Jesus once said to his disciples:
Do you understand what I have done for you? You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. Very truly I tell you, servants are not greater than their master, nor are messengers greater than the one who sent them. Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them. (John 13:12-17, TNIV).
In this passage, Jesus does not deny his authority over his disciples, but he makes it clear that he has laid aside whatever “rights” he might claim in order to serve them in profound humility. He then tells us that we will be “blessed” if we follow his example.
Complementarians assert that husbands have the “right” to expect their wives to submit to them, and egalitarians vehemently challenge any such notion. We can, and do, debate these assertions ad nauseam, but whatever theological position we adopt, our course of action as Christians is clear: we are to follow Christ’s example of laying aside whatever “rights” we may legitimately claim.
For example, a recent comment thread has focused on the question of how a wife should respond when her husband wants sex and she doesn’t. If they’re arguing and she’s feeling hurt or misunderstood, should she yield her body to him when her heart is not in it? Should she feel guilty for feeling used, objectified, or even violated? Scripture clearly teaches that husband and wife both have authority over and rights to each other’s bodies, and that we should not deny each other except for a limited time and by mutual consent (1 Corinthians 7:3-5), but how do we live that out in a way which does not result in frustration and pain?
This is a very real problem, and I am tempted to deal with the ethical dilemma which the wife faces in such circumstances. But my focus here is on the cause of the dilemma: namely, the husband’s demand for sex. Eliminate the husband’s demand, and you largely eliminate the wife’s dilemma.
Now, I’m not saying that the husband should never want sex; only that he should never demand it. According to the Bible, I have the “right” to my wife’s body; but I want more than just her body. I want her passion, and I’ll never get that by making demands. Consequently, if I exercise my “right” to sex, I strip sex of everything which makes it most enjoyable.
Note the degree of self-interest in that last paragraph. It is my desire for passionate sex which drives me not to demand perfunctory, half-hearted sex. I know that if I am a gentleman and I wait until my wife is just as passionate for me as I am for her, what we experience together will be well worth the wait. A gift which is given freely and enthusiastically means far more than one which has been coerced in some way.
The same thing applies to other forms of submission. When Lisa and I don’t see eye to eye on something, I might be able to “get my way” by playing what I call the “submission trump card.” But would I really be “getting my way”? I want more from my wife than grudging resignation to some unilateral decision. So I don’t make unilateral decisions, and I never play the “submission trump card”. Rather, I seek unanimity, I ask her perspective, I encourage her to pray that God would reveal his will to both of us. I’ll talk more about how we make decisions in another post, but for now, my point is that whatever my “rights” may be, wisdom and love dictate that I set those “rights” aside for the sake of not riding roughshod over my wife.
Complementarians and egalitarians differ over what they see as the husband’s and wife’s proper “rights” and “roles.” I do think it is important to consider those questions, because we need to understand the proper framework in which to interact with each other as husband and wife. Yet whatever conclusions we come to about rights and roles, Christ’s example is clear: we are to lay aside our “rights” for the sake of washing one another’s feet. His promise is that we will be “blessed” when we do.
In this (and I can only write from my own history and from a woman’s view) a woman has a unique chance to facilitate reconciliation. (I’m assuming there is no abuse, but rather a (heated) argument.
In turning toward her husband, she is (in effect) saying that we are really angry toward each other right now, but I love you and this is the way that I can demonstrate it right now.
She is also saying, “I don’t want the sun to go down upon our wrath toward each other.
Or she can turn a cold shoulder and let him know that she’s really (really) angry with him and right now there’s not much he can do. He’s blown it for the night, better luck tomorrow. Flowers and chocolate might work. Or not, if she believes that he’s only doing it to get physical intimacy.
(and I’ve been on both sides. The first softens his heart better then the cold shoulder)
David,
Thanks for a beautiful post emphasizing that regardless of our marriage model, God’s command to us is that we focus on our responsibilities to our spouse, not the exercise of our rights.
Another thought I had…
He has “rights”, she has “rights”…and the friction comes from the difference between men and women.
Men tend to “sexualize” intimacy and and women tend to “intimize” sexuality.
In reaching out for his wife, a man may very well be trying to capture intimacy through sexuality, and to him (although this is not her intent) she is denying intimacy, not just sexuality.
Looking at it from yet another direction, if a wife is irritated with her husband – even if he is still being a bit of a boor – if “heaping coals” on a person’s head can soften their heart…how much more so can that same kindness soften the heart of the other half of our “one-flesh”?
I am writing from the standpoint of a person who saw her marriage at the brink of divorce. Past the separation stage. And (at the end), there was healing, but it took kindness and giving from both sides.
Next Monday would have been my 30th anniversary. I learned the hard way that that bit of intimate kindness goes far, even when in the times when we were emotionally separate, the “one-flesh” act facilitated the coming together in all ways.
Does a man have a “right” to “demand” sex? Does a woman have a “right” to deny it?
Maybe yes, maybe no. But both partners should discuss the outcomes of pushing from their direction together.
If a husband explained why he wanted intimacy that night and she explained why she was denying him…
What if the conversation went…
(her) I’m really mad and I just don’t want you near me.
(him) I’m sorry. I really love you and I just want to be one-flesh.
How would that effect the “rights”?
And I think you have just described how it is that good comp and egal marriages end up looking so much alike — if you’re operating from a paradigm of love then you are pursuing one another’s good, regardless of your rhetorical framework. The differences between comp and egal become much more significant when you’re talking about how you deal with a “problem” spouse.
David,
I know you are planning to write more in way of explanation of what you see marriage as, and I look forward to that, yet I’m wondering:
Can the proper framework in which to interact as husband and wife not be, itself, the very thing you are speaking of in this post? Isn’t the point, when it comes to “rights” over other people, that, in Christ, we don’t have them?
I left a comment on a previous thread that somehow got lost, in which I responded to Corrie, saying that I thought that the basis upon which to build a marriage was intimacy, and the guarding and nurturing of that intimacy on a continuing basis (intimacy being shared knowledge and trust). With this as the goal, imo, the question of leadership/submission as a gender issue and a battle of wills becomes moot.
It is this dynamic that you have illustrated so well in this post (and I very much appreciate what you’ve said about sex — actually, it goes both ways, gender-wise
)
I really see both current complementarian and egalitarian doctrine as trying to reach what you are illustrating here. But I don’t think you can get to a proper theology of marriage from either one. Theology is important, and proper biblical exegesis is important, which is why I take issue with comp. doctrine (being more familiar with it than with egal. doctrine, although I take issue with some egal doctrine as well).
And that’s probably not something I should say on this blog, which is supposed to be about both sides interacting and learning about each other in good will. But the reason I say it is that I think what you say in this post is the heart of what both sides are after, at their best, yet which neither will reach within their current paradigm. Because of the limitations of unsound theology. If both sides reach it, it will not be because of fidelity to the espoused theology, but to something else.
I personally think we need to lose both paradigms and start afresh!
David,
This may sound really odd…and it is, for me, anyways…but reading this post made me cry, in a good sort of way. Thanks.
A refreshing post, David. Thanks for taking the time and energy to write it.
I remember reading an assigned book in my Intro. to Missions class in Bible school many years ago. The title was “Have We No Rights?” The conclusion was that as missionaries, we don’t or at least shouldn’t demand any that we have legally or socially. The Jesus’ way is exactly what you mentioned, sacrificial love, laying down one’s life for the other. And we can and should do that within our marriages, other friendships, churches, etc. Sacrificial love won’t take away our doctrinal or hermeneutical differences, but it sure makes it easier to live with those with whom we understand Scripture differently on these issues.
Wonderful post! Such wonderful food for thought.
Wonderful post! Such wonderful food for thought.
I think a big step forward for either comps or egals is that none of us have “rights” as such.
What we have is the voluntary choosing of each other in different situations.
The voluntary choosing of roles.
The voluntary acceptance of each others weaknesses.
