Sheila here! Recently I saw a great post on Instagram by my friend Shari Smith, who handles a lot of my social media behind the scenes (she’s been a big help with my Facebook page getting hacked this week–PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE follow our new page!).
Shari wrote a carousel about the problem with telling couples they had to commit to sex a certain number of times a week before they’re even married. I shared it in my Instagram stories and it resonated with so many of you that I asked her to flesh it out into a post for you today!
So here you go.
Do engaged couples have to plan out their sex schedule before marriage?
Not long ago, Sheila posted a thought-provoking blog post calling out some strange ideas about the frequency of sex in marriage. According to this post, it is essential to the health of the marriage to prioritize sex at least once every 72 hours.
One quote that Sheila shared in that blog post stood out to me:
“I’m blunt with premarital couples: If you’re not willing to commit yourself to having sex with this person two to three times a week for the rest of your life, don’t get married. Certainly, pregnancy and sickness and a few other unforeseen problems will alter this–but in general, to get married is to commit to a regular time of sexual intimacy.”
What struck me about this quote was the cruel absurdity of this mindset.
Particularly when we read this quote with women in mind (because, let’s be honest, it’s only women who hear messages like this. Men, typically, don’t need to be reminded to have sex regularly).
In a world where sex is forbidden before marriage, it is impossible for anyone to be able to commit to the idea of having sex with their spouse 2-3 times each week.
Here’s why:
A woman who grew up in purity culture is likely, according to the research that Sheila and others in this field have done, to be dissociated from her bodiy. All she knows is how to shut off her sexuality in pursuit of the purity she’s taught to pursue.
After years of running from her sex drive, she will have no idea of what her sexuality is really like.
Maybe she has a low libido.
Maybe she’s asexual.
Maybe there is a mismatch between partners of sexual interests.
It’s also highly likely that this is someone who is carrying trauma in her body, whether due to sexual abuse or from purity culture, and will possibly find her ability to have sex impacted by physical issues such as vaginismus or vulvodynia.
And what if they’re marrying someone with a secret porn addiction who has extraordinarily unhealthy and harmful expectations for their sex life? Would we really want women to commit to regular sex with a partner who is subjecting them to abuse?
Sex Schedules Are Harmful And Dehumanizing To Women
We don’t even have to go so far as to address possible trauma or abuse issues to catch the flaw in Leman’s logic: Busy work schedules, kids, illness, and the general messiness of life can make it impossible to expect a routine roll in the hay 2-3 times each week.
This expectation sounds like a great way to create exhaustion and resentment in a marriage.
In a world where women are expected to sacrifice their own very valid needs in their bodies and marriages, demanding a sex schedule like this before they’ve even been given a chance to learn about and discover their sexuality is just teaching women how to further dissociate from their bodies.
Creating an expectation of specific sex frequency leaves women reduced to little more than sex toys, made for the pleasure and use of the men we married to meet their sexual “needs.”
It’s dehumanizing.
She Deserves Better!
Because we all deserve a big faith.
Your daughter deserves better than what you likely grew up with in church.
What would it look like to prepare the next generation without toxic teachings about modesty, sex, or consent, and instead set her up for a big faith?
Here’s What You Had To Say
Many of you agree. Here are just a few comments that readers made after reading the original Instagram post where I voiced these thoughts:
“My no longer pastor told us that exact thing in premarital pastoral counseling. At least 3 times a week it must be done. There was zero said about intimacy, sexual issues, porn, physical or emotional problems or traumas and nothing said about patience and grace and love for your spouse in this area. It set a bar that has done nothing but cause pain.”
“After surviving and fleeing fundamentalism, purity culture, and two abusive marriages, I am now with the most amazing, loving, safe man….yet, purity culture sex messages cling to me. We have a fantastic sex life, but if we go more than a few days (because of schedule or life stress) even though both of us are content and connected, my brain instantly starts to think he’s using porn or cheating. Thankfully we work through it well and I’m still in therapy, but it’s mentally exhausting and I just want to enjoy the peace we share in our relationship and sexuality.”
“Yes to all of this. This mindset also puts sex at the center of a marriage, instead of healthy relationship. Having lived this first hand (ended up divorced after doing it all ‘right’), I’ve come to the conclusion that if we taught healthy relationship at church, in marriage especially, SO many problems would take care of themselves, including sexual issues.”
