Category Archives: book reviews

booknotes: love the sin

05 Thursday Jul 2012

Posted by in book reviews

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

, , ,

It’s frankly been awhile since I read a book on ethics or theory that expanded my brain so that it felt like it was slightly too big for my skull (aka getting intellectually hot ‘n bothered), but in the past ten days I’ve actually read two of them! The first was Janet R. Jacobsen and Ann Pellegrini’s Love the Sin: Sexual Regulation and the Limits of Religious Tolerance (New York University Press, 2003). The second was Julie Stephens’ recently-released Confronting Postmaternal Thinking: Feminism, Memory, and Care (Columbia University Press, 2012), which I’m going to review next week. Both are slim volumes that tackle complex issues of embodiment, identity, the relationship between public and private, between citizens and the state, and ultimately the way in which we understand individual persons in relation to collective cultural and political spaces.

Reading Love the Sin and Confronting Postmaternal Thinking back-to-back brought out a lot of resonances. Both books are critical of the way in which individuals have been constructed in the modern liberal democracy. They ask hard questions about who counts as a full and worthy citizen under the laws and policies of such democracies (particularly in the United States). They point to ways in which the mid-twentieth-century rights movements — especially the gay and lesbian liberation movement and mainstream feminist movement — have been undercut and co-opted by a majority hostile to their more radical re-visioning goals. This is due, both works contend, at least in part because of the narrow “rights” rhetoric these movements have depended upon. In Stephens’ work, we see how the language of feminism has been deployed in order to shore up a neoliberal notion of citizen-as-worker, while political ethics grounded in care and connectedness (“mothering”) are erased from the collective memory and public discourse. In Love the Sin, Pellegrini and Jacobsen argue that notions of liberal “tolerance” and a reliance on innate/natural (“born this way”) justifications for non-normative sexual orientation have unnecessarily compromised our ability to advocate for a robust freedom-of-practice in the public realm.

While I have persistent reservations about Stephens’ framing of the maternal (which I’ll get to in next week’s review), I was thoroughly seduced by Jacobsen and Pellegrini’s passionate and articulate advocacy of “freedom” as a more expansive, humane, way of framing the question of sexual citizenship — and other types of citizenship — than the notion of tolerance. “In a situation framed by the rhetoric of tolerance,” they write,

It becomes impossible to distinguish between the perpetrators of racism or homophobia or misogyny (this list is hardly exhaustive) and the objects of various forms of discrimination. Rather, when the situation is characterized by tolerance, the public is not expected to take a stand against injustice, but merely tolerate both sides of the “conflict,” which is supposedly between opposing groups of people who are circumscribed outside of those who constitute “the public” or “the American people” writ large (59).

Drawing on media coverage of gay and lesbian activism and of violence motivated by anti-homosexual bigotry, Jacobsen and Pellegrini persuasively show how tolerance encourages the same us/them thinking that can lead to violence, despite liberal claims that tolerance is the way out of the hate that leads to violence. For to “tolerate” those who are different from you implicitly assumes alienation, “the other,” a distance between queer folks, for example, and “the public.” The public “tolerates” the homosexual, which means the homosexual is outside of the group. Therefore, as much as we’d like to believe tolerance is our answer to violence, it offers no escape:

Tolerance disavows violence and those who commit heinous crimes, but along the way it offers no exit from the us-them logic that structures hate and tolerance in our society. It also gives us no logical exit from the mandate to tolerate those who hate. (p. 65)

Jacobsen and Pellegrini go one step further and argue that we are further hobbled by the notion that our claims to toleration of homosexuality are grounded in the fact that one’s sexual orientation is supposedly hard-wired and therefore immutable:

Characteristics that are taken to be immutable, such as skin color or sex, will be tolerated. But when traits or behaviors are taken to be discretionary and volitional, people can be asked, indeed compelled, to change their behavior and assimilate to the dominant norm … Gay identity may be protected by the courts … but ‘homosexual conduct’ certainly is not (94).

As they point out, this is hardly simply a problem for left-progressive causes, such as gender or sexuality. The notion that only immutable characteristics are protected, not behavior, means that an Orthodox Jew can be asked to cut his hair, or a Muslim woman asked to remove her headscarf, in order to keep their job. It means that Christians are not protected from being fired for refusing to work on Sunday.

How, then to get ourselves out of the (violence-enabling) cul-de-sac of identity-based tolerance? This is where Jacobsen and Pellegrini’s theorizing takes what I think is a paradigm-expanding turn. They argue that rather than a framework of “human rights,” social justice movements around sexual expression (and potentially other things) would do better to argue on the ground of religious freedom. Essentially, they argue that sexual freedom is analogous to the freedom of religion in that both are practices that express core values, and that not just beliefs but also individual expression of belief deserve protection, in public as well as private.

This shift frees us from the interminable question of what “causes” sexual variation, which — while theoretically interesting —  is actually ultimately unhelpful when it comes to determining what is lawful. Grounding rights claims on the basis of one’s inclinations being “natural” will do little to answer critics who (quite rightly) point out that human beings are not compelled to follow every inclination without thought, and that our ability to regulate impulsive behavior is, in fact, part of what makes us human. Just because something is “natural” doesn’t make it “right” in the moral sense — since morality is a human creation, and deeply embedded in time and place. As Jacobsen and Pellegrini write:

An important virtue of the paradigm shift we are advocating [from identity-based “rights” to freedom to live out ones values] is that it does not force us to finally settle the question of what ’causes’ homoesexuality. In the end it just does not — or should not — matter how an individual came to be homosexual, any more than it matters how heterosexuals became heterosexual. Rather, homosexual life and experience are to be valued, are in fact sources of value. (98).

This shift also helps us to combat arguments to the effect of, “It’s okay for homosexuals to practice their lifestyle as long as they don’t flaunt it in front of me”:

Free exercise does not depend on the boundary between public and private that protects liberal freedom. In a liberal democracy, some people are allowed to live lives freely in both public and private; others are allowed freedom only if they keep significant aspects of their lives private and privatized; and still others … are not allowed even the protections of a ‘private life.’ But if ‘free exercise’ and ‘democracy’ are to mean anything at all, everyone must have access to life both in public and in private (106).