The voluntary choice to approach things selflessly.
Anyone who “demanads” a “right” within marriage – whether that right is submission or equality – can’t fully understand what that “right” is. It will only work if we agree on it, and choose it, together.
David,
Great post. Lot’s of food for thought. Thank you.
Bonnie,
Sorry I missed your response to me? What comment were you responding to? Thread?
Ellen,
In reaching out for his wife, a man may very well be trying to capture intimacy through sexuality, and to him (although this is not her intent) she is denying intimacy, not just sexuality.
Very insightful, and true. Also the other things you said about a wife “turning toward” her husband. Good stuff.
This sexual turning-toward may indeed help a husband toward reconciliation and restored intimacy, yet, for some, there is also the possibility that doing so may give the husband reason to avoid proper reconciliation, or cause him to reconcile in that moment (or afterward), but not in a lasting way. A wife, who herself wants both restored intimacy and sexual union, may need to help him face things by not agreeing to physical intimacy unless some other steps toward reconciliation have been taken.
Corrie,
I thought I left a comment on the "Stepping in Someone Else's Shoes" thread but it didn't appear. It wasn't much, but I'll try to remember what I said & leave it again
Thanks for asking.
I think a big step forward for either comps or egals is that none of us have “rights” as such.
And that leaves the one who is seriously abused and punished for coughing at the wrong time up a creek without a paddle. Yes, we can demand rights or we die.
Or do you mean people have no rights, they should just sit there and get beaten up?
Or do you mean there are rights but we have to make a list of what rights people have and then you abide by the list?
Or maybe you mean, yes, people do have rights.
I need to point out that the “no rights” teaching needs to be modified. I am sorry about being blunt but, for example, do women have the right to not become pregnant again? These are not hypothetical questions. You leave too many loose ends.
Sounds like you have a beautiful marriage, David.
However, I am uncomfortable with a broad brush teaching of “laying aside my rights”. For those who has been accustomed to a selfish “asserting their rights!”, I can see the need to encourage them to lay down their rights. But how about for ones who have been oppressed? Do they not need to be encouraged in standing up for their right to be treated with human dignity? Suppose I “lay down my rights” unilaterally and am consistently trampled? BTDT (Been There, Done That). Recovery of my inheritance involved learning that I do have rights, our children have rights, and that I am not wrong to insist that my rights and the rights of our children must be respected in our home. In fact, I realized that for me to do otherwise was an abdication of my female responsibility and CALLing to HELP my husband toward CHRISTlikeness.
Here is a quote from another couple with a reputedly good marriage. Abigail Adams writing to her husband John Adams touches upon the topics of power/”rights”/ peace/freedom/goodwill:
“Dearest Friend,
In the new laws which you will be writing, please remember the ladies. Don’t put unlimited power in the hands of the husbands. Remember, all men would be tyrants if you give them a chance. If you don’t pay attention to the ladies then you can’t expect us to obey any laws in which we don’t have a voice or representation.”
And later she wrote:
“I’m sorry, but I still find it odd that while you are proclaiming peace and good will to men and emancipating the nation, you still insist on retaining the absolute power of husbands over their wives. Remember, John, arbitrary power like everything else that’s hard and brittle is easily broken. In spite of all your wise laws, we too have it in our power to free ourselves.”
That last line is prophetic, I think…. The state of marriages today- the brokenness, the divorce rate- is no surprise to God. As long as power/rights are lobsided in favor of one and to the hurt of the other, marriages will continue to fail. The rights of the weaker vessel must be acknowleged and respected or she may decide that she will be freed only by divorce
I believe that GOD wants to bring on a NEW era within the church where marriages are RESTORED to Garden of Eden intimacy the way HE intends; where people look at the church and see marriages which are so attractive and so characterized by Christian love that it draws them to seek the tree of life which feeds that marriage.
May you and your wife continue building just such a marriage.
A wife, who herself wants both restored intimacy and sexual union, may need to help him face things by not agreeing to physical intimacy unless some other steps toward reconciliation have been taken.
But is it Biblical?
There are not many reasons for withholding sexual relations in Scripture. Is using denial as a tool Biblical?
Thank you, Gem for saying it better than I can. Perhaps one could say that we don’t have rights over someone else, either way. That would also mean that one spouse does not have authority over the other.
My 2 Cents:
I agree with that, gem, that there is a danger in saying that we must lay aside our rights, *because* of the false perception of what that means (ie, always giving in). If one spouse does and the other spouse doesn’t, there is a big problem.
That’s different than saying one spouse had a day of being selfish at the other spouse’s expense… I think we all have our little ups and downs, and we need to be gracious towards eachother.
But what I’m talking about (and I believe gem to be talking about) is when one spouse believes that he is loving you BY ruling over you. When that is the case, “laying aside rights” for the woman is not necessarily going to look like letting him have his way…because letting him dominate isn’t good for his soul, nor is it good for the woman’s.
Jesus was said to have “laid aside his rights” in Phil. 2, but we all know Jesus was no pansy. He laid aside His rights, but that didn’t mean He failed to stand up against injustice, that He failed to act with power.
And so for the woman (or the man) in a situation where the other spouse is abusive, the fine art of “laying rights aside” is not a passive thing, and ideally will involve what it should always involve: a close communication with the Spirit of God, knowing that sometimes the most loving thing to do is to stand up and refuse to bend.
Ellen,
There are not many reasons for withholding sexual relations in Scripture. Is using denial as a tool Biblical?
Good question. I will answer in two parts: (1) Is a husband’s using sex to restore an appearance of, or a form of, intimacy in order to avoid, or put off (indefinitely, as it were) the full necessary restoration, a godly thing to do?
(2) I don’t know that denial in this case is a tool. It is a necessary act. Remember, the wife is denying herself sexually as well, in order to not deny a greater good, which is an attempt at full reconciliation and restoration of intimacy.
(1) Is a husband’s using sex to restore an appearance of, or a form of, intimacy in order to avoid, or put off (indefinitely, as it were) the full necessary restoration, a godly thing to do?
You are assuming that it’s a dichotomy. I do not.
(2) I don’t know that denial in this case is a tool. It is a necessary act. Remember, the wife is denying herself sexually as well, in order to not deny a greater good, which is an attempt at full reconciliation and restoration of intimacy.
Maybe it depends on the case.
If the man has attempted an apology, but the woman is still angry (holding a grudge) – she is the one withholding intimacy, not him.
Some men wonder what other hoops they have to jump through in order to get a real forgiveness (a letting go of the debt.)
Bonnie,
You describe the wife as wanting a restoration of “full” intimacy, whereas the husband just wants physical intimacy. But is that accurate? I see the wife as wanting emotional intimacy, while the husband wants physical intimacy. Both are important aspects of “full” intimacy. Neither spouse has a superior claim over the other. A gender gap so often arises in marriage because the desires of the two spouses differ, and both spouses fail to see that their desires are no more legitimate as their partner’s. I just don’t see the Biblical support for the argument that a wife’s desire for an emotional connection is a more full representation of marital intimacy than a husband’s desire for physical intimacy. Perhaps I misunderstood the point you are making?
So, she wants emotional intimacy and doesn’t want to be part of physical intimacy until her needs are met. He wants physical intimacy and doesn’t want to be part of emotional intimacy until his needs are met. We have a stalemate. Who moves first? The partner who considers herself or himself to be the most spiritually mature.
Ellen,
You are assuming that it’s a dichotomy. I do not.
No dichotomy. This is something that can and does happen.
If the man has attempted an apology, but the woman is still angry (holding a grudge) – she is the one withholding intimacy, not him.
Agreed, as long as the apology is sincere and is followed through.
My scenario does not include a grudge on the part of the wife.
Marilyn,
I am not setting off physical intimacy from emotional intimacy — I agree that both are part of a “full” intimacy, which is not limited to just those two aspects either.
