At Slate, Amanda Marcotte is not impressed with our new report, “Does the Shape of Families Shape Faith?” But her point is well taken:
I’d like to offer an alternative perspective. While no one enjoys a divorce and the process often leaves children feeling sad and confused for a time, of all the possible ill effects, losing interest in religion is by far the least worrisome.
I guess it depends on how children of divorce experience this loss. In the report, we discuss research for example by Melinda Denton and Annette Mahoney. Their separate papers reveal that the impact of divorce on children’s religious lives depends in part upon where the children were, religiously, before the divorce, and whether or not they viewed their parents’ marriage as something sacred.
Categories: Children of Divorce, Faith and Families
“While no one enjoys a divorce and the process often leaves children feeling sad and confused for a time, of all the possible ill effects, losing interest in religion is by far the least worrisome.”
I don’t agree for two very different reasons.
The first is that being part of a supportive community other than your family is beneficial for all children. It has the potential to be even more helpful to children going through a divorce. Religious groups are one of the few community organizations left for families. And they’re free!
The second is a very different concern. It’s not clear exactly why people are losing interest in religion. Is it just a logistical issue – parents don’t take children to church in the middle of a divorce?
Or does it reflect a profound sense of dissatisfaction with the universe on the part of children whose parents are divorcing? Are the children turning against God because to them the divorce is evidence that the world is unjust? Are they struggling with the idea of God as an eternally loving parent?
We don’t know, but I find the possibility that children of divorce, even “good divorces” turn away from God because the divorce is traumatic to them deeply troubling. Not just because the children are turning against religion, but because doing so could be a sign of just how bad divorce is in the child’s eyes.
Perhaps scholars need to look at finding out exactly what it is about having parents divorce that is linked to young adults being less religious.
Amanda has been pretty crystal-clear about why she lost interest in religion as a child; she found the conservative Christianity of her small Texas town both hostile and anti-woman. Liberal religion did not and does not exist where she grew up.
With that said, I wonder if anyone has done a study on the differences between how children of religious backgrounds and children of nonreligious backgrounds deal with divorce. (also: not all religions view marriage as being any more sacred than any other commitment one makes in this world—marriage doesn’t have a special status above and apart from all other human relations.)
Marcotte also provides the following information from the Washington Post:
(A growing body of social science research reveals that atheists, and non-religious people in general, are far from the unsavory beings many assume them to be. On basic questions of morality and human decency—issues such as governmental use of torture, the death penalty, punitive hitting of children, racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, environmental degradation or human rights—the irreligious tend to be more ethical than their religious peers, particularly compared with those who describe themselves as very religious.)
Then asks, quite rightly:
(This leads to the obvious question: Should you get divorced in order to make your children better people?)
Diane; religion is not the only form of community. There are many others.
And it isn’t even always a community. Not everyone who attends services for example belongs to a particular community.
Well gee the question is really not how Amanda sees it but how churches and parents see it. Staying married and building a loving home so your children will achieve eternal salvation strikes me as a very good reason to focus on reducing both divorce and the negative impacts of divorce, where it happens.
Naturally people who don’t believe in Jesus won’t find it to be a reason but of all the things you could pick out of a report directed to churches, that’s a little weird.
Good grief, Maggie, are you seriously arguing that people who could otherwise have a stable marriage and a loving home are getting divorced willy-nilly, except the ones who think “Gosh, if we split up we might get between our kids and Jesus”?
Diane M., you’re making an assumption that the religious community those children are turning away from is “supportive”. I doubt divorced children are randomly jettisoning communities which are actively supportive and provide meaningful structure for them. (And no, they’re not necessarily free.)
Gee no, why did you imagine that I was?
“Staying married and building a loving home so your children will achieve eternal salvation” is a very strange phrasing.
@ki sarita – I have a hard time thinking of any other community organization modern Americans join that is as complete as a religious group. Before kids our secular communities were from school, work, or clubs with special interests. After kids you often meet people through schools or PTAs.
Religious communities that I’ve been part of have been the most inter-generational groups I’ve been part of outside of work. They also include singles, couples, and families.
They’ve had social activities and mixers as well as study groups, conferences, summer camps, and committees to do volunteer work. I don’t know of any comparable kind of organization. You can ask for help or counsel. They try to visit sick members, etc.
What other groups in our society give this to their members?