I see productive parallels here with discussions of ability and access, about what it means to work “toward restructuring our public life so that everyone is included in categories like ‘the general public,’ ‘the public at large,’ or ‘all Americans’ ” (72). The majority culture has a strong normative power — sanctioned by the language of “tolerance” — to enforce their own notions of civility, rather than practice radical acceptance and lovingkindness toward those whose behavior as well as identity challenge their notions of propriety. The perennial (and perennially heated) “debate” about children’s behavior in public spaces comes immediately to mind for me: because children are constituted as “other” in our society (as non-workers they are understood as future/potential citizens, but not full participants in their own right), we feel entitled to ask that their behavior meet our own criteria of acceptability, rather than ask how we might re-formulate our public spaces to better serve them. The same could be said for the elderly, the non-English-speaking, the mentally- or physically struggling.

Angus Johnston has a powerful post on this subject, in which he writes:

Here’s my secret: my kid doesn’t actually behave as well as I do. Sometimes she whines. Sometimes she has to be reminded to to keep her voice down, or not to run. So yeah, when I take her to the Museum of Modern Art, we do impose on other patrons, at least a little.

And you know what? A little imposition on other patrons is okay. I’ll apologize sincerely to anyone she disturbs, but I’m not going to apologize for her presence. Because MoMA is her space as much as it is mine.

My [cognitively disabled] sister whines in public sometimes, too. Sometimes she gets overwhelmed and cries. Sometimes she raises her voice. (Running in museums is not an issue with her, I’m happy to say.) If we say that my daughter shouldn’t go to museums because she might whine or cry or raise her voice, then we have to say that my sister can’t go either — and one of the best days I ever spent with my sister was the day that we visited a MoMA exhibit of design for people with disabilities. MoMA is my sister’s space as much as it is mine.

You can (and should) read the whole piece over at Student Activism.

The basic point both Jacobsen and Pellegrini are making here is that in the framework of “tolerance,” in which we tolerate non-Christians, non-straight folks, children, the disabled, in “our” public square is that through the mechanism of toleration we are perpetuating the hierarchy in which some people are more entitled to freedom of expression than others.

“The public” — understood to be the white, male, economically self-sufficient, heterosexual Christian (I’m sure that’s not exhaustive, but you get the idea) — “tolerates” those of us who diverge from that which feels comfortable to. But that toleration is conditional on our normative behavior. Jacobsen and Pellegrini remind us that such conditional acceptance is, well, otherwise known as being an entitled asshole.

I encourage anyone who cares about effective social change toward a more egalitarian, inclusive world to read Love the Sin. Even if sexual freedom isn’t your issue, per se, the framework Jacobsen and Pellegrini lay out is an effective one for any area where the personal and political intertwine.

Related Read: If you’re psyched by the ideas Love the Sin outlines, be sure to check out Kenji Yoshino’s Covering: The Hidden Assault on Our Civil Rights (Random House, 2006) which explores the legal side of these “freedom of expression” issues.

‘the act of marriage’ live-blog: abortion bonus post (the end)

21 Thursday Jun 2012

Posted by in book reviews

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

See also: intro, ch 1, ch 2-3, ch 4-5, ch 6-7, ch 8-10, ch 11, ch 12, ch 13, ch 14.

As promised on Tuesday, here is the bonus post reproducing the section in The Act of Marriage which deals with abortion. It’s notable, I think, that a Christian book on sexuality deals with abortion only in the final chapter, in a question-and-answer section, rather than having either a) a chapter devoted to the subject, or b) addressing abortion in the chapter on family planning. This may seem odd to present-day readers, who are used to abortion being one of the rallying cries of the “family values” coalition. But actually, abortion did not become a major political issue for non-Catholics until the late 70s. So the way abortion is handled in The Act of Marriage is a fascinating sliver of post-Roe, pre-Operation Rescue abortion ethics for evangelicals. I’m reproducing the text here in full, with my interleaved commentary.

ABORTION: Is it ever right for a Christian woman to have an abortion?

Note immediately how the question is framed: “a Christian woman.” This phrasing pulls the question from the realm of law and politics and places it in the realm of personal, religious conscience. Since no one can be forced to be a Christian in the United States, and whatever the LaHayes say subsequently applies only to Christian women, there is no explicit coercion — no forced birth, at least in the legal sense. Obviously, a woman could be pressured and forced on a much more intimate scale by religious community, doctor, and family — but this is not being framed as a matter of law.

A crucial issue in today’s society relates to the morality of abortion. Ever since the 1973 Supreme Court ruling granted a constitutional guarantee of privacy in such matters and left the decision to the individual woman during the first six months of her pregnancy, legalized abortions have increased at a catastrophic rate. Many opponents of abortion warned that if it were made legal, it would result in promiscuity, infidelity, venereal disease, and guilt. Who can deny the accuracy of their forecast?

On the other hand, we do start out at the gate talking about Roe v. Wade. And it’s clear the LaHayes feel the decision led to general degradation. Notice what’s not listed in the results of abortion? That’s right: murder. They’re talking about sexual misbehavior, not about baby-killing. In a lot of ways, these are still the root concerns of sexual conservatives — they’ve just learned that “baby killing” is a much more effective rhetorical move. Basically, the concerns the LaHayes list here about abortion mirror the concerns they have about secular, humanistic, “un-Christian” sexual mores in general. No more, no less.

There are two kinds of abortions — natural and induced. Although medical science cannot always tell why, some women abort their pregnancies naturally, which may be nature’s way of dealing with birth defects or other prenatal complications. Induced abortions are medically simple if performed by a competent doctor in the early stages of pregnancy.  

The way miscarriage and abortion are grouped together here,  and the accurate observation that early-stage abortions are “medically simple” and can be performed safely by a trained physician, serve to reassure the reader, to normalize the idea of abortion. This is not a passage designed to frighten or shock.

There are two reasons for inducing an abortion: (1) when such action is necessary to save the life of the mother — called “therapeutic abortion”; and (2) for the convenience of the mother because she is either unmarried or does not want the child. In such cases those making such a decision must bear the moral responsibility for their actions.

So they’re creating two distinct categories here, and it looks as if category one (“therapeutic abortion”) is deemed “necessary” and not at moral issue here — and even the second category, abortion for “convenience” is not automatically decried.

Christians as a rule know that the Bible condemns murder; consequently, many use the sixth commandment as justification for condemning all forms of abortion. The problem is that the Bible is not clear as to when the fertilized egg becomes a person — at the moment of conception, or when the embryo develops into a fully formed human being at three to six months. If one regards the fertilized egg as just “a living cell” that has potential to become a human, it is easier to approve of some form of abortion than if he believes that the soul enters at conception.