As far as the “stalemate” you describe, were it to be the case, I would say that it needs to be negotiated — both sides making attempts to reach out to the other, and receive the other. It might be a process. Both partners need to be willing to do this, though, or else there is a real stalemate.
Ellen and Marilyn, I understand Bonnie’s statements a bit differently. I don’t think it’s a matter of a wife withholding sex because she is not getting what she wants, but rather, because she has to get a point through.
To understand it better, I imagine a couple that has some ongoing problems in their marriage. Say the man is not respecting his wife and is doing something that is hurting her. She wants to talk it through and reach an agreement, but he just keeps ignoring her attempts at finding a common ground regarding the subject, the conversations turn into arguments, and they are just making up for the arguments with their lovemaking. They aren’t addressing the underlying issue that is causing the arguments and the wife is growing resentful.
This situation needs the man’s attention, but he thinks it’s all over once they’ve made up for the last argument.
Bonnie said:
” (1) Is a husband’s using sex to restore an appearance of, or a form of, intimacy in order to avoid, or put off (indefinitely, as it were) the full necessary restoration, a godly thing to do?”
Is the husband not willing to get to task with the problem, but he just wants to “make up” for the occasional arguments and is using sex?
“(2) I don’t know that denial in this case is a tool. It is a necessary act. Remember, the wife is denying herself sexually as well, in order to not deny a greater good, which is an attempt at full reconciliation and restoration of intimacy.”
By denying sex until they have had a proper heart to heart session, the wife is making a point. The issue is not the one argument, it’s an underlying issue that needs to be resolved.
So, she wants emotional intimacy and doesn’t want to be part of physical intimacy until her needs are met. He wants physical intimacy and doesn’t want to be part of emotional intimacy until his needs are met.
This assumes the spouse wants his needs met and then *will* meet hers.
Some notice that all the husband wants is his needs met, however, with no intention of considering the wife’s needs as valid.
She can meet his needs in a sexual way all of the time, and yet it in no way diminishes, say, his desire for porn, his rudeness towards her, or his anger towards her, etc.
At that point, those women are not necessarily sinning against their husbands by refusing to continue to act out physical intimacy in a relationship that has no other form of intimacy.
(At least a prostitute gets paid and has the right to refuse sex if she doesn’t like a person. Yet we sometimes use Scripture to place abused women in a position that grants her less sexual rights than a prostitute has).
Pauls words about not witholding sex must be read in context. In Paul’s day, not having sex was widely considered an act of great spirituality (denying the human lusts). It would make God notice you more and would make your prayers more noticed by God, or so it was thought… Paul was trying to say that human needs, like sex or like eating, are not antithetical to being a spiritual person. Deciding to go on a sexual fast, Paul said, must only be done with the consent of *both* parties, and even then, only for a time.
We do great injustice to that passage when we take it out of it’s context and use it to say that a man can demand sex of a wife that he is otherwise treating abusively. That was not the intent of the passage.
Who gets to define “intimacy”?
If the wife is refusing sex because she doesn’t “feel” like her intimacy needs are being met and she’s getting her definition from “historical romance novels” (I call them femme-porn), he’s out of luck.
Let me give you an illustration of what I’ve seen.
A woman who was in a Bible study with a few years ago…her husband did some boneheaded thing. He apologized tried to make up, nothing worked.
I asked his wife, did he apologize. “Yes. And I have to forgive him, but I don’t have to like it.”
I don’t think that the man has the right to get all of his needs met and the wife get none of hers. But I DO think that women should know and recognize the differences in gender behavior in regards to communication and intimacy and be realistic about what to expect.
Ellen,
No one is saying that it’s a good thing for a wife to hold out on a husband, sexually, in order to punish him.
What I hear you saying, however, is that a wife doesn’t have the right to say no to her husband sexually, under any circumstances.
Please correct me where I’m wrong. We both agree, totally, that sex should never be used as a weapon.
I don’t hear anybody hear saying that it’s good for a wife to withhold sex because she’s holding a grudge or didn’t get her way in a little area, etc, or thinks that her husbands needs aren’t important, etc.
However, we are talking about abusive husbands as well as normal husbands. An abusive husband is a completely different thing than a normal husband.
What rights do you think a woman married to an abusive husband should be allowed to have over her sexuality? I think the answer to that question may help to clarify a few things, and help us not constantly be talking past eachother.
Thanks, Madame, yes, you are understanding my statements.
Intimacy, as I understand it, is shared knowledge in an atmosphere of trust. When I speak of intimacy, this is basically what I mean.
Note, though, that I wasn’t merely speaking of intimacy in my comments, but of reconciliation, which leads to restored intimacy or creates deeper intimacy.
Gem and Molly,
I agree with what you said about rights. (They are a tough thing to understand and talk about, aren’t they?)
Perhaps we need to understand them in terms of the potential oppressor vs. the oppressed. In the case of the former, “rights,” as it were, must be laid aside. But in the case of the oppressed, there is a “right” to stand up to the oppression.
In a sense, we are one another’s “keeper,” and are each to love our neighbor as ourself. By exercising our right to disallow another to sin against us, if we can indeed prevent it, we are also “keeping” them, by preventing them from committing this sin. And we can’t truly love our neighbor as ourself unless we are indeed loving ourselves. (Not to equate loving oneself with egotism or selfishness, but taking care of oneself as a help to both oneself and others, not at their expense.)
They aren’t addressing the underlying issue that is causing the arguments and the wife is growing resentful.
This situation needs the man’s attention, but he thinks it’s all over once they’ve made up for the last argument.
In a nutshell, Madame.
It is not abusive, in the sense of egregious mistreatment…but this kind of stonewalling destroys intimacy as surely has hard words and cold indifference.
What rights do you think a woman married to an abusive husband should be allowed to have over her sexuality? I think the answer to that question may help to clarify a few things, and help us not constantly be talking past eachother.
I think that a woman married to an abusive man should get herself out of harm’s way. A physically abusive man – she should not be there. PERIOD.
If she chooses to be there and be his wife, then yes, she also chooses to take on the duties of a wife. Otherwise…what…she denies him for a week? Month? Six months? A year? How long?
If she chooses to be there (not a “stuck” sort of inertia, but a conscious choice), then she should either fulfill her own side of the covenant, or be under the direct accountability of a Christian counselor. Otherwise she risks making her own rules as she goes along.
Emotionally abusive? She should be under the direction of a Christian counselor (face to face, not something off the internet) and if (under that direction) she is counseled to withhold I certainly would yield to the one who knows the entire situation.
However I think that it would be not only unfair, but cruel to withhold sex for months at a time without clearly stating the reason for doing so. (The only situation that I’m thinking of is entirely off line and unknown to anybody here.)
There are studies that I’m reading that indicate more and more that a pretty sizable percentage of abuse is mutual (not both agree, but both participate) I would think that emotional abuse and neglect would be no different and withholding sexuality for months without explanation would be an example.
The other thing you mentioned was porn. BTDT. With a twist. It was pointed out to me that we were dealing with a man who was tempted by something other than his wife for sexuality. How does Paul say to avoid that temptation? “Do not deprive your husband/wife”
(If the husband recognized porn as a divisive issue), if a wife denies him the sexual outlet within marriage that God has given us…why would we not expect him to fall to that which we know he is tempted with?
We are (in effect) withdrawing the tool that God gives us to avoid temptation, that Paul tells us not to withhold (to avoid temptation) from the one who needs it most. Is that not a definition of “cruel?
“You are being faced with temptation…and I have a tool that Paul tells us not to withhold in order to avoid falling to temptation…but I’m not going to give it to you until you can prove that you can avoid temptation.” (if the man refuses to even admit that it’s a problem, this does not apply – and the wife should be under the accountability of a counselor).
Molly, I think I told you a while ago “off-blog the sort of thing I had to deal with in this category. If I go to my grave with my kids never finding out…that would be a good thing. So, without going into detail, you can vouch for the fact that I’ve dealt with in marriage. And I was under the accountability of a Christian counselor. I know that Sue can.