I know churches aren’t perfect; that’s why there is a report like this, but I do think that religious communities have a huge potential role to play in supporting children and families.
.
Not all religious communities offer social activities, mixers, and summer camps, and plenty of non religious events do.
Not all communities are “formal.” they may simply include a network of friends and relatives.
The assumption that someone who is not religious is necessarily leaving a close knit community.
@Ki Sarita – some religious groups are more of a community than others.
However, I really can’t think of a non-religious group that is currently active in America that provides a comparable sense of belonging and community – and attempts to include all ages, etc. Can you name a specific organization that does?
Networks of friends and families are great things, but sometimes being organized has benefits. More activities happen and there’s a structure to look to if you want help.
“The assumption that someone who is not religious is necessarily leaving a close knit community.”
I agree, someone may leave a religious group that is not a close-knit community. But I also think that we should recognize the loss to a child if they have no religious community. A religious community can provide a level of social support and adult friends and mentors that aren’t available to children otherwise. Completely giving up on religion means the child/adult doesn’t get that.
I think this is actually why atheists will sometimes form groups of their own like the ethical culture society.
And while someone may leave a religious community because it is not really a community, I think that children of divorce are more likely to be leaving for other reasons – anything from disillusionment with life to parents not taking them to church to a church that doesn’t make divorced families feel welcome. These are all issues churches might want to look at.
By the way, I think Maggie Gallagher has a point. If raising children who are religious is important to you, you might want to know that divorce may make them less religious. For some people, raising children who are religious is the most important thing they can do as parents.
I would like to add, though, that parents should keep in mind that staying with an abusive parent might drive their child away from religion, too! No studies on that, but an important thing to consider.
i think its terrible to encourage such considerations
ill never respect any religion that enables abuse in such fahshion the sooner left the better
The below, linked article seems to fit exactly what we’re all talking about:
Godless Mom Strikes a Chord with Parents
Actually it has nothing to do with what I’m talking about.
Although I’m glad to have read it. Its so funny, location is everything. I grew up as an atheist 40 years ago and I never felt remotely outcast from anything.
Evanglicals will pray for you–and may well be sometimes pushy to the point of being rude. But mostly if you tell them you find it rude for them to push the point–fine once but after that harassing–in my experience they will stop.
The point I am making is in a report to churches on why they should be concerned with divorce—the fact that if affects their reason for being–which is to create a community of believers–is relevant and reasonable.
No doubt if you don’t believe, you won’t care, but then you won’t be in the churches this report is trying to reach.
Seems like too obvious a point to need to be made but apparently it needs too.
Nonreligious people will not find religion a motivation for acting. Religious people will.
Evanglicals will pray for you–and may well be sometimes pushy to the point of being rude. But mostly if you tell them you find it rude for them to push the point–fine once but after that harassing–in my experience they will stop.
That is your experience. It’s not everyone’s, particularly for folks who live in areas where evangelical belief is the majority religion in the community.
Yeah, that wouldn’t have been your experience in downstate Illinois forty years ago.
It’s fine for churches to be concerned about their divorcing members. But until they get just as concerned about their women members, regardless of marital status, they are going to continue hemorrhaging members.
Well I grew up in suburban Portland, Oregon, not in New York City. But location clearly matters!
La Lubu
“Norm unbundling”–how to express concern for women–and children– who are dominated or beaten within the family–without expressing a lack of concern for marriage, chastity, or a faith that approving all divorces is necessaryt or educing violence–is a real problem and concern of mine.
A lot of feminist (e.j. graff is one) believe traditional religious belief or culturally conservative sexual views ARE the problem. See Purity Culture is Rape Culture: http://prospect.org/article/purity-culture-rape-culture
People who believe this cannot mobilize churches to defend moral goods like protecting women from violence, in my view.
Moreover E.J. has put her finger on my biggest single problem with orthodox feminism since my youth. Men with protective instincts towards women and children are not the problem, they are the solution. True, men on their own will sometimes get this wrong i.e. what is protective versus what is exploitive.
But the male instinct to protect and provide for their children and their women is the substrate on which we need to build.
Men will do more for women in a culture that points them based on this substrate than they will do based on objective and gender-neutral claims of what justice requires, in my view. That’s an empirical claim though it explains a lot about why de-gender all norms, the less men respond to them (and the more women do, relatively speaking).
