Does Driscoll promote an anything goes mentality regarding sex?

In light of all the recent craziness regarding Mark Driscoll and his book "Real Marriage" I thought it would be best to conduct my own inquiry into what is being said is true or not. To do this I have gone through the Real Marriage book AND specifically attended his conference at Liberty University to hear him speak on the subject directly. Below are my conclusions.

Let me say of the bat that I am not a Driscoll devotee or one who adores everything about him. I am not some young 20 something who is just seeking to follow the whims of a speaker just because he has a large following. I am a 48 year rural SBC Pastor in Virginia of a medium to large sized church. With that said, let me express myself...

I have just returned from the Real Marriage conference. I went specifically to hear directly from Driscoll and ascertain if all the accusations against him were true or not.

1) It has been stated that, "Driscoll, of course, represents one extreme.  If the Bible doesn’t say its bad, then God says its okay between a married man and woman.  I think that is a fair representation of his view.” Okay, I've heard all the talk repeating this view, but let's look at some facts. Coming straight out of the "Real Marriage" book reveals what Driscoll wrote, and I will use the dreaded chapter 10 as my reference. Driscoll does not promote the view stated but instead applies 3 criteria to ascertain is something is okay for believers to do. Question 1 is "Is it lawful" Question 2, "Is it helpful" and Question 3 " Is it enslaving." There is not sufficient room to quote each section but please read it for yourself on pages 178-179. It clearly refutes the claims a fore mentioned. Is there is any doubt in your mind, read each section and how he expands upon them individually.

2) After listening carefully to Driscoll at the conference, he clearly kept his views in line with what he wrote. He did not teach anything that could even be misunderstood and kept everything explicitly in line with scripture in all points. He "did not" teach that if God does not say something is unlawful then it is permissible and thereby encouraged. on the contrary, he clearly taught that even if something is not spoken of in scripture, it "may NOT" be helpful or that such an act could lead to it enslaving oneself, which in both points would make such an act a sin.

I have carefully observed all that has been said, and compared that with what he wrote AND said. It clearly appears that many have never bothered to read the book in the first place. If that is the case, perhaps choosing to remain quiet would be best. If you aren't going to "bother" to "check" the facts for yourself, then you are not helping anyone but chirping in your comments.

Well, now that everybody is not ticked at me, I guess let the sparks fly.