Throughout The Act of Marriage the LaHayes are careful to differentiate between moral parameters they find support for in the Bible (homosexuality; adultery) and those which they don’t necessarily approve, but about which the Bible is silent (oral sex; birth control). They make no exception for abortion, suggesting that Biblical censure of abortion hinges on whether abortion equals murder — and notice that they leave that question open-ended!

We faced this problem initially when a mother of four who thought she could not have any more children became pregnant. Because of a rare blood condition, her doctor advised, “If you do not get an abortion, the birth of this child will take your life.” If we had relied only on the sixth commandment, our response would have resulted in murder either way — the mother or the unformed child. After much prayer we counseled the couple to follow their doctor’s recommendation.

The modern-day anti-choice movement rarely, if ever, places the pregnant woman’s life at the center of the story in this way — let alone articulate the notion that two lives may be at stake here: the pregnant woman as well as that (potential) life of an “unformed child.” The abortion debate has sidelined women’s lives in the interest of focusing on what happens inside the womb, as if it were somehow disembodied from the woman who must decide (or be forced) to carry the pregnancy to term inside herself.

I think it’s also notable that the example above is of a woman who is already a parent. Often, in the anti-choice rhetoric of today, women-who-have-abortions and women-who-give-birth-and-parent are imagined as two separate populations; in this instance, they are found (as they most often are) in the same person.

Another case involved an innocent fourteen-year-old rape victim. The crime occurred while she was coming home from school, and investigation disclosed she had never seen the man before.

Ah perfect-victim-stranger-rape, how we miss hearing about you … oh, wait.

We felt that she had been through enough trauma. Certainly a loving God would not require an innocent girl, victim of a man’s bestial appetite, to drop out of school, endure nine months of pregnancy, and inaugurate motherhood before her fifteenth birthday. We found that her pastor’s approval was very important for her mental and spiritual rehabilitation. To this day only about six people know of this tragedy, and now, some years later, she is a happy, well-adjusted wife and mother.

Again we see the melding of women-who-have-abortions and women-who-are-mothers. Yes, the approval of abortion as an option in this instance is predicated on the “stranger rapes innocent girl” trope, but these days many anti-choicers argue against exceptions for rape/incest and the life of the mother.

Still another case concerned a couple who had a retarded child and were expecting again. A chemical analysis indicated that their unborn child would also be malformed in some way. After much prayer and soul-searching, we advocated a therapeutic abortion. Admittedly, we may some day have to account to God for these decisions, but to our best understanding of the Bible and the peace we had in our hearts at the time, we have no regrets.

I find it fascinating that they hold up these decisions difficult, human decisions for which there may be no fully right answer. They may “some day have to account to God” for the way they counseled families to seek abortions, but they “have no regrets” about encouraging families to choose abortion, even when the life of the mother was not immediately at stake. Particularly in this last instance, their decision-making process included a much more comprehensive understanding of family well-being and caretaking capacity than is normally up for discussion in present-day anti-abortion circles.

Through these experiences we have developed the following opinion on the subject.

Once again, the distinction between Biblical truth and the LaHayes’ (albeit pastorally-authoritative) ethics.

We oppose abortion for all personal or selfish reasons, but accept therapeutic abortion in those rare cases in which a Christian doctor, minister, and the girl’s parents prayerfully agree that it is in the best interest of either the mother or the unborn child. If a girl or woman is immoral and becomes pregnant, she should bear the responsibility for her actions by giving birth to the child.

Slut shaming in all its glory!

If she is a minor, we recommend that a Christian couple who desires a child be found and the child be adopted immediately after birth; the man involved should pay all necessary expenses plus room and board for the girl during her pregnancy. We do not believe that a forced marriage is always a solution, for it depends on the two people’s ages and whether one is an unbeliever. We have observed that unless the couple is mature enough to marry, they start out with so many strikes against them that marriage becomes a tragic mistake following an unfortunate sin. Better that they confess their sin in God, then responsibly do what is best for the unborn child (235-237).

They don’t articulate it in so many words here, but I think it’s telling that — in the mid-1970s! — they’re still assuming that an underage teenager will be sent to an unwed mother’s home for the duration of her pregnancy (why else the need for “room and board”?). And while this is obviously far from a liberal-progressive position on teen pregnancy, I appreciate the changing mores that allowed the LaHayes to encourage their readers not to pressure teens into shotgun marriages before the baby was born, in fact suggesting that “what is best for the unborn child” may, in fact, not be a childhood spent in an unhappy household.

So there you have it: fundamentalist, evangelical Christian abortion ethics, circa 1976. If only we could make our way back to even that narrow window of opportunity!

‘the act of marriage’ live-blog: ch 14 (questions answered, from a-to-zed)

19 Tuesday Jun 2012

Posted by in book reviews

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

See also: intro, ch 1, ch 2-3, ch 4-5, ch 6-7, ch 8-10, ch 11, ch 12, ch 13.

Can you believe we’ve reached the end? After this week’s installment, you should know everything you need to know about sexual intimacy in Christian marriage, and I should be fully equipped to be an Adequate Lady Spouse to my Future Wife.

The final chapter of The Act of Marriage is an FAQ chapter, “Practical Answers to Common Questions,” from Abortion to Temperament with lots in between. I’m actually going to reproduce the response on abortion in full Thursday, in a separate post, because I think it’s a fascinating window into evangelical Christian abortion ethics circa 1976. I think it will contain some surprises for those used to late-twentieth-century anti-choice plan-B-is-murder hardliners. Don’t worry! There’s still plenty of slut-shaming. But there’s no discussion of whether or not abortion should be legally accessible, and the pregnant woman herself doesn’t disappear from view as is often the case in current-day discussions of whether a fertilized egg has rights independent of the person in whose womb it might grow to term.