@Maggie Gallagher – I do not see Purity Culture as being the same thing as Rape Culture. However, I think that sometimes rape victims are ashamed of having “lost” their purity or even believe that they have to stay with the rapist.
A possibly related issue is that if it is hard to talk about sex, it may be harder for a rape victim to talk about their experience.
However, I share your concern for figuring out how to emphatically support women who want to leave abusive or domineering men while also questioning the divorce rate in our culture.
The solution to what? Attacks from….other men? This is the male sex as Mafia, where you pay your protection money to the local gang so it leaves you alone and keeps the other gangs from bothering you.
@Diane M: Why do you not see purity culture as part of rape culture? If virginity means “purity” and sexual activity makes a woman “impure”, how does that not-count if the sexual activity was forced – particularly in a culture that doesn’t really believe forced sexual activity is anything but lightning-strike rare? If I spill red wine on your white blouse, it’s just as stained whether I did it accidentally or on purpose, right?
Empirical claim from where? Certainly not from anthropology and ethnographic studies. On every continent, the more patriarchal the culture, the more rape, abuse, and/or disrespect for women. The more egalitarian the culture, the fewer instances of such behavior. Getting rid of patriarchy is an essential part of the solution.
FWIW though, I wasn’t thinking along the lines of violence and abuse when I made my earlier statement; I was thinking more from the practical standpoint that women are leaving and becoming “unchurched” due to being second-class citizens within the religion of their origin. More and more women see patriarchal versions of religion as spiritually bankrupt.
@mythago – I define rape culture as beliefs like women really want to be raped, women ask for it, men can’t control themselves, men are owed it or have a right to it. Therefore I don’t see it as related to people who want to remain chaste. I would be more concerned about 50 shades of grey as men might get the idea that women want to be treated like that and that saying no isn’t really no.
The view you are giving of purity is a nasty one from the past. Thankfully religious groups are less backward than your views. I can’t link right now but go to http://www.reapteam.org and look for is it a sin if I was raped? They give a clear answer that virginity can only be given not taken.
I suspect that people misinterpret purity, but it is not fair to equate the idea with all the misinterpretations.
@mythago – I think the male Mafia analogy is unfair. Men are individuals and shouldn’t be held responsible for the jerks. The vast majority of men are not rapiers or abusers. If they want to protect women it’s not extortion, just a noble impulse. You are kind of making Maggie’s point unfortunately.
I should add that I am not convinced of a male instinct to protect women. I think we all have an instinct to protect children and people we love. Men are just bigger.
La Lubu what is your evidence to the contrary?
You challenge me for something comprehensively scientific which I’m not prepapred to blog just now (not that I couldn’t throw some studies at you!) I accept that I might want to prepare a more scientific argument than I can provide in the comments sections
The deeper grounding for me is the men I know who are good. Some are “backward” but they believe their masculinity is supposed to be put in the service of women and children.
Do you know no men like that? If you knew them you might change your mind on whether male protectiveness is the problem.
Male aggression justified as protectiveness is still a problem, imho
excuse me for taking up so much comments space, but I’m thinking thing through from this.
Men who define their masculinity as in the service of women and children can be a problem–they need to actually listen to and respect the women in their lives.
But their desire to define masculinity in chivalrous terms is not the problem–its part of the solution.
You can start with googling “rape free vs. rape prone societies”, but I’m kind of mystified at your asking this question, since it is prima facie evident from reading or watching the news that the more egalitarian the society, the better off women are (and vice versa). The more patriarchal the society, the worse off women (and children) are—and yes, those patriarchal societies are very much into that “protector” (possessor) mode.
You could read the work of indigenous feminists (Andrea Smith, Paula Gunn Allen, Lee Maracle, Jessica Yee) or the work of feminists who focus on matriarchal studies (Marija Gimbutas, Riane Eisler, Lucia Chiavola Birnbaum). For a definition of patriarchy, I prefer bell hooks: “Patriarchy is a political-social system that insists that males are inherently dominating, superior to everything and everyone deemed weak, especially females, and endowed with the right to dominate and rule over the weak and to maintain that dominance through various forms of psychological terrorism and violence.” So, patriarchy isn’t just about the subjugation of women, but the subjugation of men by other men and the enclosing of the commons.
“Men with protective instincts towards women and children are not the problem, they are the solution.”
Maggie, ALL men in this culture are expected to profess protective attitudes towards women in children.
