“21 Questions for a Prospective Suitor”

  1. Have you ever participated, whether experimentally or otherwise, in any sexual perversions? Homosexuality? Molestation of children? Bestiality?
  1. Have you ever been in any kind of trouble with the law?

Douglas Wilson

7 Comments

  1. And yet somehow Sitler was still deemed fit to be married off to Katie Travis. I can’t possibly imagine what depth of pure vile misogyny it must’ve required for the influential men involved to talk that poor deluded woman into this marriage. She must have no sense of self whatsoever.

  2. And of course the very next question is:

    18. Have you ever been in any kind of trouble with the law?

    I’m not going to say Doug is not a raging hypocrite because he clearly is. But the word “smokescreen” keeps coming to mind. He vigorously, publically and repeatedly commends what he fails to do and condemns what he does do to the point of straining the onlooker’s ability to conceive of someone being THAT much of a hypocrite. Plus it gives the credulous and/or complicit the opportunity to point to such things while ignoring or obscuring contrary actions and statements.

    One can only wonder to what degree Doug lacks self-awareness when it comes to his hypocrisy and to what extent it is sheer calculated evil.

  3. Though it’s about pornography and not child abuse, I was struck by his comment that marriage will cure use of pornography caused by lack of sex, but exacerbate a problem if it is an addictive lack of self control. (See questions 14 and 15 in the original, copied and pasted below) Did he think Stephen Sitler just wasn’t getting enough sex, so he’d be fine after marriage? He seemed to think this would be the case. If he thought that, presumably it’s because Stephen Sitler told him so, but why he would credit that and not the reports of the psychiatric professionals, who diagnosed Mr. Sitler as a fixated pedophile, is a mystery.

    14. Speaking of porn sites, do you have a problem with pornography?

    15. If you do, please describe the nature and extent of the problem. [It is important here for fathers to distinguish between the kind of periodic struggles that a normal young man is likely to have had, and the kind of obsessive behavior that indicates much deeper problems, such as contempt for women or an addictive lack of self control. Marriage is likely to fix the first kind of “normal” problem, and will only exacerbate the second kind of pathological problem.]

    1. @Fla Mom: Thank you. Public records (somewhere in the Sitler archive) revealed that Sitler had a porn problem and, yes, ultimately Wilson believes that marriage is a universal Band-Aid for pretty much everything, including Sitler. Look at this: “In this world, a woman is God’s chief instrument for making a man responsible.”

      Humpty Dumpty denied this article of his faith in An Open Letter from Christ Church on Steven Sitler, writing, “we do not believe that marriage is an automatic ‘fix’ for the temptations to molest children,” but his denial means nothing in the face of these two quotes.

      Doug Wilson is a patriarchal version of the Peter Pan Syndrome. He hates women but he needs women to fix men like him.

  4. These are not the kinds of questions any church or pastor should be asking any of its congregants. The ick factor is off the charts. Christ Church might as well put a sign up outside the church stating: We has no appropriate boundary; all you privacy belong to us!
    Of course, the subtext is Pastor Wilson hoping a respondent will use the word ‘breasts’….

  5. “Doug Wilson is a patriarchal version of the Peter Pan Syndrome. He hates women but he needs women to fix men like him.”

    I would be very surprised to find out that he actually allows Nancy to “fix” him in any meaningful way. He’s the Head Of The House, after all. He’s the Federal Head of his family, the High Priest of his home. His wife is to submit to him, per Ephesians 5, and never the other way around. In any case, I don’t see Doug becoming more responsible and mature as the years pass; it seems to be the opposite.

Comments are closed.