We Can Do Better
A marriage centred around a sex schedule isn’t going to be concerned with creating a healthy marriage. The only question asked would be: “is sex happening often enough to keep their partner’s needs met?”
Only one person has room to exist in a marriage like that, leaving the needs of the other erased completely.
When someone doesn’t get to exercise agency over their own body and is expected to sexually service their spouse multiple times a week no matter what:
That’s not a marriage. That’s rape culture.
Church, let’s do better.
Download Our Marriage Survey
Join 40,00 others and let's change the evangelical conversation about sex
Sheila here! I so agree with Shari. We found that the obligation sex message was so destructive. And when you get rid of the obligation sex message, then libido can bloom naturally–and usually does! When the marriage is healthy and when sex is great for both of you, frequency tends to take care of itself. And passionate sex is a wonderful thing to aim for!
But it’s bad to put frequency as the main thing–BEFORE intimacy, BEFORE safety, BEFORE pleasure.
Get the Great Sex Rescue to learn more about why this message results in lower orgasm rates and higher rates of sexual pain! Or, if these duty & obligation messages have wrecked your libido, check out our Boost Your Libido course to get things back on a healthy plain!
Don’t let the bad actors win!
Our Facebook page was officially hacked, and the old one has been renamed and is now posting porn-like stuff (report it if you see it!)
But we have a new one up and running, and our prayer is that God turns this into something good. That so many people share our new page that we get lots of new followers.
So come on over to our NEW PAGE and share it with others too!
Men: if you aren’t willing to go down on your wife at least 2-3 times a week, except when she’s on her period and doesn’t want you to, don’t get married.
I’m not being entirely sarcastic. That’s the most reliable way to get women off, and the “ladies first” mentality works wonders for a couple’s sex life. If you aren’t willing to regularly do that for her, that portends large problems with intimacy and the stability of your marriage (because women who don’t regularly climax are more likely to get divorced).
—-
More seriously, can people stop being nuts about this? Gentlemen, if you aren’t prepared to take a “ladies first” approach and to learn how your wife’s body works, don’t get married. Ladies and gentlemen: marriage is a sexual union and if the idea of having sex with this person is not thrilling to you, find someone else.
This is also why I’m a fan of fooling around before marriage (go beyond kissing, stop somewhere well before before oral sex). Do you enjoy each other’s bodies or not??
Personally, I wouldn’t divorce over lack of orgasm directly, but if lack of orgasm is a SYMPTOM of being devalued, used, and manipulated, yeah that should lead to divorce.
This kind of thinking is a no no. Expectations for how often you have sex sets you up for failure and resentment. I do recall taking a pre-marriage test where you were to rate the importance of sex from 1-5 and you bet I chose 5. Today if I could I would throw a 2.5 at it. A friend of mine who’s family was a huge part of mine while I grew up recently told me a story about her now x-husband/my father like figure in my life growing up/best man at my wedding. He expected sex every Friday. She went on about her resentment about that and the ickiness of it all. I felt really bad for her and today my best man is an empty man to me. It’s a shame because of all the wonderful things he did for me. I am still grateful but his person is of dead fish. Hate it but thats the reality. I couldn’t imagine if this was the case in my marriage right now. I would totally be royally screwed with resentment. My wife turns 50 this year and for any guy (because that would be the only gender who would miss this…) that means hormonal changes for her as she approaches menopause. I can’t imagine if I said to her – “Its Friday”. Ick.
Perhaps we should define a key term first?
Definition 1: “Sex” means penis moves in vagina until he orgasms. Her experience is irrelevant.
Definition 2: “Sex” means any activities that stimulate both partners to orgasm. For her, that likely means he performs manual and/or oral stimulation on her. He understands that she, bearing a clitoris, is quite likely able to have multiple orgasms per session—and that she ought to have them (because of that pesky “do unto others” and that equally obnoxious “consider others as better than yourself”). She will also provide the stimulation he needs to orgasm.
I think we’re ready to have the frequency discussion now.
If a man isn’t willing to provide definition 2 sex two or three times a week, then he needs to own it and break off the engagement. (Thank you, Jane Eyre!)