A minority of men are rapists and child molestors. They may not be the men you know (as far as you can tell) but there is no reason to believe that they hold different views as everyone else. They are likely to profess the exact same “protective” attitude.
So what’s wrong?
Firstly, anytime someone uses women and children in the same sentence, they are part of the problem.
Protecting child means I forbid him from crossing certain streets, going certain places alone. I have the right to do so because as a parent I have authority over him. Putting women in the same category implies that men have authority to restrict women “for their own good.”
Whats more. Promoting male protectiveness, depends on simultaneously promoting female weakness and dependence. A strong independent woman is seen as unfeminine and unattractive. A woman has to be weak- or at least pretend to be, in order to be accepted.
And if you want further evidence, walk down a middle eastern street. I have.
Re: “Men with protective instincts towards women and children are not the problem, they are the solution.”
I agree with this completely, and it can’t be said enough.
Re: If virginity means “purity” and sexual activity makes a woman “impure”, how does that not-count if the sexual activity was forced
Because moral action requires the free consent of the will, and in the case of forced sex there is no consent of the will, therefore it doesn’t count as forfeiting virginity. This is Aquinas on rape and virginity, referencing the Acts of Lucy:
“If a virgin is violated, she does not forfeit the aureole, provided she retain unfailingly the purpose of observing perpetual virginity, and nowise consent to the act. Nor does she forfeit virginity thereby; and be this said, whether she be violated for the faith, or for any other cause whatever. But if she suffer this for the faith, this will count to her for merit, and will be a kind of martyrdom: wherefore Lucy said: “If thou causest me to be violated against my will, my chastity will receive a double crown” [*Office of S. Lucy; lect. vi of Dominican Breviary, December 13th]; not that she has two aureoles of virginity, but that she will receive a double reward, one for observing virginity, the other for the outrage she has suffered. Even supposing that one thus violated should conceive, she would not for that reason forfeit her virginity: nor would she be equal to Christ’s mother, in whom there was integrity of the flesh together with integrity of the mind.”
Hector your endorsement of male protectiveness is actually a condemnation of it, being that you personally have also advocated men marrying someone far younger themselves, poorer, and less educated.
I think you also said subservient explicitly, but I’m not a hundred percent sure, so you tell me if you said it or not.
I do remember you stated a strong preference for authoriatarianism, political as well as personally. Is that right?
“Men with protective instincts towards women and children are not the problem, they are the solution.”
Given that men commit the vast majority of violent crimes, I’d argue that it’s foolish and not at all “the solution” to tell women to delegate their personal safety to men.
I know that many, perhaps most, men are Nice Guys who don’t rape or beat people up. But, I also don’t think there’s a clear line between “men with protective instincts” versus “men who rape.” It’s like some of you have this really not-nuanced view of reality where man = good, strong, and protective and woman = weak, passive, and victim, with maybe a handful of rapist men who exist in the world raping women in dark alleys.
Well, most rapes are not committed by strangers in a dark alley, they are committed by acquaintances or friends of the victim and are often people that the victim trusts. Sometimes men who are “protective” of “their” women, victimize other women (or men, or boys, or girls).
I also don’t think it’s helpful or realistic to keep sending women the message that it’s impossible and useless for them to ever be able to fight back or defend themselves. Yes, I know, men are on average bigger and stronger than women. I’m well aware of that. But, as someone involved in self-defense and violence prevention communities, I also know that women can be trained to strike vulnerable targets with natural weapons on the body.
A better solution than teaching women to see themselves as inevitable victims who must rely on men, is to teach women these skills and, better yet, stop entitling men to engage in sexual and other forms of violence.
Re: is to teach women these skills and, better yet, stop entitling men to engage in sexual and other forms of violence
I don’t really disagree with any of that, but I’m also not sure why that’s incompatible with encouraging protectiveness, rather than indifference or exploitative attitudes, among men.
When I was in college, most of the women I knew never got the memo that they were weak and men were strong. I’m pretty sure most of them thought they were men’s equals if not our superiors. (And, frankly, most of the ladies I knew were superior to me and many of the other guys in intelligence. My best gal friend certainly was which is why she was recruited to join the CIA right out of college. I’m convinced she’s the woman agent that’s portrayed in Zero Dark Thirty.) The problem, however, with women thinking they’re complete equals with men is that it breeds overconfidence in one’s physical abilities.
