 |
| Stock photo of a woman picking up laundry from the floor while a man sits there doing nothing. Image source. |
Links to all posts in this series can be found here: Blog series on "The Great Sex Rescue"
---
We are now in the second part of chapter 9 of The Great Sex Rescue: The Lies You've Been Taught and How to Recover What God Intended [affiliate link], pages 162-178. This section is about obligation sex- when a wife feels that she is obligated to have sex with her husband, because "men need it," and that is more important than any of her needs or desires.
I'm really glad to see "The Great Sex Rescue" speaking out against "obligation sex"! It's a very bad teaching, and it's EVERYWHERE in evangelical marriage ideology.
This section starts off by talking about the authors' focus groups, where they talked to women who had been harmed by the "obligation sex" message:
Almost all of them said that their husbands never gave them the obligation-sex message themselves. Their husbands didn't see sex as something they were owed or entitled to take, but instead as a gift for them to share together. Their husbands saw the importance of honoring their wives' no-- they just never knew she didn't feel free to say it! Each of these husbands empowered their wives by saying what they had been thinking all along: "You are allowed to say no, and in fact, I want you to say no if you're uncomfortable, because I don't want sex to be something you don't want to do."
Yeah, this is very real. Women are the ones being taught this "obligation sex" ideology in church, and a man might not even realize this teaching exists or how much of an impact it is having on his wife.
And... yes, I agree with the advice that men should explicitly say that they don't want their wife to feel she is forced to have sex- but I think it's more complicated than that. It's very likely that a woman from an evangelical background simply won't believe her husband when he says that. She may interpret it as "he's saying that if I can't fake like I'm enjoying it, it ruins his experience of sex- so I need to do a better job of faking my enthusiasm." Or "he actually thinks 'you're obligated to have sex with me, because of my manly needs, and if you don't do it good enough, you're not holding up your end of the deal' but he's a good person and he knows he can't say that out loud because it sounds rapey." Or "he wants to be the kind of loving partner who is okay with not forcing me into painful sex, but he underestimates the reality of his manly needs- even though he says it's okay for me to say no, he doesn't realize that that's not sustainable for him in the long term, that it's just not going to work."
Yes, evangelical women have been taught for their entire lives that "this is how men are." Then they marry a man who turns out to be a way better person than that- and it's just unbelievable. (Or, alternatively, they marry an abusive man, and they believe that's totally normal, that's how men are.)
From an asexual perspective: Yes, this is something that is debated in the ace community and/or debated by people who may or may not be supportive of aces. Some people argue that "if you're ace and your partner is not, then your partner *needs* sex, so you need to 'compromise' and have sex with them." It's a very similar argument to the Christian ideology about "men need sex, and women JUST CAN'T POSSIBLY UNDERSTAND, because women don't really like sex- so a wife is obligated to have unwanted sex with her husband."
I basically already gave my opinion on this in the previous post- basically, my advice is DON'T have sex if it's a bad experience for you. Just totally refuse. Draw the line there. If it's a positive experience, that's great. If it's a neutral experience, that's also okay- I know that's the reality that some aces are in, and it's not necessarily bad. And also, you have more options than just "have sex" or "don't have sex"- you should discuss with your partner what kinds of sexual or intimate actions you want to do together, to create a good experience for both of you. (For example, if PIV [penis-in-vagina] is painful, then don't do PIV. If you want your partner to give you a non-sexual massage, well definitely tell them that, and add that in to your "scene.")
But... speaking from personal experience, I didn't actually believe "if PIV is painful, then don't do PIV" was an actual option. It just didn't seem possible, that I could be in a hetero relationship, where we love each other, where we've already had sex (so there aren't any "purity" concerns), and I just refuse to ever do PIV.
And I took on the challenge of learning how to do it, how to work with my vaginismus (though I didn't know at the time that it was vaginismus), and I'm glad I did that because it led to me understanding my body better. But at the same time, one of the motivating factors was obligation- "men need it"- and I wish it hadn't been that way. Anyway, it's complicated, but that's what happened in my actual real life, and I don't have a tidy conclusion about "this is what I should have done instead."
Moving along to the next section I want to quote from "The Great Sex Rescue":
Sex is not the only need in the marriage relationship, and sometimes other needs must take precedence.
Much current teaching, though, elevates his need for intercourse above any of her needs. ...
The message that "whatever you are feeling doesn't matter, you need to have intercourse with your spouse" erases you as a person. It says that who you are, including your wants, desires, and feelings, doesn't matter. Then sex, which is supposed to be this deep knowing, becomes something far different. It's saying, "I don't want to know you, because your needs and desires are actually unimportant to me. I only want to use you."
Okay, yeah, this is a good point. Generally I don't agree with anyone saying that "sex is supposed to be" this or that, because everyone has their own life and it can mean different things to different people- so I would put this differently, but yeah.
Here's how I would put it:
When I was a teenager, and I heard about controversy about teaching sex ed in school... Well yeah, basically my understanding of sex ed was "we don't want you to have sex, avoid it if possible, but if you do have sex, at least use a condom." The background assumption was that it's so easy to have sex, so obvious how to do it, and of course we all desire it, so there's no need to actually talk about any details about how to do it- we only need to talk about how to NOT do it, or how to minimize the risk of pregnancy and STDs.
Years later, as a feminist, I found a whole different concept of what "sex ed" is: There's so much to learn and discover. There's so much potential for pleasure. Your body belongs to you, and it's good and wonderful to explore your body and understand your body. Go read about all sorts of things: orgasms, masturbation, sex toys, BDSM, etc. Maybe you'll find something you want to try.
Instead of "don't have sex, but if you do, at least use a condom," it was viewing sex as a variety of potentially-positive experiences which could enrich your life, if you have access to good information about how to do them in a way that's enjoyable and healthy. (And a VERY IMPORTANT part of that is learning about CONSENT.) Like a positive thing to learn about, rather than a negative thing to avoid as much as possible.
And, yeah I'm asexual, so I understand if some aces aren't really interested in learning about any of that. That's fine- don't let anyone pressure you into reading about stuff you don't want to read about. And, of course there's a difference between reading vs seeing images vs actually doing things. And a difference between intellectual curiosity vs fantasy vs actually desiring to do something in real life.
(I'm a sex-favorable asexual; I would be interested in hearing from sex-repulsed or sex-indifferent aces because they probably have a different perspective on this.)
Anyway. As I've said in other posts about "The Great Sex Rescue," the way I view it now is to know yourself and know what you want, and communicate with your partner to invent some sequence of intimate/sexual acts which are going to be a good experience overall for both of you. It should be positive and enjoyable. It should be about saying what you want, and believing that that matters.
And then I think back to how marital sex was presented in the Christian marriage books I read, years ago... how extremely negative it sounds to me now. Like "yeah you're a woman so you won't really like it, but just remember that you really love your husband, and that should give you the strength to power through this painful experience." [That's my paraphrase, not a quote from anywhere.] Like sex was this one specific thing- not something you could have your own preferences about, and customize to fit your own desires- and wives must do it even though it's not enjoyable. And that's what marriage is.
("The Great Sex Rescue" definitely talks about how sex can and should be so much better than that, but doesn't give any useful practical tips for how to get there- only that the husband should do more foreplay. They don't say women should masturbate to figure out what feels good. They don't say sex doesn't have to be PIV. They don't say you can maybe try sex toys. It's just "he needs to do foreplay" and that's it. So, I don't find that useful.)
Good Christian girls are taught that that's what sex is. But since I'm queer, I've found out that sex can be so much better than that- when it's something that you choose, something that you make the way you want it. And the farther I get from that ideology, the more I'm shocked at how extremely ****ed up it is. How bleak a picture they paint of sex- even though they also say it's "a beautiful gift from God" and if you follow all the rules correctly (be straight, don't have premarital sex, etc) then your sex life will be perfect.
You know I don't like it when people say "sex is supposed to be" whatever, but: sex is supposed to be a good experience that you create together with your partner. Not something that some authority figure sets the parameters for, and then you're required to do it to be a "good wife", even though you won't like it. Oh it can be so much better than that.
Okay, I realize this blog series is supposed to be my asexual take on "The Great Sex Rescue," and this stuff I just said about "sex can be so much better than that" probably doesn't sound very asexual, but yeah that's how I really feel, so there it is. Obviously if you're ace and you don't want to have sex at all, I totally support that. I support everyone knowing themself and figuring out what they want, and confidently believing that their feelings and desires should matter.
So, back to "The Great Sex Rescue." This section is mainly about the idea that men's "sexual needs" are more important than any need that a wife may have, and there are a bunch of anecdotes along those lines. I'll highlight a few things from these anecdotes:
Rebecca Lindenbach, one of the co-authors of the book, talks about how she experienced pain during sex for a long time after giving birth. Her husband supported her and gave her the time she needed to heal, and didn't pressure her into sex. When she pressured herself into sex, because of her concerns about his "needs", he said "I'm not interested in anything that causes you pain" and he didn't consent to sex then.
Here's a good line about Lindenbach's husband, Connor:
In fact, as he says, he never even viewed it as "his" sexual needs that were put on hold, but "our" sexual needs.
Yes, this is what men should do. If sex is painful for your partner, then don't do it that way. Find some workaround that you both can enjoy, and/or just don't have sex for a while.
Conservative Christian marriage ideology teaches that it's not possible for a man to love like that.
Here's a section from another anecdote, also about a woman who had postpartum sexual pain:
[content note: her husband is coercive and doesn't care about her pain]
My husband has a very fundamentalistic view of the Bible, and I think he would like me to suffer through the pain and fulfill my duty for his sake. ...
It is interesting to me that when it is my body that got injured during birth (pelvic organ prolapse) and my body that now experiences pain during intercourse-- he acts as if he is the only one hurting. I know he loves me, but I feel so objectified. The fact that my husband wants me to have sex with him despite intense pain disgusts me, and I really question who I chose to marry.
The authors of "The Great Sex Rescue" say this about the above anecdote:
How did we get to a point where the husband thinks he is biblically justified to expect her to "suffer through the pain" to "fulfill my duty for his sake"? Maybe because books have intimated exactly that when they give the obligation-sex message with no caveats.
Yes, they are exactly right. This is exactly what Christian marriage books teach- wives need to have sex with their husbands. Even if you don't want to, even if it's painful, men need it, so you have to. Of course this results in horrible situations where a woman is in extreme pain and nobody cares about her, they only care about if her husband is having enough orgasms.
And even as I read these stories, I feel like... I've internalized this obligation-sex ideology so much, that I'm not even confident I can argue that a man's "sexual needs" are NOT more important than a wife's need to not be in pain. I ... I'm not a man, what do I know... what if it *is* true that a man's need to have an orgasm is more of a big deal than women's sexual pain? That's what all the good Christian role models said- how can I claim that they're wrong, since I don't have the experience of being a man? How can the authors of "The Great Sex Rescue" argue for that?
I mean, it's misogynist bullshit, is what it is, and that is really obvious... and yet... this is what I've always heard from Christians, and I've internalized it to the extent I'm like "but how do we really know it's wrong?"
Ugh.
Anyway, another anecdote from the book. This one is from a woman with a high-risk pregnancy, who was ordered by her doctor to be on bed rest, but she's concerned about her poor husband's sexual needs. And, yeah, the authors of "The Great Sex Rescue" point out how ridiculous it is. Everyone's first priority in this situation should be the pregnant woman's health, and the unborn baby's health. The husband's "sexual needs" don't even come close to that level of importance. But women in this ideology feel like they have to put their own health at risk, and their unborn baby's health, because "men need it." It's so ****ed up.
Then there's a section about the "do not deprive" verses in 1 Corinthians 7, which are some of the key bible verses that are always used to argue for this "wives are required to have unwanted sex" ideology. The book already addressed these verses in chapter 3, so I won't go into a ton of detail here, but I like this quote:
Can you imagine any other area of life in which God would tell a person, "You have the right to use someone else for your own gratification, even if it causes physical or emotional pain"? Or in which he would tell a woman, "It pleases me when your husband acts selfishly toward you"?
PREACH!
So, that sums up the second part of chapter 9 of "The Great Sex Rescue." Basically I agree with what the authors are saying here. It's extremely messed-up that Christian marriage advice teaches that women are obligated to have unwanted sex because men's "needs" are SO IMPORTANT.
---
Links to all posts in this series can be found here: Blog series on "The Great Sex Rescue"
Related:
He Just Loves Me (a post about Sex, Pregnancy, and My "Wifely Duty")
6 Ways Purity Culture Did NOT Teach Me About Consent
Let me tell you about a fanfic that reminded me of my marriage
No comments:
Post a Comment