Because in all the best-selling “Christian” marriage books, women were directed to engage in definition 1 sex at the man’s frequency, and if the women couldn’t agree to that, she was not supposed to get married, as the Leman quote explicitly shows.
Totally agree. It’s unfortunate that so many take Definition 1 to even really be considered as something distinct or beyond the scope of the more inclusive Definition 2.
The idea that intercourse is somehow uniquely special and/or the more “true” definition seems like a pretty patriarchal way of framing. The presence of absence of male-centric intercourse shouldn’t have any bearing whether or not something is considered “sex”.
Some marriages don’t really ever include intercourse. Whether due to physical challenges (e.g. vaginismus) or simply preference. Those marriages are no less valid and can still include sex by the less rigidly restrictive definition.
Yes, absolutely — so well said, especially the idea that women are expected to “engage in definition 1 sex at the man’s frequency”.
Coincidentally, just today I read a letter to an advice columnist — a husband who was frustrated that his wife always wanted to shower before sex; to him, it eliminated the spontaneity he craved. “Why not try shower sex then,” was the first suggestion. He claimed that she didn’t enjoy the “positions” they could achieve in the shower. I had a moment of blankness before I realised that he was very clearly defining sex as penis-in-vagina only. People can do whatever they want, and if both partners prefer p-in-v every encounter, that’s fine I guess, but surely there are plenty of fun, orgasm-resulting things to be done in a shower that can be done comfortably standing, with no worrying about angles or slipping!
Very good point! These 2 definitions are very different, and it changes the entire thing.
>> By putting safety, pleasure, happiness, love, security, intimacy, etc. first, the frequency issue often takes care of itself (Paraphrased)
And this also answers the inevitable response (which I’ve heard many times on other sites) of “If I give my wife permission to say no, then she’ll ALWAYS say no”. It’s far better to analyze and solve the deeper reason instead of just putting a band-aid over the symptom
It blows my mind how many men would rather browbeat their wives, pout, complain, whine, do without sex, or get divorced than… bring pleasure to their wives.
I agree wholeheartedly with you. Why would you not want to please and bring pleasure to the person you love.
Yes, it’s like, if that’s what they assume, then sex must be really awful!
“If I give my wife permission” sounds like “if I’m not a rapist”, and I find it hard to imagine feeling justified about rape. I’m not turned on by manipulating someone and I’d rather go a lifetime without sex than be a rapist, but maybe my opinion doesn’t count because I’m female (sarcasm) 🤷🏾♀️.
Maybe his manipulation is WHY she would always say no 🤔.
I’ve only been married over 3 months now after 22 years of singleness and we’re still adjusting to our routine. Surprisingly, he is not up to that 3 times a week routine, but that’s okay. We’re both in our 40s and have lots going on in our lives.
“demanding a sex schedule like this before they’ve even been given a chance to learn about and discover their sexuality is just teaching women how to further dissociate from their bodies”
This is so, so true. When do we ask people to commit to something so important FOR LIFE, while also insisting they should know as little as possible beforehand about what they’re getting into?
This is too much to ask even of someone who is sexually experienced, really. Life happens! Work and kids and projects and travel and stress and conflict and health issues and grief and body changes happen! Where do people find the time or energy to have sex two or three times a week for decades, no matter what else is going on? Seriously, is it even fun at that point??
I’m with Lehman on this one. He doesn’t force anyone to marry anyone. There is an out given. You can choose to not marry. If you can’t understand sex you shouldn’t be marrying.
I honestly think you’re in your own bubble and sounding board.
The arguments you consistently make just don’t hold water.
Sex, including those women who orgasm often, is just not nearly as important to most women as it is men.
I know you say your survey proves otherwise but let’s be honest you and your team are WAY to biased to conduct and calculate the results. It’s like asking Pziser to conduct its own vaccine survey. You are true believers in egalitarianism and whatever you want to call your views on sex. You couldn’t see the truth even if it was in front of your eyes.
I grew up in an egalitarian church. Witnessed some of the worst marriages I have ever seen and some of the most unhappiest women in them. I also know the three happiest marriages I have ever seen are complementarian borderline patriarchal.
I think you find so much opposition not just because a reading of the Bible contradicts your teachings in many ways but also just common sense – both historically and what people can see with their own eyes.
Actually, our survey had far more people in it that were conservative and believed in hierarchy than didn’t. You obviously don’t understand about how research works.