Is there a place for that sort of deprivation? I would say yes – but only under the direct counsel and accountability of a Christian who has dealt with (in a counseling position) with that particular issue.
But the day to day “not tonight dear I have a hangnail”…no.
The “you put the glasses in the cupboard the wrong way so I’m irritated with you”…no.
And we can’t truly love our neighbor as ourself unless we are indeed loving ourselves.
Bonnie, I’m currently reading a book by Jay E. Adams on the Biblical concept of “self esteem”.
ahunt said, “but this kind of stonewalling destroys intimacy as surely has hard words and cold indifference.
Who gets to define “intimacy”?
Are we getting an impartial outside counselor to witness, or is the husband’s sexuality held hostage to his wife’s definition? (yes, there are both situations out there).
If a woman’s definition of “intimacy” is sitting on the sofa, holding hands while watching the Hallmark channel…I’d have a hard time living up to that definition. And yes, I know such a couple and yes, he is denied if he hasn’t put in enough “couch time”.
If a wife gets her notion of “intimacy” from historical romance novels, what man can live up to that perfect “knight in shining armor” image? This one I know…I was guilty of that one.
By ignoring gender differences in communication and intimacy “evidence”, I was withholding what he needed while I thought that he was withholding what I needed, when all along what I thought I needed was a fantasy all along.
Nancy Cobb and Connie Grigsby have written a book, “How to get your husband to talk to you.” It helped me a lot to understand why I was seeing “not intimacy when all that was happening was a male-sort-of-communication.
How many women put as much effort into understanding “male-speak” as we would like our men to put into understanding “woman-speak”?
For the record (meaning so that all here will know some of what seeing my marriage on the brink of divorce means) I’m going to make two separate comments.
#1. I was known to cynically say that my husband did have a mistress…her initials were ARC (American Red Cross). There were months that he spent more times in classes and meeting there than he did at home. Several times a year he would leave to work on a national disaster and he had told me – promised me that he would cut back. I was pregnant (I had previously lost five babies and had one premature birth). I was having contractions – and this was in the days before cell phones. I had a 1 1/2 year old at home, I was working full time and I had an inner ear infection and couldn’t roll over in bed without getting nauseous. And he left for a week and a half to work for “his mistress”. (see above).
I had a choice. I could 1) use the “necessary act”, or I could 2)try to melt his heart by reaching out – while under the direction of a counselor/pastor who could witness me telling him how his actions made me feel.
Option 1 made him spend more time away from me. Option 2 worked for a time, but the problem with a “God thing” that would return.
“ancient history” part two.
There was a common issue. And it’s too involved and I don’t want to risk my kids discovering any of it. ANY of it – more so than they already know (no, it was not an affair).
it involved
1) lying
2) more lying
3) leaving
4) counseling. Lots and lots of counseling.
I had to be willing to risk losing the marriage in order to save it and that meant leaving with the intent of not returning if “conditions” were not met. That was a turning point…
and it took both of us realizing that it was a “we” problem, not a “he” problem. We had to work on it together, under the direction of a counselor, in order for it to work.
At no point did it involve denial – withholding the “rescue from temptation” that is built into the marriage bed. It was his knowledge that when he was tempted he could turn to me for that “rescue” that made it a “we” thing.
It was because I never turned him away that he felt he could trust me with the hard stuff.
On his death bed, he finally told me that part of what brought him back to God was the way that I handled that situation. I will never regret “putting out” when others would have justified using “the issue” to deny.
Ellen,
You sound like you truly loved your husband and you truly love your children. I think I can relate to some of the pain you went through.
Regarding intimacy:
ahunt said, “but this kind of stonewalling destroys intimacy as surely has hard words and cold indifference.
Who gets to define “intimacy”?”
I believe intimacy builds and flows from unity. It’s not an isolated act, it’s sharing life in a way you don’t share it with anyone else. It’s being one. Intimate acts build it up, but they are also a result of this pursuit of unity.
If one spouse is not pursuing unity because he (or she!) is not willing to work through issues that are driving them apart, and these can be his tendency to make unilateral decisions, his apparent indifference to what his wife needs, etc.. Intimacy is NOT being restored by means of sex. It’s just not there.
It’s not about “couch time” vs. “roll in the sheets”, it’s about building that unity between two people. It can’t be built when one spouse is not willing to work on it.
It’s possible that the wife has tried many times to do her part and restore the intimacy with sex, but the underlying issues are not being addressed. The man doesn’t see the need because he is getting what he wants. (Or vice-versa, it can also be the wife who is not working with her husband and is destroying their intimacy)
” Are we getting an impartial outside counselor to witness, or is the husband’s sexuality held hostage to his wife’s definition? (yes, there are both situations out there).”
Do you mean, is the wife getting counsel or are they both? Sometimes, the spouse creating the original problem is not willing to seek counseling.
I don’t agree with withdrawing sex without any explanation or good reason, but if that’s the ONLY way for a woman to get the attention of her husband (and I think she should seek counsel), then she may use it.
I agree with Molly, some people use those verses against abused women. I know, I’ve seen it myself, and I’ve heard a PASTOR tell an abused woman to stop depriving her husband.
I wish Paul had thrown in a few verses regarding spousal abuse.
Good question Sue, and sorry I was not clearer.
What I meant was that every “right” that a partner may or may not think that they have can only be a voluntary thing given, not something taken.
A man does not have a right to hit the woman as she has not given him that right. No relational right can ever involve the harm of another member of that relationship .
A man does not have the right to make a woman pregnant against her will.
If he understands what biblical “headship” requires he can’t “make” her do anything.
She has to want to. Otherwise it is not true headship, it is authoritarianism.
Headship can never be forced upon someone – it can only be received voluntarily, otherwise it is not true headship.
Just like true equality cannot be forced upon people – people have to give themselves to it voluntarily.
Bonnie and Madame,
Thanks for your replies! I’m going to have to mull this over some more. I still can’t seem to mentally step into your shoes, to see the point that you’re trying to make. It still seems to me as if you’re defining the path to reconciliation from a female perspective. Will think some more on this….
My reaction is undoubtedly coming from my own experiences. My husband is able to forgive without an extensive discussion of his grievance. This is true forgiveness, not just stuffing it. In contrast, I need to talk things over. It’s difficult for me to forgive him, unless I feel that he understands the chapter, verse, and line of my grievance. Typically, we meet in the middle.
As I read what you two have written, I very much see my perspective on the path to reconciliation, not my husband’s. Is she right? Is he right? The answer is YES!
Anyway, will think some more. I do appreciate your taking the time to dialogue some more about this.
I’m just going dump (at the risk of forever consigning myself to the “vicious man hating feminist” label….)
What troubles me about the conversation is that animals can copulate without “intimacy” and so can married humans who sit in pews. BTDT I am bothered that christians assume that marriage automatically “sanctifies” any and all sexual expression between the couple. Its a lie!
I am BOTHERED that Christians who struggle because they have experienced sexual abuse and the resultant self-hatred of their femininity can be called “MAN HATING” without any regard to WHY someone might “hate men”. What are the preachers doing to minister HEALING to the wounded? Does their message affirm men who are sexaully demanding and coercive with their wives? What further bothers me is that I am reading some of these replies (from WOMEN on this thread) as “pressure” to “sexually perform” because of “men’s NEEEEDS” and it sure feels like it pushes me backwards!!! The RECOVERY of my FEMININITY has involved re-integration of lots of pieces of me. Sexually abused children learn to dissociate, we can “PERFORM” without any intimacy, without any feelings, without any connection. We can experience pleasure without one stitch of emotional intimacy. Doesn’t that sound downright MALE???? As a matter of fact, we are really quite MASCULINE that way. Part of my RECOVERY, with much therapy, was being able to FEEL and being able to say “NO” when I FEEEEL disrespected, exploited, and abused.