One time, two of my gal friends challenged me to a friendly wrestling match. Two vs. one. Women vs. man. I asked them why. It turned out that they honestly thought they could beat me if they teamed up! Now, I can understand why they thought this. First, I’m a small, not very muscular guy. Second, both of them were tough, confident, tall girls. One was taller than me, the other a strong professional ballerina. In any event, I did the non-chivalrous thing and accepted their challenge cuz I thought it’d be a great learning experience for them. I allowed both of them to jump me first, which they initially thought was stupid of me (“Two versus one, and we’re allowed the first strike?! What, you think you’re some kind of tough guy?!”). Cutting to the chase, let’s just say I had them both pinned in no time flat. Both were shocked—SHOCKED!—that little ‘ol me could beat them so easily. I told them they had no idea just how much stronger men are than women, generally. Really, they had no idea. I mean they knew big, muscular guys were stronger, but didn’t know the significant strength differential between even athletic girls and small, skinny guys like me. I have no idea if their overconfidence in their physical abilities would’ve been some kind of liability to them later on (prolly not) but there’s no harm in thinking realistically about one’s physical abilities and weaknesses.
Anyways, it’s hard not to promote female physical weakness when it’s a self-evident fact, which is why I agree with Fannie that women should learn self-defense skills. And why I think men should be protective of women.
Hector (and Fannie),
In your view, what would be wrong with substituting the principle “We should encourage protectiveness, rather than indifference or exploitative attitudes, among men” with “We should encourage protectiveness, rather than indifference or exploitative attitudes, among stronger people?” In practice (because, as Fannie points out, “men are on average bigger and stronger than women”), the two principles would often have the same results. Occasionally, though, the latter would have better results, because a given woman might be the strongest person in a given group.
@fannie – “Men with protective instincts towards women and children are not the problem, they are the solution.”
Given that men commit the vast majority of violent crimes, I’d argue that it’s foolish and not at all “the solution” to tell women to delegate their personal safety to men.”
But I don’t think saying that men should feel protective towards women is at all the same thing as saying that women should delegate their safety to men. That would be a crazy thing to do. No matter how good and trustworthy a guy is, he’s not going to follow you everywhere to take care of you.
As I said before, I really dislike jumping from “most criminals are men” to “most men are criminals.” Actually, you can trust most men. It’s just that the cost of trusting the wrong man is very high, so you have to be careful.
“It’s like some of you have this really not-nuanced view of reality where man = good, strong, and protective and woman = weak, passive, and victim, with maybe a handful of rapist men who exist in the world raping women in dark alleys.”
Fannie, the view of reality you’re putting forth sounds like a non-nuanced view where man = violent.
I would support this without any problems (Schroeder’s view).
“We should encourage protectiveness, rather than indifference or exploitative attitudes, among stronger people.”
After that I have mixed feelings.
I think it’s important to talk about the fact that women also have protective instincts. The teachers at Sandy Hook demonstrated that once again.
Women are less likely to feel protective of a man in a fire or similar emergency, but they are often very protective of men they care about. It’s something that they would probably feel they should hide from the man, of course.
On the other hand, a woman usually has no problem with the idea that a man who cares about her feels protective of her. So long as he’s not trying to limit her life in crazy ways, she may like it. Many women in our society would think less of a man who didn’t feel protective towards them or would feel less loved.
I think that heterosexual couples tend to self-select so that the man will be the bigger, stronger and more protective one, at least when it comes to physical danger.
I don’t like the idea that women might feel they shouldn’t be protective or that it becomes a role you have to play.
On the other hand, I think wanting to be protective of someone you love, particularly if they are weaker than you, is a good thing.
Given that men are bigger, it seems like a good idea to encourage that impulse.
So I suppose I support encouraging the impulse, but trying to clarify that men don’t always have to be the one doing the protecting.
“On the other hand, a woman usually has no problem with the idea that a man who cares about her feels protective of her. So long as he’s not trying to limit her life in crazy ways, she may like it. Many women in our society would think less of a man who didn’t feel protective towards them or would feel less loved.”
Sure, Until he tries to physically restrain you from going somewhere he doesn’t approve of.
Being protective of women is absolutely no contradiction to assaulting women- a man can be very protective of women except for the one he happens to be assaulting right now, and be very protective of that woman too, from being assaulted by someone else.