But first! For a whirlwind tour of Christian sexual ethics, from A-to-Zed (I get 0-10 points based on my level of agreement with the LaHaye’s stance):

Abortion. “Is it ever right for a Christian woman to have an abortion?” Yes, sometimes. As long as she’s not seeking an abortion for the wrong reasons. (More on this later.) [4]

Adultery. Assumed to be morally wrong* but something which a) is probably the wife’s fault on some level for not meeting her husband’s needs, and b) something for which the wife must forgive her husband, provided he “repents” and cuts off all contact with the lover. And yes, the husband is the presumed guilty party. [5]

Birth Control. As discussed in previous posts, birth control is considered morally sound to limit family size, as long as couples do not outright reject parenting. Couples are counseled to be intentional about how many children they can care for, and how many pregnancies the mother can healthfully sustain. [8]

Communication. Communication around sexual matters is deemed essential in marriage, though readers are counseled not to speak of any previous relationships (“some perverted”) with their spouse. [8]

Counseling. Counseling is advised, as long as it is obtained from a minister or Christian therapist. [5]

Dating. Young people can date, but should seek out Christian partners, and refrain from sexual activity except with their “life’s partner” for their body is a temple of God. Oral stimulation may or may not count as “sex” but is “much too intimate for unmarried people” (245). [2]

Ejaculation. Delay, delay, delay, and make sure your wife comes first! [0]

Fantasy. Fantasizing about anything other than your spouse in a sexual context is lust and therefore sinful. Don’t do it. Avoid “suggestive” material and pray. “Bring your mind into obedience with Christ (2 Cor. 10:5) and cast down all evil imaginations” (248). [0]

Foreplay. Desirable, especially among women. “Haste makes waste … certainly applies to lovemaking” (249) and the clit and the breasts definitely deserve some attention. [5]

Fornication. See “Adultery.”

Free Love. Damages spiritual and physical health, is too impersonal, creates “unfair and unnecessary comparisons” (250), causes feelings of guilt, isn’t free, and is, in fact, WRONG. “God’s standards are not flexible” (251). Living together prior to marriage decreases marital satisfaction. At the same time, parents are urged not to cut ties with children who are living in sin. [1]

Frequency. “Whatever rate of frequency brings joy and fulfillment to the two of you is ‘average’for you” (253). [10]

Frigidity. Is a psychological condition caused in daughters by cold, distant fathers. Can be overcome with God’s help. [1]

Genitalia. A range in size and appearance of genitalia is normal, clitoral stimulation is central to women’s satisfaction, Christian women shouldn’t bother to get breast implants (“you need to accept yourself as God made you”) and if you have trouble reaching orgasm after hysterectomy it’s a psychological not physical problem.** [5]

Homosexuality. Is a sexual perversion. Childhood exploration of one’s own genitals is normal, and should not be punished.*** We don’t know what causes homosexuality, but likely a combination of factors – though not single-parent families. Conversion to Christianity is the only power to redeem a person from homosexual sin. [0]

Impotence. See chapter ten.

Love. “No Christian should endure marriage without it … [and] every wife has the right to expect to be loved to orgasm” (267-68). [8]

Marriage Adjustment. “Slam the divorce door, which is not a live option for Christians” (268).^ [0]

Masturbation. “Is it wrong for a Christian to masturbate?” No acceptable (see “Fantisizing”), even following divorce or widowing, or if your spouse fails to satisfy during intercourse. [0]

Menstruation. It’s not sinful or unhealthy to have sex during menstruation, but a husband should follow his wife’s lead. [10].

Oral Sex. The Bible is “completely silent” on the subject, but “we suggest it should be limited to foreplay” (276) and never be demanded of a partner who dislikes it. [5]

Orgasm. Simultaneous orgasm is likely to occur, even for couples with “excellent” love-making skills only sixty to seventy percent of the time, women will need manual manipulation of the clit to come, and there is nothing wrong with women who desire (and enjoy) sex and orgasm. [5]

Orgasmic Failure. See chapters 8-10.

Petting. “Petting is just a sophisticated term describing illicit foreplay by the unmarried and it is dangerous” (280)^^ [0]

Positions. “Any place that is mutually agreeable and does not betray your privacy is acceptable” (281). [10]

Privacy. Put a lock on your door, teach your children to respect parental privacy, and avoid having them see you naked. [8]

Romance. Even pastors on a tight budget should not feel guilty about planning and saving for an “overnight honeymoon” on occasion with their wife. “If your first objective is to seek the kingdom of God, there is nothing wrong with your third or fourth objective being a decent salary to live on” (282).^^^ [5]

September Sex. Couples can enjoy sexual intimacy throughout their lives. [10]

Sex Drive. It isn’t wrong for a woman to have a higher sex drive than her male partner. [10]

Sex During Pregnancy. Is not contra-indicated. [10]

Stimulation. Vibrators are dangerous as they might “establishing an appetite for a level of stimulation their partner could not provide naturally” (287).  [0]

Television. Is a distraction and a “thief of love.” [2]

Temperament. In which we suddenly learn about the sex drives of Sanguines, Cholerics and Melancholics. [??]

IN SUM: Adequate Lady-Spouse Metric

Chapter 14: 137/290 possible points = -153

Chapter 13: -190
Chapter 12: -29.5
Chapter 11: -35
Chapters 8-10: 0 (n/a)
Chapters 6-7: -62
Chapters 4-5: +30
Chapters 2-3: -33
Chapter 1: -50

Cumulative ALSM Score: -522.5

–> Basically? I’d totally suck at being a fundie Christian wife. It’s a good thing that’s not what Hanna’s looking for!

*An assumption I also share, since I take “adultery” to mean a situation where one person cheats on the rules of the primary relationship by having sex with a third (or more) parties without the consent of their spouse. NOT COOL.

**I didn’t bother to look up how much the LaHayes could have known about hormonal issues related to hysterectomies, so they may or may not be responsible for the mis-information here. But aside from the physical recovery from abdominal surgery, and lingering scar tissue, hysterectomies alter your hormones and can alter one’s ability to experience orgasm, and/or how you experience arousal.

***This may seem like a strange observation to place here in the Q&A, but there are still people today who argue that masturbation equals homosexuality because it’s sexual intimacy with a body the same sex as your own er, exactly the same as your own, er, is your own.

^Like with abortion, it’s note-worthy to me that the LaHayes are arguing for Christians to abide by a separate morality from non-Christians, rather than framing any sort of political agenda concerning divorce law. Rather than argue people shouldn’t be allowed to divorce, they simply counsel Christians it’s “not an option” to people of faith.

^^This might tie with “children fulfill the psychic design of your mind” as Best Phrase Of The Book.

^^^Leaving one with the question, of course, what should the second objective be?

‘the act of marriage’ live-blog: ch. 13 (time-out for evangelism)

12 Tuesday Jun 2012

Posted by in book reviews

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

See also: intro, ch 1, ch 2-3, ch 4-5, ch 6-7, ch 8-10, ch 11, ch 12.

