SO WHAT about the men satisfying the sexual needs of women.
From the article, Mr. Campbell's comments sit within the highly patriarchal, fundamentalist theology which takes the Bible very literally; which, on that basis, severely limits the scope of women and is inclined to blame much on the female half of humanity.
It is interesting that Eve, who gave in to Satan's
temptation way back in Eden, has herself become so identified as 'temptress' a designation Mr. Campbell seems willing to use to tar a wide range of women many centuries later.
Mr. Campbell also does men a disservice in suggesting that they are so totally incapable of resisting temptation especially when they are willingly pledged to keep faith with another woman or with the Church. It has always seemed to me that this issue of resistance is rooted in a mindset which deems it possible, and in practice.
Something as simple as resisting the urge to urinate until there is a suitable facility or at least a quiet corner, might be a good place to start.
Paying attention when a woman says 'No!' to sex would be good practice at a much higher level.
Resisting temptation when it presents itself on a platter does take effort and determination and sometimes we fail. But surely some of the blame in those circumstances belongs to men, especially when they are leaders, teachers, role models and, generally speaking, leading lights in the community or society as a whole.
Mr. Campbell's comments on the gender divide seem more reflective than the book's title suggests, but still very uni-dimensional. He suggests that men must give women love and appreciation while women must give men respect. It is not clear whether he feels that women already have the respect of their men, and men the love and appreciation of their women.
Somehow it seems unlikely. It seems to me that the three things go hand in hand, and should really be
gender blind. I do agree that men and women should willingly complement each other certainly in relationships. I'm not convinced that Mr. Campbell's thesis will contribute to this outcome.
As to the he- and she-devils and the sex demons I came away from the article a bit unclear as to how to distinguish devil from demon. The whole thesis seemed to me a bit self- serving, offering promiscuous men within or outside the Church - a great excuse, if they need one. It also offers many bases on which to lash women, whether wives who fail in their protective duties or she-devils and sex demons who overcome unwitting male prospects.
The title will doubtless sell books, as will the promise of X-rated scenes inside.