I just don’t get comps who say they want feminine women, and on the other hand, preach a gospel of “putting out” like a man regardless of any connection (and if you don’t you will be chastised with scriptures about your SINFUL “withholding”).
Lest you assume my husband is “deprived”, he is not and has never been by any sane definition of the term. I am a healthy woman with a perfectly normal “appetite” and an abnormally lenient tolerance for the chronic and long term lack of emotional intimacy in my marriage.
Good post Gem.
Anyone who uses a theological presupposition to force a woman into a bit of nookie she does not want to have evidently does not understand the meaning of servanthood.
If it is not mutual, then it is not anything.
That is something that should unite comps and egals. Anything else is just abuse.
Gem,
I am really sorry for how this conversation is hurting you. It has simply ceased to connect for me.
The fact that name-calling was not moderated out, means the usefulness of this forum is threatened.
I personally will not share my own feelings with people who associate sexual intimacy with male headship. Talk about one thing or the other, but for the sake of the sanity of people in the forum, I think sexual intimacy and male dominance threads ought to have warning labels on them so some of us can stay away.
Let me just ask again…
who gets to define “intimacy”?
Or…what does a man have to do in order to make his wife feel that he is meeting her intimacy needs?
Has anybody read “Why Gender Matters” by Leonard Sax (MD, PhD)?
How about “Save the Males” by Kathleen Parker? (why men matter and why women should care)
“Violent Partners” by Linda Mills?
All of these books at least touch on gender differences – Violent Partners cites statistics that say that in counseling situations, counselors tend to 1) place the blame on the man before knowing all of the circumstances and 2) side with the woman.
“Save the Males” tells how many boys from a very early age learn what feminists are trying to teach us “women good – men bad” (the title of the first chapter)
“Why Gender Matters” is about the emerging science of gender differences…who we communicate differently, how we look at life.
If we are trying to force men into a feminized version of our definition of “intimacy”, they may very well be pressured into “performing” in order to get the intimacy that they need.
I think that part of the difference is that we just don’t define “intimacy” the same way. And if we insist on the female defining it, we feminize our men (which is the goal of the feminists).
We demand that men respect our needs…do we give them that same consideration? Have we asked what they need (not what we think they need) in order to feel intimate?
How do we feel when men assume they know what we need?
” who gets to define “intimacy”?
Or…what does a man have to do in order to make his wife feel that he is meeting her intimacy needs?”
Ellen,
Both men and women have to define intimacy. Both have needs that must be met, by their spouse.
In my post explaining when I think it’s all right for a woman to pull back, or not give herself sexually to her husband, I’m NOT talking about a case where she says “my needs are not being met, I’m not meeting yours”.
What happens if they have a problem, say, the husband is keeping important secrets from his wife. She finds out about something, gets angry, he apologizes for having kept a secret, they make up. All is well.
But It’s not a one-off, it’s a lifestyle. It starts coming out that he’s not straight forward, and he’s hiding stuff from her.
She keeps getting angry as she finds out about bits and pieces, and every time, there’s remorse from the man and they make up.
The wife stops trusting her husband. Without trust there’s no intimacy of any kind.
But the husband thinks that his remorse and his apologies are enough, and that the underlying problem of his secrecy and lying doesn’t have to be addressed. The wife has to get her message through. She could move out, but what if she can’t?
If the wife withholds sex from him until he is willing to address the problem and work towards a solution, do you think she is sinning against him?
I don’t think this is a case of depriving, it’s a case of getting the man’s attention.
I just don’t think it’s safe or right to suggest that there’s a clear cut answer, Ellen—ie, that a wife who stays with an abuser *must* put out in the sack, or be in sin. Every situation is different, and every woman married to an abusive man must evaluate for her own self where her boundaries will be.
To say that a lack of sexual gratification leads to porn is to not understand the nature of pornography. While in some cases a lack of sexual gratification causes some men to stumble into sexual sin, there are many cases (a good friend of mine, for example) where the marriage bed has always been a happening place, but, well, so has the husband’s porn habit…
In my friend’s case, her husband ended up choosing porn over her on a regular basis. To tell her that her lack of sexual availability caused the problem is to slap her in the face. She was available. He was lost in the easy gratification of pornography (which is easy to fall into, so I don’t say that completely without mercy for the man who is addicted to porn).
Bottom line, when you start telling abused women that they have to be sexually available at all times, you are stepping into territory that an outside person has no business being in.
There is *no* Bible passage that tells abused women that they must sexually gratify their husbands at all times. There just isn’t. Our religion is about lifting up the weak, not furthering the amount of power their abusers have over them. We have to give married women more rights at their disposal than prostitutes have.
You claim that abused comp women should use their brains and say no to abuse. But then you tell them that 99.9% of the time, they have no right to say no to the sexual advances of their abuser.
I hear you, Ellen, that it’s not good to deny our spouse’s the sexual component of marriage. As a general principle, everyone commenting here completely agrees with that.
We aren’t talking about a normal marriage. We are talking about the bad ones.
In the bad ones, all bets are off. Each spouse in a bad marriage must be led of the Spirit to make decisions that will facilitate relational growth, or at least as much healthiness in the home as possible. This will look different in every single situation.
There is no, “Give Him Sex and All Will Be Well” rule in the Bible. There are, however, a lot of stories and psalms and prophetic words about what God thinks about people in power who abuse and take from people who aren’t.
You claim that abused comp women should use their brains and say no to abuse. But then you tell them that 99.9% of the time, they have no right to say no to the sexual advances of their abuser.
Well….that’s not exactly accurate.
I said, “Is there a place for that sort of deprivation? I would say yes – but only under the direct counsel and accountability of a Christian who has dealt with (in a counseling position) with that particular issue.”
and
“Emotionally abusive? She should be under the direction of a Christian counselor (face to face, not something off the internet) and if (under that direction) she is counseled to withhold I certainly would yield to the one who knows the entire situation.”
Does that really sound like I’m siding with the abuser?
I will say that a wife (if she is choosing to live with her husband) does not have the right to withhold sex for an unlimited amount of time without clearly stating why.
Remember, this post started out talking about a marriage that does not include abuse. My first comment was about a marriage that did not include abuse.
If it were up to me, we would be able to have a discussion or three without abuse being the central issue.
From personal experience I found that having sex would release my husband from feeling that he needed to get on my good side and I could often count the hours before he became violent again. I did not withhold sex for this reason, I can only say that giving sex and emotional intimacy to improve the relationship gained me a big fat zero.
Everyone has their own experience here particular to themselves. I did not used to think this way, but I do not think that there is anything at all that one partner can do by themselves when caught in a bad relationship except work to insulate themselves from pain.
Molly, I did indeed miss the part where you said, However, we are talking about abusive husbands as well as normal husbands. An abusive husband is a completely different thing than a normal husband.
It does seem as though there is a “women good-men bad” mind set throughout our culture.
I certainly will concede that the conversation again moved from a discussion about a generally loving marriage to (again) center on abuse.
Madame said it well. Intimacy flows from unity. W/O going into embarrassing detail, I can say that sex as a means of avoiding real issues was obstructing unity and ultimately…intimacy.
So the question is not “who gets to define intimacy” but rather, can intimacy exist when serious issues are going unaddressed, dividing a husband and wife…and negatively impacting desire for and pleasure in…one another.
Ahunt said it well — intimacy is defined outside of both man and woman, as is unity. (And btw, Ellen, my statements did not refer to an abusive relationship [in general terms].)
Reconciliation isn’t just about tactics and maneuvering, it’s also about communication. Perhaps there are two general categories into which marital conflict falls — sinfulness on the part of the spouses, and inability to communicate well.
Communication involves many things, both spoken and not, and requires a lot of attention, effort, patience, and wisdom.
Thanks for this conversation, everyone, it’s given me opportunity to think more about marital intimacy and my own marriage.
I’ll try again. Something got lost in cyberspace.