Welcome back! Now for the chapter you’ve all been waiting for … the obligatory time-out for evangelism! Some of you may have been assuming that since the entire thrust of The Act of Marriage narrative is that a) the readers of the book are overwhelmingly Christians and b) being Christian means you’re gonna have awesome God-boosted sexytimes, that the text needs no explicit shout-out to repent and be saved. After all, you’d be preaching to the choir, and for anyone who doesn’t already know the words to the hymn you’ve got the best sales pitch ever: BETTER ORGASMS.

Oh, but you would be so wrong. Because Christians can never be saved enough. This was a major theme of the fundamentalist evangelicalism I encountered during my thesis research: individuals who had repented and been “saved” face continual pressure to recommit to Christ out of fear that their born-again experience was somehow less-than (think Jesus Camp). Putting the fear of God into those already in the fold is part-and-parcel of any proselytizing among fundamentalist evangelicals. And given that Tim LaHaye is, first and foremost, a minister, means that this remains a key aspect of his modus operandi:

Unless [the] God-shaped vacuum [in every person] is filled by a personal relationship with God, man is condemned throughout his lifetime to an endless treadmill of activity in an attempt to fill it (219).

This chapter is full of infographics arguing that people without Christ in their lives will be full of guilt, fear, purposelessness, emptiness, confusion, and misery.* In contrast:

When Christ controls one’s life, that person seeks to do those things and think those thoughts that please the Lord, who in turn will grant that person an abundance of the joy, love, and peace which guarantees the happiness every human being desires … When [Christ] directs a person’s nature, that person’s clean thought patterns will produce good feelings and in turn turn engender the physical responses that everyone wants (230). 

As Hanna points out, this makes Jesus sound like the worst micro-managing boss ever. It also makes Jesus sound like a drug you might find in the stash of your buddy who sells pot out of his back garden.

Which, I suppose, if praying is what does it for you — why not?**

There’s a couple of things going on here I want to comment on, before we move onto the final, Q & A chapter next week (the final chapter! can you believe we’ve made it through the whole book?!).

I think it’s really intriguing — and particularly evident in this chapter, since this is the chapter that’s basically selling Christ as an awesome trip — that the LaHayes feel the need to sell Christianity as the path to the good life and that the “good life” doesn’t just mean the absence of hellfire and brimstone (the afterlife is, actually, noteably absent throughout The Act). The argument to being/becoming Christian isn’t “if you don’t accept God you will BURN IN HELL,” though I’m sure most of their target audience received that message loud and clear in other places. No, the message in The Act is be/become Christian and you will have “good feelings” and “the physical responses that everyone wants” (read: ORGASM).

Jesus: A Really Good Fuck. Maybe the brides of Christ were onto something?

No only will Jesus/God give you a really good time in bed, but he’ll also give you and your partner together a super-awesome roll in the hay, which makes Jesus/God sound like something between a sex therapist and a congenial fuck buddy:

When Sara accepted Christ as her Lord and Savior in my office that day, she cancelled their divorce proceedings and went home to become a loving, submissive, gracious wife … within ten weeks [her husband] Sam also came to the saving knowledge of Christ, and they have enjoyed a compatible relationship for many years (232).

This sells Christ not as “Lord and Savior” in the Biblical sense — though obviously that is the ultimate end goal, saving souls — but rather as a means to an end: a “compatible relationship” between husband and wife (and perhaps every-other-Thursday also the Son of God?). Such a pitch effectively twines together a prosperity gospel ethos with a reconfiguration of sexuality as something with positive spiritual possibility, even outside of the context of procreation. And both of these themes became absolutely central to late-twentieth-century American evangelical culture. Sexual conservatives, to this day, will argue (either in psuedo-scientific or blatantly theological terms) that Christians who remain chaste until marriage and lead a Christ-centered sexual life thereafter will experience the best most satisfying sex there is.

Maybe they do? Who am I to judge. But I’ve been disqualified from that particular club since age eleven, when I met my friend J’s offer (made in the backyard tree house, if I remember aright)  to help me “accept Christ into your heart” with a blank stare, so.

And then there’s the whole premarital lesbian (albeit monogamous) slut thing. I’m pretty sure I get demerits for that.

IN SUM: Adequate Lady-Spouse Metric

-50 –> not accepting Christ into my heart at age eleven (or at any age thereafter)
-50 –> believing the spiritual vacuum can be filled with other-than-Christ shaped religion
-20 –> engaging in premarital
-20 –> lesbian sexytimes
-20 –> and not regretting it
-30 –> and not turning to drugs and/or alcohol as a result

Chapter 13: -190 points

Chapter 12: -29.5
Chapter 11: -35
Chapters 8-10: 0 (n/a)
Chapters 6-7: -62
Chapters 4-5: +30
Chapters 2-3: -33
Chapter 1: -50

Cumulative ALSM Score: -369.5

*Before you ask no, there is no data to back this up — it’s simply assumed to be self-evident FACT.

**Hanna also pointed out, because she’s smart like that (I’m not really just marrying her for the lovely ass), that spiritual/religious/metaphysical life is an important part of meaning-making for most people — even if it’s important because you’ve consciously chosen not to prioritize it. I don’t think the LaHayes are terribly mis-guided to encourage people to consider their spiritual centering … I only think they’re wrong to argue that only Jesus and/or the evangelical Christian god will suffice.

‘the act of marriage’: ch 12 ( d) none of the above)

31 Thursday May 2012

Posted by in book reviews

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

See also: intro, ch 1, ch 2-3, ch 4-5, ch 6-7, ch 8-10, ch 11.


Finally! The chapter you’ve all been waiting for (I know!): the Christian sex survey. Convinced through anecdotal evidence and a belief that believers must do it better, the LaHayes set out to gather empirical data to support their thesis.

Why do Christians do it better? I mean, we all know why feminists do it better: the less hamstrung by notions of oppositional, binary gender roles, the more real people can be. And the more real we can be with our partners — the less compelled we feel to follow a specific script for sex — the better off we’re gonna be. Less shame, more gain. But why would being a member of one religious community — particularly one which, historically-speaking, has a rocky relationship with human sexuality — lead one to better sex?

Well, the short answer is because folks like the LaHayes believe that being a Christian makes everything better. It’s sort of an exercise in circular thinking: Why does Christianity make things better? Because life is better when you’re a Christian.

