Perkins is not above the classic fallacy of “When this man says X he really means Y,” then bashes Y without acknowledging X, the actual remark.
He posits that David Deida is simply dressing old-world gender binaries of relationship in modern/spiritual wording. This is proof he has not actually retained Deida’s book. Deida spends entire pages detailing why women need to be worshipped and respected instead of controlled. I guess I need to remind Perkins: old-world gender roles revolved around men literally controlling women. Tell them what to do, apply physical force if you have to, make sure she’s submissive in bed, don’t let them gain any over your roles as a man (Deida says constantly to stave off philistines like you that women can play as many masculine roles as the like). Congratulations on wasting a scholar’s teachings on your ideologue mire. I also did not appreciate your lackadaisical musings on Esther Perel, especially when you cited good things she said that Deida has also said almost exactly.