I would again ask who gets to define (if not “intimacy”) “issues”. I have referenced a couple of books that focus on the differences in the way males and females communicate. I believe that if we do not recognize and respect those differences, one sex will be held hostage to the definitions of the other side.
If we (society) side with the women (I’m assuming that most men are not evil abusers and want to have good relationships with their wives) and allow only the women to frame what the definition of “intimacy” and “issues” are, then we risk forcing males to feminize their thinking, their actions, their speech and way of thinking.
If egalitarians really believe that there are gender differences without hierarchy, who is defining the “issues”?
It seems as though if a woman denies sex, it is (at least in this thread) primarily because the man has messed up in some way.
Egals have asked for a “rule book”…here is a case where I’d like to ask the egals…where is the rule book that men have to follow in order to have their wives “feel” right enough to grant their husbands access to their wives’ bodies?
(And btw, Ellen, my statements did not refer to an abusive relationship [in general terms].)
Thank you.
Reconciliation isn’t just about tactics and maneuvering, it’s also about communication.
Agreed, or at least it shouldn’t be.
Given that men and women communicate differently, how does that (or should it impact) “reconciliation”?
If anybody would like further reading, I’d still recommend “How to Get Your Husband to Talk to You.”
Egals have asked for a “rule book”…here is a case where I’d like to ask the egals…where is the rule book that men have to follow in order to have their wives “feel” right enough to grant their husbands access to their wives’ bodies?
Ellen,
I feel like you are coming in with a baseball bat where one should tread with gentleness. You are not talking to women who have a bad “feeling” towards their husbands one day and decide not to put out that night. You are talking to women who have been beaten, ridiculed, regularly condemned and ruled over in almost every (demeaning) way.
No one, I repeat, *no one* is saying that sex should EVER be used as a weapon.
Egalitarians teach that we should respect others in the same way that we respect ourselves. This means being sensitive to eachother’s needs.
If one spouse (male or female) has a higher sex drive than the other one, the ideal married couple would seek to find a good middle ground that both can live with. I think that would be the ideal for both comp and egal households (yes? no?).
I know many women with a higher sex drive than their husband. It’s a frequent complaint during “girl talk” moments when I go out with some gals every so often.
Women have certain needs with regards to intimacy, and men have certain needs. Both parties should talk about their needs and seek to find a way where those needs can be met in a way that is compatible for both.
Ellen, please, please, hear this: NO ONE is saying that a healthy sex life is bad. NO ONE is saying that two spouses shouldn’t seek to work together to find a common ground for fulfilling eachother’s sexual needs (high or low or inbetween, in a way that benefits both parties).
But in an abused relationship, everything is different. You appear to condemn the abused wife who chooses not to let her husband have “access to her body.” I don’t understand this sort of callousness. You tell abused women that they need to use their brains, but then in this thread say that they only have the right to deny their husbands sex if they’ve met with a Biblical counselor?
You seem to be saying that the abused spouse has no right to choose what happens to their own body. In saying this, you are wrestling the 1 Cor. passage from it’s context and using it to make a “rule” where no rule is.
I’m not a fan of denying sex, in general. I think it can be a very harmful practice in many respects. But there are situations where it can be a positive thing. Women need to be aware that their husbands do not own them, spirit, soul, OR body. The act of sex is supposed to represent oneness on all levels. It was never intended to be a rape. In taking away the power of the wife’s body from her, we send a message, a strong message, to the abuser: “Take. Take some more. You own her. Her opinions do not matter. There is no repurcussion for your actions. There is nowhere for her to hide. She can’t even run to God, because He’s on your side.”
Ellen, most of the women here have been in deeply abusive situations. No one, no one, no one is saying that a spouse should use sex as a weapon.
I wish I could express to you how very painful your words are.
You seem to be saying that the abused spouse has no right to choose what happens to their own body. In saying this, you are wrestling the 1 Cor. passage from it’s context and using it to make a “rule” where no rule is.
See previous comment:
You claim that abused comp women should use their brains and say no to abuse. But then you tell them that 99.9% of the time, they have no right to say no to the sexual advances of their abuser.
Well….that’s not exactly accurate.
I said, “Is there a place for that sort of deprivation? I would say yes – but only under the direct counsel and accountability of a Christian who has dealt with (in a counseling position) with that particular issue.”
and
“Emotionally abusive? She should be under the direction of a Christian counselor (face to face, not something off the internet) and if (under that direction) she is counseled to withhold I certainly would yield to the one who knows the entire situation.”
Does that really sound like I’m siding with the abuser?
I will say that a wife (if she is choosing to live with her husband) does not have the right to withhold sex for an unlimited amount of time without clearly stating why.
Remember, this post started out talking about a marriage that does not include abuse. My first comment was about a marriage that did not include abuse.
So, if we can direct the conversation back to the original concept, that would be really, really nice.
If not…, I really don’t want to say anything that will cause this to not be approved.
Then let it be about the abuse. At some point it would be nice to have a discussion that didn’t turn it into being about the abuse. Perhaps next time?
You appear to condemn the abused wife who chooses not to let her husband have “access to her body.
Yes…I would like to shout.
I didn’t. You directly asked me and I directly answered. End of sentence.
I did not say anything of the sort.
It “feels” like another case of a complementarian having their words taken at the worst possible meaning.
So, I guess from here on out (sorry, Bonnie) it’s about abuse.
Molly, in the comment that you are responding to I said, “(I’m assuming that most men are not evil abusers and want to have good relationships with their wives)”
I had hoped that would be a clue that I wasn’t talking about marriages that included abuse, but rather about men who want to have good relationships with their wives.
I understand now, though. I will
Okay…This comment is NOT about an abusive marriage.
This comment IS about a reasonably healthy marriage that might have a bump in the road and differences in the way that our two different sexes communicate.
I find the differences in communication styles fascinating. On the back of “How to Get Your Husband to Talk to You”, this example is given (remember, this is a non-abusive marriage).
a man comes home and says to his wife, “I had a horrible day at work today.”
“Tell me about it,” she says.
“I just did,” he replies.
I know that Bonnie had expressed an interest in communication between loved ones (non-abusive).
I picked up “The Five Love Languages” again…and for those who have never read it, wrote a little intro.
The post is not about abuse, but rather about the differences in communication styles that can bring about many misunderstandings between otherwise loving and committed people.
Ellen,
I apologise if I’ve been misreading you. I will admit, most of the time in this particular topic, your words make me wince, at best. Maybe that is all my fault—I don’t know (truly, I mean that).
I guess I just don’t hear ANYONE hear saying that one spouse’s needs should be favored above another spouse. If anything, the women here appear to have bent over backwards to meet their spouses needs (even though abusive) instead of their own. I admit to being puzzled as to why you continue to bring that up. No one is arguing that spouses may have different needs, and that we must work together to meet both when possible.
As far as bringing in abuse, we’ve been talking about that lately on this blog. Abuse simply must be a part of the conversational dynamic when we are talking about what “rights” spouses have over the other spouses body. You don’t have to talk about it, but I’m not sure you have the right to demand that others not talk about it. ? On your own blog, of course, that’s another story—you can do as you wish.
Apologies, again, if I’ve misread you. Please forgive me if I’ve been out of line.
Molly
You don’t have to talk about it, but I’m not sure you have the right to demand that others not talk about it. ?
I totally understand that abuse is the way that the conversations go here.
I guess that’s just the way that it is.
But can it be okay if we talk about a few things from a NON-abusive point of view? That would be really, really nice.
Molly, I understand what you are saying. I keep going back to the original post (and I’m assuming that David is not abusive) and wondering why the situation would come up (in a non-abusive relationship).
There is a lot of assuming (it seems like) that a woman may withhold (in a non-abusive relationship). in order to encourage (for lack of a better word) the husband to become more “intimate” (whatever definition is being used).
(in a non-abusive relationship) the definition is important.
Are they using two definitions of “intimate”? Is he really withholding intimacy, or is he “speaking” a different “love language” (per Gary Chapman?
Is she “not feeling like it” because there’s a physical thing going on? Did she just tell him that? Is she tired? All of those things factor in…and a lot of misunderstanding can be avoided if both parties just talk. I know that (not with any sexual meaning at all)…many of my communications with my sweetie could be avoided if I would only stop expecting him to be psychic (but that’s just me)
But I also realize that this post (regardless of the original) cannot go there.
Perhaps another day.
Ellen,
If you read my posts you will find I’m not talking about abuse, but about a marriage where there is an underlying issue that is destroying intimacy. Ahunt understood my post, but you still ask “who gets to decide what is an “issue”?”
An issue is something that is dividing a couple and it HAS to be addressed.
Madame, I also thought that we were talking about marriages without abuse, but you do realize that I was just soundly “taken to the wood shed” for not realizing that we were talking about marriages with abuse.
I feel like (again) I’m walking on eggshells because no matter what I say it’s going to be taken the wrong way.
An issue is something that is dividing a couple and it HAS to be addressed.
And if sometimes the way it needs to be addressed is to tell the woman (in an otherwise normal and NON-abusive marriage) that the “issue” that she wants to be addressed is one of a man who is communicating like a man. That is why I reference GENDER DIFFERENCES in communcation.
If the wife is allowed to define the “issues” (in an otherwise normal and NON-abusive marriage) without allowing for those gender differences then what she wants is to feminize the communication between them.
I also referenced “Violent Partners”, that touches on a problem with counseling – the counselor tends to side with the woman without knowing all of the inside facts.
I’m reading a few books right now that agree that the secular world is waging war on men (and boys). And these are secular books! I would not like to see the Christian world take up that battle.
If the reality is that women are defining what “intimacy” is (and if it’s the women who are doing the complaining, it’s the women who are defining), then we should ask whether it’s a real problem on the part of the man, or if it’s a definition on the part of the woman.
I’m reading this thread from a hotel and not sure I can do a response justice but will try
Madame said it well, about underlying issues.
If either spouse feels/thinks that there is something wrong in the relationship, or they have an issue that they’d like addressed, it is up to them to talk to their spouse about it — there is really no other way to reach understanding and resolution. Other gestures may play a part in this restoration, but I think there’s no getting around the necessity of talking together about things in an open and receptive manner, both husband and wife together.
Regarding abuse, I would say that there is a contiuum — you have generally healthy relationships in which the occasional abusive thought or behavior, usually subtle (something we would probably call “inconsiderate”) happens, on up to generally abusive relationships in which there is some tenderness and understanding but mostly a lot of damage.
That is why, I think, the conversation can legitimately go toward discussing abuse, yet Ellen, you may certainly request discussion about dynamics in a relationship which is generally healthy and non-abusive. But I don’t think that any of us can decide for the rest what can and can’t be discussed, except for the moderators
Ellen,
If we are trying to force men into a feminized version of our definition of “intimacy”, they may very well be pressured into “performing” in order to get the intimacy that they need.
To me, the rhetoric of “feminization” misses the point. If a man becomes “feminized,” it’s his own fault, just as a woman becoming “masculinized” is her own fault. Even then, those definitions are rather arbitrary.
A man wanting sex without being willing to work toward resolution of grievances is pressuring his wife into performing as well.
Again, though, I do not conflate “reconciliation” and “intimacy.” Intimacy is something that exists between people (or doesn’t). Reconciliation is coming to agreement, acceptance, and understanding regarding differences, or the righting of wrongs. Reconciliation will lead to intimacy, or restore it.
To me, the rhetoric of “feminization” misses the point. If a man becomes “feminized,” it’s his own fault, just as a woman becoming “masculinized” is her own fault. Even then, those definitions are rather arbitrary.
I do not believe that statement is correct.
From the start of the education system, boys are being taught in ways that are best suited to girls (read “Why Gender Matters”, Leonard sax). They are basically trained to behave like girls and the spirit is trained out of them.
The most common treatment for a little boy who is acting like a little boy? Ritalin.
In a current history textbook there are fewer than 50 lines of text about George Washington, compared with 213 about Marilyn Monroe. The last elementary classroom I was in, boys were losing interest in reading…most of what was offered was…well…not attractive to boys. (Read “Save the Males”, Kathleen Parker)
The feminization of men – their fault. No – it’s being trained into them from a very early age.
Question: why are “metrosexual” men popular? why do so many women like hanging out with gay men?
Okay, my experience is quite the opposite.
I take a stand against Ritalin rightly or wrongly. I attract boys to my reading programme in droves and they perform Robin Hood, the play, and read about Shackleton, and Buffalo Bill and Annie Oakley. I have high success at getting both boys and girls reading. I also buy all my own books, survivor adventures for the most part.
I also have a train set and a dollshouse, and they chose to play with both equally, no gender bias towards one or the other, not my influence.
Just because some people are being stupid about teaching boys does not mean that women should have to obey their husbands. The two things have absolutely nothing to do with each other. If the church would release women to be real people we could work together at what needs to be reformed elsewhere.
Just because some people are being stupid about teaching boys does not mean that women should have to obey their husbands. The two things have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
When I am speaking of gender differences in communication, how we educate our boys has a lot to do with how they are trained to behave as men.
Hmmm…I dunno, Ellen. All three of our boys had excellent public school experiences, obtained scholarships…two post grad degrees, one in progress.
And no one considers these huntin,’ fishin,’ black diamond skiing manly guys to be effeminate. Nor do they consider themselves under siege, or in any way oppressed or disadvantaged.
And we have West Pointers, ROTC grads, scientists, engineers and computer wonks in my generation, all requiring discipline and focus.
The so-called feminized teaching style that requires focus, attention to what is going on in class, and the ability to sit at a desk for 35 minutes at a time is the style of teaching that has been in effect since the origins of our public schools some 400 years ago, and historically, boys seemed to have performed well.
What has changed so drastically in the last decade?
And Madame,
re:I don’t think it’s a matter of a wife withholding sex because she is not getting what she wants, but rather, because she has to get a point through.
TMI here, but I would add that my own pleasure and desire was nonexistant when the intimate relations were one-sided. It was a recipe for profound disharmony, and it took a husband-wife counseling team to blast me out of my shabby martyrdom, and the BH out of his deliberate obliviousness.
What has changed so drastically in the last decade?
Read “Why Gender Matters” (Leonard Sax)
Ahunt…a lot has changed in the last 10 years.
Remember when kindergarten was about learning how to play well with others? No more.
Read “Tutored at two: too much too soon?”
and the New First Grade: Too Much Too Soon
You confuse me Ellen. Everything in italics are your words. On the one hand you seem to support counseling, with which I agree because counselors are trained to see through the manipulation, self-justification, and denial.
Are we getting an impartial outside counselor to witness
If she chooses to be there (not a “stuck” sort of inertia, but a conscious choice), then she should either fulfill her own side of the covenant, or be under the direct accountability of a Christian counselor. Otherwise she risks making her own rules as she goes along.
Emotionally abusive? She should be under the direction of a Christian counselor (face to face, not something off the internet) and if (under that direction) she is counseled to withhold I certainly would yield to the one who knows the entire situation.
(if the man refuses to even admit that it’s a problem, this does not apply – and the wife should be under the accountability of a counselor).
On the other hand, the fact is that an abuser will not want to engage with counseling nor will they be supportive of their victim engaging with counseling because counseling threatens the status quo. When her dignity and strength have been patched up enough through therapy, she will be able to stand up to the abuse and put a stop to it (one way or another).
In a hard comp marriage, an abusive husband might succeed in “forbidding her” from counseling and he can buy a copy of this book you are quoting to validate his distrust of counseling:
Violent Partners cites statistics that say that in counseling situations, counselors tend to 1) place the blame on the man before knowing all of the circumstances and 2) side with the woman.