But even your statement that orgasm doesn’t matter to women–that’s only true for women who haven’t experienced it. And those women have worse sex and worse marriages.
And Leman’s advice is correlated with the 23% incidence rate of vaginismus in evangelical marriages, which is far higher than the general population.
I really encourage you to read the Great Sex Rescue, because I find it so sad that your view of sex is based in obligation, and not in intimacy, passion, and mutuality.
“If you can’t understand sex you shouldn’t be marrying.”
How, exactly, is a virgin supposed to understand sex?
One could understand the mechanics, the concepts, the theory, but to understand the effect on the psyche? On one’s personhood? On one’s body, especially when things go wrong (UTIs, vaginismus, porn-induced erectile dysfunction)?
Would you say any of the following:
“If you can’t understand how an internal combustion engine works, you shouldn’t be driving.”
“If you can’t understand how the body breaks down food, you shouldn’t be eating.”
“If you can’t understand linguistics, you should be reading.”
“If you can’t understand the dual nature of light, you shouldn’t turn on a lamp.”
—
And now, thanks partly to social media, people (especially women) ARE “understanding” to some degree what sex is like, especially when they hear the devastating descriptions of him using her for years or ***decades*** as a living masturbation device with no consideration for her experience, so women ARE opting out of marriage. Many others are recovering from those aforementioned decades of being a prostitute in their own homes after getting out of abusive “marriages.”
How do either of those options help the situation, aside from the excellent and necessary halting of the rampant abuse of women at the hands and penises of “Christian” men? Men aren’t improving themselves, preferring to complain about frequency and how women are so selfishly “demanding” an actual relationship. You know, like the one men were—what, faking?—during the dating and engaged time periods.
Men, having been in nearly complete control of “church traching” for millennia, have brought this on themselves.
Amen, Jo R!
How about, “if you don’t understand how phonics works, you shouldn’t go to school to learn to read?”
Lindsey/Kathy/Rhonda/Blair, is that you again? Apologies to poster if it’s not, but this sounds suspicious.
Telling you you have to commit to having sex 2-3 times a week…
Isn’t that just another way of phrasing the 72 hour rule…
Absolutely. It’s one place it came from!
I have heard some ministers urge married couples to have sex every day for x number of days and see how much this helps their marriage. My husband loves this idea. Doesn’t work for me.
Tell the pastor to suggest cunnilingus every day for X days, and see what he says.
I think you are literally correct. Spend some time there everyday to bring your wife pleasure, with no expectations.
I had a friend, trying to encourage me, give me that advice. I was dying inside, because one of the hallmarks of our marriage was that my ex REFUSED to have sex with me about 90% of the time, if not more. I don’t even think it registered with her when I said, very softly, “If he’ll consent to that.” Which he would not.
Just gonna go ahead and quote Chappell Roan here, but “What we really need is a Femininomenon – a what? A Femininomenon!!”
This is such a good point! If you’ve never had sex before, how can you even know whether you’ll like it or not, or how often you’d want to do it?
This is one of the reasons I’m glad I had sex before marriage- because it turns out I’m asexual and also I had vaginismus- and I wouldn’t have been able to figure any of that out before I tried having sex. (Some asexuals do know they never want sex, even though they haven’t tried it- not the case for me though.) I remember on my wedding night, thinking “wow I’m so glad I’m not just finding out RIGHT NOW that sex doesn’t make sense, good thing I got hit with that a while ago, to give me time to figure it out.”
I think this is one of the big problems with purity culture ideology- that we’re not allowed to know anything about sex before marriage, and then when you’re married, you’re expected to fit some normative ideal of what sex is supposed to be. With no acknowledgement that people are different, and people should be given the resources to help them figure out for themselves what they want sex to be.
You know, even under the laws of Moses provision was made for the wife’s needs within marriage. The covenant of grace is supposed to be a better covenant for ALL those in it. When will comps start to take that seriously?
Deuteronomy 24:5 “When a man takes a new wife, he shall not go out with the army nor be charged with any duty; he shall be free at home one year and shall give happiness to his wife whom he has taken.” Newly-wed men were not just excused from military service, they were actually barred from military service for their first year of marriage… to give happiness to the wife. The WIFE.
And people think God is anti-woman. Grrrr.