Let’s look at how specific discipleship materials actually enable marital rape.
But first, a bit of background. Last week on my Substack I re-ran a post I wrote a few years ago on this blog about the two kinds of marital rape (here’s the Substack post and the original post here).
The original post was part of a longer series I was writing about sexual recovery in marriage when the dynamics have become toxic. I originally started that series thinking it would be six posts; it ended up being much longer because the comments section was filled with women describing marital rape situations.
My thesis about the 2 kinds of rapists is quite simple.
One the one had are abusers who would abuse regardless. They were always going to be abusive, entitled, narcissistic people.
But on the other hand we have men who wouldn’t have otherwise raped their wives, but ended up doing so precisely because of evangelical teaching that normalized it.
When evangelical teaching says:
- Men have an insatiable need for sex that women will never understand
- God made women to help men defeat lust and porn
- The worst thing you can do is to lust after other women or watch porn
- Wives are men’s lawful sexual outlets
- God’s will is that you have lots of intercourse with your wife
- Women don’t tend to want sex
- Women aren’t to deprive you
Then you’ve created a culture where everyone thinks it’s normal for men to pressure or force their wives to have sex with them. Men assume it’s normal for women to have sex against their will, because women never want it anyway but God wants us to have lots of sex. And since it’s wrong to watch porn/lust, and wives are the ones that are supposed to reduce that temptation, then it’s more righteous to use your wife than to do the other things.
Rape becomes normalized among immature men who may not otherwise have done so, because in some twisted way they think they’re honoring God. We spent two chapters on this in The Great Sex Rescue, and these were the most important chapters we wrote. And every single day I get so many emails from women telling me story after story of rape happening in their marriage.
Often they aren’t able to identify it as such, but as I explain, any time you have to have sex to prevent something bad from happening, there is a lack of consent and that is coercion.
When we were discussing this on social media, so many people denied there was a problem.
They said this wasn’t prevalent in evangelical materials; they said that I was just attacking the church for no reason.
And so today, I thought I’d share just one particular book. It wasn’t a huge seller, but a huge discipleship organization used it as a men’s study. They still advertise it. It’s the Every Man a Warrior series, and it was written by Lonnie Berger who worked at Navigators.
After my article on marital rape, a woman sent me a screenshot of a page, and I want to include it here because this is absolutely typical of the way that marital rape is normalized in evangelical materials. I’ve talked about the best-sellers that call women methadone before. Here’s a book that went moderately big, but is representative of the general approach that evangelical material took towards sex in marriage:
I know that can be hard to read, so let me highlight some of it:
But Kevin’s anticipation of their honeymoon was shattered on their wedding night when Carol rolled up into the fetal position, pulled the covers over her head, and quietly sobbed. She later revealed that her older brother had sexually abused her during high school.
In the first decade of their marriage, sex was never good. Carol had performed her wifely duty even though Kevin knew she hated it and resented his physical needs. Now twenty years into their marriage, with four children, Kevin was losing hope. As they got into their late forties Carol became increasingly angry toward him. Her bursts of rage and stares of hate were driving Kevin into depression and despair.
Now, they hardly ever had sex. Kevin’s frustration kept mounting and once a month or so he would demand to have sex. Afterward Carol would go sleep on the couch and seethe at him for days. Sex made her feel the horrors of her brother’s abuse and caused her to explode at her husband.
…Kevin had never had an affair, although the temptation was high.
Can you see the marital rape implicit in that story?
Here is a traumatized woman, and what does Kevin do? He has sex with her that she hates repeatedly throughout their marriage, and when she shuts down, he “demands” it once a month, after which she feels so horrible she sleeps on the couch and seethes at him.
Can you see what is happening?
Nowhere is it acknowledged that HER sexuality has been stolen too. Nowhere is it acknowledged that he was compounding her hurt. Nowhere is it acknowledged that she had very good reason to say no, and he should have been part of her healing, not the cause of her suffering. Nowhere is it acknowledged that women don’t shut down like this and seethe at their husbands for no reason.
Here’s the next part of the story:
Again, I know this is hard to read, but it talks about how Kevin sought help from a mentor and from counselors. The counselor told him to divorce Carol basically because she was withholding sex, but Kevin didn’t want to do that. And the solution to all of this? Kevin had to realize that it is godly to do right when you are suffering. And he was the one suffering.
“So then, those who suffer according to God’s will should commit themselves to their faithful Creator [go to God] and continue to do good [what’s right].”
In recent years this verse has become my definition of being a “real man of God.” A real man of God responds to hurt, suffering or trials by “going to God and doing what is right.”
So after telling this story, the resolution is that Kevin decides that, despite his suffering, he will do what is right and stay with Carol.
Kevin is the one who is suffering! This is Aunt Matilda all over again (hello to those of you who get the reference).
This is beyond disgusting.
Where does Every Man a Warrior fit in to evangelicalism?
Here’s how the Every Man a Warrior organization describes it:
Every Man A Warrior
DISCIPLESHIP / LEADERSHIP / MULTIPLICATION
EMAW is a discipleship Bible study that “Helps Men Succeed in Life” and win the battles they fight every day.
Since 2011, 100,000 men in 65 countries and in 27 languages have been impacted by the EMAW curriculum.
So they have trained 100,000 men all over the world to believe that men are the victims when they are forced to rape their wives, and then when their wives are upset about that they are doubly victimized.
And all of this is being done in the name of discipleship. It is being done as they are trying to win converts to Christ and teach them what it is to be a Christian.
This book was widely used by Navigators, and the author once worked with Navigators (he has since gone out on his own).
This is what I mean when I say that evangelical materials normalize marital rape.
It is not that they explicitly say “raping your wife is okay or understandable.” It is not that they explicitly say “sure, this is coercion, but God gave you needs.”
No, instead it is that they describe dynamics that are coercive in nature without ever naming them as such, and then they do a major DARVO (deny, attack, reverse victim and offender) by painting the husband as the victim here.
And, honestly, I think this is worse.
By obscuring what rape actually is, they make it so that people have difficulty identifying coercion. And then when men participate in this, they think this is normal, and even of God. They don’t even realize what they are doing because books and resources have told the same story as their marriage and clearly said that this was normal.
And that’s why marital rape is so high in evangelical circles. We’re taught not to name it or even see it, and to judge the real victim as the man who isn’t getting all the sex he wants.
Even when the woman is experiencing classic signs of PTSD and coercion, we’re taught that this is just her being unjustifiably angry rather than her being traumatized and wanting to get as far away from her abuser as possible.
There simply is no excuse. This has to end.
And the thought that this is being taught in the name of Christian discipleship right now, on the mission field, should be a huge wake up call to what we are supporting with our own tithes and offerings.
Make sure the missionaries you support have a healthy view of marriage!
Consider giving The Great Sex Rescue and The Marriage You Want to every missionary you support, or to leaders, pastors, and counselors in your church that work with couples.
Let’s stop this in its tracks and make sure people have good information!
And remember that The Marriage You Want has premarital questions that come in the study guide, and The Good Guy’s Guide to Great Sex and Good Girl’s Guide to Great Sex make great premarital resources!
What do you think of these excerpts? Do they surprise you or seem “normal”? Let’s talk in the comments!
You are right, it has to end. It ends when there are consequences for this behavior. When these R*PISTS are rotting in ja*l. When we stop EXCUSING their illegal, entitled, un loving behavior. When we stop making EXCUSES for men that destroy women’s lives. IT ends when other prisoners teach them exactly what it feels like to be treated like they treated their wives. Those promoting r*pe should be charged as accessories to a crime and ja*led as well. IT ends when we no longer tolerate it, not when we make EXCUSES for it.
I appreciate how you brought to light that this man was seen as the victim, and it seems like no one ever helped address Carol’s deep hurt, how her innocence was stolen, and how her husband’s actions were about him and he didn’t seem to want to help her or love her as he was called to do.
What I would like to know, is what happened AFTER Kevin said he wanted to do whatever the Lord called him to. Maybe God called him to not have sex for awhile, and to come alongside his wife as she healed. Maybe God called him to stop working crazy hours, or going to work for his value. Maybe he learned not to need sex to find value.
I went to a pastor and wife team for marriage counseling at one point, and when we talked about sex briefly two things stand out:
1. The pastor said “Women just don’t realize how much of a man’s self worth is tied up in sex”
(Reflecting on this over the years I believe this is likely true for men who came from broken backgrounds, like Kevin’s, where they weren’t loved and they never got help for their hurt and issues. Then they learn from many sources that sex is what they need, how they feel valued, etc. It is sad and so broken. But I don’t think it’s true for all men.
2. In counseling I was told how “sorry” they were for all that I’d been through. But everyone acted like my husband’s upbringing was totally fine. Despite his dad whipping them with a belt, his mom being distant and on the computer all the time, his dad calling him the wrong name, etc.
But “I” was the one who was “broken” and the one they pitied.
And at home, when I would not want to do something sexual, because it made me uncomfortable or I thought it was wrong, my “past” was to blame. It was because I was just hurt and “hadn’t gotten over it” that was to blame.
It was never an option that maybe I HAD healed, and had gotten to a point where I was not OK enabling sin, or that I was setting healthy boundaries for myself, or that some things are actually Against God’s natural design.
It was always my issues that meant we couldn’t do what he wanted to do, or that it made me feel icky when we DID (b/c that was more often the reality on BJ’s and I hated how he would watch me.)
I do think Kevin was suffering. But not BECAUSE of Carol.
It wasn’t Carol’s job to heal Kevin. But if it was brought to light what Kevin had gone through, it would be her loving duty to walk alongside him as he got help and to talk with him about his hurt and pray with him, and for him.
But sex does not heal wounds.
It also wasn’t Kevin’s job to heal Carol. But it was his job to come alongside her, support her through honoring her body and giving her space, and probably “depriving himself for an (extended) time of prayer and fasting” as his wife got help and healing, and to be there to talk to her through it.
This world is so broken 🙁
I do still believe that God is our hope. That he brings help and healing. And that if we truly obey His (WHOLE) word, that we can make progress against these evils that are destroying men, their marriages and their families. <3
So good, A M! Yes, we frame the issue as “her past makes her hate sex!” instead of “his past makes him rely on sex for his self-esteem, because he doesn’t know how to be vulnerable any other way, and so it takes on an outsized meaning in their marriage.”
Imagine had Kevin gone back in time to their wedding night, held his sobbing wife, and told her in all sincerity that he loves her and that sex will happen as she is ready.
So, so much of these problems all have their roots in the unwillingness to make short term sacrifices for long-term good. Come to think of it, that tends to be the undoing of most marriages that fail.
Yes, exactly.
There was a YouTube video about Purity Culture and Sex that was similar to this; the bride & groom were both Purity Culture virgins who on their wedding night discovered the hard way that she (the YouTuber) had Vaginssimus. SEVERE Vaginissimus.
Fortunately her husband realized she had a serious medical condition that had not surfaced until then because sex was the trigger. He came alongside her (as in Jane’s alternate Kevin & Carol scenario) and stood beside and with her during her treatment and recovery. This actually worked out in the long run.
However…
In one of the comments on the video, another woman related a friend who discovered she also had Vaginissimus the hard way, but Purity Culture hubby’s reaction was the Kevin the Navigator and then some. Hubby freaked out, something about “I’ve been waiting all these years — I CAN’T WAIT ANY LONGER!” and literally forced himself on (and into) her while she was spasming. This did NOT work out in the long run.
In the second example, I figure Purity Culture boys get bribed to save themselves for marriage by promises of barn-burnin’ HAWT Dynamite S! E! X! on the wedding night when everything flips one-eighty from the Unpardonable Pelvic SIN quantum state to His God-Given Right quantum state. Since years and years of “Don’t Think of a Pink Elephant” would probably have stacked up and fermented his original desires into a “Gotta Get Some!” paraphilia, now that it “was legal” there was NO stopping him and everything cut loose.
These excerpts from The Navigators are appalling. Such horrible advice: either divorce your wife or be a (fake) martyr and suffer in a marriage where you have to force sex your wife to have sex she does not want.
Nowhere is he asked to love his wife as Christ loves the church. Not even a suggestion to tend to the wife’s needs and care for her feelings.
The author is a jerk as well as the men in this book. Horrible.
Yep. And all the people who recommended this book and green lit it to be used.
I saved these screenshots of this book and went on Amazon to give this book a 1-star review. Normally, I do not write book reviews for books that I have not read, but this book had to get a negative review. I could always get the book, but these two pages are so appalling that I’m afraid reading the whole book would be traumatic for me.
“These excerpts from The Navigators are appalling.”
But not surprising.
1) When I was at Cal Poly Pomona in the mid-to-late Seventies, the Navs had a reputation for the highest rates of Burnout and Flunkout. Their X-TREME Christianity was surpassed only by this one local group/fellowship/whatever.
2) J Michael Jones (formerly “The Christian Monist”) is a blogger and writer near Seattle who was burned out as a Nav missionary. (See his first book “Butterflies in the Belfry — Serpents in the Cellar”). He said that Navs were expected to be so spiritual they could not even acknowledge sexual desire to the point of (on the surface) asexual.
When a pretty Nav girl entered the picture, the Navbros could not acknowledge her as anything except a Sister in Christ(TM) so when a Navboy got horny, he had to get spiritual and sneaky. The usual approach was to lay on the “God spoke to me and Laid on my Heart that you are to be my Wife” or dreams and visions or “setting out a fleece” or signs and wonders to basically pressure/manipulate the Navgirl into marriage. All in the Spirit, not the Flesh, of course.
He said these “God Saith” marriages did not work out well, usually blowing apart some 10-20 years later with the exact same pattern: Nav husband puts out a Prayer Request to all his Navbros on the Net that “SATAN Has Entered Into My Wife — Pray For Our Marriage”, followed a few months of Spiritual Warfare later with grapevine news of the divorce.
It’s heartbreaking that *twenty years* of bad advice have turned what was a difficult but recoverable situation into what it ended up becoming.
I came across the concept of “primary” and “secondary” victims that I think would be helpful here. The primary victim experiences the traumatic event, but there is a spillover effect (through absolutely no fault of their own) onto the people close to them.
In a different context, when I broke my ankle, I was clearly the one in literal pain whose life was upended the most. But my husband and children were also affected, both by sympathy for my ongoing suffering and by the burden of having to take care of both me and the extra slack around the house while I recovered. Everyone was “suffering,” but it was always clear who was hurting the most, and it wasn’t my husband and kids.
The material from Navigators seems to think only one person can be hurting at a time.
I’m going to make everybody mad.
Both of these people are victims and both of them are wrong.
Wife did not deserve in any way to be raped by her husband. There’s no justification for this at all, period. Nothing the Wife did or didn’t do justifies the husband forcing himself upon her. Wife did defraud the husband in a legal sense by allowing the marriage to go forward without disclosing her previous abuse and its effects on her. Husband could then have made an informed decision as to whether he wanted to enter into the marriage under those circumstances. It appears that Husband first learned of his Wife’s situation on their wedding night when she assumed a fetal position. At that point he needed to make a decision as whether to seek an annulment or therapy.
As I read the post, Wife unsuccessfully attempted therapy. The Husband then had to choose between divorce and a sexless marriage.
You’re assuming that the wife knew that she would be unable to enjoy sex with her husband. Only if she KNEW what would be triggered on her wedding night could she be accused of defrauding her husband. It is entirely possible (and if they didn’t make out before marriage, highly likely) that she had no idea how she’d react once she was in bed with him.
And if you promise to love your spouse in sickness and in health, and it turns out that a whole lot of therapy has to happen in order for health to flourish, then so be it.
I sincerely hope you are not married. Inability to have sex by one spouse should never be a reason for the other spouse to seek a divorce.
Actually, my wife and I have been happily married for 37 years. I have also practiced family law for 30 years.
Husband in this case had a right to know about Wife’s molestation prior to the marriage in order to make an informed decision as to whether or not he should enter into the marriage. Wife’s not revealing that fact is a lie by omission concerning something that had the potential to severely impact the marriage.
As I said, both were victims. Both were also wrong.
Since you’re a lawyer, I’ll take your word for it that people are legally obligated to disclose any previous trauma to their future spouse before entering into marriage (though, as Erica pointed out, this seems an impractical requirement, given how deeply buried trauma often is).
However, do you realize what it sounds like when you say “both were wrong”? You have a man who raped his wife continually for years. Who was fully aware that he was forcing himself on her, and that it was causing her emotional agony, but did so anyway. And then on the other hand, you have a woman who wasn’t able to open up to her future husband about her traumatic past before they got married. And your summary of this is that BOTH WERE WRONG?
Even from the legal perspective, there’s no way these are “wrong” on the same level. The husband ought to be serving a lengthy prison sentence. The most in terms of legal repercussions that might fall on the wife is that he would be entitled to annul the marriage.
Don’t forget that this took place back in the 70s. Hard enough for a young woman to tell anyone about sexual assault now, but 1,000 x more difficult then, especially in conservative circles, where she would be likely to be considered tainted herself because of it. Add in the fact that women were often told not to think about it/to put it behind them if they wanted a successful marriage, and it’s no surprise that Carol didn’t mention it beforehand.
Yes, very much so. She may not even have had words for what she experienced.
Yes, given that around 33% of women are victims of sexual assault upon marriage, and at least 10% of men are too (and likely much higher), we cannot have the expectation that we will be marrying someone trauma-free. Often memories surface later, and people have no idea how they will react.
Part of our education needs to be teaching people how to treat those who are survivors of trauma.
Not to mention the Purity Culture(TM) rule that women are broken useless chewed gum once they’re used! Great motive for Carol to reveal to Kevin during dating/engagement that she is in fact a piece of chewed gum! especially since Kevin seems like such an emotionally evolved human male! wow! that would have solved everything! no notes!
especially since according to Purity Culture(TM), a woman is a broken disgusting chewed up piece of gum once she has been used! great motive for Carol to reveal to Kevin while dating/engaged that she herself is, in fact, that exact piece of chewed gum! especially since Kevin seems like such an emotionally evolved human male! what could go wrong for Carol! perfect plan! it would have solved everything! 10/10! no notes!
Whether or not it rises to the level of fraud, it was an exceedingly poor idea to not tell him. Couples counseling before marriage would have helped them both, immensely. That help might have taken the form of realising that they are not a great fit for marriage: they might love each other, but he is not equipped to walk this with her.
Let’s defy the stereotypical internet comment section culture and not be angry together! Our disagreements are a wonderful opportunity for us to understand each others’ views and become more well-rounded overall 🙂
I’m really curious about your viewpoints since they seem quite different from mine, so I’ve got a few clarifying questions:
1. Is sex required for marriage? Your statements “had to choose between divorce and a sexless marriage” and “whether to seek an annulment or therapy” made me think so, but I’d rather hear it from you than assume.
2. What about conditions which cannot be known about until after marriage (provided both parties are abstinent till marriage, as is standard in many Christian circles) like vaginismus? If penetration with a penis is discovered to be excruciatingly painful on the wedding night, would you consider that to be grounds for annulment?
3. Of course, PIV is not the only way to have sex. Let’s say that someone could do PIV, but they need to take a medication for their health with the side effect of lowering or eliminating their libido. Does marriage obligate them to partake in unpleasurable sex?
4. What if someone suffers sexual trauma after they are married, and then are no longer able to enjoy sex with their spouse? Ideally they work through the trauma in therapy, but that may take years to recover from, if they are able to recover at all. How would you suggest a couple proceed in such a case?
5. Overall, (and please correct me if I’m wrong—I’m doing my best to take your argument in good faith but I heavily disagree with it, so my phrasing may be inaccurate to your intention!) what I’m hearing from you is the following:
“Betrothed partners have an obligation to disclose personal issues that could make a marriage difficult.” (I agree!)
“Wife had sexual trauma which she did not disclose until the wedding night.” (Yes, true)
“Sexual trauma makes sex difficult or impossible.” (Definitely)
“Lack of sex in a marriage is wrong for a marriage” (I think there’s a lot of nuance here, and a lack of sex is not necessarily wrong)
“This means that Wife was wrong”
“To get the sexual pleasure expected in this relationship, Husband raped Wife”
“Rape is wrong, full stop. Therefore, husband was wrong here too.”
Is my interpretation of your view correct?
Ah, just thought of one last clarifying question! “Right” and “Wrong” are pretty loaded terms in Christian culture, so I’d love to know what you mean by “Wrong”! Would you mind giving md a definition? Some people mean “Morally reprehensible, sinful” while others mean “A bad idea, unwise, likely to cause harm”, so I would love to know what you mean—and if you may be using different “wrong”s for Wife and Husband!
Thank you for reading my wall of text and engaging with it if you choose to do so! I hope you and your wife have a lovely evening 🙂
Thank you for sharing this. I agree this situation is marital rape and unacceptable. But as a man, I would like to focus on what pushed Kevin in this direction.
I think if we’re going to critique evangelical teachings, it needs to go back to the situation in which Carol’s trauma didn’t come out until the wedding night, at the same moment that Kevin (and probably Carol) was raring to finally enjoy sex after years of denial and self-discipline. Yes, at that moment Kevin should have supported his traumatized wife. But very few men in his situation would be emotionally equipped to deal with this abrupt revelation at that moment, so completely opposite to what both spouses expected, and after so much build-up and anticipation.
Frankly the most healthy scenario I can envision here is that Kevin and Carol were both allowed to explore sexual activity while dating – which likely would have led to the revelation of her trauma in a less dramatic moment, and more opportunity for Kevin to gradually understand how he could support her. Instead, it’s a worse-case scenario of massively building up to a horrid wedding night where Carol suddenly remembers her trauma and Kevin has to try and put the brakes on his speeding freight train of expectations.
As for his behavior after the wedding night…Sheila, I’m interested that your list of teachings that “created a culture where everyone thinks it’s normal for men to pressure or force their wives to have sex with them” included: “The worst thing [a man] can do is to lust after other women or watch porn.” Can you elaborate on that? I very much agree that this can trap both spouses in an intolerable situation. But perhaps you mean something different?
I don’t agree with sex before marriage, but what the kids used to call “fooling around” would have helped enormously. (I also think that’s true for couples from healthy backgrounds: women are not meant to go from 0 to 60 for sex, and most men don’t want to wait weeks or months beyond the wedding.)
Yes, that’s what I’m getting at. I’m not excusing Kevin, but he would have been raised in a mentality where total abstinence before marriage would be “”rewarded” afterward with an instant 0 to 60 change. And so from the very start he would be filled with frustration and resentment that this did not happen, and setting him up to be preoccupied with his own pain and victimhood.
Another things is that you are discouraged from talking about sex before marriage so that might be the reason she didn’t bring up her abuse where if they were allowed to have an open and honest conversation about sex aside from “let’s wait until marriage and leave it at that” he would have been aware of her issues and she might have gotten help sooner and feel more ready and healed by the time of the wedding (as long as they were able to see a licensed counselor and not an unlicensed biblical one)
She also may have felt such shame (the “damaged goods” myth) that how could she? But she also may have sensed he wasn’t a safe person to talk about this with, as he later proved.
