adoption of a view of humanity advocated by the Satanic tribe that controls and directs most American TV and movie-making. It is adopted by Christians that are submerged so deeply in this filth, that they no longer see it as something alien. It has gone to the bones. They are like fish that have adapted to a “world” of muddy water, and have no inkling whatsoever that they are swimming in muddy water: it is their world. This is why attempts to reason with Wilson are futile. You might just as well try to explain muddy water to a fish swimming in it.

Like I said, there are rare glimpses that Wilson is not utterly beyond hope — like the fish that jumps out of the water from time to time and his glassy eyes seem to twinkle for a moment.

But his therapy will not be light one. It will need to be a complete reconstruction of the foundation.

One thought on “Douglas Wilson and Orgasmism

  1. Really insightful post here. I noticed some of Wilson’s perversions back in the late 2000s and never returned to the vomit.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *