What if there’s a thread running through obligation sex and normalizing men’s lust?
Or rather, what if there are multiple threads?
When we wrote The Great Sex Rescue, based on our surveys of 20,000 women, we identified four big teachings about sex that are common in the evangelical church that have terrible outcomes. Among those are the “obligation sex” message–that women are obligated to have sex when their husbands want it; and the “all men struggle with lust; it’s every man’s battle” message.
I’ve spoken before about one common thread that goes through those teachings, and it looks like this:
One Common Thread between Obligation Sex and All Men Lust
Because all men strugge with lust, women must give their husbands sex while they want it, so that women can be the sin management tools for men.
Obviously it wouldn’t be stated exactly that way, but that is, nevertheless, the message given.
Well, recently in our Patreon group Neal Davis, a pastor who supports us, posted his own theory of another way the two messages are connected. I thought it was really interesting, and I’d like to share it with you today:
I have a theory about the obligation sex message.
Remember when Sheila and Rebecca shared on the podcast Rebecca’s theory about the connection between purity culture’s emphasis upon modesty and its lack of ability to really speak to vanity? I think I’ve thought of another connection like that.
Sheila had a blog before about how difficult it seems to be for many evangelicals to accept that women can actually desire and enjoy sex.
She said that when she speaks against obligation sex, they hear it as if she had said that married couples “don’t need to have sex,” because they have trouble wrapping their heads around women actually wanting or enjoying sex. It seems to be an odd belief that they feel so motivated to hold on to. I think the reason they have difficulty letting go of the belief that women can’t really like sex is because it is connected to the the Every Man’s Battle beliefs, and they have trouble letting go of the Every Man’s Battle belief is because it is connected to their sense of masculinity.
Please let me explain the connections.
If men are just biologically predestined to lust and it is just “every man’s battle,” then women can’t enjoy sex the same way that men do, because then there would be no gatekeeper to prevent fornication.
Actually it is the combination of these beliefs which are all connected together:
1. Lust is inevitably “every man’s battle,” so we can’t expect self-control from men.
2. Sex outside of marriage is a sin, and someone in the relationship must prevent fornication.
3. It can’t be the man, because number 1 makes this impossible or implausible.
4. Women therefore must serve as the gatekeepers to prevent fornication.
5. Women CANNOT have the same enjoyment of sex or sex drive as men, because then there would be no way of escape from temptation.
They can’t accept that women can desire and enjoy sex as much as a man, because accepting this would require abandoning one of the beliefs in this chain. They don’t want to abandon the all men struggle with lust belief, because they have connected that struggle with lust to their sense of identity and masculinity. So it is really that belief which they refuse to let go of, but because it is connected to the other belief, they are motivated to hold onto it.
I think he’s on to something!
One of the other toxic teachings we identified in The Great Sex Rescue was the “gatekeeping message”
It went something like this: “Boys will push girls’ sexual boundaries, so girls need to be the gatekeepers.” We found that believing this made arousal and orgasm much more difficult once you were married.
Neal’s theory seems to be that the gatekeeping message is that which connects the obligation sex message to the “all men lust” message. They’re all intertwined.
And I think he’s right. That’s why all of these teachings were so harmful; they’re all pointing to a vision of sexuality which is so divorced from the way that God actually meant it to be (intimate, mutual, pleasurable for both).
One of our working theories behind the scenes, too, has been that since evangelicalism is adamant that sex outside of marriage is wrong, then the typical way that men have to brag about their manhood is gone (how many women they’ve slept with, for instance). So the only way to signal, “I’m a real man”, is to struggle with lust. And perhaps that’s why it seems to be a badge of honor to talk about how much you lust?
(And incidentally, this shows how so much of Christianity hasn’t redeemed sex from the way the world sees it. We still haven’t understood what intimacy really is).
Can we have the courage to let go of these beliefs and let ourselves thrive?
If these beliefs harm (and it’s quite obvious they do), then why is it so hard to let go of them? Because, as Neal said, they’re tied up in our views of masculinity. And we’ve layered so much shame on to both men and women, where men honestly feel helpless in many cases to handle their own sex drives (because they’ve been taught that noticing is lusting, when it’s not), that men feel that without wives helping them they’d be destined to sin constantly.
But that’s no way to thrive! Fear and shame don’t lead to a good sex life–and coercion certainly won’t!
It can seem unmoored to let go, but trust me: it’s worth it. So let me share a few resources with you if you want to take the plunge:
1. The Great Sex Rescue
If you haven’t listened to it or read it, it’s time. If you read this blog and figure, “well, I know everything it’s going to say anyway”, trust me: you don’t. There’s a real gut punch when you read it all in one place, and it’s very healing. Just go to Amazon and read the reviews, and you’ll see. You’ll feel so validated, and so free.
Plus you can listen to it if reading isn’t your thing (and I’m the one reading it!).
And for some reason that we don’t understand, Amazon has it on really cheap right now in paperback (it’s only $9!).
2. Our “Get out of the Sexual Rut” Series
A few years ago I tried to write a 4 post series on how to get out of a sexual rut, and it ended up being far more than that because of all the comments and questions I was getting from readers!
But if you feel stuck, like the dynamics for sex in your marriage have just never worked, this series can help you identify why and give you things to work on.
3. Our Obligation Sex Series
I also wrote a series on the effects of the obligation sex message, since it is the most toxic that we measured (and is highly correlated with increased rates of sexual pain disorders, so the message actually does trauma to a woman’s body).
Read the series–and the extra posts are linked at the bottom of this post.
4. Our Healthy Sexuality Rubric
Want to understand what messages are healthy, and which ones aren’t? Want to see WHERE these messages are found in our evangelical best-sellers? Take a look at the healthy sexuality rubric we used when we wrote The Great Sex Rescue to score books. Our grading rubric will help you identify healthy vs. unhealthy too. And see which book scored 0/0, and which ones scored much higher!
We need to leave toxic messages behind.
It’s the only way to awaken passion and freedom. So even if it’s scary, can you consider that what you’ve been taught may actually be holding you back.
And realize that it doesn’t have to be this way!
Now I’d love to know: What do you think about what Neal said? Do you think that lust has become the proof of masculinity? Is that why pastors seem to brag about their struggles with lust and porn? Let’s talk in the comments!
You know more and more both reading your posts as well as thinkinging about how we talk about loneliness and relationships there is a song lyric that keeps coming to mind.
“Women seem wicked when you’re unwanted” People are strange- The Doors.
Think about it. According to the logic of both every man’s battle and the logic found in redpill/blackpill spaces women don’t or won’t relate to you. They don’t have the same urges you do. They don’t have the same goals or desires. Under such logic is it any wonder that such suspicion is cast upon them? Likewise it runs both ways.
Very true!
I’m not sure that I agree with your concluding statement about men bragging about lust being proof of masculinity. Many men with this struggle are ashamed and are trying to keep it well hidden. And I don’t know of any pastors who “…seem to brag about their struggles with lust and porn…” It’s usually hidden in secrecy. If anything, the topic of pornography prevention and treatment needs to be addressed within the Christian community.
Here’s just one example. There are so many more.
When pastors talk about how often they are propositioned, or how much they struggled with lust or used porn, they are bragging about it.
“then women can’t enjoy sex the same way that men do, because then there would be no gatekeeper to prevent fornication.”
Wow. That’s frighteningly accurate. Let’s pretend that God made women to be the gatekeepers to sex because that means we don’t have to have difficult conversations about sexuality, temptation, prudence, and chastity.
It also bleeds into other sexist roles. Let’s pretend that women have zero dreams or aspirations (or they only exist because sacrificing them is so awesome), because housework is crappy and men don’t want to do it.
