Tuesday, July 25, 2023

Blogaround

Hi readers, my blogging has been very slow recently because I have a bunch of things going on. My next post on "The Great Sex Rescue" will be delayed too. Don't worry, I'll try to get back on track soon.

Anyway here are some links:

1. The TRUTH About Woody’s Holster | Toy Story Pixar Film Theory (January 14) Asking the real questions: Why does Woody have a holster but no gun?

2. Submission Saved My Marriage! The Tragic Irony of Christian Complementarianism (July 15) "Let the reader understand the irony of this statement. The wife initiated submission in her marriage, but the husband is praised for his leadership. The greatest racket of conservative white evangelism is that the husband is praised for being a 'leader' when he responds with love to his wife’s submission."

3. Joe Biden Used One Weird Trick To Cancel Student Debt For Me And 804,000 Other Americans (July 19) "The loan adjustment was announced last year, and will provide debt relief to borrowers who were, to put it bluntly, ripped off by incompetent or downright fraudulent mismanagement of the government’s Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) program."

4. Do Women Make Men Do Things? Part 1 (June 1) "This was one of the most common justifications of male leadership I remember hearing growing up in church. If men see women leading worship or music, or teaching Sunday school, they will not want to participate. They will sit back and not act, and won’t take the role they are supposed to have in the church. Because women caused it."

Wednesday, July 19, 2023

Blogaround

1. Facing the Forgotten Martyrs (The Ones We Killed) (July 11) "Our own heroes have killed countless faithful people because of their different cultures, beliefs, practices, and religions. The fact that we consider them heroes for doing so betrays a lot about our ideals."

2. Nepal becomes first South Asian country to allow same-sex marriage (July 11)

3. Shannon Harris has written a book called The Woman They Wanted: Shattering the Illusion of the Good Christian Wife. Shannon is the ex-wife of Joshua Harris, who wrote the most influential purity culture book, "I Kissed Dating Goodbye," and other books about how if you perfectly follow all of God's rules, and stay pure, and don't even kiss, and don't date unless you're really really really serious about marrying that person, and be really jumpy and scared about being "too emotionally attached" to your boyfriend or girlfriend, and worry about every little thing because maybe it will ruin your chances to ever have a good marriage... if you do all of those things perfectly, then you'll never experience heartbreak and God will give you a perfect marriage. Anyway, a few years ago, Josh announced that he had abandoned a lot of those beliefs, and then later announced that he and his wife were separating. Now we have a book that has Shannon's side of the story. I'm really interested in this.

Some of my posts about Josh Harris:
So I Watched Josh Harris's Documentary (2018)
Wishing the Best to Josh Harris and His Ex (2019)

4. We Can End AIDS, if We Follow the Path of Progress (July 14) "Worldwide, several countries are on track to end HIV/AIDS. Botswana, Eswatini, Rwanda, the United Republic of Tanzania, and Zimbabwe have already achieved the 95-95-95 target, meaning 95% of people living with HIV know their HIV status, 95% of people who know their status are receiving treatment, and 95% of people receiving treatment have a suppressed viral load, reducing the likelihood of their infection being passed on. Another 16 countries are close to doing so, while China has achieved an impressive 84-93-97 ratio."

Also from Sixth Tone: Plea for Marriage Rules Reform Sparks Debate on Parental Consent (July 13) "As per the existing regulations, couples intending to marry are required to notify their household owners, typically their parents, in order to obtain the necessary document. While this step may be straightforward for many individuals, it can pose challenges when either set of parents disagrees with the marriage."

Thursday, July 13, 2023

The Great Sex Rescue: Wives Are the Ones Being "Deprived"

Image shows some roses and white towels on a bed, with the text "The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 1 Corinthians 7:3 NIV". This is a very cringey verse to put on a pretty background, like an inspirational meme, but I found LOTS of people on Google image search who have done just that. Uh, okay. Image source.

Links to all posts in this series can be found here: Blog series on "The Great Sex Rescue"

---

So, now we're in the second part of chapter 3 of The Great Sex Rescue: The Lies You've Been Taught and How to Recover What God Intended [affiliate link] (p 50-60).

This section starts out talking about 1 Corinthians 7, which has that line about "The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband." ("Marital duty" means sex.) Some bible translations say the husband and wife should not "deprive" each other, so that's why this section of the book uses the term "deprive."

Anyway, the point is, the bible says the husband should not deprive the wife, and the wife should not deprive the husband. It's equal. It's symmetric. But you wouldn't know it from popular evangelical teachings on marriage, which always talk about how the wife needs to have sex even when she doesn't want to, otherwise she's "depriving" him, which would be just terrible- and then nothing is mentioned about the husband's responsibility toward the wife's sexual needs. (Typically, those kinds of evangelical marriage resources will say the husband has to care for the wife's emotional needs, or something along those lines.)

Gregoire and her co-authors are making the point here that if a married woman is having sex regularly but not having orgasms, then she is the one being "deprived." Interpreting this 1 Corinthians 7 passage to say it's not just about making sure your spouse gets *sex* but it's about *sex that feels good for them* and/or *orgasms*.

This is HUGE. This is GROUNDBREAKING. I'm, seriously, this is blowing my mind.

See, the way I always heard this passage interpreted was, yeah, it says the husband owes the wife sex, and the wife owes the husband sex, but actually in practical terms, women don't really want sex, so in real life you're not really going to have a situation where the "husband owes the wife sex" aspect would be important. In practical terms, we only really care about the part where the wife owes the husband sex.

But, wow, viewing it as "each spouse has a responsibility to give the other spouse sex that feels good" instead of just "sex", that is a GAME CHANGER. Like, !!! I cannot even begin to describe how much of a big deal this is.

But, wait, let me stop for a second to add this: So, I'm writing this blog series specifically from an ace perspective, so I do have to point out the idea that you're required to have sex with your spouse... is not really great for aces. I'm not sure that making it symmetric really helps. In my case, I am a sex-favorable ace, so I do want to have sex, but for aces who are sex-indifferent or sex-repulsed, this would play out differently.

Anyway. So the point of this section is, suppose you have a husband and wife, and they've been married for years and the wife has never had an orgasm, but she makes sure to have sex with her husband a few times a week, so he won't be "deprived", and he has an orgasm every time- in this situation, there is so much concern over whether or not the husband is "deprived", but actually, IT'S THE WIFE WHO IS "DEPRIVED."

!!!!!

YES!

Because it's not just about *sex*; it's about *sex that feels good*. Which is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THING.

Here's an idea I've been thinking about: Sex is not just one thing... it doesn't exactly make sense to say you "like sex." It depends hugely on the extent to which your partner cares about listening to you and making it a good experience for you.

Some examples:

Example 1: There's a short film called "Ace and Anxious" (video is here, via this blog post), where an asexual woman does some research about the health benefits of sex, and decides that she should try sex to help with her anxiety issues. She posts an ad on Craigslist and starts interviewing men who respond to it. Now, here's my main issue with this: The sex that one might have with strange men who respond to a Craigslist ad is very much NOT... like... how to say this... it's not the ideal of what sex is supposed to be. When she read medical papers about the health benefits of sex, that doesn't mean all sex is good for you- it would only apply to sex that is consensual, enjoyable, feels good, you know what you're getting into, etc.

I have my doubts about whether random men from Craigslist would come into this with the expectation that their priority is to make it a good experience for her.

Example 2: Let's say there's a female sex worker and a male customer. People describe this situation as the man "paying for sex" but I think there's something a bit off about that. He's not paying for "sex" in the general sense of what sex is, he's paying for the experience of having someone have sex with him in a way that makes it all about him, and he doesn't have any responsibility to care about if it feels good for her.

(And honestly, this is basically the view of sex I internalized from Christian marriage advice. Like, a wife doesn't really like sex, but she does it for transactional reasons- she gets a lot of benefits from the marriage, and the sex is the price she pays for those benefits.)

Example 3: Two people choose to have sex with each other, and their main motivation is that they really like to have sex. In this situation, of course they will each have the expectation that it's going to feel good for them, and that they need to make sure it feels good for their partner. They are equals, and there aren't any external "transactional" aspects of it, therefore they know that the sex itself is meant to be a good experience for them and for their partner.

Example 4: It occurs to me that, in an earlier section of "The Great Sex Rescue", when it mentioned the problem of husbands having a mindset that's influenced by porn, maybe this is what it's talking about. I think (?) in porn videos, sex is portrayed like every single part of it is enjoyable- if the viewer doesn't enjoy watching it, they can skip that part, or change to a different video. It doesn't really give a realistic sense of "you need to care about what your partner wants, and sometimes it's going to be something that feels boring or inconvenient for you." So then you have men who think their wife is asking for something completely unreasonable and abnormal when she wants him to do things that feel good for her, if they're things he's not really interested in himself. He expects that sex is just going to be what he wants, and she will also automatically love all those same things.

