single Christian women don’t want sex?
January 28, 2008
Some guys at my CLB (church left behind – conservative, charismatic, word of faith, evangelical) started a website called comanionship.com – now, before I go any further, I’m curious to know what first comes to your mind when you hear that name.
…..
ok moving on hehe
….
I usually don’t read there because it’s the same old tune – men are the head, there are godly gender roles and this is what they are, men like video games and fixing heating and air conditioning systems, men shouldn’t act like women…blah blah blah… but I get curious sometimes esp. since I know most of these men from my 3 years in “leadership” at that church.
The pastor posted a piece recently about men as the head and what that means in a dating relationship – basically he was saying that it’s the man’s responsibility to put the breaks on, that he needs to set the boundaries (which is disturbing to me but let’s assume he means that in a healthy Christian dating relationship and that the boundaries are respectful and healthy).
The whole premise of the piece concerns me but it’s this one sentence I wanted to talk about (and I *do* mean talk about – I really would like your input).
100% of the time I am convinced that a girl really does not really want sex. Fearfully she uses sex to keep you from leaving the relationship
ok, now first of all I’m not sure it’s too smart to say 100% of the time for anything esp. when talking about people. I’m not sure you can say that anything is 100% of anything when talking about people. But really?! 100% of the time the girl doesn’t really want sex?! Really?!
Was I just a horny girl or do some of you other women think that’s an ill-informed statement? And does anyone else find this view and approach to sexuality in singleness a bit disconcerting?
linda
Julie Clawson
Makeesha
Nathan Gilmour
adrieneb
beautiaful
January 28, 2008 at 11:57 am
I do think it is an ill-informed statement but, unfortunately, a common opinion. I have been frustrated with our youth groups for years for the typical February focus … since it’s all about Valentines day, which is about love, we must talk about dating which means we must also talk about sex which translates into a talk about lust with the guys and modesty with the girls. ARGH! I challenged our youth pastor last year to reverse that and talk about modesty with the guys and lust with the girls. He looked at me like I had lost my mind. :::: sigh ::::
We have to acknowledge the sexuality and sensuous life of BOTH genders. It has taken me years to shake the shame I have carried for feeling sexual desire. The message is sent that it is normal for men and they just need to control it but the message is also sent that women don’t deal with this. So, if you do, you must not be normal.
January 28, 2008 at 12:59 pm
I think whoever said this was never a girl.
January 28, 2008 at 3:09 pm
I agree, Mak. It seems rooted in the same mentality that has hung around for centuries in the church- namely that women are not sexual beings in and of themselves, but rather sexual receivers. Thankfully, I think this perspective is slowly changing.
Michelle makes the best and simplest point- the guy who said this is, well, a guy. Not only does he not understand, but neither should he decide to speak for women. Great post!
Peace,
Jamie
P.S. Just to spare the confusion I always seem to face, I’m a guy.
January 28, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Cynthia – yep
Michelle – hehe..indeed. and if it were that innocent I wouldn’t really care but when it’s a pastor of a mid sized church who has people who follow him around like little lost puppies hanging on his every word I get concerned…because the message being sent is that women don’t have desire for sex outside of manipulation and control
January 28, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Jamie – exactly – the whole sexual receiver crap that’s been around for so long.
and LOL about the guy confusion
January 28, 2008 at 3:27 pm
It’s a relieve to know the “girls” at this church will hold their noses and “submit” dutifully to their husbands after marriage!
January 28, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Maria – I know right? ugh
January 28, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Actually, to be a pedantic historicist for just a moment, the women-as-passive-receivers had died out for a while before Freud and the gang brought it back. In medieval misogynist literature (and there was a fair bit of it), women’s sexual desires were so uncontrollable that they would fornicate, commit adultery, and even become witches to get some sex. (Apparently they wanted it so bad that even Satan started to look good.)
I’m not saying that either view is a good, much less a truthful one, but I am saying that the “passive woman” trope is a modern one, not one that’s been around unchanged for centuries.
January 28, 2008 at 6:14 pm
good point ngilmour but it’s still been around for a long time none the less. And one could argue that it’s swung around in cycles – it’s not a linear progression
January 28, 2008 at 6:15 pm
I also think that one could argue that the receivers view doesn’t necessarily require one to see women as frigid. The “headship men” I know don’t always think women don’t want sex at all.