I thought it was really insightful too. Neal picked up on something I hadn’t quite put words to yet.
I thought these men must have convinced themselves that women can’t want or enjoy sex the same way they do because then they don’t have to deal with their possible incompetence or selfishness as lovers.
That could be part of it too!
I am going to swap the word masculinity with the word EGO. The way I see it is Neal is not only on to something, he is spot on. While not all lust is not sex addiction there is one thing all lust and addiction have in common. EGO. Power and control are the root of this EGO. Often men are completely unaware that this is their driving factor. Example. Why did I seek out sex in an addictive manner? It felt good. Its really that simple. I liked it…so I thought….meaning it felt great but I ignored the negative effects. Why? Because it felt good. However, after I entered sex addiction recovery I found out that what I was trying to do was control not feeling the feelings of life by numbing them out with sex. Thats a big jump from “ I just do it because it feels good to. I do it because I don’t like feeling my feelings”. So because I don’t want to feel my feelings and I think sex feels good, I use my ego to control things a.k.a. male masculinity? Here’s a quick story: recently. I was talking to a man who has been given the knowledge of a 12 step program many years ago, he was in that program for a while and then continued his sexual behavior last year. He crashed again and found his way back to the program, but he’s still toxic. so he told me a story about him being able to ride his motorcycle with his wife and they ended up at a Harley Davidson dealership. his wife went One Direction and he found himself looking at motorcycles. A very attractive Sales lady approached him and was talking to him about how he could find himself in a new ride. However, he was not even in the motive of thinking about buying and his real thoughts were this lady wants me and we know that’s not true but that’s his thinking, and he has the ability to , use his twisted mind to get what he wants and has done so many times. all he was thinking about was how do I get her number and I’m going to attempt to buy a motorcycle not really but just so he can get to her sexually, there’s a power trip in the story and that is: his abilities to twist and turn and coerce people into sex. now that may not have happened even if he went through with it with that particular person, but he’s had it happen enough times where he knows that he has the ability to do this. It Feeds the ego and feeds right into Neal’s point. There is a whole lot more to this and I’m planning to explore it. Appreciate the topic today thank you Neal and Sheila.
It seems like this theory may be behind the idea that men and women cannot ever be just friends. He’s going to constantly be thinking about how can he get her in bed, and she’s going to be constantly thinking about what she needs to do to keep him from trying to get her in bed.
Is this why guys complain about getting friend-zoned? Because they simply cannot imagine a nonsexual relationship with a woman? 🤔
Is this why so many men stop “dating” their wives after they get married, because that’s just too much effort to not have a guaranteed orgasm at the end of the date?
Do men really spend this much of their life thinking about sex, and how much—or how little—they’re getting?
Interestingly enough the idea that men and women can’t be friends because there is a underlying sexual element is something found in blackpill/redpill spaces with the idea being that women use the idea that you might actually able to get with them to manipulate people. The idea being that women are hypergamous master manipulators who are sexually promiscuous when young but who become more concerned with security as they grow up.
Aside from being incredibly reductive it also is just incredibly cynical.
This idea runs both ways by the way.
To me it’s odd because I’ve been able to hang out with all sorts of women and it’s honestly been pleasant.
I’m glad, Codec! Friendship is so important.
That pastor is spot on correct and it makes lots of sense. Think of pastors like Mark Driscoll and Doug Wilson. They are hypersexual in their sermons, misogynistic, and highly reek of toxic masculinity. I know they’ve got to have lust issues. Wilson has the belief that sex for men is about conquering and invading and for the woman it’s about receiving and being submissive. Sounds to me like rape culture and the mindset that all men lust and the obligation sex message tied into one bad bundle.
It really is!
I’d offer a step further for Pastor Neal’s theory- these insecure men would feel even more emasculated if they admitted that women enjoyed sex as much because then they would have to admit that they are weaker in self-control (when they have tricked themselves into believing they cannot help lusting) than the women who are keeping their sexual desires in check.