(Hmm, I've heard A LOT of evangelical warnings about how porn is the worst thing ever... I thought it was because having knowledge of a wide range of extreme ways to have sex/ BDSM/ etc might make your own partner seem "boring"... or something about being able to see what naked people look like, and then comparing your partner to them... Okay but this explanation, about how porn doesn't give a realistic depiction of the extent to which you should listen to what your partner wants, this explanation makes the most sense to me.)

So, there are my 4 examples. My point is, there could be huge variations in people's thinking about the extent to which sex is about their own pleasure, and the extent to which it's about making it a good experience for their partner- and those will yield COMPLETELY different results. So the idea of "sex" as a concept that one can make generalizations about doesn't really make sense, because the experience is so dependent on one's partner's attitude. Perhaps if someone "likes sex" we should take that to mean "I am able to get pleasure from it even if my partner only puts a little bit of effort into making it feel good for me", or perhaps it means "I'm very good about setting boundaries about only having sex with people who make my pleasure a priority" (and they are able to attract enough potential partners that even after this screening process, they still have plenty of opportunities to have sex).

(Or, wait, lol, something else just occurred to me- usually when people say they "like sex" that means they have a high sex drive. I feel very ace right now.) 

(Another thing I wonder about is, how many people do you have to have sex with to get enough data to make generalizations about how you feel about "sex" as an abstract concept? If you've only had sex with 1 person, I don't think you really know anything about how you feel about "sex" in general, you only know how you feel about "sex with this specific person." Please note that I have no interest in gathering such data for myself, so I will just never know how I feel about "sex as an abstract concept.")

This is all speculation... I don't know if this really makes sense to anyone else- maybe I'm missing something important. I just want to write it here because I haven't seen people talking about sex in this way, but this is how I think about it.

And, honestly, straight women have it the worst in terms of how likely we are to have a partner who believes there's some "default" way to have sex, and doesn't believe he needs to care about whether that works for her, surely it will work for her because that's what sex *is*, and then this "default" way doesn't work for her and she doesn't even realize she could demand better. I worry about the straights.

So. The point is. 1 Corinthians 7. It's not just about giving your partner "sex", it's about giving them sex *that feels good for them*. And that is a HUGE difference.

(Full disclosure: "The Great Sex Rescue" is targeting an evangelical audience that takes bible verses very seriously, with the mindset that if we read something in the bible, and we interpret it as the author and/or God intended, it's true and we should live our lives in accordance with it. I do not believe that. I do not believe the bible is inerrant. So I love this book's interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7, but at the end of the day, 1 Corinthians 7 does not have any power over my life. See: It Doesn’t Actually Matter What Jesus Said About Divorce and "The Author of Leviticus Would Have Been Cool With It".)

The next section of "The Great Sex Rescue" is about how a lot of Christian marriage books say that women's sexual pleasure is important, but they actually mean it's important that the husband thinks the wife is having a good time, so the husband feels like he is good at sex. (Specifically, the books "For Women Only" and "The Act of Marriage" are mentioned here.) In other words, these Christian marriage books- which "The Great Sex Rescue" is criticizing- say that not only is a wife required to regularly have sex with her husband, she is also required to pretend she loves it. Otherwise it would destroy her husband's manly self-confidence, or something.

Yeah, even when conservative Christians talk about women enjoying sex, they still need to make it all about men.

Gregoire and her co-authors say this:

We find it problematic to tell a woman she must enjoy something without also telling her that she can expect him to make it enjoyable.

Dayyyyyyaaammm. Good point.

This kind of teaching would make a woman very hesitant to speak up during sex if she doesn't like something, or if something is painful. Yes, I've been there. Like, trying to come up with the most polite way to say "I don't like that" because I've internalized the idea that if a man feels "rejected", that would be the WORST THING EVER. Ughhh, let me tell you, it just doesn't work. The only way to figure out how to have sex that feels good for both of you is HONEST COMMUNICATION. But sex advice from conservative Christians says wives shouldn't be honest if they're unhappy about something during sex, because men are so fragile and can't handle it, or whatever. (See: If A Wife Is Required To Have Sex, That's Not "Intimacy".)

Then Gregoire and her co-authors give us these useful guidelines:

Rules about Speaking Up during Intercourse

How to speak up:

  1. If it hurts, say something-- even if you're just "a little uncomfortable." You deserve pain-free sex.
  2. If something is keeping you from getting aroused (more on how to "get there" in the next chapter), say, "Let's stop for a moment and try something else."
  3. Want more of something-- or less of something? Tell your spouse when something is feeling good (even if it's just by moaning). If something isn't feeling good, take your spouse's hand and put it where you'd like it to be.
  4. Don't fake it-- orgasm, arousal, anything.

How to help your spouse speak up:

  1. When you're not sure if your spouse is ready for penetrative sex yet, ask!
  2. If you sense your spouse is not enjoying things, stop and go back to kissing and touching for a while.
  3. Watch your spouse's cues. If it's obviously not enjoyable, be the one to pull back and say, "Let's take a rain check." Show your spouse sex can stop without you getting angry.

When I read this, I'm like YES! This is so good! Christians should all be talking about these rules, instead of telling women "yeah sometimes sex hurts, but it doesn't take very long, so just do it- men really need it." [This is not a quote from anywhere, this is my paraphrase- but yes, that's what they say.]

But on the other hand, I read these guidelines from Gregoire et al, and I'm like, THE BAR IS ON THE FLOOR. If something hurts, of course you should say "stop." Isn't that obvious? Why do we even need to tell people this?

But unfortunately, yes, Christian women do need books that tell us "You deserve pain-free sex" because we have been told the EXACT OPPOSITE, many many times. The first time I ever believed that I had the right to COMPLETELY REFUSE to have painful sex was when I was pregnant, because the information I read about pregnancy said that if sex is painful, that could be a sign that something is wrong and could harm the baby. That was the first time I ever felt I had a "good enough reason" to draw the line there and absolutely refuse to have painful sex. Before this, I tried to get out of having painful sex, but I was always weighing my feelings against this idea that "men need it" and trying to find what level of pain I could tolerate that could satisfy his "needs." I hate how badly I've internalized that. 

In my experience, I've found that secular sex-ed resources are pretty good about emphasizing the importance of honest communication during sex, to give each other feedback on what works and what doesn't. I've read many secular sex-ed resources that emphasize how each person's body works differently, so there's not really any specific sexual technique that will always "work"- the only way to figure it out is to listen to your partner when they tell you what works for them.

Also that bit about "Show your spouse sex can stop without you getting angry", the bar is IN HELL, you guys. But, YES, it definitely is necessary for Gregoire to say this, because in conservative Christian culture, if a wife withdraws consent, she is "depriving" her husband, and of course you can understand that a good godly Christian man would be angry about that, right?

In my experience reading secular sex-ed materials, however, they are good about emphasizing that consent can be withdrawn at any time, and if somebody gets mad about that and acts like you owe them sex, that is a forest of red flags.

Later in this section, Gregoire and her co-authors say this:

And that pain matters. Having someone derive pleasure from something that causes you pain compounds the hurt.

This is huge. This is so important. This is completely the opposite of what I was taught that marriage is supposed to be.

I always heard Christians talk about how marriage is hard. Marriage is about self-sacrifice. Marriage is about giving up what you want, because you have to consider your spouse first. Marriage isn't about making us happy, it's about making us holy. Kids these days don't want to get married because they're selfish and don't want to give up their self-centered lifestyle. Marriage is about dying to self. Sacrificial love. It's hard but it's so worth it.

The example that comes to mind is that wives are required to endure pain during sex, to satisfy their husband's "needs." I was taught that this follows the basic characteristic of what marriage is- it's normal to suffer in order to please your spouse, that's just what marriage is. You're willing to go through pain because you love your husband.

I remember I heard one Christian speaker give another example once- she said that sometimes in the middle of the night, if she wants to drink water, she asks her husband to get out of bed and go get her some water. And, she said, he has to do it, because the bible says husbands have to love their wives as Christ loved the church and sacrificed his life for her. (LOL, if I tried that on my husband, he would say "go get it yourself." Unless there was like, a real reason that I couldn't get up and get it, like if I was sick, pregnant, etc.)

Captain Cassidy has also written a lot about the Christian expectation that you should "die to self" in marriage. And about how, when she was with her ex-husband, he seemed to have an attitude like "last time I went somewhere with you that I didn't want to go, so now this time you have to go to church with me even though you don't want to." (I can't find the specific post of hers that talked about that- if anyone has the link, please share in the comments.)

Basically, the idea that marriage is about forcing your spouse to do things they don't want. And being forced to do things you don't want, for their sake. There's totally a cultural phenomenon where Christian girls, age 21ish, married for less than a year, make posts on social media to say "marriage is so HARD and sometimes I hate my husband because he is so annoying, but God has been teaching me so much about how to love my husband, I'm so lucky to be his wife, marriage is hard but it's SO WORTH IT" just dropping red flags EVERYWHERE, but they think this is normal. Like this is what marriage is.

When I was in college, our campus Christian group brought in a married couple to talk to us about marriage- the wife talked to the girls, and the husband talked to the boys- and she just kept saying the important thing in marriage was "dying to self" which meant "you have to have sex even if you don't want to." And I thought that was totally normal, back then. You do it because you love your husband so much, so the pain is worth it if it makes him happy. Now, years later, the more I think about it, the more disturbing it is. This was the role model couple that came to teach us. Teaching us that marriage is about doing things that make you unhappy. Forcing yourself to have sex that you don't want.

I remember about a year or so after Hendrix and I got married, I was thinking about how surprised I was that our marriage is so fun and I still love him. Like, every day, I get to live with him, I get to see his cute face, and it's just wonderful. It was totally unexpected that I would feel this good, when Christians always told me "marriage is hard."

So no, I don't believe "marriage is hard." I think life can be hard, and the thing about marriage is that when your spouse is going through a hard time, their problems become your problems. But the marriage should be a source of safety and support to help you get through life's problems. It shouldn't be that the marriage itself is the source of the problems.

It's harmful to teach kids that "marriage is hard" because then if they get into a bad marriage, they won't realize that it shouldn't be that way. 

(See: "Marriage Is Hard" and What My Marriage Is Actually About (It's Not Sex And It's Not Jesus))

And... even now, as I'm thinking about this, it feels a little surprising to me as I consider the idea, "Wait, so, in a healthy marriage, would there ever be any times that you're forced to do something you hate, for your spouse's pleasure? ... No? I can't think of any?" It's shocking to me to actually ask this question and realize the answer should be "NO", because that was such an essential part of what I was taught marriage is. That's the definition of marriage, I thought. That's what it means. Being forced to do things you don't want. Having someone derive pleasure from your pain. Being willing to do that because you love them so much.

(Like I said, I worry about the straights...)

Yes, in marriage, there will be some times that your spouse gets sick and throws up, and you have to clean it up, for example, and obviously nobody likes doing that, but that's a very practical thing, and like, a very normal way of showing compassion, to take care of someone who's sick, which could apply in a lot of relationships, not just marriage. I'm not talking about that- I'm talking about when Spouse A wants to do something that Spouse B hates, and Spouse B believes they need to force themself to do it, because that's what marriage is about.

No. Eww, no. WTF?

The last thing I want to talk about in this chapter of "The Great Sex Rescue" is the section about how society cares about men's sexual medical issues more than women's. First, there's this about medical papers in a secular context:

While PubMed (the National Institutes of Health online database for scientific journal articles) has 41,473 articles for the keywords "erectile dysfunction," it only has 4,809 for "dyspareunia" (aka painful sex). Similarly, there were 1,796 studies on "premature ejaculation" but only 401 for "vaginismus." 

And then this, about the conservative Christian world:

It's long been known in medical circles that conservative religious women experience more pain with sex than the general population. Yet if scholars are doing poorly on this topic, the church is doing worse. Both The Gospel Coalition and Focus on the Family have online articles on erectile dysfunction while failing to provide any information on vaginismus, sexual pain, or post-partum pain.

Well... I mean... I have heard lots of Christians talking about women's sexual pain- talking about it like it's normal, and wives need to continue to have sex with their husbands anyway, and that's just the way it is. I don't think I've ever heard it talked about like it's a medical issue, or that you can DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT so that you don't have to have painful sex any more.

Then there's this:

Intended for Pleasure acknowledges the problem [vaginismus] but then totally bungs things up with this claim: "Vaginismus can usually be eliminated in about one week with the following procedure." The book then describes the use of dilators.

LOLOLOLOLOL.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. ONE WEEK! WAS THIS WRITTEN BY A MAN?

I (Sheila) had severe vaginismus, and I tried that. Did it by the book; got the T-shirt. Recovery still took years. And that's not unusual, because research shows that vaginismus can be very resistant to treatment.

I also had vaginismus, and that's one of the reasons I was interested in "The Great Sex Rescue"- because it talks about vaginismus, and how women with this kind of conservative Christian background are more at risk for vaginismus. I think the next chapter of the book talks about this more.

I can't speak to the use of dilators as treatment for vaginismus, because I was never actually diagnosed, never had any doctors do anything helpful, even when I told them "sex is painful"- and actually, I'm glad I had to figure it out myself, instead of viewing doctors as the authority to tell me how my own body is supposed to work, and what I need to do to change my body to be good enough for a man. I'm glad I found out about asexuality, instead of that.

Anyway, the point is, these are real medical conditions, and conservative Christian teaching about sex doesn't do anything to actually help, but instead tells women they just need to have sex anyway, because men need it.

But, here's something that ace readers will want to note, in the section about medical issues related to sexual dysfunction: There is a list of such issues, here in this chapter, and one of the ones listed is:

Hypoactive sexual desire disorder: A clinically low libido.

I point this out because a lot of aces argue that viewing HSDD as a medical problem that needs to be solved is basically saying that there's something wrong with being asexual, and that asexuals need to get treatment and stop being asexual. (Similar to "reparative therapy" for homosexuality.) We don't like this. (See these blog posts from other aces: Journal Club: Why is absent/low sexual desire a mental disorder? and Drug Watch: New Addyi Marketing Campaign, “Find My Spark” and a brief primer on hsdd & flibanserin)

Later chapters of this book talk more about HSDD. I'll be interested to see what they say, and whether aces fit into it. 

Okay, so to sum up this section of "The Great Sex Rescue": If wives are required to have sex that doesn't feel good, then wives are the ones being "deprived." My mind is blown by this, seriously. Also, it's messed-up to require wives to act like they are enjoying sex, without requiring husbands to actually do anything to make sex enjoyable. Not cool! Instead of faking it, in order to protect your husband's fragile manly confidence, you should speak up if you don't like something. Communicate! And if you're in pain, definitely speak up! It's really NOT OKAY that conservative Christians say wives are required to have sex even if it's painful. Pain is a sign that something is very wrong, and you shouldn't tolerate that.

So, overall, wow, yes, I'll say I agree with what Gregoire and her co-authors are saying in this section of the book. They make some extremely good points here. And they make some points which are like, bare-minimum-of-human-decency level, but yes, unfortunately those things need to be said too, because conservative teaching on sex and marriage really is that bad.

---

Links to all posts in this series can be found here: Blog series on "The Great Sex Rescue"

Related:

If A Wife Is Required To Have Sex, That's Not "Intimacy"

6 Ways Purity Culture Did NOT Teach Me About Consent 

"Marriage Is Hard" 

Vaginismus Is Not A Problem, In And Of Itself

Tuesday, July 11, 2023

Blogaround

1. Trip.com Offers Employees 50,000 Yuan Subsidy for Each Child Born (June 30) "China is grappling with a significant decline in its birth rate and the subsequent challenges posed by an aging population."

2. Don't use AI detectors for anything important (June 30) "All these AI versions are rated as more likely human-written than my original unaltered text."

3. Amos and Acts (June 30) "The fascinating thing about the passage Brueggemann highlights here is that the book of Amos was written a very long time before the book of Exodus was. Amos 9:7 presents one side in an argument about the meaning of the Exodus, showing us that both sides of this argument existed centuries before the book of Exodus itself was written. Amos is one of the oldest books in the Bible — possibly the oldest — so the tension between the two sides of this argument date back to the very beginning."

4. The Supreme Court Has Killed Affirmative Action. Mediocre Whites Can Rest Easier. (June 29) "Obviously, my parents were horrified. Obviously, they pulled me out of that school the next year and put me into a predominately Black public school. Obviously, I learned that not everything white people say is true. But Thomas is the guy who never learned: He never figured out how to disregard what white people say about us. Learning how to ignore white folks and their stupid racial theories while living your full life is pretty much the final test towards emancipation, and it’s one that Thomas seems to have flunked for his entire professional life."

5. Death of Coco Lee Triggers Public Discussion on Depression in China (July 7) [content note: suicide]

6. Rating Articles About Twitter Alternatives (July 8) "Rating: written for the kind of person who'd be shocked to learn about the concept of a fursona"

7. The universe is humming with gravitational waves. Here's why scientists are so excited about the discovery (July 3, via) Cool!

8. Let's Talk Emotional Labour of Birth Control (July 10) Wow, is this really a thing, a man claiming that he doesn't want to wear a condom, so he expects his partner to take birth control pills which cause a lot of problems for her? I guess this makes me glad I'm asexual- I do have sex, but if I had to take birth control pills in order to do it, I would NOT, it is NOT worth that trouble. (Though I'm guessing a lot of this is women being coerced by societal expectations- it's not about women feeling like "I really really want to have vaginal sex, I want it so much that it's worth taking birth control pills that change my body.")

Monday, July 10, 2023

An Ex-Evangelical Mom Review of "When God Made The World"

Book cover for "When God Made The World."

I bought the book When God Made The World [affiliate link] for my son, because I'm a Christian and I want him to learn about some Christian things. The difficult thing, though, is I'm ex-evangelical, and a lot of Christian children's books have harmful evangelical ideology. You know, stuff like "you deserve to go to hell." If you wanna say that to my son, you have to fight me first. (I've written about this issue before: Not Sure I Want My Kid Reading the Bible and 2 Wrong Ways to Write Bible Stories For Kids)

So, the question of how to find acceptable Christian children's books is an important issue to me. (Also, I'm in China, and while there are plenty of English books for kids available on Chinese shopping apps like Taobao and Jingdong, they don't always have the specific book I'm looking for, and often there is very limited information about the actual content of the book.)

I'm not trying to find books that 100% agree with what I believe. I'm not like, checking every sentence in every kids' book to see if they're "right." That would be totally the wrong approach. Kids should be aware that different people have different beliefs. (One of the reasons I'm glad my husband is not a Christian! Our son will see that it's fine for people to believe different things, without me even needing to tell him.) I just want to find books that don't have extremely harmful teaching, the sort of extremely harmful teaching which is so normal within evangelical culture that they don't even notice how messed-up it is.

Anyway, I'm featuring this one here on my blog because I like it. Yes, in my ex-evangelical queer Christian feminist opinion, this is a good book for kids.

Overall summary

It's about all the beautiful things we see in the world, and it says that God made them. The book has a lot of detail- listing things like:

God made comets that fly
with tails through the sky
and asteroids and meteors that sometimes zoom by.

and

God made tropics and plateaus,
glaciers and meadows,
marshes and tundras,
and erupting volcanos.

and 

Swordfish and trout, 
fish sleek and fish stout,
and whales that God made to breathe through a spout.

Lots of details describing the things found in nature- from stars, to geographic features, to plants, to animals, to people. Overall, it's really beautiful imagery about how amazing the natural world is.

And, the book encourages kids to enjoy nature:

Run barefoot through grass,
pick a flower or two or a bouquet, perhaps.

Find a tree you can climb, or with a seat and some twine,
build your very own swing or a backyard zip line.

It also tells kids to use their unique talents that God gave them to make the world better, and to protect the environment:

Save a whale, hug a tree, protect every bee.
Recycle, repurpose, reject apathy.

So overall, yes, I recommend it. It's a nice story about God and about the mind-blowing beauty of nature.

My son is preschool age. On Amazon, it says this book is for children 3-7 years old, and that sounds right to me.

Other books in this series are: What is God Like?When God Made YouWhen God Made Light, and When I Pray For You [affiliate links].

---

Okay, the rest of this post is little minutiae that I'm pointing out because it may be relevant to people who are ex-evangelical like me, and are EXTREMELY AWARE of all the evangelical culture wars. I would not mention any of these things to my son while reading the book, because they are very much NOT what the book is about.

Basically, if you just want to give your kid a nice book about God, go ahead and give them this one. You can stop reading the review here. The rest of this post is just little details that may be important to someone who has, um, ex-evangelical PTSD.

Author

The book is written by Matthew Paul Turner. I remember I used to read Matthew Paul Turner's blog way back in the day, when I started blogging. It seems that he has since moved his blogging to substack, and has come out as gay. Good for him!

Inside the front cover, it says, "In memory of Rachel Held Evans. The world is better because of your love, life, and words." There are actually several books in this series, and at least one is co-authored by Turner and Rachel Held Evans. If you know Rachel Held Evans, that should give you an idea of what kind of Christianity this book is about. (Evans died in 2019. She had a huge influence on me, and really on the whole ex-evangelical movement.)

In other words, knowing this book is associated with her, it indicates to me that this is likely to present a Christian view that I can accept.

Days of creation

In the bible, the creation story in Genesis 1 says that God made the world in 6 days, with different themes on each day.

This book does not mention the days of creation at all, but it loosely follows them. (Loosely. Genesis 1 has light made on day 1, and the sun, moon, and stars made on day 4, and I'm not really sure how that works- so this book does not follow that part.) Mainly the thing that sticks out and made me realize that it follows the days of creation is the fact that, when it gets to the part about God creating animals, it has 2 pages exclusively about birds, and then 4 pages about fish and other water creatures, then 2 pages mentioning animals that sorta live between water and land (like frogs), then 4 pages on land animals. 

Genesis 1 says God made birds and water animals on day 5, and land animals and people on day 6. The fact that "When God Made The World" divides the animals up like this, feels very "Genesis 1" to me. (This is also an interesting choice because in reality, reptiles evolved before birds.)

Which is fine, I'm not saying this is a bad thing. But I used to be a young-earth creationist, and I think this is information that former creationists would want to know before buying this book.

Detailed scientifically-accurate descriptions vs the creation-myth feel of the book

This book lists lots and lots of natural phenomena that the writer of Genesis 1 knew nothing about. For example: galaxies, planets, north and south pole, glaciers, geysers, grapefruits, limes, eels, flying fish, otters, kangaroos, giraffes, rhinos, and so on. It even says God made the earth and "designed it to orbit the sun once a year."

So... is this book basically Genesis 1? Or is it a modern-science-based description of cool things that exist in nature? Does it feel a bit weird to take a creation myth as the overall structure and tone of the book (I say the "tone" is like a creation myth because it just says God made this, God made that, but gives no details about *how* God made things), and then fill it in with things that we know about now but people in the ancient Near East would not have known about?

If you're trying to figure out how "literally" you're supposed to take this story, this makes it difficult.

Personally, I don't think this is a problem at all. Personally, I think it's pretty cool that they took a "creation myth" sort of style, and then put in a lot of really interesting details (that we only know about thanks to modern science). I like that.

But I'm just mentioning it here because I can understand if someone used to be a creationist, they may be very very sensitive about what's intended to be taken "literally" and what's not. 

Little kids definitely don't care about that- kids' books are full of talking cars and such, and the kid doesn't actually believe cars can talk. So I don't think this is an issue.

God's pronouns

This book does not use any pronouns for God. Hooray! I love that!

It just says "God" over and over. For example, there's one line that says, "give thanks to God for all that God made." No pronoun for God. I love it!!!! God is not a man!

Diverse kids

The illustrations in the book show a group of kids experiencing the wonders of nature on almost every page. It's basically the same group of kids all throughout the book. And it's a diverse group- I love that. Different races, and one kid is in a wheelchair.

Image from "When God Made The World", showing a diverse bunch of kids.

Interestingly, though, in the part of the book about how God made people, it describes the range of human diversity like this:

Each of our faces, bodies, and traits,
our skin tones, our features-- God did create.

God made some people shy and some people loud
and some who thrive in the midst of a crowd.

Some make music, and some like math,
and some are prone to blaze their own path.

So it's mostly about different personality types, rather than "identity politics" sorts of things. ("Skin tones" are mentioned 1 time. It doesn't even mention gender- even though Genesis 1 in the bible mentions humans were created "male and female.") Personally I think that's good- the pictures show a racially diverse group of kids, a mix of boys and girls, one is in a wheelchair, but the text doesn't call attention to that sort of diversity. Like it's just normal and doesn't need to be remarked on. The actual text of the book is about personality types, which is probably more practical and useful for little kids learning to interact with people.

"Evolve"

So, there are a few lines of the book that may or may not be interpreted as taking a position on the creationism/ intelligent design/ evolution debate:

[bold emphasis added by me]

all kinds of trees with leaves God designed

and

So God filled the sky, perhaps over time,
with birds and more birds, and most learned how to fly.

and

Yes, all living creatures from whales to snails,
from those covered with feathers to those covered with scales,
each God designed with a home in mind,
to develop and evolve if needed over time.

Luckily for me, I'm far enough removed from the creation/evolution debate that I don't really care about what position this cute children's book is taking. It's just a cute story. Let's not overanalyze it to figure out if this book is telling us the earth is 6000 years old or whatever.

But also, I do recognize that the author put the word "evolve" in there, which is very likely to get this book banned from evangelical-land. Good for him! That feels very bold to me, as an ex-evangelical. (This is the kind of thing that evangelicals would make a big huge deal about, even though the kids in the target audience won't notice or care.)

God made you for a purpose?

But always remember, 'cause this much is true,
God had a purpose for making you YOU.

I do not believe that, myself. But, it's fine, I don't need every book I read to my son to agree with me 100%. That would be ridiculous. It's good to let him learn about different ideas. I just draw a line at harmful ideas like "Jesus died because of you" etc.

Seeing god in people and nature

In the last few pages of the book, it says "With nature, God gives us a glimpse of divine" and "how we live, how we love, tells God's story too." I LOVE that. That is one of the key things I believe in now. God is alive, everywhere, in the world, in nature, and in human beings.

---

In summary: I'm really glad I bought this book for my son. It's positive, it's about God, and it doesn't have any problematic evangelical ideology. (Though everyone's definition of "problematic evangelical ideology" will be different- that's why I went into details in this post.)

---

Related:

Not Sure I Want My Kid Reading the Bible 

If God Metaphorically Made the World in 6 Days, What Does That Even Mean?

2 Wrong Ways to Write Bible Stories For Kids

Taking My Kid To Church: God Loves My Son

Monday, July 3, 2023

How to Pretend to Welcome Trans People

Image text: "The image of God is trans." Image source.

"... [Abraham] is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed-- the God who gives life to the dead and calls into being things that were not." 

- Romans 4:17

---

This article from Christianity Today caught my eye: Transgender Teens, Pronouns, and Preferred Names: Youth Pastors Grapple with New Questions [article is paywalled], by Ericka Andersen. It starts out like this:

With transgender identity continuing to rise in the US, evangelical pastors are challenged to think through how they might welcome a trans person attending their church.

I read that, and I thought, wow, maybe Christianity Today will surprise me! Maybe they'll actually have something helpful to say! Maybe now that more people are aware of trans people's existence, evangelicals have changed their tune and are actually taking steps to be more accepting.

LOL. Oh, lol.

Well, I guess this means I'm not longer fluent in evangelicalese. I've been spending so much time not going to church, and hanging out with queer friends instead. Alas, this Christianity Today article is actually not anything new. It's not about how to actually welcome trans people. It's the same old evangelical talking points about how of course being trans isn't a real thing.

Let me show you the article's advice about how to welcome trans people to church:

Even churches that believe people are created by God as male and female have varying approaches and policies around transgender youth. In a private Facebook group with over 11,000 youth leaders from a variety of backgrounds, a post on the subject of gender pronouns drew a slew of comments.

Using a child’s preferred pronouns can be an “essential piece of their mental health,” said one person. Another wrote that using nonbiological pronouns is against “the Truth of God’s word,” putting “souls at stake.”

“They need truth, and not a continuation of the twisted agenda trying to shove its way into the church,” wrote another pastor. One group member said her church addresses everyone as “friend” to avoid pronoun miscommunication.

On the 9Marks site last year, pastor Zach Carter wrote that his previous church offered a written policy that included what to do if a transgender student attended youth group activities. The policy required that participating students “live and present according to their biologically assigned sex.” This included biologically correct pronouns, dress, appropriate bathrooms, locker rooms, assigned sleeping arrangements, groups, and classes.

Umm, what on earth? All of these are presented in the article like they are reasonable policies that Christians could have in regards to trans issues. These are presented as valid answers to the question of how to welcome trans people.

Umm.

Zach Carter is over here explicitly saying his church doesn't let trans people use the bathroom they want to use, and makes sure to call them by the wrong pronouns, and polices their clothes. And this article is like, yeah sure, that's a valid answer to the question "How should our church welcome trans people?"

I can't believe I have to point this out, but that is THE OPPOSITE of welcoming trans people. Like if I had to make a list of "how NOT to welcome trans people" those are the exact things I would put on it.

And then there's this:

Among Christians, pronouns are one of the most discussed and controversial elements of hospitality toward transgender people.

“We should respect the conscience of the believer who cannot bring themselves to use someone’s preferred pronouns and the convictions of the believer who feels like using those pronouns is lying and unloving,” said David Sanchez, who works through gender and sexuality issues as the director of ethics and justice for the Christian Life Commission of Texas Baptists.

“We can also admire the efforts of believers who use someone’s preferred pronouns with the intention of wanting to build a lasting relationship where they can show Christ’s love."

So, the article says, both of these approaches are fine for Christians to take! Either you refuse to use a trans person's preferred pronouns, because you believe that's "lying and unloving", or you use their preferred pronouns just to humor them, even though obviously you believe that being trans isn't a real thing. 

WHAT? This is the article about how to welcome trans people??????

I'm here to tell you that yes, when someone tells you "this is my name and pronouns", then you absolutely should call them by that name and those pronouns. This is like, BARE-MINIMUM stuff. If you refuse, that's just mean. Yeah, maybe you make mistakes sometimes, that's fine, but do your best. This is BARE-MINIMUM stuff. 

But, just... ugh. This article on how to welcome trans people, saying that if you use the right pronouns or the wrong pronouns, both of those are just fine. Ugh.

What's COMPLETELY WILD is that the article mentions that studies have found that trans people have a high risk of depression and suicide, but does not mention that studies have found this risk goes WAY DOWN if trans people are accepted and called by their correct name and pronouns. [correct = the name and pronouns that they tell you they use.] It's like, the article just mentioned it in order to pretend to care, but didn't care enough to actually do the things that would make a difference.

And check out the bait-and-switch in this part:

Mike McGarry, founder and pastor at Youth Pastor Theologian, said his view on pronouns has changed over time.

“For the sake of evangelism, I simply use the gender and name that visitors ask me to use,” McGarry told CT. “But for students who grew up in the church or whom I already know … I share with them that using their preferred pronoun is really hard for me.”

McGarry said he tries to use their preferred names most of the time, which can allow him to take a more gracious posture toward a nonbelieving student.

When guiding youth leaders in ministry, McGarry recommends sticking with coed groupings to help avoid difficulties for those who struggle with gender identity. Asking them not to join a group with their preferred gender would feel “disingenuous,” he said.

Wow! So in other words, Mike McGarry pretends to accept trans people, to get them in the door, but for trans kids that are long-time members, he tells them he doesn't accept that. (What does he mean by "using their preferred pronoun is really hard for me"? Does it mean "I've known you for a long time, so it'll be hard to change my habits about the name/pronouns you used before you transitioned"? That is fine, just do your best. Or does it mean "whenever I think about calling you by your preferred pronoun, it just feels so wrong, like God is telling me it's wrong, and I just can't bring myself to do it"? Dude... find a different God.)

(I will say, though, McGarry's advice to avoid splitting up the kids into groups of boys and girls is the best piece of advice in this whole article.)

The whole article is like that. It's an article about cis Christians' opinions on what to do about trans people. 

Hey, you know what would have been useful? If they had asked a trans Christian the question, "what should churches do to welcome trans people?" Wow, that's the kind of thing you do if you actually want an answer to the question! The article could have said "here's a Christian trans woman, let's hear what she has to say about this" but NOPE. Nope. LOL! Of course Christianity Today didn't do that! Of course not! Why would I have even thought that?

Of course this article is written with the assumption that trans Christians don't exist. Of course. It's a Christianity Today article, what did I expect?

You know what this article is actually about? It's not about how to welcome trans people. It's about what Christians can do to reassure themselves that they're good people, even though they don't accept that being trans is a real thing. Throughout the article, cis Christians talk about wanting to be welcoming, wanting to show people God's love, wanting to uphold God's design for gender, wanting to not "lie" by using someone's preferred pronouns- and the article is about how a Christian can convince themself that they've struck the right balance between all those things.

In other words, Christianity Today says Christians can identify as being welcoming to trans people, without doing any of the things that trans people actually define as being welcoming. That's what this is about.

I think it's really telling that this quote is in the article: "We should respect the conscience of the believer who cannot bring themselves to use someone’s preferred pronouns and the convictions of the believer who feels like using those pronouns is lying and unloving," instead of "We should respect trans people's gender identity. They know their own gender better than anyone else." That's Christianity Today's primary concern- making sure Christians feel like they're following God's rules correctly. NOT making sure Christians are truly being welcoming to trans people.

This article is a bunch of cis Christians talking about what to do to feel like they're welcoming trans people. Apparently they don't care about whether trans people actually feel welcomed or not.

---

And one more thing. Let me tell you about the God I believe in.

I believe in a God who spoke to Abram, an old man with 1 child (Ishmael, who was treated like he didn't really even "count" as Abram's child), and said, "Your name is Abraham, which means 'father of many.'" Do you ever see evangelicals reading that story and saying, "God shouldn't have said that, because it wasn't biological reality"?

Jesus, who said to Simon, "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it," while Peter was still immature and impulsive, not like a "rock" at all.

This God calls trans people by their correct name and pronouns, even if nobody else does. Even if nobody else believes what they say about their gender.

God who made the night and the day and everything in between. God who made the sea and the land and everything in between. God who made male and female and everything in between. 

All people are made in God's image. All people, of every gender- that is the image of God. God is all genders. They are female and male and nonbinary. They are genderqueer.

Why do evangelicals want to believe in a God who forces everyone into the black-and-white boxes of the gender binary? God can't be contained to those boxes, just like trans and nonbinary people can't be contained to those boxes.

And I'm thankful to trans and nonbinary people, for showing us how vast and beautiful the concept of gender can be. Come live in the glorious rainbow world, in the freedom of being who God made you to be! 

I used to believe in a God who wanted to force everyone to conform to the rules about "God's design for gender" and such things. Any deviation was a sin that needed to be repressed. Constantly feeling like we aren't good enough because we can't repress all our feelings- that's what Christianity was to me back then.

But now, I see people, and I see how amazing they are. Why would we want to limit and repress this? Human creativity, ambition, passion, love- all of that is the image of God. How could you tell people to repress it? How could you tell people to change and limit themselves so they conform to "God's rules"? 

