In Christian marriage advice, sex is supposed to be deeply intimate–until it’s not.
Here’s what happens: Before marriage, Christians are told that sex is deeply intimate. That it bonds you together. That as you get closer and love each other more, you’re going to want to have sex.
The books and youth group advice tells you that the world sees sex as only physical–that the relationship doesn’t matter, it’s just orgasm that does. They tell you that the world depersonalizes sex, while the church sees sex as something sacred and beautiful, and that’s why it’s meant for marriage.
I actually agree with that (except that I don’t think “the world” has a uniform way of seeing sex, but that’s an argument for another time).
But here’s the problem: All of that logic goes out the window as soon as a couple gets married.
Then what are we told? (and all of these are quotes from different books):
It’s very important that you don’t deprive your husband of sex. He needs physical release. If he doesn’t get physical release, he’ll come under satanic attack. He is under constant attack from the world from women who wear such revealing clothing, and porn is everywhere. When he tries to stop lusting, be like a merciful vial of methadone for him. Let him transfer all his sexual energy to you. Let him come to you for 10 bowls of sexual gratification a week. If you would be upset if your husband wouldn’t talk to you, how can you expect him not to be upset if you don’t get him release?
Once you’re married, evangelical advice changes. Sex is no longer about connection, but rather about providing “release” so that he doesn’t stray. Your emotions don’t play a role at all.
A while ago I did a stitch on Instagram and Facebook about an influencer couple telling women that they should have sex even when they don’t feel emotional connection:
I find this interesting–that before marriage, sex is seen as something that is intended to be a deeply spiritual, intimate experience, and that’s why it’s meant for marriage, but AFTER marriage we’re told that we shouldn’t even consider that intimate experience, we should provide him release anyway.
This isn’t the only way that evangelical sex advice mirrors “the world”
Christian marriage and sex advice frequently and rightly rails against pornography, but then inexplicably sees women and sex the same way porn does.
In pornography, women exist to serve men. Women exist merely as sex objects. Women aren’t seen as whole people.
But then books like Every Man’s Battle, while ostensibly trying to help men defeat lust, actually agree with pornography’s depiction of women.
Women in these books only exist either to tempt men or to provide men with sexual release. The way that men are supposed to defeat lust is to “bounce their eyes” and never look at women, which sees women entirely as sex objects too. And then they’re supposed to turn to their wives and use them like they’re methadone.
There is absolutely no difference between how porn treats women and how Every Man’s Battle treats women. In both cases, women are only sex objects, and women exist to satisfy men’s cravings. In fact, in the book Every Heart Restored, which is supposed to be for wives of men trying to quit porn, one woman laments “I feel like a human toilet for semen.” While author Fred Stoeker admits that’s sad, his solution is for the wife to understand that this is how God made men (“men just don’t have that Christian view of sex”), and that she should have compassion for him.
(Interestingly, we weren’t even allowed to use that quote in our book The Great Sex Rescue, because our original editor thought it was just too much. Even though we were merely quoting another book!).
Mark Driscoll, too, has called women the “home” for men’s penises. That God created women to provide the penis with a home. Josh Butler wrote that horrible book Beautiful Union explaining in detail how men’s ejaculation is holy, while never mentioning a woman’s orgasm or that she can feel pleasure too.
So is sex deeply spiritual, or do men just require women to provide “release”?
Honestly, when you look at all of this together, it does sound like “casual sex the Christian way,” doesn’t it? Put sex in marriage and it’s automatically “holy”, and then you can prioritize his orgasm while claiming that you’re doing things God’s way.
But the central mistake that all of this thinking makes is that it centers the man’s ejaculation as the thing that God wants, first and foremost, and it sees women as a means to an end rather than as a whole person.
And there is nothing holy about that.
We cannot create a Christian sexual ethic or a Christian approach to sex when we still center the man’s orgasm above all else, and then make women adapt to it so that they can provide orgasm on demand.
What does this have to do with Christianity? What does this have to do with having the mind of Christ, who became a servant? What does this have to do with the Golden Rule of loving your neighbour as yourself? What does this have to do with truly “knowing” someone?
All of this only makes sense when two beliefs are simultaneously present:
- Men’s orgasm is prioritized and men’s needs are prioritized
- Men are assumed to be scared of true emotional connection, and so channel all needs for intimacy into sex
And thus we have now created casual sex the Christian way.
No wonder so many evangelical women struggle with libido or orgasm! No wonder so many women get married not truly understanding their own desires for sex (because we’ve never been taught we had any). No wonder so many men think they’re actually being righteous by pressuring their wives to have sex, because they’ve been taught that God created her to be a release valve for their lust.
But there’s nothing holy or Christian about one-sided sex. There’s nothing holy or Christian about ignoring or minimizing the need for true authenticity, vulnerability, and emotional connection (the ingredients that are actually the biggest drivers of libido). There’s nothing holy or Christian about seeing women as objects.