” total abstinence before marriage would be “”rewarded” afterward with an instant 0 to 60 change.”
Where your Virgin-Unto_Death bride does a quantum-state flip into My Personal Porn Star the instant she says “I Do”.
That IS NOT a realistic expectation.
“he would have been raised in a mentality where total abstinence before marriage would be “”rewarded” afterward with an instant 0 to 60 change.”
As in Carol going from the Virgin Unto Death quantum state to the My Personal Porn Star quantum state like a sexual Schrodinger’s Cat.
Honestly most of these books like Every Man’s Battle and this book sounds like they are co written by Gaston and Frollo. I guess that is why they make such good villains because there are so many clones of them running around IRL.
If Gaston and Frollo were around for real, they’d have a great career as Manosphere Influencers.
Gaston fills the vacuum left by Andrew Tate and Wes Watson getting jugged,
Frollo handles the CHRISTIAN end with books and seminars and maybe founds his own Ministry and/or Megachurch.
Two minor points that occurred to me as I read this:
1. I’ll bet dollars to donuts that the counsellors they saw were unlicensed (probably “Biblical” counsellors) and thus were completely inadequate to deal with either spouse’s trauma. A competent, trained, licensed therapist should have been able to pinpoint the real problems and help the couple to deal with them
2. Part of the culture that normalizes this kind of abuse is misogyny in general. It goes beyond specific teachings about marriage and sex to the way women are viewed in every aspect of life. When women are viewed as so completely “other” that they can’t be understood, then their thoughts and feelings can be dismissed. When they are automatically viewed with suspicion and distrust (which I do see as the Evangelical default position, which is why if a woman reports having been sexually assaulted, the assumption is that either she is lying about it or it was her own fault, and why the story of David’s rape of Bathsheba is almost always retold as Bathsheba’s seduction of David) — when the starting point is a belief that women are weak, irrational, untrustworthy, morally suspect, and even dangerous — then of course it will be the man who is to be pitied and who will be seen as the victim.
That would be my guess, too. “Biblical” counselors who will only advise “submit to your husband, have sex whenever he wants, no questions asked, ignore your own trauma”.
Absolutely to both your points! I think the fact that women are almost always viewed with suspicion is so awful.
In reading the Every Man A Warrior passages, the take away is so similar to Love & Respect. Men could argue that Every Man A Warrior is written only for men, about men’s experiences and issues, and women are only mentioned as part of the marital equation; you know, provide context. But therein lies the greatest problem – the division of what should be united, just like in Love & Respect. This is so much more about entitlement, gender roles, and complementarianism. This is about deliberate division in a marriage, where context should always include both sides, both perspectives, both needs for healing (obviously, violent domestic issues aside). Any time a woman or a man goes to counseling for marital help – it should automatically be joint (again, violent domestic issues aside) and both sides should be counseled in the direction of accountability, personal responsibility, and the healing – individually and collectively. My point is not that a married man or woman cannot seek individual counseling. My point is Kevin and how his counselor or mentor went about truly helping the situation. Not sure if the mentor is Lonnie, but the mentor was LOUDLY teaching Kevin to not see his wife, be for his wife, and be for his marital commitment. As long as there is division in something that was made to be united, men will have their say and women will not. This change MUST happen.
“EVERY MAN A WARRIOR”
Did they know that in warrior cultures, rape is common in war with the Victorious as Penetrators and the Vanquished as Penetrated? Almost a Privilege of being a Mighty Warrior?
Or is it BECAUSE they did?
That adds a whole new (and really DARK) angle to the whole thing.
“But on the other hand we have men who wouldn’t have otherwise raped their wives, but ended up doing so precisely because of evangelical teaching that normalized it.”
This sounds like a thought-experiment I did once, a setup for a parable-like story with an imaginary setting:
Imagine a guy raised and living in a Handmaid’s Tale-like religious culture. Who actually longed for a companion, an equal, someone he could just be with. Yet because in that culture “GOD HATH SAID!” he HAS to dominate and abuse her (or God WILL Punish him for such a Sin).