The Christianity Today article has a line that says, "Now I’m more often getting questions about how ‘How do I reach people who identify as LGBTQIA with the gospel?’" Reach LGBTQIA people with the gospel? What? I experience the gospel in the queer community all the time. Love each other. Accept each other. Love God by valuing the diversity of human experience. Evangelicals are the ones who need to learn the gospel from queer people.

---

Also, for anyone interested in an ACTUAL ANSWER to the question of how churches can welcome trans people, here are some links:

How to Tell if Your Church is Welcoming for Transgender People 

Transgender Renaming Service

Being a pastor for trans people

---

Related:

The Bible, Trans People, and Names

Dear Christians: Here's how to ACTUALLY love transgender people (this is a list of links I gathered in 2015- some links are broken now)

The Church is a Safe Place for Awful Beliefs 

How Not To Love

So I Watched Josh Harris's Documentary

Saturday, July 1, 2023

The Great Sex Rescue: More Foreplay

A car driving around in the desert. Image source.

Links to all posts in this series can be found here: Blog series on "The Great Sex Rescue"

---

[content note: sex, sex toys, orgasms]

I have lots to say about chapter 3 of The Great Sex Rescue: The Lies You've Been Taught and How to Recover What God Intended [affiliate link], so this post will just be about the first part (pages 39-50). This chapter is called "Bridging the Orgasm Gap" and it starts out like this:

Which message have you heard more often in church, studies, or Christian books?

  • Do not deprive your husband.
  • Women's sexual pleasure matters.

When I read this, I was like LOLOLOLOL. Of course I've heard "Do not deprive your husband" and I don't know if I've ever heard Christian marriage advice that said "Women's sexual pleasure matters." ("Do not deprive" means you owe him sex, and if you don't have sex enough to meet his manly "needs", you are "depriving" him.) So yeah, this is a HUGE PROBLEM, and I'm glad Gregoire and her co-authors are pointing it out.

Let me explain what they mean by the "orgasm gap": In the authors' survey of 20,000 women, they found that 48% of women were having an orgasm always or almost always, when having sex. They found research papers that said the stat for men would be 90%. So, there is an "orgasm gap" of 42 percentage points. (Now, maybe we could ask some questions about whether it's reasonable to compare these 2 stats- Gregoire's survey respondents were mostly heterosexual married Christian women, and really the group they should be compared to is their husbands, or perhaps men from the same conservative Christian subculture. But anyway, the point is, there really is a gap, and it's a sign that women in this kind of conservative Christian subculture aren't getting what they want out of sex.) I wrote about this idea in this post last year: Here's an article about evangelical women and sex.

Before I get into all my opinions about this section (and I have many!) I want to highlight this part:

Instead of expecting that sex shouldn't take very long, we'd like to offer a new expectation: no man should be satisfied unless his wife is also satisfied. That doesn't mean a wife has to reach orgasm every single time, but the expectation should be that he does everything within his power to help her get there. Ephesians 5:28 says that husbands "ought to love their wives as their own bodies," meaning that her experience should matter to him as much as his own does.

Ooooh, what's this- taking Ephesians 5, the "wives submit to your husbands"/"husbands love your wives" passage, which has been used over and over to tell women they have to stay in abusive relationships- and interpreting it to mean a husband should make sure his wife has an orgasm? Feisty! I love it!!!!

Anyway. This chapter of the book... it keeps saying the answer is that husbands need to do more foreplay... and there's something about that that feels really off, to me. It talks about sex like it consists of "intercourse" and "foreplay", and I don't think the book ever defines "foreplay", but it seems to include: things that feel good sexually for women, things that get women aroused, things that get women ready physically so that PIV [penis-in-vagina sex] is not painful, and things that get women to have orgasms. It feels a bit odd to me that it talks about sex like "intercourse" is the part that men want, and "foreplay" is the part that women want. I don't know, maybe it's just the use of the word "foreplay" that's throwing me off here, because I certainly have things I want to do during sex but I don't conceptualize them as "foreplay". I conceptualize them as, asking for what I want. You know, because we're equals and we should both say what we want during sex, so we can make it a good experience for both of us. But perhaps if you have a husband and wife who think "sex" is just PIV, it can be helpful to introduce the concept of "foreplay" to them as a thing that is important and is separate from intercourse.

But anyway, this chapter kept saying the answer is that the husband needs to do more foreplay, and that feels to me like it misses the point. The way I see it, if they're having sex that doesn't feel good for the wife, and she's not having orgasms, there are 2 different problems it could be:

Problem 1: She has very little experience with masturbation, and little experience with orgasm (maybe she has never had an orgasm) and therefore she really has no idea about how she could go about getting an orgasm. Doesn't really even know where to start (and she believes masturbation is a sin, so she's not even allowed to "start" at all). If she doesn't even know how her own body works, then of course her husband doesn't know either. So both of them have no idea what to even do to make it feel good for her.

Problem 2: She has some ideas of things she would like to try together, but her husband doesn't want to do any of it. He says he's fine with the sex they're having, and he doesn't want to make any changes. Making sex feel good for her is just not a priority for him at all.

And my own experience (hi I'm asexual) is problem 1, so that's the lens I'm reading this through, and feeling like "he needs to do more foreplay" doesn't really address the problem at all. When I read the description of the problem, it reads to me like problem 1, but most of the concrete anecdotes in this chapter are more along the lines of problem 2- for example:

Charlotte from one of our focus groups told us something similar. When she started wondering if sex could feel good for her, too, she began to read some sex books about different techniques to try. When she talked to her husband about it, though, he shut down. He already knew how to have sex, he said. She just needed to catch up. 

Hey, Charlotte read some books and got some ideas of things to try! Good for her! (Though I'm sure that conservative Christians would say that reading such books is a sin- they are probably "secular" books which say that it's okay to have sex outside of marriage, OH THE HORROR- and honestly I don't know Gregoire's position on that, which worries me.) 

("OH THE HORROR" should be read with heavy sarcasm. I had sex before marriage and it was a good decision for me.)

I'm going to talk about problem 1 first. (I also don't think "he needs to do more foreplay" is really the solution to problem 2 either, but we'll get to that.) So. Problem 1. Well let me just come out and say it: The solution for problem 1 is that she needs to spend some time masturbating, so she can at least know what feels good, and what an orgasm is, and get some ideas of things that feel good. And then, she should instruct her husband about how specifically she prefers to have him involved in it.

Or, alternatively, since I'm asexual I'll say this... perhaps she realizes that she doesn't actually want sex at all. Which is totally a valid thing for her to feel, but it may mean she is not sexually compatible with her husband, which is a whole different problem, which aces talk about a lot but I personally can't speak to. Yeah my perspective here is a sex-favorable ace perspective. What if someone figures out they're a sex-repulsed ace, after they get married? That would be a completely different thing than what I'm writing about here. If any readers have experience along those lines and want to leave a comment, that would be great.

But anyway, my point is, if you want to have sex, you need to have experience masturbating. And it weirds me out SO MUCH that this chapter in the book doesn't say that- it just keeps saying the husband needs to do more foreplay. This book is for women coming from a conservative Christian background- they definitely were taught that masturbating is a sin/ masturbating is selfish and therefore bad/ masturbating is cheating. Yes, I really believed that masturbating was cheating on my husband, because all of my sexual experiences are supposed to belong to him, supposed to be centered on him, supposed to flow naturally from my love for him.

So... what is Gregoire's stance on masturbating? I can't figure it out, and it worries me SO MUCH. There's this bit on page 45- "Is this gap simply because women don't orgasm easily? Nope! Research shows that when masturbating, women can reach orgasm in under ten minutes." (They cite a research paper here- this is unrelated to their own survey of 20,000 women.) I don't know how to take that. Does it mean "masturbating is a normal thing that people (for example, married women) do" or does it mean "we're not saying you should actually do this, but it's useful as a data point to prove that it's at least theoretically possible for someone to bring a woman to orgasm in a reasonable amount of time, so your husband shouldn't use that as an excuse"?

All this talk about "he needs to do more foreplay" and not saying anything about a woman actually taking the time to figure out by herself what feels good/ leads to orgasm... it feels so wrong to me. It feels like these authors are saying *I'm* not allowed to figure out how my body works, I have to wait for *my husband* to figure out how my body works. There's something really passive about it that just feels totally wrong.

And, okay, let me tell you something else. I'm autistic. Autistic people often have sensory sensitivities- this means that there are certain sensory stimuli that we just CANNOT STAND, and other stimuli that we LOVE. And for each autistic person, the specific stimuli in each of these 2 categories will be different. It means autistic people can be very picky about how people touch us.

So, here's how it works, if the wife has no experience with masturbating and no clue what would feel good, and she's autistic: So, the husband tries touching "down there" with his fingers. It doesn't feel good for her, so she says "no." Then he tries touching in a different way. It doesn't feel good, so she says "no." And repeat. What if this happens 10 times, and none of them feel good for her? Then what? Does she tell him to just keep trying different things, with no real reason to believe that they're actually making any progress at all? Do they just give up and try again another night? Does she pick which of the 10 was the least bad, and tell him he can do that one?

There's just no way through it, if she's not allowed to masturbate.

It's like, when you're doing a group project, and you assign each person a task. Everyone is supposed to do their own task, and then come back to the next meeting, ready to collaborate and make progress on the next steps they need to do together. What if someone never does any tasks by themself, but only attends meetings? How is anything going to get done? You have to try things out yourself and come to the meeting prepared with some ideas of things that you and your partner can do together.

So when I read this section of the book throwing shade at the idea that "she needs to catch up"- hey, maybe she actually does need to "catch up." If it's problem 1, and if she's not allowed to masturbate, and it has to be her husband doing all the work to figure out how her body works, I just... I mean I'm sitting here writing this post just shaking my head because I can't put into words how much of a bad idea this is. It's just ... they're just never going to make any progress on this at all. If I hadn't masturbated, I would have had to just entirely give up on the whole idea of ever having PIV sex. It was just so unworkable for me back then. (I also had undiagnosed vaginismus, so, there's that.)

(If it's problem 2, on the other hand- if she comes to the meeting prepared with some ideas, and he refuses to work with her- that's an entirely different problem.)

And another thing I recommend: She should try using a sex toy. She can start with a magic wand vibrator for clitoral stimulation. (Disclaimer, different things work for different people- I know there are some people with vaginas who don't find this type of toy useful.) I know some people think there's something "wrong" about using sex toys, like you shouldn't do it because it's not the "right" way to have sex or something- okay, if you believe that, that's fine, but at least at the beginning, when you don't even know what orgasms are, a sex toy can help you at least figure out what you're even trying to do.

And also, if you don't want to use a sex toy because it's not "natural"... Honey, you've been married how many years and you're having sex with this guy and you've never had an orgasm? You need to realize that orgasms are not "natural" for you. If they were, then they would have happened already. It is not going to happen unless you deliberately set out to make it happen. Don't just sit there and wait and have faith in this ridiculous idea that sex is "natural" and orgasms are "natural." Seriously. When I realized I'm ace and therefore sex is not "natural" for me, that's when I was able to start actually doing the work of learning it. That's when I was able to start actually making progress.

I personally don't think there's anything wrong with using a sex toy. Use it every time if you want. Why make extra work for yourself?

It's like, if you're standing at Point A, in a large outdoor area, and you are supposed to walk to Point B. And you ask, "Where is Point B?" And someone tells you, "I don't know, but you'll know it when you see it." How are you ever going to find it? You don't even know what direction to go. If you had to find it just by walking, you'd have to walk all over the place. It would take forever. How about you drive a car? Just to figure out where Point B even is. You drive a car, you can cover a lot more ground and find Point B much faster. And then, once you know where Point B is, next time you may choose to walk from Point A to Point B.

Or, if she's not even allowed to masturbate, then in this metaphor she can't walk, she can just sit in a wagon and her husband can drag her around, asking her "Is this Point B? Is this Point B?" dragging her all over here and there, taking forever, and nothing looks like Point B to her.

Just drive the car!

So, my point is, first of all, she needs to masturbate. And then after that, the next step is she needs to instruct her husband on what she wants him to do. The way I see it, she wants him to participate, but that doesn't necessarily mean he has to be the one who actually directly stimulates her genitals. Imagine a spectrum: 

  • On one extreme end of the spectrum, you have the man doing all of the woman's genital stimulation, while she tells him what to do. 
  • On the other end of the spectrum, she does the genital stimulation herself- the whole process, all the way to orgasm, and he gives her encouragement/affection by cuddling her, complimenting her, etc- whatever way she tells him she wants him to show support for her.
  • And then in between, there are varying degrees of how much he is stimulating her genitals vs how much she is stimulating her own genitals. 
  • But the important thing is, the entire spectrum is about him participating and showing that he cares about her getting an orgasm- and it's about her telling him which forms of participation she wants from him.

The "he needs to do more foreplay" idea from Gregoire et al is just one endpoint of this spectrum. I guess? Well, maybe it's not even a point on this spectrum at all, because what I see from the book doesn't necessarily match my "she knows what she wants, and she tells him what to do" idea.

It suddenly occurs to me that maybe my model here does not really fit how other people think about sex? Maybe it only applies to me. I definitely view it as, like... here is a process, here are the steps in the process, some of these steps are interchangeable and we can decide which ones we want to include on any given night, and there are some overarching goals like "both of us have an orgasm" and some smaller concrete goals like "I want to do this position and that position." Kind of approaching it with a plan... I like to have a plan. I like to have control over things. (I'm really curious about if other aces who have sex also have this kind of view? Is it because I'm ace? Is it because I'm an engineer...?) Whereas, other people talk about sex like it's more... natural and spontaneous... and like you both are discovering it together, open to whatever surprises might come up... 

I'm asexual, so none of this was natural. It took a long time to figure out an overall framework for sex that works for us. So this is my advice for people who want to have sex but have no idea how to have sex.

All right, so that was my advice for problem 1. But what if it's problem 2- the husband just is not willing to do anything differently, and doesn't care that sex doesn't feel good for his wife? Well, I also don't think "he needs to do more foreplay" is the solution- I think she needs to sit him down for a serious talk and say "the way we have sex is just not working for me" and maybe bring in some sex-ed resources that say "sex is not just PIV, sex can be whatever you want- the important thing is that everybody is consenting!" and stats about how women often don't orgasm from PIV alone. The outcome really depends on whether he's willing to listen, and whether he cares about the things that are important to her. 

And if he still isn't willing to make any changes, it would be totally reasonable for her to just stop having sex with him. (Not sure if I should phrase this differently- it's always okay to choose not to have sex with someone. Consent can be withdrawn at any time.) Why should she have sex with him, if he's not willing to put in any effort to make it feel good for her? I'm saying this because Christian marriage advice is always saying that women have to have sex with their husband anyway, even if he's putting in no effort to meet her needs, because "men have needs" and that's non-negotiable. I'm saying, no, you don't have to have sex with someone who isn't willing to make it feel good for you. (Suddenly I am reminded of many a reddit post from men who say "my wife stopped having sex with me for no reason" and then when you dig deeper you find that he totally refused to listen to any of her ideas about the way she wanted to have sex, and that's why she stopped...)

So... I guess then if the conversation goes well, then they can move on to "he needs to do more foreplay", though again, to me something feels off about calling it "foreplay."

All right, so basically my big issue with this section of the book is I'm coming from a "problem 1" perspective, but the book is addressing problem 2. Or, actually, some of these anecdotes seem to be kind of a mix of problems 1 and 2. Some anecdotes in this section in the book are from women who don't really know what feels good, and they want their husband to participate in the process of figuring it out, but he doesn't want to.

So... then I wonder to myself, "maybe it's okay that the book is only talking about problem 2, because I'm the only person with problem 1. I'm the only person naive enough to not even know how to masturbate." But, that's also not right, because I read Gregoire's blog, and she often gets comments from women saying "I've been married for years and I've never had an orgasm" and she offers them advice. It seems that's one of the main groups that her blog is targeting. And she never seems to tell them "you need to masturbate."

Here's an example: In a November 9, 2022 post on Gregoire's blog, When He Deliberately Ignores Your Pleasure: What to Do When Sex Has Become One-Sided, Gregoire answers a reader's comment about how the reader and her husband just really don't know how to get her an orgasm, and her husband has lost the motivation to keep trying. Gregoire's answer is about how sex is supposed to be something that both people enjoy, and a man shouldn't expect his wife to be willing to keep having sex that doesn't feel good for her. So they should take a step back and really prioritize figuring out what works for her.

In the comment section, the first comment is from a reader named Chris, who says:

In the case of the original letter writer, this is one of the few times where I would advise her to get a vibrator and learn to have an orgasm through masturbation. It’s very clear that she has not had one. This makes it extremely difficult if not out right impossible for her husband to get her there. Since her husband doesn’t know what to do and she doesn’t know how to teach him. Because “there” isn’t defined. This is going to leave him wandering aimlessly around her body. Now, a man who had been married previously to someone else or a man who has had a lot of partners will have a better sense of how to guide her to this place she’s never been but not by a lot. In short, a skilled lover would struggle in this situation, and her husband is not a skilled lover. No doubt many women will respond with “oh no no, a skilled lover would have her at orgasm quickly”. No, womens bodies are all very, very, different in what brings them to orgasm. You can do something to one woman that gives her instant fireworks, but the next woman? Ya she doesn’t want to be touched that way at all. Each one is very different.

Yes! I agree with Chris! This is exactly what I've been trying to say in this post. 

But another commenter, Suzanne, replies to Chris to say "You are making this a her problem not a their problem." Uh... I think no progress can be made until she spends time masturbating... but that is a very different thing than saying he doesn't have any responsibility to care about if sex feels good for her.