January 28, 2008 at 8:28 pm
I agree with the absurdity of making a 100% claim on anything to do with people, especially this one. Growing up, my parents were on staff with Family Life, through Campus Crusade and in all of the Family Life Conferences, heard over and over again ways for the couples to deal with the husband wanting sex and the wife not. It drove me crazy and confused me about my own desires. When I did get married, I didn’t know whether or not we were just out of the ordinary, or FL was just full of old Christian chliches. (For the record I don’t have anything to do with this organization, and have moved significantly away from their teachings).
As I grew up, the messages my parents gave me about sex were simply to wait until marriage because God says so. They did nothing to equip me with feelings of desire that would, and did, arise. I am sure the conversation would have been different, had I been male. There would have been conversation about how to deal with desire. Thus the message was that I didn’t really have desire, which led to shame when I did.
The evangelical church often does not recognize sexuality in women, unless it is that of the temptresses, such as prostitutes, those in pornography, “sluts”, and then it is only talked about in the realm of “tempting men” (rather than men needing to deal with their inappropriate lust).
The church too often misses a valuable opportunity to engage women in their natural desires, and talk about it in a healthy way. I’m sick of generalized, and wrong, beliefs such as the “100% comment”
Thanks for writing about this.
January 28, 2008 at 9:04 pm
It is true that a lot of women struggle to have any sexual desire at all. How much of this is due to years of being told that desire is evil and that women don’t have desire to begin with is a good question. Conversations that either just deny or affirm that women have desire often ignore the women who don’t feel desire but with they did.
Maybe it will take whole generations being raised without hearing lies or being heaped with inappropriate guilt to make things better.
January 28, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Makes me wonder what this pastor would think to find out that it was was my hubby who told me no before we got married? I didn’t break down until 2-3 weeks before the wedding, but he was the one who said no to my “we’ll be married in a couple of weeks anyway” whining.
I agree that this needs to stop. Let’s face it, if women were never horny, then men would never get sex, no matter how persuasive they were. I also hate the whole, the tender bud needs to be protected, schtick from this group. I can make decisions and take care of myself. Before and after marriage, I have never needed anyone to set boundaries for me.
January 28, 2008 at 10:18 pm
as a single christian
girlwoman, i’m just going to say this pastor is wrong and leave it at that. ;)January 28, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Hi All, I would encourage everyone to take a step back and look at what is being said on the site. Mak has taken one statement and made it a thesis, which is just not the case.
While the writer is not a woman and can’t speak for women, he can speak to experience.
Personally, I and many people I know have experienced the pain and frustration of being sexual beings that long for intimacy but struggle to put it inside the bounds of what God has set up.
The point is NOT that women are not sexual or that sexual desire is BAD. Quite the contrary. SEX IS GOOD, it is good for both genders to desire sex, that is the POINT! Intense sexual passion within marriage is by DESIGN.
However, many times, not 100% of the time but many times in my experience and the experience of those that I know. Outside factors like pornography addiction of either sex (mostly men) can cause deep insecurity in their future female mate, not drawing the proper lines in intimacy before marriage or engaging in sexual relations before marriage with no firm intention of marriage can cause a TON of grief and pain!
The point of the article (since it is a men’s magazine and not targeted at women) is to say hey guys, your future christian wife has a deep desire to be a virgin (in many cases) and wants to believe you when you say you will honor her, please don’t USE her, love her enough to say no!
Ryan
Editor, Comanionship.com
January 28, 2008 at 11:13 pm
I’ve not been around many Christians who are very into male headship, but I can tell you that what this guy is saying is very different from my own experience.
(and “hi”! I’ve been getting this feed for a week or three, and didn’t know you were blogging here :-) )
January 28, 2008 at 11:24 pm
I appreciate the open discussion that’s happening, and wanted to leave just a quick point of clarification, which is that the comment was definitely in the context of sexual relationships before marriage, and with the, perhaps unstated, assumption that both people in the relationship had standards of purity they wanted to maintain.
