 |
| A pride parade. Image source. |
Links to all posts in this series can be found here: Blog series on "The Great Sex Rescue"
---
We are still in chapter 10 of The Great Sex Rescue: The Lies You've Been Taught and How to Recover What God Intended [affiliate link]. I've split up this chapter into 3 parts; this post will cover the last part, pages 197 to 198.
So, this is the last little bit of chapter 10, a chapter which has had a lot of very important things to say about marital rape, consent, coercion, and painful sex. I'm reading along, basically agreeing with the whole chapter, feeling sad for how Christian culture makes it necessary to say these things which should be very obvious... and then we get to this last part, about "Holding Your No Responsibly." It's a little 1-page section about how you can't just not consent to sex forever; there's a "tension" because "we are also the only proper sexual outlet our spouse has." (They make an exception for abuse though- if your spouse is abusive, you don't have to work your way toward being able to consent to sex.)
Take a look at this bit:
If your no relates to something the vast majority of people consider a healthy part of a sexual life, such as intercourse or touching various parts of the body, seek appropriate professional help so that if you're healthy and it is possible, your no can turn to a not yet, but soon.
O.O
Give me a minute to pick my jaw up from the floor.
...
Okay.
So, my first reaction to this is, oh my, this whole chapter has had such important and true things to say about rape and coercion, and then suddenly there's this. I very much disagree with this. They're saying that if you're married and your spouse wants to do some sexual thing that most people see as very normal, well, basically you do have to do it. You don't have to do it every single time they ask for it, but overall, in general, you do have to be doing it.
It should be very obvious why I- as an asexual- do not like this!
But, let me step back for a moment and say I do understand why Gregoire and the other authors of "The Great Sex Rescue" are saying this. One of the common criticisms she gets is from men who don't like her message of "it's wrong to coerce your wife into having sex", because, these men say, how can you ever get your wife to have sex if you don't coerce her? (In other words, these men are announcing to everyone that they are bad at sex, and they can't imagine any woman would actually *want* to have sex with them.) So they criticize Gregoire and say that her message will lead to sexless marriages.
As we saw in chapter 8, Gregoire doesn't think it's okay to have a sexless marriage. So there is a "tension", as the book says here. On the one hand, consent is hugely important! It's not okay to coerce or rape anyone. But on the other hand, you [supposedly] can't just never have sex with your spouse. (Unless your spouse is abusive.) So... how does this work?
I think the way she solves this contradiction is like this: If you have a healthy marriage, if you treat each other right, if you both treat each other as equals during sex and care about it being a good experience for both of you, THEN both spouses will naturally enjoy sex and want to have sex- you won't have a situation where one of them doesn't want to have sex.
This is just simply not right. Asexuals exist. Gay people exist- what if it's a gay person married to an opposite-sex spouse?
But anyway, that's the motivation for this bit of "The Great Sex Rescue." Apparently, a sexless marriage would be so incredibly bad, and we must reassure everyone that if they follow our advice correctly, such a dreadful outcome will not happen. Uh, okay.
This is one of the main things I've criticized about this book- the way it tries to make everyone fit into this narrow heteronormative allonormative ideal (ie, everyone is straight, and no one is asexual). If you're married, you have to be straight and you have to have PIV [penis-in-vagina] sex. I was actually really shocked to see this part of the book say it so directly- if it's "something the vast majority of people consider a healthy part of a sexual life" then in the long run, you do need to consent to it... I just... wow.
I agree that it would suck if you get married expecting to have sex with your spouse, and then your spouse discovers that they are asexual and they never want to have sex.
It would also suck if you get married expecting that you will enjoy sex, because everyone always talks about how it's the best thing ever, even though it doesn't make any intuitive sense, but you assume that it will become more clear when you're actually doing it, and then you figure out you're asexual and you don't want sex at all, and then what do you do about your spouse expecting to have sex with you frequently?
It would also suck if you get married, to an opposite-sex partner, and then you discover you are gay.
What all of these scenarios have in common is people not being allowed to explore and know themselves before marriage. In purity culture, you're not supposed to have any sexual experience before marriage, and you have to repress your sexual desires as best you can. You can't know yourself; your Christian leaders dictate to you what your desires will be. You go into marriage just assuming that you're sexually "normal" and that your spouse is "normal"... you have to assume this, because you're not allowed to gather any information that can help you get a more accurate read on it.
So what do you do if you then discover that you and your spouse are not sexually compatible? "The Great Sex Rescue"'s solution is that the partner who is farther from "normal" is the one who needs to change. (Okay the book doesn't use the word "normal." The one who is farther from "the vast majority of people" needs to change.)
I very much disagree with this. Why does it matter what "the vast majority of people" think? You're in a monogamous marriage- "the vast majority of people" are not involved in your sex life at all; it's just the two of you. And you both equally matter, and ideally you can discuss it and invent some sequence of sexual and/or intimate actions that you both enjoy, regardless of how close they are to "the vast majority of people." Or, unfortunately, sometimes people do break up because of this. But regardless, the idea that you should just automatically rule in favor of the partner whose desires are closer to "the vast majority of people" is not a good solution.
I will say, however, that I believe there is value in at least being aware of what is "normal." I don't really like it when people (queer people, sex educators, etc) say there is no normal, normal doesn't matter, and things like that. I guess because I'm coming from an extremely sheltered purity-culture background... when I hear people say that you shouldn't even care what's normal, that normal doesn't matter at all, it sounds to me like this kind of scenario: Someone who is so sheltered that they don't know anything at all about the practical ways that people have sex. They've never watched porn, never masturbated- they heard that women sometimes fake orgasms, but they're confused about how that would even work- like, how do you even know what an orgasm is supposed to be like, in order to fake it? All they know is their own desires. And then their partner says they want to do some sexual thing- and it's something that the more sheltered partner has NEVER heard of. It seems to come out of nowhere, and they have no context for understanding whether it's reasonable or not. And all they know is this very theoretical "normal doesn't matter, only your desires and your partner's desires", no practical experience at all... How can you make a good decision about whether to consent or not?
(Reminds me of the part in "50 Shades of Gray" where Ana was researching BDSM on her computer, to decide if she wanted to enter into a contract about it. Like WHOA, SLOW DOWN, she has no experience with sex at all- she should definitely NOT be entering into a BDSM contract. This is NOT the kind of decision you can make by just reading stuff on the internet. That scene really freaked me out a lot, because I am one of those "reading about everything on the internet" people, and I can easily imagine an alternate universe where I falsely believed that my internet research made me totally ready to do sexual things that I definitely would not actually want.)
It's useful to have a general idea of the landscape of what's "normal." (And I think I shouldn't necessarily blame the people who say you shouldn't care about "normal" at all- they were likely not thinking about the possibility that someone could be so sheltered they really don't even know what "normal" is.) Or, going beyond that, to see examples of practical ways that this plays out in people's actual lives, even if it's different from "normal." If you're ace, it is very helpful to hear from other aces about their experiences and their choices and what works for them- just to give you an idea of what the possibilities are, and help you figure out what choices you want to make. That's more helpful than the very theoretical "you can do whatever you want, as long as you and your partner both consent."
If you're extremely sheltered, and your partner suggests something, and it sounds so weird and you're not sure about it- if it's something that many people enjoy doing, then maybe you decide to try it and see if you like it. Obviously you don't *have* to, but this is useful information to help you decide. But if it's something like, your partner wants to hurt you during sex, and your first reaction is "I hate this idea, but... I should care about what my partner wants, so I should at least consider it..." then it could be very helpful to know that most people would say no to that.
The problem, of course, is that there can be things that are seen as normal even though they are unhealthy. People think it's normal if the man has an orgasm and the woman doesn't. People think it's normal if sex is painful for women. Believing that something is more likely to be reasonable/healthy because it's "normal" can be a problem! Still, I think it's better to at least know what "normal" is, and use that as a reference point, than to have no reference point at all.
In summary: I very much disagree with this line from "The Great Sex Rescue," which says you ultimately need to consent to something if "the vast majority of people" think it's normal. This idea is a result of not being allowed to have sex or explore your own desires before marriage, and it very much does NOT work for aces and/or queer people.
---
One more interesting thing from the end of chapter 10:
Using a code word can help both of you know that you are staying within each other's boundaries while giving you an easy way to speak up if you're getting uncomfortable. Choose a code word that will mean "I'd like to stop now," whether it's uncle or something innocuous, like pineapple or Appalachian. Then, when you hear that code word, stop what you're doing. Reassure one another of your love, and decide together what you want to do next. While code words are great tools for healthy marriages, they will not stop an abusive spouse from harming you. Again, if you are in an abusive marriage, please enlist outside professional help.
Yes, this is a good idea! And I also think it's really good that they said this won't help if your spouse is abusive. I can easily imagine someone in a bad relationship, reading a lot of books, looking for some little trick that will make their relationship better, when the truth is that if your partner is not interested in having a healthy relationship, there is literally no way to fix it on your own.
But here's why I'm pointing out this paragraph and blogging about it: Umm, what they're talking about here is called a safe word. The book calls it a "code word," but this is the exact same thing as a safe word. Why don't they call it a safe word????? I am FASCINATED by this question.
I *guess* it's because safe words are related to BDSM, and there's a very real risk that good evangelical Christians will attack this book if they find out that it mentions something related to BDSM. You know how evangelicals are about that kind of thing- getting all culture-war-y, blowing things way out of proportion rather than engaging with what's actually being said.
Anyway, the advice about safe words is good. Too bad they didn't actually call it a "safe word" though.
---
Links to all posts in this series can be found here: Blog series on "The Great Sex Rescue"
Related:
The Great Sex Rescue: The Chapter Where It's Not Okay To Be Asexual
No comments:
Post a Comment