Think of homeless girls who wind up being controlled by some pimp or whatever.
Protection? Thank you very much, but how about graduating first from the simpler lessons, like DON’T RAPE. DON’T ASSAULT. Actually if those simpler lessons are learned that protection is needed from what again? Lions and tigers and bears?
Ki sarita – I think you have a different view of protection from me. Protection is not being the boss or telling someone she can’t leave the house dressed a certain way. And it certainly isn’t being a pimp – a pimp isn’t truly protecting someone, he’s using her.
Protection is running outside to do something when a woman screams. It’s pulling someone out of a fire. It’s covering your girlfriend with your body when someone is shooting. Or it could be something much smaller like lending a woman your coat or giving up your seat to a pregnant woman.
“Thank you very much, but how about graduating first from the simpler lessons, like DON’T RAPE. DON’T ASSAULT. Actually if those simpler lessons are learned that protection is needed from what again?”
1. It is completely, utterly unfair to see all men as rapists. Normal men don’t assault women. They don’t need those lessons.
2. There are many dangers in life besides sexual assault. So even if we could get rid of all the men who rape women, we’d still have burning buildings, hurricanes, and people who shoot into crowds. It’s not a bad thing if the stronger people in a crowd or a family are ready to help the weaker ones.
Actually I don’t believe a man has any obligation to shield a woman from a shooter just because he is a man, give her his coat when they are both cold, and ANY able bodied person should give a seat to a pregnant woman.
Hell, I give my seat all the time. But no one calls me protective. that’s because I’m a female, and female are supposed to be protected, not protectors. So if a female and a male do the same act lets give it a different name, shall we?
Make no mistake, control absolutely is the flip side of protection. That is because we can never protect fully if we can not control. That’s a fact of life.
I have not and never said that all men are rapists. In my post above I have said only a minority of men are rapists. But aren’t those the men we are addressing when we say the solution is to be protective of women? Sorry but I don’t want your protection. I’d rather you just stay way.
Who else are we addressing? Male bystanders? Law enforcement? Exactly who?
Regarding hurricanes and burning buildings, encouraging men to volunteer for disaster services is completely irrelevant to sexual assault and domestic violence.
Its so funny how a message directed at and for men: should the culture encourage male protectiveness towards women and children? Becomes s message to women: do not invest in your own capacities, trust men.
Is it really either-or?
To me these are “unbundled.” But clearly not to many, I have to think about this.
Clearly women should trust only men who are trustworthy? How do we create such men? I don’t think gender-neutral strategies are the answer.
Why do you not think gender-neutral strategies are the answer? You made the statement earlier that gender-neutrality diminishes men’s (or most men’s) proactive response to interpersonal violence; what makes you believe this? Patriarchy and instances of interpersonal violence go hand-in-hand—this isn’t a matter of opinion.
Also, your use of the phrase “their” women is troubling. That’s part of the pattern of how domestic violence continues; bystanders are unwilling to act (even to call the police) because hey, that’s “his” woman. Imagine instead, if women were human beings in our own right, not possessions.
“male protectiveness towards women and children? Becomes s message to women: do not invest in your own capacities,”
Yes Maggie, because when men are taught to view “protectiveness” as essential to their masculinity, they will seek women who demonstrate a need for protection.
Please reread my comment about the choice to place women and children in the same phrase as well.
Re: Sorry but I don’t want your protection. I’d rather you just stay way.
Yes, but what you might want isn’t necessarily the same thing as what’s healthy for society, and with the kind of values we should be trying to develop in men. Morality needs to be based around the normal man and woman, not on the exceptions, and in general, men and women do naturally incline to specific roles of protector and protected. You might not, but I doubt you’re particularly typical.
And the fact that the first thing you think of in the context of male protection of women, is a pimp, says something deeply tragic about your moral worldview.
Re: “We should encourage protectiveness, rather than indifference or exploitative attitudes, among stronger people.”
I think that’s generally true, yes. I also think, though, that men have a particular duty to be protective of women, in all the ways Diane M suggests.
Re: And it certainly isn’t being a pimp – a pimp isn’t truly protecting someone, he’s using her.
yea, exactly (as if it needed saying; it’s pretty amazing to me anyone thought otherwise).
Re: I do remember you stated a strong preference for authoriatarianism, political as well as personally. Is that right?
Yea, that’s right.