As some background, the idea for the article came out of the fact that, often times it is a female in the relationship pushing for more intimacy, for whatever reason, some of which do include insecurity and fear. However, I have heard countless stories of men claiming they wanted to honor a woman, and maintain a standard of purity in a relationship, and as soon as the woman pushes too hard, they throw their hands up in the air, and say. “It was Eve’s fault, she told me she wanted me to eat the apple!” I guess I think it would be refreshing for a man to say, “I am choosing, because we agreed ahead of time, not to enter into this temptation, even if in thirty seconds you change your mind, and beg me to be more intimate with you. I have set a standard for myself and I will stick to it.” I just don’t like to see men give in to sexual temptation and then blame the woman for “pushing the issue.” Anyway, I know that isn’t what was directly addressed in this particular article, but it was something that was discussed at length before the assignments for this edition were given out.
Amy
co-editor Comanionship.com
January 29, 2008 at 1:25 am
Amy and Ryan – thanks for sharing your pov. I stand by my concerns. the “headship” positions concerns me for many reasons and outside of marriage it concerns me even more deeply. I know you both personally so I’m not going to reply point by point to your statements but let them stand on their own merit.
thanks again for stopping by.
January 29, 2008 at 1:41 am
*waving to bonny*
you’re lucky not to have been around headship stuff. I actually wasn’t so much as a kid but moreso as an adult when the pentecostal movement starting morphing more with conservative evangelicalism. I was actually surprised with this view in our previous church, I always just assumed that they were pentecostals of the kind I always knew. oh well :) And fwiw, I respect blake, I strongly disagree with this sort of stuff but he’s a good man and a caring pastor in the best way he knows how.
January 30, 2008 at 5:20 pm
I went to the site and actually read the article. I feel better commenting on something I’ve actually read. The “100%” comment was really concerning for me as well. I think it takes the responsibility off of young women to make decisions about their own body and in relationships in general. I guess because my own relationship with my husband/boyfriend before marriage never worked that way, it seems really foreign to me. I also don’t see this as an approach for teaching my sons or daughter. That being said, I was told “no sex, no sex, no sex” while growing up and then BANG one momentous day that involved a big, white gawdy dress and it was instantly “Go for it!” I did not listen to the “no sex” banter- I fell out of the “100%” referred to and made that decision quite on my own. It concerns me though that in our present church situation(traditional, conservative, pentecostal church) this is what is taught and we are really neglecting the young women and their God ingrained sexual desires and needs. I think that a lot of young women are done a great disservice by mentalities like the one shared in this article.
(phew! sorry for the mini novel!)
January 30, 2008 at 8:06 pm
thank you for sharing your thoughts and experiences Jenn, not a novel at all :)
February 1, 2008 at 12:01 am
I thought I was crazy all the time because I very much wanted sex. I think this statement is typical of what keeps being handed down to men and women and keeps them in a level of bondage. This has hit a sore spot on me. I think I have to go pray now and ask God to help me forgive the people in my CLB as these were the kind of statements they implied and stated also. Great post. Love this site by the way glad I found it.
March 8, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Rather obviously the pastor’s statement is rationally insupportable. How could he possibly know what 100% of women feel, especially since it changes over the course of time, and as humans we experience contradictory desires.
Its an unsupportable statement because the pastor would immediately have to concede, if challenged, that he could not know, and has no rational basis for the claim.
If there is no rational basis for the claim then why is he making it?
There is a charitable reading of what the pastor is (trying) to say, that he is challenging young men in the church, who apparently believe in male headship, to practise what they claim to believe by taking responsibility. Taking responsibility obviously means taking responsibility for their own sexuality which means saying no to their own desires even when the woman whom they are dating indicates a willingness to have sex.
Even this charitable reading however doesn’t answer the question why the pastor would make such an irrational statement. The statement is not logically necessary in order to tell men to control themselves.
This gives credence to the views already expressed, that the idea that women feel no sexual desire is designed to control women, through suppressing the legitimacy of female sexual desire, that desire can no longer serve as a reason for women to make choices, and women’s choices are thus constrained.
Nate has already pointed out how a view of women’s sexuality as insatiable, a view prevalent in the Islamic worldview, can also be feature of patriarchal societies. What is interesting in the pastor’s statement is the way in which the consequences of that claim: that men should therefore be on guard against the wiles of women, can be incorporated into the claim that women are asexual, by claiming that women are seductively manipulating to fulfil an emotional need.