The slightly longer answer is that they believe that they believe “a Christian’s relationship with God produces a greater capacity for expressing and receiving love than is possible for the non-Christian” (195). They argue that Christians, with their greater capacity for love, do not have “an obsession with sex, they do not need dirty stories*, pornography, or artificial stimuli to motivate them toward each other” (195). Basically: God gives you the capacity to love; everyone else is faking it.

To assess the state of Christian marital relations, the LaHayes asked participants in their Family Life Seminars (sexuality education for Christian adults) to fill out and return written surveys on their sexual experiences — think The Hite Report for Christian couples. They amassed 3, 377 responses (from 1,705 women and 1,672 men) and chapter twelve offers us a look at the results. In comparing their own results to that of a contemporary Redbook survey of 100,000 women they conclude that “Christians do enjoy the sublimities of the act of marriage more than others in our culture” (197).

I can’t reproduce the survey results in full, here, but a quick word about demographics and then some of the questions and responses. The couples they surveyed (and yes, they were all married) were the average age of mid-to-late thirties, had been married 7-15 years, and had 2-3 children. forty percent of the women and sixty percent of the men were graduates of four-year colleges, and nearly forty percent of the men had attended graduate school (I suspect a high proportion of seminarians). Forty percent of the wives worked part- or full-time outside the home and over sixty percent of the men were working in “professional or managerial” positions. In short, these are middle to upper-middle-class families. The survey doesn’t ask about race, but I’d say it’s safe to assume a majority white demographic.

The majority of couples married after a courtship lasting 6-12 months, but fifteen percent courted for 3-5 years before marriage. Reading was the main source of sexuality education before marriage, and while the majority approached marriage with “anticipation” of sexual activity, roughly twenty percent of both men and women were “apprehensive” about sex as they headed toward tying the knot. About a third of respondents (slightly lower for women, slightly higher for men) had engaged in “occasional” premarital intercourse, though the LaHayes are quick to point out that these numbers could include people who had “not yet received Christ as their Lord and Savior” (200). Almost forty percent of couples used birth control pills as their preferred form of contraception. While only about one quarter of wives reported having reached orgasm on their first night of lovemaking, seventy-seven percent indicated that they “regularly or always” experienced orgasm making love at the time they filled out the survey.

A few example questions, and the responses:

14. Impression of parents’ sex life:

Fulfilling… 36% (wives’ response) 36% (husbands’ response)
Casual… 28% / 34%
Cold… 28% / 20%
Other… 8% / 10%

36. Minutes from beginning of foreplay to orgasm:

Less than 10… 6% / 7%
10-20 minutes … 51% / 55%
20-30 minutes … 31% / 26%
30 or more … 12% / 12%

40. How often do you have intercourse per week:

0-2 times … 61% / 61%
3-6 times … 36% / 37%
7-9 times … 3% / 1%

41. How often do you desire intercourse per week:

0-2 times … 48% / 27 %
3-6 times … 49% / 62%
7-9 times … 3% / 11%

The rest of the chapter is taken up by graphs comparing the sexual satisfaction of Christian couples (as reported in the survey) with the sexual satisfaction of the respondents to the Redbook survey. The LaHayes do point out that there is no way of knowing what percentage of those who responded to Redbook were also Christians**, but persist anyway in arguing that Christians do it better.

Wearing my historian’s hat, I find it particularly fascinating to see certain themes emerging in these chapters which today sit front and center in the Christian arguments against non-marital sexual activities. For example, the argument that non-marital sex before marriage will be destructive to the marriage relationship: “Our survey indicates quite clearly that premarital sex is not necessary and, according to statistics, may hinder sexual adjustment” (210). They also devote a section to the notion that the practice of oral sex is on the rise, “thanks to amoral sexual education, pornography, modern sex literature, and the moral breakdown of our times” (212). While the LaHayes are not particularly censorious of oral stimulation, they take pains to encourage their readers to ensure that penis-in-vagina intercourse remains the central sexual act in their relationship. All things considered, you could set this chapter up alongside the data presented in the reactionary Premarital Sex in America and — substituting anal for oral — you’d have roughly the same arguments being made, fifty years apart.

IN SUM: Adequate Lady-Spouse Metric

It was a little difficult to come up with a way of grading myself on this chapter. So what I did was this: I completed the questionnaire myself, and then gave myself two points for every instance where my answers matched the top answer for the wives, one point if it was the second-place answer, and half a point for third-place or below.

Chapter 12:
1st place answers: 24 questions = 48/48 points
2nd place answers: 11 questions = 11/22 points
3rd or below: 11 questions = 5.5/22 points

TOTAL POINTS: 64.5/94 points = -29.5

Chapter 11: -35
Chapters 8-10: 0 (n/a)
Chapters 6-7: -62
Chapters 4-5: +30
Chapters 2-3: -33
Chapter 1: -50

Cumulative ALSM Score: -179.5

*So sad! No smutty fic!

**Note that “Christian” to folks like the LaHayes doesn’t mean “anyone who attends a Christian church and/or reads the Bible as a sacred text,” but rather anyone who has had a born-again experience and/or accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

‘the act of marriage’: ch. 11 (aka "children fulfill the psychic design of your mind")

25 Friday May 2012

Posted by in book reviews

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, , ,

See also: intro, ch 1, ch 2-3, ch 4-5, ch 6-7, ch 8-10.

If I had to pick the number-one aspect of The Act of Marriage that situated it in the 1970s, it would be the LaHaye’s attitude toward birth control and abortion. Namely, that they’re not categorically opposed to either. Let me reiterate: The best-selling protestant Christian evangelical sex manual of the 1970s was not anti-abortion or anti-birth control, even hormonal birth control (aka “The Pill”) which today has so many fundies up in arms.

Tomorrow, I’m going to be posting, verbatim, the passage in which The Act of Marriage takes up the question of abortion. I think it deserves its own post because there’s so much interesting stuff going on vis a vis contemporary abortion politics within it. But for now, we’re going to take a brief look at chapter eleven, “Sane Family Planning,” which deals exclusively with pre-conception solutions for controlling pregnancy while sexually active.

“Almost all Christians today seem to believe in limiting the size of their families” (185)

The LaHayes start out with the observation that, given the number of years the average woman is fertile, the vast majority of Christian couples are self-evidently practicing some sort of family planning strategy. And they do not disapprove — nor do they believe God disapproves. The distinction they make is not between contraception vs. no contraception, but rather between parenting and not-parenting. “Christian couples should, if at all possible, have children, they assert” (183). Intention here matters. If one is delaying childbearing, or spacing out children, or deciding that [ideal number] of children is the limit of persons your family resources can provide for, then this is an acceptable (“sane”?) orientation toward parenting.

