An article entitled “8 Ways to
Confront Your Wife’s Sexual Refusal” (http://www.donotlink.com/fc0m)
has been making the rounds online, both by enthusiastic endorsers and by those
criticizing it. It’s on a site called “Biblical Gender Roles” and is written,
as can be gathered, from a stringently conservative Christian perspective. The
article, in its entirety, is a striking example of everything that makes such a
worldview abusive, vile, and emotionally toxic—both to the self and to others.
The author outlines a plan of
escalating punishments that a “Christian” husband should inflict upon his wife
if she regularly chooses not to respond to his advances (the author seems to
assume that women are never the initiators, and that they should not be). He
adds a quick qualifier to assure the reader that he’s not suggesting physical
abuse, but his suggestions seem to stop just short of that. They still amount
to abusive behavior, even if it’s not physically so. He recommends that the
husband first “rebuke her privately.” This doesn’t mean trying to have an open
discussion about why she seems to lack an interest in sex. It means castigating
her for it and accusing her of sinning both against him and God (which makes it
sound like his omnipotent father wants to be involved in their sex
life).
The author prefaces, “This assumes you have already on several occasions
tried speaking gently to her about this issue. You have tried time and time
again to find out if there is anything you can help her with, and anything you
can do different.” He is not recommending that, though. He’s
talking out of both sides of his mouth. On one hand, he implies that the
“rebuking” should only occur if the husband has already tried to work things
out peacefully. But on the other, he also says, “What I am addressing here is the
wife who consistently and routinely denies her husband sexually simply because
she does not need sex as much or she thinks she should not have to do it except
when she is in the mood or she thinks her husband should have to earn sex with
her by “putting her in the mood” by doing various things she expects or likes…A
wife cannot flatly refuse her husband, she may only ask for a delay (a
raincheck) and then she needs to make good on that raincheck as soon as
possible.” In another
paragraph he states, “A
husband ought not to feel guilty for having sex with his wife when she is not
in the mood if she yields, even grudgingly.” (If
he’s even capable of enjoying it when she’s clearly not, and if he deliberately
fazes out her distress, then he’s selfish at best and abusive at worst. No
wonder she doesn’t want him).
The author is
saying that the hypothetical husband has no obligation to try to “put her in
the mood,” but that his wife has an obligation to passively agree to unwanted
sex. He doesn’t consider the painfully obvious fact that trying to please her will probably yield the results he hopes
for, or at least make it a lot more likely. He does not see women as sexual
beings, or even as people. He regards them purely as receptacles and encourages
all husbands to take this same approach. And having sex with someone who
clearly doesn’t want to amounts to rape. But since wives apparently exist to
serve husbands, that’s nothing to feel any kind of remorse about.
The second step is
to “rebuke her before witnesses,” such as a marriage counselor (although he
specifies that it should only be a Christian one, presumably because they’re
less likely to object to the “rebuking”). The third step is to bring her before
the church; to have a pastor lecture her about her sexual obligations if she
won’t concede to you. The author states here, “At any one of these points, your
wife could have threatened to leave, or has already left. You may be separated
or in divorce proceedings.” In that case, why
would you still be trying to sleep with her?
Steps four, five,
and six are as follows: “Stop taking her on dates or trips.” “No unnecessary
household upgrades.” “Stop doing the little extra things” (such as housework,
which the author firmly states is solely the wife’s responsibility, and giving
her massages). In other words, emotionally freeze her out and stop being nice
to her, because that will definitely win her over. Not that people in this
situation should be looking at it from a purely self-interested perspective of
“how do I get what I want?”, but the author clearly cannot
think past that point and assumes no other man can, either.
The seventh step
is, if possible, even more insidious: Remove her funding. “This step may only
work if your wife does not have her own income. Change your bank account so her ATM card becomes worthless.
Cancel your credit cards.” This brand of theology almost always demands that
the wife be unemployed and completely financially dependent upon her husband,
so doing this would be an even further act of isolation and abuse. If she’s so
restricted that she can’t even spend any money without her husband’s
permission, it’s no surprise that she might choose to reject him physically.
That may be the only possible expression of autonomy she has.
The last resort he
suggests is to divorce her for “sexual immorality.” He references this earlier
by saying, “Sacrificing yourself for your wife, as Christ sacrificed himself
for the church does not mean toleration of this kind of sin on the part of your
wife. Many counselors throw out the “husbands you just need to sacrifice
yourself for your wife like Christ did the church” but they don’t tell you WHY Christ sacrificed himself for the Church.” (Following
this line of thinking, it sounds like he’d say, “Because the church wouldn’t have
sex with him.”)
The author insists
that this is “discipline”, rather than manipulation. He defines manipulation as
something that an underling does to achieve a desired result from someone of a
higher status. By this definition, he also classifies union protests as
“manipulation” and compares it to children throwing temper tantrums. What a
lovely way of infantilizing the poor and trivializing the need for workers’
rights. And, in this sense, he also compares husbands and wives to
employee/employer, and to parent/child. If someone doesn’t see how deeply
troubling it is to make those parallels, I don’t even know where to start. But
I will point out that this teeters awfully close to the edge of pedophilia.
He then goes on to
romanticize the ancient “biblical” days in which people barely knew each other
before they wed, and when the husband bought the wife as property. (Yet he
takes issue with the concept of paying for sex.) He even wrote a
separate blog entry called, “You don’t have to buy the milk when you own the
cow.”
All of this may
sound incredibly bizarre and extreme, and it might be hard to imagine anybody
genuinely following this line of thinking. But in my life, I have known an
alarming number of people who share those values. There were ones whom I tried
to persuade differently, but eventually came to the painful realization that I
cannot “free” anyone from those types of values. Many times, they don’t want to
change.
The marital
scenario outlined by that blogger seems to result from a great deal of problems
that are directly created by conservative Christianity, rather
than resolved by it. A couple who are forbidden to have sex before marriage are
far more likely to wed before they’re ready and to make a commitment they don’t
fully understand (especially with the way these communities idealize marriage and provide very little sex education). They won’t know if they’re emotionally, mentally, or sexually
compatible until they’re already in a legal contract. It’s even worse when
they’re prohibited from divorcing in almost any circumstance.
Furthermore, the
restrictions inherent in religious fundamentalism contribute a great deal to
sexual frustration. They’re only allowed to have the most white bread sex
imaginable. No kink, no porn, no toys, no non-vaginal penetration. It's fine to not incorporate any of those things if they don't want to, but they are specifically told that they can't. In some
religious communities, they’re not allowed to engage in any sex act that
doesn’t directly result in pregnancy (which most often means nothing that can
give the woman an orgasm). Many of them are banned from using birth control,
which means sex is always laden with the possibility of pregnancy looming in
their minds. If they want to try anything new, they’re advised to “pray on
it”—which just sounds so spontaneous and fun. If one of
them is not up for it, the other is not even allowed to take care of their own
needs, so it’s no wonder that a lot of resentment builds up and both parties
are left with the expectation of meeting all of their spouse’s urges all of the
time. If one of them has a higher drive than the other, this can become an
incredible burden for the one with the lower libido and a significant void for the one who has no other sexual outlet. And, within this framework, the man is the only one expected
to have a libido. The woman is thought of as a “whore” if she likes or craves
physical intimacy, so it’s no wonder that so many of them refuse.
So, in summary,
this is oppressive bullshit. A great deal of Christians vocally disagree with
this author, which is very encouraging to see. Let’s keep the dissent going, no
matter what religion you might observe (or not observe). Let people like that
author know that he is not the spokesman for his faith, for marriage, or for
any kind of morality at all.