Really great insight and explanation on Pastor Neal’s part!
Oh, good point!
I’d put as #6 in that chain of beliefs, that it’s ultimately about men controlling women. Men maintaining their status as “above” women. Keeping the gender differential in all areas to keep that in place. Pulling on any of the threads makes it fall apart.
Many white evangelical men in the US feel power slipping away and they’re holding on to as much of their patriarchal past as they can for as long as they can.
Yes, I think that’s definitely true too!
It all ties into “men are visual.” Thus it excuses any issue with lust because that’s just the way god made them. Bring visual- lusting- hyper sexuality = masculinity.
But of course, when married… the hubs can lust after just one woman now. What a lucky lady, to be objectified by the one who should love her deeply.
I would actually say that people don’t even know what lusting means anymore.
Friendships with opposite sex then becomes weird as being friendly comes across as “making a move.”
Bring hyper focused on sex really muddies the waters.
It really does!
These are really good thoughts! I also see it in terms of a power dynamic. In order for men to retain their “God-ordained” power (so the bent doctrine goes), they must not be met with an equal force in the bedroom as well. Women must be weaker and subservient to men in all ways, even sexually. “He shall rule over you” – a warning from Papa God of the power dynamic that would attempt to rule women (I don’t see it as a curse but a warning.).
Yes, that’s definitely what Doug Wilson preaches too! That men must be conquerors.
I really struggle with these resources. I grew up in a fairly conservative home, but was never raised with any assumptions that lust was okay or something I was born with. It wasn’t until around college where talks started coming out about how ‘lust is something men will always have’.
The first time my parents had discovered I had watched porn at a young age, my mom reacted in a very intense way. The shame that came from that and subsequent fear has crept it’s way into my inner psyche. This then turned into a constant shame cycle where I used unhealthy coping mechanisms, including porn to just get over the terrible feelings and self-hate I felt. I was terrified of what people would think of me. Names that I hear sometimes thrown around, here, in popular culture and in childhood circles, but ‘creep’, ‘weirdo’ or ‘disgusting human’. Like that’s what it means you are if you have watched porn or watch porn or lust.
In college, this idea of ‘you can’t control yourself’ and ‘it’s human behavior’ creeped into vernacular. It made sense to me because this was something I hated about myself, but I also felt no control over. It doesn’t seem hopeful to me because I have always struggled with it. I struggle with language here because it seems so definitive and final. It is as if once you’ve done those things, you are this person and you should be abandoned, ostrasized or kicked out. And that’s not just from conservative circles, but from here also. I feel this immense pressure to not slip up, while also dealing with an addiction which has warped my mind. And that leads me to my next point of, do we treat this like it is an addiction? I want to be clear, there is no excuse for these behaviors. Men should take full responsibility for their actions AND never blame woman. Since college, I have wanted nothing more than for God to change my heart and for me to be able to never look at a woman as if she were an object. That is the core of heart change I want God to do, but what do you do with the struggle? Is this something you can just turn around from after one day of thinking? It doesn’t seem to be that way… That is why it is alluring to want to believe it is a forever thing, but it shouldn’t be. Woman deserve far better. Part of the difficulty with moving forward for me is an immense feeling of past shame plus the fear of never being seen as a loveable human in the future. How these things have tarnished how I view myself. How I feel like I am unloveable and will be an outcast for the rest of my life. And maybe I deserve this.
Hey ZD, Have you looked into Andrew Bauman’s resources at all? He discusses the shame that is tied in to consuming porn and how it can perpetuate the cycle of using.