Did you ever consider that counselors might only appear to “side with the woman”? I wonder if counselors treat men and women a bit differently after the manner that Jesus treated men and women differently? You yourself seem to identify differences in communication styles. Men want a “fix”. Women talk to process. Sooo, are you faulting the counselor for helping women talk through, while giving men the “bottom line” right up front?
Jesus was BLUNT with men:
-to Peter “get thee behind me, Satan”.
Jesus was circumspect and gentle with women:
-to Martha, “Why are you troubled? Mary has chosen the better part.”
My Christian therapist- with 12 years of experience- told me he had observed that men and women tend to deal with shame in a way which corresponds with their anatomy: MEN externalize and WOMEN internalize. Men have a very hard time taking responsibility for their contribution to the difficulties, while women struggle with blaming themselves too much and failing to hold him accountable.
Same old, same old…
Adam- IT WAS THAT WOMAN YOU GAVE ME! (Blames the woman and God)
Eve- Yes, I ate, I was deceived by the serpent. (Takes responsibility and fingers the real enemy which sets up an ongoing unique enmity between the serpent and woman)
Did you ever consider that counselors might only appear to “side with the woman”?
Actually, no. I was citing Linda G. Mills, a Ph.D. who happens to be a social worker and “Founder of the Center on Violence and Recovery at New York University, where she is also a Professor and Senior Vice Provost.” She is also a survivor of “intimate violence” (as she puts it – because a person can also be victimized by a person who is not a “domestic partner”, but who (generic you) are otherwise intimate with.
I sort of thought she might have an inside track on that information.
Sooo, are you faulting the counselor for helping women talk through, while giving men the “bottom line” right up front?
No, I would fault a counselor that before knowing all of the circumstances (that is a vital piece of informaion, don’t you think?) approached the situation with a “men bad – women good” frame of mind.
Again the “ before knowing all of the circumstances is a vital piece of information. If a Christian counselor has all of the information, that makes a big difference, does it not?
I went to one counselor and the greater part of the session was her trying to find out how I was being abused by my husband (I was there to discuss issues related to ADHD)
Gem, sometimes life is a dichotomy. Do counselors tend (yes, my quote did use that qualifier) to side with women before knowing all of the fact? Yes. Does that mean that all counselors are worthless and should be avoided? No. Does that mean we should choose our counselors carefully? Yes.
You want to make it an “either/or” I see it as a “both/and” As in:
Yes, I am aware that some counselors may tend to side with women before knowing all of the facts therefore I know that I should choose a Christian counselor carefully and make sure that I honestly put all of the facts on the table before asking for a solution.
I admit, it’s just a thought and (to me) it makes sense. 1) choose a counselor carefully and 2) make sure the counselor has all of the information needed to give informed counsel.
ahunt: another shift that has occurred in the last decade or so.
ADHD. (Per William Carey, PhD) – there is a general consensus that 1 – 2% of children can be readily identifiable by ICD-10 criteria as having ADHD (the vast majority of them boys). However, in 2000, 15% of school age children are “diagnosed”. I know that I went to my GP and told him that I thought my son had ADD and the man handed me an Rx for Ritalin. I politely walked out and went took my son to a specialist.
Given the fact that “ADHD” is primarily (primarily) a male diagnosis, that 15% translates to nearly 30% of boys being medicated.
Here is an ultra short summary of “Boys Adrift” (also by Leonard Sax).
ADHD is an area that I have a great deal of interest in and I had a very helpful professor (an adjunct who happens to be the supervisor of Special Education in the Intermediate School District in the country adjoining mine.)
It is worth noting that there are three districts in my general vicinity who are at risk of losing federal funding because they have labeled too many boys as “ADHD” and also labeled them “special ed”.
If boys get an ADHD label because they have more trouble than girls sitting still for hours at a time in a small classroom (with classroom sizes getting larger and larger) – in other words, they’re being boys – AND that gets them medicated (even if there is a known over-diagnosis of “ADHD”) and these normal and active little boys are getting a “special ed” label – that is a shift from a decade ago.
And yes…growing up with a “special ed” label will have a lasting effect on a boy…teen…man.
What is known as “ADHD” is (I believe) primarily 1) gender differences in brain development and 2) normal variations in human personalities. And yet, up to 1/3 of our boys have the “disability”.
Unless we we start to recognize and teach to gender differences, the next generation will have 1/3 of its males being diagnosed with a “developmental disability”.
Ellen,
My sister and I are both special ed. professionals. We attend conferences on brain science, we have sons and daughters, nieces and nephews with many dysfunctions. We deal with the same data you do and draw some similar and some contrasting conclusions.
We do not draw any conclusions that lead to a need for male hierarchy. The Bible does not tell us that men and women have different sexual needs or rights. They are identical in scripture. Male authority will not solve any emotional or sexual problems between a husband and wife and could aggravate quite a problems.
I am interested in what you are writing but I keep asking myself what the conclusions are that you might draw from this.
I am interested in what you are writing but I keep asking myself what the conclusions are that you might draw from this.
Gender differences in communication matter.
In 1 Cor 7 Paul BENDS OVER BACKWARDS to be symmetrical in his statements to husbands and wives, this symmetry should not be missed, as this symmetrical structure BY ITSELF says something, namely that (at least for what he writes about) men and women are to be treated equal, not just be equal, but treated equally. As an egal I see this as a beautiful summary of egalitarian principles.
One can show the principles in 1 Cor 7 of having sex in a public class by trying to shake hands when another controls your arm and they control yours. It simply cannot be done unless both agree to coordinate and do it.
Don, why does Scripture give different directions to husbands and wives, when husbands and wives are specifically instructed as husbands and wives?
I Corinthians 7 is a great passage for this post, isn’t it? What a beautiful way to point out that in the area of physical intimacy in marriage, the priority of each spouse should be to meet the needs of the other. University of Washington sociologist John Gottman has done some research that is relevant to this issue. He points out that when there is conflict, 85% of husbands distance themselves from their wives emotionally, while 85% of wives move towards their husbands to verbalize their concerns.
It’s interesting to think about I Corinthians 7 in light of Gottman’s research. Should a husband move toward his wife as she expresses a need to verbally express her concerns? Absolutely! But, that wife has to remember that as she explains her concerns, she should avoid negativity (e.g., negative tone of voice, etc.) because her husband (according to Gottman’s research) hears her negative critique as contempt for who he is as a man. Yes, a “reconciliation” application of I Corinthians 7 will mean that the matter needs to be resolved. BUT, the wife should be extremely careful that the conversation is respectful and should understand that mutual submission may mean that the conversation is shorter than she would ideally like it to be. He needs to do the loving thing and meet her need to verbally reconcile. But, during that verbal discussion, she needs to very conscious of his need for respect.
Aside to Don J., should this passage be generalized outside of this context? I agree with Sarah Sumner, who in a recent CT article that we’ve talked about before, argues that egalitarians over-generalize. (Similarly, I see Galatians 3:28 and I Peter 3:7 as addressing equality of the spouses with respect to the doctrine of salvation.)
Aside to all egals: Ellen has raised the above issue before, and I don’t think any of you have responded. Most of the passages in the Bible that specifically address marriage, give different instructions to husbands than those that are given to wives. How do you explain this distinction?
Aside on marriage counseling: More than half the time, it is the wife who initiates counseling. I think it is easy for the counselor to fall victim to pride by listening only to the report of the one who seeks counseling. The counselor sees the act of seeking counseling as evidence of humility. Sometimes it is, but other times the spouse seeking counseling is not objective about his or her contribution to the problem and seeks an ally in the counselor. Too many counselors forget that there is another side to the story that hasn’t been heard. Additionally, when both spouses seek counseling and a heated issue comes up during a counseling session, typical responses are for the wife to cry and the husband to become angry. Does that make the wife’s perspective on the marital struggle correct? I don’t think so, but I do think counselors are much more sympathetic to a wife’s tears than to a husband’s anger.