What’s not acceptable? Deciding that your ideal number of children = 0.* Because “the chief enemy of personal happiness is self-interest” (185) I’ve honestly never understood how realizing you don’t have the resources (material, emotional, or otherwise) to be a good-enough parent is the selfish route while having little ones because they are “a tangible expression of your [marital love]” or because “children fulfill the psychic design of your mind” (I shit you not!) is the unselfish way to go (183-85). But apparently that’s the truth of things, and who am I to argue with God?**

I lose MAJOR lady-spouse points for this (I figure double ’cause I’m getting hitched to someone who’s completely comfortable with the non-parenting state of affairs. More so than I am, actually. So, you know, clearly I went the way of satanic and self-centered temptation there.

What can I say. She has a really great ass.

IN SUM: Adequate Lady-Spouse Metric Returns!

-20 –> for coming to the conclusion that the answer to the question “how many children does God want me to have?” is “Zero” and
-20 –> for getting myself hitched to a partner who believes this even more strongly than I
-20 –> plus the whole “two eggs can’t make a baby” thing, which is surely a strike against us
+15 –> still, I do agree that human being are a pretty awesome “gift of eternal creativity”
+10 –> and that even couples wanting to create babies should have access to family planning tools

Chapter 11: -35

Chapters 8-10: 0 (n/a)
Chapters 6-7: -62
Chapters 4-5: +30
Chapters 2-3: -33
Chapter 1: -50

Cumulative ALSM Score: -150

* Maths people! What would the equation for that look like … “solve for X if  x > 1”?

**See also.

"curvy girls" virtual book tour: interview with kristina wright

23 Wednesday May 2012

Posted by in book reviews

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

Welcome to today’s stop on the Curvy Girls virtual book tour! I had so much fun interviewing Donna George Storey for the last virtual book tour Rachel Kramer Bussel invited me to participate in, that when she asked if I’d host a stop on the tour for her latest anthology Curvy Girls I said “yes please!” and asked if I could, again, use the event as an opportunity to interview one of the anthology contributors about writing, erotica, and all that jazz.

The contributor I immediately wanted to interview was author and editor Kristina Wright, whose story “In the Early Morning Light” is an erotic exploration of what it means to re-connect with your body and sexuality after a difficult pregnancy. I was impressed and moved by the way “Morning Light” made an emotionally-fraught and physically difficult experience incredibly porny (anyone else enjoy a little hurt/comfort and body affirmation with their tea? yes? that’s what I thought).

So I asked her to share a little bit about her process for this story particularly, and erotica writing more generally. Without further ado, here’s Kristina!

Kristina Wright (via)

1. On your website, you describe yourself as someone who has been “writing since [you] learned to read.” From the perspective of another lifelong reader/writer, I know I wasn’t particularly encouraged toward writing romance or erotica — what brought you to those genres?

I have always written what I love to read. I read a lot of Harlequin romances when I was a preteen, then I fell in love with horror. My writing interests followed my reading interests. I was a book reviewer in the mid-90s for a magazine called The Literary Times. I was reading 4 to 5 romance novels a week (everything from historical to paranormal, but nothing really erotic) and after a couple of years I decided to try to write one. I wrote one, then another– and sold the second one (Dangerous Curves, a romantic suspense). In the process of trying to sell my next romance novel, I started writing erotica. I had read a few Black Lace novels (my first introduction to erotica, other than online) and discovered erotica anthologies. The rest is history. I’ve gone from romance to erotica to a blend of both. And I love it.

2. What arrested my attention specifically about “In the Early Morning Light” (your story in Curvy Girls) is the way you incorporated painful issues of sexuality and embodiment following a difficult pregnancy into an erotic short story. Some people might think this would be a death knell to arousal, but instead the result is really hot. Can you talk a little about what inspired you to write this particular piece?

I had a baby. Ha! Actually, I had two, in December 2009 and September 2011. The story is purely fictional– my husband was deployed prior to the birth of our first baby in 2009 and was only home for two weeks before returning on deployment for another five months– but the emotions about body image, the rediscovery of sexual desire, the need for connection (and sleep!)– all of that is from experience. We live in a culture obsessed with youth and hot sex with someone new, whether it’s a hookup or a new relationship. I wanted to write a story that was not only about a committed couple, but the growth of a family and how sex– good sex!– does not end just because you have a baby.

3. In “Morning Light,” the character Carolyn initially resists her husband’s initiation of sex, but he persists and she ultimately experiences a moment of renewal and self re-discovery of her body and her sexuality post-cesarean. While I found the interaction tender and believable, it would be possible to read her husband’s persistence as pressure and emotional/physical coercion. How did you navigate the issue of enthusiastic consent in this story?

Again, I think we are culturally aware when it comes to issues of consent when it comes to being young, single and in casual sexual situations but context is everything in a scene like this. I would never write the scene this way if it were about a couple who had just met in a bar and knew nothing about each other’s needs, emotionally or sexually. But in the context of a marriage between people who have experienced all of the ups and downs that go along with a committed relationship, including childbirth, trust and faith are the foundation. Trusting that a partner has your best interests at heart, having faith that the connection that has sustained you until this point is still there even if it is dormant– that’s what this story is about. The husband’s persistence in initiating sex isn’t about his needs, it’s about her needs. And her reluctance followed by her acquiescence is about her putting her trust in him and letting go, if only for a little while. It’s this kind of connection that I crave to create when I write erotica.

4. When I write about erotica and pornography as a blogger, I often get comments asking me for reading/viewing recommendations. If you had to pick five favorite erotic stories to recommend, what would they be?

Honestly, I don’t think I could name just five stories. I probably couldn’t even name just five books! For readers who are new to erotica and maybe want some romance with their sex, I’d recommend my anthology Best Erotic Romance or Rachel Kramer Bussel’s anthology Obsessed. If you’re looking for spanking, bondage and other kinks, I love Rachel’s anthologies Yes, Ma’am and Yes, Sir and Please, Ma’am and Please, Sir or Shanna Germain’s forthcoming Bound by Lust. Alison Tyler’s Harlequin anthology With This Ring, I Thee Bed is a delicious (and big!) collection of erotic romance centered around weddings and committed, sexy couples abound! And if readers are looking for erotic fantasy, I have a new collection out called Lustfully Ever After with erotic takes on classic fairy tales.