Bauman pursues a reframing of how men view women into a positive thing, i.e. realizing that God designed us to appreciate beauty. It isn’t a bad thing, we just need to work on appreciating beauty in safe, healthy ways. “Stumbling Toward Wholeness” may be a good book to start with. You can also read some of his blog posts and check out his resources here. https://andrewjbauman.com/
I’d also highly recommend talking this over with a therapist. Things like consuming porn are so often heavily tied to other issues, such as the shame you’ve already identified, and it isn’t just about making a decision to never do it again and so you must never struggle with it again. Just like many of the women here have better and worse days of trusting people (and God) in the church, recovering from porn is a process. But in order to heal from something, we have to get at the deepest roots of it, otherwise it will keep resurfacing.
Hope you find healing in your mind, heart, and spirit from this struggle!
To clarify- I meant “these struggles,” because the porn consumption as an adult is only one.
You also seem to be taking on any negative words associated with those toxic behaviors and assigning them to yourself seemingly forever. I can’t think of a time that Sheila has shamed men for having pornography problems… can you share some specifics? I do however think she takes a firm stance against men who refuse to *admit* consuming pornography is a problem or who still claim the fault is that of women… you seem like you know it is wrong which means you are on the path to healing. It just sounds like you could use help figuring out the best way to keep going on that path. I think the EMB “bouncing one’s eyes” message gave false hope that it could be “fixed” with a simple change of behavior, but it is so much more than that.
I hope you can learn deep down that witnessing porn at a young age, and probably the extreme parental reaction, seem very traumatic and could probably be considered childhood trauma? I’m no expert, but I do hope you can find healing for all of your hurts. None of us deserve to be unloved (male, female, porn consummer, betrayed partner, traumatized child, etc)- we shouldn’t have been hurt in the first place.
Hi,
I really appreciate your thoughtful response. Thank you.
I will definitely look into those resources.
The blame should never be on the woman when it is the man who sins, objectifies or abuses a woman. That is one thing I have had a mind change on in the past few years, especially having grown up in conservative circles and with my parents.
Like that porn users are a danger to society. And actually maybe that’s a true thing or at least that porn might always lead to a dangerous society which is also probably true. But it feels like knowing someone who has struggled with porn or sexual addiction is like automatically you’ve categorized that person and protect yourself. So it’s more of a vibe thing that I get.
But I totally understand why people would feel that way, it just feels permanent like addiction just doesn’t stay in the past.
Hi again ZD,
I had another resource thought. I’ve heard of Celebrate Recovery. You can search them online and see if you have one in your area. I imagine others recovering from various addictions and such would have similar feelings of being ostracized. Having others who understand, and possibly hearing how they work through those feelings, may be of help.
Another resource to consider would be the Conquer Series from Pure Desire Ministries (you can google it). They ran it at our church and after going through it 2 times now my husband (40) has finally had so much healing and freedom from his porn addiction that started in his late teens. The accountability community was really key for him. I’m praying there is one available in your area, or at least a good Christian psychologist to help you through this (I agree with what Nessie has already said).
ZD, you are made in the image of God and deeply loved by God.
2 Tim 1:9: “He has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time.”
Christ loved you, saved you, covered you with grace, and called you to holiness before you were conceived – before Adam sinned – before His first words spoke the world into being. You were already special to God and always will be. Even as we have “all sinned and fallen short of God’s glory,” God still loves us and desires us to be in closer communion with Him.
I echo what others said, that addictions are often rooted in trauma, and that often the best way to address an addiction is to identify paths to heal safely from the trauma. I pray for you that you are able to find a good therapist and make progress toward conquering your addiction, firm with the knowledge that you are both chosen and loved by God.
This was so insightful! It made me wonder:
Could one reason the obligation sex message be supported by (some) women is that it gives women permission to have sex?
Could it set up a “safe” (in her mind because in reality it is not safe) way for her to have sex without having to believe that she is sinful or going against the idea of what a “good” Christian woman should be?
If this is true, does embracing the obligation sex message tie a woman’s sexual desire to being controlled, forced, or coerced by a man? Meaning, she wants sex but cannot admit it to herself or her partner, so she seeks out or stays in a relationship where she is “obligated” to have sex.