And then later down the thread, Gregoire says:

Yes, we did talk to quite a few women who used toys to learn how to orgasm, but then their husbands insisted on keeping using them, because bringing their wives to orgasm themselves “was too hard” and “took too much time.” It’s one of the reasons I’m reluctant to advise using them, because I get so many women saying, “my husband prefers to just use technology rather than try to figure me out!”

I wasn't aware that this could be a pitfall of using sex toys. Gregoire has a lot of experience talking to married women about their sexual problems, so I guess it is a real thing.

But... in that kind of situation, the real problem is the man isn't willing to participate in things that are important to the woman during sex. Banning sex toys and masturbation doesn't really solve that problem, it just makes the wife's orgasms and knowledge of her own body dependent on how much effort the husband wants to put in, which seems like an even worse situation to be in, in my opinion.

And, I have some suggestions. It doesn't have to be all-or-nothing with the sex toy. You could do any of the following things:

  • the husband does all of the wife's genital stimulation, without using a sex toy, all the way to orgasm (apparently this is how Gregoire and her co-authors think it should work)
  • the husband does things to her with his hands for a while, and then when they're ready to finish, he uses a sex toy on her, so that she can reliably get an orgasm and the stuff with his hands didn't have to have that "pressure" of whether or not it's leading to orgasm
  • the wife uses the sex toy on herself, while the husband cuddles her and encourages her. (Some anecdotes in the book or the blog were from women who were unhappy because her husband would just roll over and ignore her when he was finished, and she would just masturbate by herself. I agree that most people would want their partner to participate rather than ignore them, so if that's what she wants, then it's WRONG that her husband acts like he doesn't have to care about her orgasm. So my suggestion is, she can use the sex toy and masturbate while he still participates and shows he cares about her. Him participating doesn't mean he has to literally be the one who is directly stimulating her genitals.)

See? Many options! As an exercise for the reader, you can try brainstorming other variations to add to this list. Figure out what works for you and your partner! 

WAIT! I just thought of something! Here's a hypothesis to consider: Maybe there's some standard technique for using one's hands on one's partner's vulva/vagina/clit, and this Standard Technique works well for most people with vaginas, and that's what people are talking about when they say things like "he is a skilled lover." Hmm. Wow that would explain why people talk about things in this way. Like it just works right out off the shelf, if you have a partner who is a "good lover." Hmm. Fascinating hypothesis I have just come up with. And if Partner A is doing things with their fingers, and it's not working for Partner B, it might be because Partner A is bad at the Standard Technique, or it might be because the Standard Technique doesn't work on Partner B's body. Perhaps if either of them has experience having sex with someone else, they can have a point of comparison and they can figure out which of them is the problem, so to say. (Honestly I don't think either possibility is actually a "problem" they should feel bad about.) But don't do that, there's no need to figure out which side the problem is on, because the solution is the same either way: Partner B has to masturbate and figure out what works, and then teach Partner A the very detailed directions about how to do it. Or, alternatively, Partner B could just do it on themself, while Partner A shows affection in other ways.

All right, one more thing I want to say: A few of the anecdotes in this book are from women who say the husband loses interest in using his hands on her genitals, if he thinks it's taking too long. For example, she needs 15-20 minutes, and he complains that it's taking too long and his hands are tired. And basically, the authors' response to this is, if the husband (or wife) thinks, "this is taking too long, therefore we will just stop and the wife will just not have an orgasm" that's not okay. (I agree, this is not okay- I'm assuming that she wants to have an orgasm.) But... I kind of want to talk about how the husband feels... if he feels like it's taking too long, it's boring, he doesn't want to do it... I hope that the couple can find a way to have sex when nobody ends up feeling that way.

I really don't know how to talk about this, because the gendered double standard is so deeply internalized. Gregoire has a really good blog post about double standards here: The Double Standards of Sexual Expectations in Marriage. Every single one of them is spot-on. Conservative Christian women are taught that sex has to entirely revolve around the husband, and her job as a wife is to make every part of it a perfect experience for him. You have to have sex even if it's painful, even if you're tired, even if you've spent the entire day sitting there with a newborn baby biting your nipples- none of those are a good enough excuse to say "no", because "men need it." And you have to act like you're really enjoying it, and you can't tell him you don't like the way he's doing it, because that will ruin his manly self-confidence. And so on.

There's this double standard where women are supposed to go the extra mile and make sure the entire experience of sex is perfect for the man, even if the woman is in pain, while men aren't really expected to put any effort into caring about whether the woman is enjoying it. And so I feel like, in this context, we can't even have a productive conversation about "hey if the husband has to do things on her with his hands for 20 minutes and it's boring for him, shouldn't we come up with a solution so he doesn't have to feel that way?" I'm afraid if we even try to ask that question, it will immediately collapse into "anything that mildly inconveniences a man is not acceptable, and the wife will just have to accept that it won't be a good experience for her because that's just the way it is."

In an ideal world, it would work like this: You have 2 people, and they are equals. (Or if you're polyamorous, it could be more than 2.) Each person communicates about what things they want to do sexually. They discuss/negotiate, and come up with a basic outline that will work for both of them. This outline will include things that they both really enjoy, and might include some things that one person enjoys and the other doesn't like that much but is willing to do sometimes. But the non-negotiables are, it will NOT include anything that's painful (unless you're into BDSM and you want that), and it will not include anything that either of them hates. And, both partners will get an orgasm (unless they are not interested in getting an orgasm).

And, importantly, they should not take PIV as the "default" way to have sex. They should both say what they want, and make a plan based on that. They should NOT start out with, "well it has to be PIV, because that's what sex is, and then I guess we can add a few extra frills because the wife wants that, she's kinda needy." No. They are equals, and what matters is what they want, not anybody else's rules about how they're "supposed" to have sex. (Though yes, I do realize that I am also making rules here- nobody has to do anything that's painful, and both people get an orgasm. Hmm.)

So, for example, maybe the wife says it's important to her that they spend quality time with the husband doing things on her with his hands. And the husband says, he is okay with doing that sometimes, but not every time. So, the conclusion they reach is, sometimes he will do that, and sometimes they will use a sex toy to get her to orgasm faster. Or, maybe there is some way they could make the experience better for him, like maybe listening to music while he does it.

Plenty of options. 

What's NOT okay, though, is "the husband doesn't feel like doing this, therefore the wife is just not going to have an orgasm and that's that" or "the husband doesn't want to spend time on foreplay, so they will just do PIV when the wife is not aroused enough, and it will be painful for her." Like, the idea it's unreasonable for the wife to ask for these bare-minimum things (having an orgasm, and not being in pain)- NOT OKAY. Do cis straight men ever consent to sex where they know they might not have an orgasm, and might be in pain? Nobody expects cis straight men to do that. These are bare-minimum things. (The exception is, if they just have no idea how to get the wife to have an orgasm. It only makes sense as a "bare minimum" requirement if they have a reliable method that can get there.)

If you can have this conversation starting from a place of "we are equals", then it will work. But I worry that, for conservative Christian women, the double standard is so internalized, it's not even possible to have this "we both say what we want" conversation in a healthy way. Maybe if you're at that place, you do need to replace rules like "sex is PIV, and if the wife doesn't want to because it's painful, too bad, she has to do it anyway" with rules like "the husband has to spend as long as it takes, using his hands or mouth, to get her to orgasm." (Please note, I am NOT saying these rulesets are equally bad. The first is WAY WORSE than the second. No contest there.) But hopefully people will be able to move beyond that, to a place where they don't want to make their partner do things their partner is not into, AND they believe that- in the exact same way- they don't have to do things they're not into.

(It's like what I said in this post, about "hiding behind God" when making your arguments, because you don't have the self-confidence to argue from a place of "this is what I want, and that matters.")

I have no idea how this blog post got so long. [Editor's note: Actually she does.] I have a lot to say. See, this is why I divided this chapter into 2 parts.

Anyway, in conclusion: It feels weird to me that this chapter spends so much time talking about "he needs to do more foreplay" as the solution to the "orgasm gap." It really bothers me that I don't know Gregoire's and the other authors' beliefs about masturbation- maybe they think it's a sin? I know their audience was taught that it's a sin, and so I really think they need to address that. If masturbation is not an option, and the only solution is "he needs to do more foreplay", well first of all that would never have worked for me, and second, it feels like they're saying the wife is not allowed to figure out her own body, she has to just hope her husband will figure our her body. 

Instead, my advice is to take control, take deliberate steps to learn what feels good, and then instruct your partner about what role you would like them to play in it. It doesn't have to be that the husband is the one directly doing the wife's genital stimulation. There are other ways he can participate. Whatever works for her. 

---

Links to all posts in this series can be found here: Blog series on "The Great Sex Rescue"

Related:

Here's an article about evangelical women and sex

I Wanna Preach the Good News of Masturbation 

My Husband Is Not The Entire Focus Of My Sex Life 

Scripts

AddThis

ShareThis