If we do want to enable Christians to remain chaste (sex only within marriage), we will have to forgo these patriarchal narratives on female sexuality.
It is rather puzzling that the man is the “head” of the dating relationship. I understand the complementarian claim to be that marriage results in headship. If the marriage covenant results in headship then how can a man be the head of the dating relationship? Or is any man automatically the head in any relationship with any woman? The consequences of that would be quite startling. Any single woman should regard any single man as her “head” and submit to him. What if two single guys both want her to do something and disagree, which is her head?
What does this headship of the dating relationship entail? Does it allow the woman to say “no” to the man’s sexual advances? Surely that would not be submissive?
May 23, 2008 at 11:31 am
I am covinced that christian women dont want sex with earthly men–they want it with GOD.Once they would do whatever they needed,but then they started the Bible thumping thing,cut you off(saying it is only to produce children)then the bible is their only sex.I havent had meaningful sex(and no longer will due to several factors)in 6 years-maybe that is the way it is supposed to go.When she wants it,you cannot even get excited,there is something wrong,and DONT tell me because i am not doing my bit as a Christian–I am a combat infantryman,who lost his soul a long time ago–I AM PHYSICALLY DEAD!!I just dont have the brains to lay down and die.
August 27, 2008 at 10:40 am
The grand affect of most of this teaching coming from the pulpit reduces the relationship of men and women to an economic/social relationship that would better be described as prostitution. Most certainly not what God intended. According to scripture women who do not desire sex ARE NOT TO MARRY! Scripture is also full of women who desire sex. The irony is that most of the teachers of this garbage think that they are establishing what they believe to be a “man at the head” position when in reality they are putting him at the mercy of women who are only there to meet his need at a price!
January 10, 2009 at 3:20 pm
I deeply feel that the statement was very baised. You can tell that the statement was written in the male persona that is ignorant of the female sensuality and sexuality. If women not wanting to have sex was the case, then I would burn in hell for my own hormones.
June 14, 2009 at 2:46 am
YAA Adding this to my bookmarks. Thank You
September 7, 2009 at 5:13 pm
What a great discussion. I find the comments interesting, as I found myself always struggling with sexual desire. Figured with marriage it would end, wouldn’t you know I got the husband with very low desire who cheated on me and he is divorcing me.
As a christian woman In my 4o’s I find myself confused. I don’t think I need sex but I do desire love and affection. I think I could live the single life quite happily but I like the romance component. Unfortunately that part I try to supply with romance books. If I could dance with a book I would probably be content. Clearly I have serious spiritual growth to be done
Is it just me but I can’t relate to women who say they don’t need marriage because God is their husband. To me God is my God, he is the creator, but to pretend that God is a husband to snuggle up to. I don’t think so. Just my two cents. Thanks for letting me comment
September 12, 2010 at 10:49 pm
I am a christian woman and i want to have lots and lots of sex. i am waiting to be married.
December 2, 2010 at 5:10 pm
I am a former conservative Christian. I don’t agree with people who say that Christian women don’t struggle with desire. I am single and in my 30s. When I felt the worse about myself and burdened by the headship business, I did not handle my feelings well and made some mistakes. When I was set free from the yoke of religion and the pressure to be passively waiting for that one Christian guy to ask me out and feeling as if I had to shed another 15 pounds to receive any positive attention from a church boy, I have been voluntarily and happily abstinent. I identify myself as a Christian, but am finally experiencing it as a free woman and allowing myself to choose who I date and not date, I feel
as if God has released the yoke of temptation.
January 1, 2011 at 9:10 pm
Hey,
just wanted to say that this pastor is very much off the beaten track.
Put simply:
- We are to see God in the person we love (the image and very likeness)
-Sexuality is us experiencing God’s plan for us and a taste of the ecstasy of heaven
- Both women and men were created with sexual desire for unitive (what is bound on earth is bound in heaven) and procreative (be fruitful and multiply) reasons
** You, your pastor and anyone’s spiritual advisor and EVERYONE should have a thorough knowledge of THEOLOGY OF THE BODY (google it!)
Hope this helps