This might mean that she seeks out coercive and controlling relationships, and also might mean that she consciously or unconsciously ties together her natural desire for sex with an unnatural desire for toxicity (punishment, control, denying her emotions or wants, etc.).
As a sweet-and-clean romance writer (unpublished and totally struggling to reconcile the types of romances that I like to read with trying to write something positive with a healthy view of relationships), I struggle with this. A lot! I get that books are fantasies and meant to let us vicariously live out our dreams and desires, but words can also heal, nurture, and encourage us to see the world differently.
I love a good retelling of Beauty and the Beast, and it is now considered one of the oldest stories (even older than Cinderella). In the earliest versions, the Beast convinces Beauty to fall in love with him and to mark that love with sex. They are married, but only when she consummated their love willingly does the spell get broken.
In my mind, part of the draw of that story is that humans can be both Beast and Beauty, and the story is helping us to understand our animalistic “fleshly” nature vs. our more spiritual one. In Judaism it might be related to the concept of our Nefesh and Neshama (although that concept is much more complex than how I am presenting it here. It involves more than binary levels, etc.). What part of our natural human desires are God-given? How can we reconcile fleshly desire with spiritual ones? Is one meant to subjugate the other? I think not. I think healthy relationships show them working together, and I want to portray that in a healthy way in my work.
However, I have to note that most modern retellings of Beauty and the Beast either eliminate sex altogether (like the Disney version) or highlight forced sexual relationships or some sort of against-her-will ideal (whether physical or emotional). In the end, the “Beast” usually reconciles his desire for sex with his new-found feelings of love and the “Beauty” usually falls in love with the very person who is hurting her. It is this version (in my mind) that seems to support those toxic gender stereotypes. One partner must dominate. One must submit. One must desire. One must be desired. And in the end, desire wins through force, capture, and coercion.
But where is the line? Does writing sweet-and-clean mean that I pretend those desires don’t exist or that I force my characters into traditional relationship roles where the man desires her beyond reason and she finally succumbs to his will? So many of the novels I read as a teen set up this power dynamic, and it was celebrated in my church and in my Southern Evangelical culture.
My hope is to climb farther up the mountain of discovery where I can get a better view of the things I was taught. This article helps me on that journey, giving me enough directions to climb higher. I am looking down on the beautiful mess below with a fresh perspective. Thank you!
I ABSOLUTELY believe you’re on to something! When women aren’t allowed to have desire, then the only way for them to enjoy sex without feeling like harlots is for it to be forced or obligated in some way, so they don’t have a way to say no.
And then often women’s fantasies get tied up in with coercion, etc. (or, to put it another way, women’s arousal maps are redrawn).
I think this is definitely a factor at play.
I appreciated how a current radio counselor brought out the difference between having sex because we or our spouse needs it verses because we/they want or desire it. And then having the freedom to cultivate that desire together.
They contrasted the difference between a parental or caregiver relationship when you look at it from the “need” perspective versus the desire and passion in a spouse and lover relationship.
I think that difference is very helpful and applies to some of these concepts.
I had a thought while reading this- so you think that in tying masculinity to lust/sexual attraction/pleasure, etc, those that support this message are also shaming/guilting/condemning women for being “masculine” (and therefore worldly/practically irredeemably sinful) when they are simply being as God intended?
In other words, do you think that the hard line/toxic complementarians identify masculinity -ultimately- as having any sort of desire (outside of “acceptable” ones like having kids, obedience/submission, etc.) and because of this, they are sinful for a woman to have, much less display? If so, would you extend this “wrong-ness” to also having an “inappropriate” desire for God- whatever that means to that specific individual?
Thanks for sharing- you have good thoughts!
Yes, I definitely think that women are shamed if they have desire. How often are women told, “women just aren’t like that!” Part of being a woman is to almost be asexual, because the point of sex is about satisfying your husband’s needs, not your own (that’s explicitly what Emerson Eggerichs says in Love & Respect).