Imagine what that would be like and what it would do to both him and her.
At best, it would be a Tragedy.
Two who in different circumstances and culture could have become One.
I truly believe this is what is happening in the evangelical world writ large.
When evangelical teaching says:
* Men have an insatiable need for sex that women will never understand
* God made women to help men defeat lust and porn
* The worst thing you can do is to lust after other women or watch porn
* Wives are men’s lawful sexual outlets
* God’s will is that you have lots of intercourse with your wife
* Women don’t tend to want sex
* Women aren’t to deprive you
WHERE IS THE *COMPANIONSHIP* IN THAT?
IS COMPANIONSHIP EVEN POSSIBLE UNDER THOSE RULES?
A FUNHOUSE MIRROR OF SEX OUTSIDE THE EVANGELICAL BUBBLE LIKE “COMMUNISM BEGETS OBJECTIVISM” –
both Total Opposites, both Equally Destructive, forever at each others’ throats like that one Old School Star Trek episode.
No, there isn’t any companionship, but I think that’s because they don’t actually believe in true intimacy. True intimacy requires vulnerability and valuing each other, and they can’t value each other and support a hierarchical structure at the same time. So they choose domination and rights instead of companionship and intimacy.
“So they choose domination and rights instead of companionship and intimacy.”
“The only goal of Power is POWER. And POWER consists of inflicting maximum suffering upon the Powerless.”
— Comrade O’Brian, Inner Party, Airstrip One, Oceania, Nineteen Eighty-Four
“There is no Right, there is no Wrong, there is only POWER. And those who are too weak to have it.”
— Lord Voldemort
I agree that in an ideal world Carol ‘should’ have told Kevin about her past trauma before marriage, but the excerpt does state that their dating/marriage took place in the 1970s, when attitudes towards sex and sexual trauma were very different. I know of someone in ‘Carol’s’ situation in the same era – attempts to talk about the assault after it happened were shut down with the criticism that she was sinful for speaking about it, because a ‘good girl’ wouldn’t be able to bring herself to talk about such things – a ‘good ‘girl would just forget about it and move on. And marriage to a ‘good Chrisitan man’ would replace her negative view of sex with a positive view anyway. Fortunately, this ‘Carol’ didn’t marry a ‘Kevin’, but someone who was patient and loving, and so ended up with a very different testimony.
As for Kevin, while one can sympathise with any young groom who discovers that his new wife is frightened of sex, the way his experience is portrayed just stinks. Carol is terrified and sobbing which ruins KEVIN’S honeymoon… He reminds me of a woman I knew who, every time she heard about someone else’s tragedy would say “Oh no, I can’t BEAR it, it makes me feel so terrible to think about it, this has upset me so much…”
“He reminds me of a woman I knew who, every time she heard about someone else’s tragedy would say “Oh no, I can’t BEAR it, it makes me feel so terrible to think about it, this has upset me so much…”
All I can say is she must have worked long and hard to achieve that level of Pure Narcissism and Main Character Syndrome.
I just wanted to highlight that the third print is missing. In the EMAW material, there is an additional paragraph saying that Kevin changed the way he relates to his wife in intimacy, his time with the Lord has deepened, and his relationship with Carol and his kids has been transformed.
Here is the paragraph:
“Kevin and Carol are still together, even though the journey has been long and hard. They have found counselors who have helped them, and Kevin changed the way he relates to his wife in intimacy. Kevin’s time with the Lord has deepened, and this hard-charging businessman has developed new levels of compassion and understanding that have transformed his relationship with both Carol and his children.”
Yes, but notice that it never calls what he did rape. That’s the problem. It’s that they don’t label it as rape.
And again, the way that they told the story normalized his sexual needs mattering more than hers. Imagine if they had written this in a way that actually centred the victim’s experience. Can you see how it would have been written very differently? It’s not that they don’t have Kevin realize he was wrong; it’s that the whole framing of this is still that Kevin was suffering.