When authors and pastors pretend that emotional connection automatically flows from sex, and we tell people, “just have sex and you’ll feel closer,” they ignore the actual reality on the ground, where almost 1 in 5 women say their primary emotion after sex with their husband is feeling used. Sex doesn’t bring them closer; sex makes the gulf wider.
And evangelical teachers know this when it comes to premarital sex. They talk so much about how in hook up culture women are discarded, and have their hearts broken.
But somehow they think a wedding ring changes that.
It doesn’t.
And if casual sex is wrong before marriage, then it’s deeply harmful after marriage too.
If you’ve been caught up in this cycle, I wrote a long series of posts on this a few years ago that you may find helpful. I also highly recommend you read The Great Sex Rescue, which will be both eye-opening and valiating!
I never thought about the “Christian” view of sex within marriage portrayed in so many of those awful books as being basically equivalent to the view of casual sex outside of Christianity: people (mostly men) using other people (primarily women) for their own gratification! What a concept…and how terribly sad. Thank you, Sheila and team, for continuing to hold up a truly Christ-like view of sexuality in marriage (mutual, intimate and pleasurable for BOTH) and straining to keep that bar high. Your work will continue to benefit men and women, and marriages. Keep it up!
Thanks, Karena! That’s our prayer.
And men wonder why a lot of women don’t like engaging in casual sex and also why they don’t want a complementarian marriage either since it is basically casual sex with the same person that never improves so it is no different than having sex with multiple guys who have no experience with you except there may be that chance when you have casual sex with multiple partners that there is a guy you have a one night stand with that actually cares enough to please you in hopes they might make you a friend with benefits or see you again in some capacity. In these marriages you are discouraged from leaving and trying again
So, so right. Thank you.
I have been thinking about this for so long, about how Christians distinguish their sex life from “the world” quantitatively only (one sexual partner for life) but not qualitatively, in that realm they try to outdo “the world.” Although I’m glad you pointed out that “the world” does not have a uniform view of sex. The version I see Christian men competing with is what I call the frat boy version. And here’s the thing: frat boys distinguish between the “the girl you bang” and the “girl you marry” while Christian boys treat the girl they marry like they girl they bang. Within that Madonna/Whore dichotomy Christian women falsely hope to enjoy the privilege of the Madonna treatment and to avoid the humiliation of the Whore treatment by being the Madonna, by saving themselves for marriage, only to discover they’re expected to act the Whore, and expected to keep acting the Whore even after they fulfill the ultimate Madonna duty and provide a child.
I imagine the only thing worse than feeling used and discarded after a one night stand is feeling that way in a marriage that was officiated in a church. At least you don’t ever have to see your one night stand again, you don’t live with him, you’re not financially dependent on him, and never seeing him again doesn’t require any paperwork.
Well said, Andrea!
“quantitatively but not qualitatively” is a great way of putting it
“I have been thinking about this for so long, about how Christians distinguish their sex life from “the world” quantitatively only (one sexual partner for life) but not qualitatively, in that realm they try to outdo “the world.””
Every time I hear about “outdoing the world (sexually)”, all I can think of is Grinning Ed Young and his “Seven Day Christian Sex Challenge”, delivered from him and his wife sitting on a bed on the stage of his Dallas Megachurch. Proclaimed on the exact same Sunday Western-rite liturgical churches were celebrating the end of the Liturgical Year, the Feast of Christ the King.
That was just such a gross stunt!
What struck me as hilarious was the timing (The Feast of Christ the King on the Western-rite Liturgical Calendar).
And then there was another of those “You think I could make up sh*t like this?” moments: the livestreamed “Bed-in” marathon on top of his Mega’s roof… Had to cut that one short when Grinning Ed and Ofed the Wifey went snowblind from glare reflecting off the roof.
And the Seven Day CHRISTIAN Sex Challenge actually appeared in an episode of “GCB”, a TV miniseries set in the Dallas Megachurch Universe. As far as I can tell, they didn’t fictionalize it much. Some things IRL are just so gonzo you can only play them straight — that’s why South Park is still going strong after 20 years.
I believe it was the inimitable Jane Eyre who pointed out on a post a couple years ago that if a guy is lousy in bed, guess what, ladies? You kick his sorry butt to the curb and never see him again. But what happens when the guy who is lousy in bed is your husband? And he’s been fed all the standard lies (he needs it, she doesn’t like it anyway, she takes too long compared to him, she can’t say no because that would be sinning, blah, blah, BLAH).
You, as the woman married to a lousy lover, are screwed, and not in a good way.
Something has to change about this system.
That sounds like me!
Modern Christians need an answer to that, and the answer should not involve telling women to put up with bad husbands.
Consider all the various other duties that go into being a good spouse and making a functional marriage: being easy to share living space with, being a good parent, managing finances well, caring about the other person’s well-being, leave and cleave.
When someone falls flat on their face in that area, we don’t (hopefully) tell their spouse to just deal.
Yes, exactly. I find this crazy. Why is it that we tell women they just have to suck it up in this area?
“But what happens when the guy who is lousy in bed is your husband?”
And you can’t get out of it under Pain of GOD’s Wrath.