5. Are there any particular tropes in modern erotica that you wish would just go away?

I’d be happy to never read another virgin heroine again.

6. What are some of the things you wish we would see more of in erotic writing?

I’d love to see more diverse characters. Characters that aren’t model-perfect, who are over 25 (or over 45), who are complex, who are having amazing sex in committed relationships. Stories that reflect the complex, complicated lives of characters who could be my friend or neighbor– or even me.

7. I’ve been thinking lately about the presumed audience of certain types of erotica (for example, the fact that Curvy Girls is erotica “for women”), as well as assumptions about what who would or should be interested in certain combinations of bodies (for example, people wonder whether m/m erotica written and read by women, of any orientation, constitutes appropriation). While I appreciate the appeal of themed anthologies, as a queer woman I’m often frustrated by the fact that I usually have to make a choice between an anthology of mostly heterosexual stories OR lesbian erotica OR m/m erotica, rather than enjoying the best of all three (and combinations besides!). As a writer, reader, and editor of erotic romance, do you have any thoughts about whether the market is really as segmented as the publishing industry assumes? To what extent would you say peoples’ reading taste actually mirrors their own identities, desires, and sexual activities?

I think marketing a book– any book– is important in terms of getting it in front of readers. You could slap a plain white cover on a book and put it on a bookstore shelf or the front page of Amazon, and if you don’t give readers a clue as to what it contains, the book won’t sell. So I understand the necessary evil that is the genre label. Reading tastes do seem to skew along the lines of how a particular reader identifies, though I know from experience that isn’t always true. I understand your frustration. I wish there were a better way. I think the increasing popularity of ebooks and the flexibility of the digital format may eventually alleviate some of our frustration. Now that authors and publishers are starting to offer individual stories for sale like you buy individual songs, I imagine a time in the not-so-distant future where we’ll be compiling our own personal anthologies, picking and choosing which stories we want to include from a wide variety of authors and even naming our own collections based on our current mood or interest, much like we make music playlists for parties or working out or meditation. (Remember, you heard it here first!)

CURVY GIRLS: You can read more about the Curvy Girls anthology, and find links to all the stops on this virtual book tour, at the anthology website as well as purchasing copies from a variety of online booksellers including Amazon, Powells, or Seal Press.

KRISTINA WRIGHT: Can be found online at Kristina Wright: Musings of an Insomniac Writer.

Cross-posted to The Pursuit of Harpyness.

‘the act of marriage’: ch 8-10 (when things go wrong)

21 Monday May 2012

Posted by in book reviews

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , ,

See also: intro, ch 1, ch 2-3, ch 4-5, ch 6-7.

Welcome back, folks, to the ins and outs of Christian marriage and sexytimes. We’ve reached the middle of the book and it’s time to talk about sexual dysfunction. Namely: “the unfulfilled woman” and “the impotent man.” There’s not a lot for me to rate myself on here (“frigidity” isn’t a particular problem of mine, nor is impotence), so I’m going to set aside the Adequate Lady-Spouse Metric for the next three chapters and instead just make a few more general observations about how healthy, positive sex is construed in The Act of Marriage, what major problems the LaHayes encountered in their marital counseling, and what solutions they suggest for those problems.

Overall, we continue to have a number of … I’ll call them tensions in the text between the desire to understand sexual intimacy as normal and God-given, with a number of possible paths to sexual fulfillment, and as a site for self-improvement. A sort of moral and physical proving-ground. So The Act yo-yos back and forth between encouragement (e.g. pointing out that the majority of women labeled “frigid” will respond sexually in situations where they aren’t pressured to perform in certain ways) and a fairly narrow definition of what “the act of marriage” entails (e.g. penis-in-vagina intercourse following adequate foreplay). Trying to reconcile these two goals isn’t always an easy task, and sometimes leads to baffling or conflicting advice.

Most notably, as I believe I’ve already pointed out, in the recognition that clitoral stimulation is necessary in most cases for women to experience orgasm while simultaneously holding up mutual orgasm during penetration as the sexual ideal for married couples. This, in turn, leads to a lot of paper and ink and effort spent on instructing couples how to practice just enough “foreplay” to push the woman toward orgasm while delaying male ejaculation so that (God forbid!!) he doesn’t come before penetration and/or before his partner. Because “lovemaking is impossible without an erect penis” (128).

But I don’t want to get ahead of myself. Let’s examine the main sexual woes of women and men in turn, and the solutions presented for each.

“The tragic tale of female sexual frustration winds its way through almost every tribe and people leaving literally billions of married women sexually unfulfilled” (103).

“It is safe to say that, except for Christians, the majority of women do not regularly enjoy orgasm in the act of marriage” (106).

The main sexual woe of women, according to the LaHayes, is Not Enough Orgasms. While “More Orgasms!” is a public health campaign I could totally get behind, the LaHayes give their own particular spin to the struggle of “unfulfilled” women in a couple of ways. The first, as the above quote suggests, is to try and argue that being a Christian will lead you to a better sex life. It’s unclear, as yet, why this is the case since they also illustrate this chapter with many examples drawn from pastoral counseling in which peoples’ beliefs about sexuality and Christianity are part of the problem, not the solution. But argue it they do: anorgasmia among women is at epidemic proportions, and the cure is a combination of religious faith, sexual education, and …  the all-mighty kegel.**

So, okay. Points for saying women can, and should expect to, enjoy wanted sexual intimacy. That’s the “yay for sex-positivity!” part. But then we get into the “ur doin’ it wrong” part of the section, in which women’s inability to come is largely attributed to her own moral, emotional, and physical failures. Yes, men are encouraged to slow down love-making and be attentive to their wives’ bodies (as well as to delay ejaculation; I’ll be getting back to this shortly) … but the majority of the burden falls on the wife. Which would be okay if the message was, “it’s okay to learn, and ask for, what you want in bed!” This is not what the LaHayes have in mind. Instead, they chastise women who don’t experience orgasm for experiencing negative emotions such as anger, resentment, guilt, and fear.

Reading “The Unfulfilled Woman” chapter, we learn that women who’ve experienced sexual abuse at the hands of their fathers should forgive the fathers (!!) in order to experience sexual satisfaction with their husbands. That women who are domineering (“choleric,” anachronistically enough), who feel guilty about premarital sex, who are passive, who are overweight, who are tired — all of these women may suffer from a lack of sexual fulfillment. And, basically, it’s the woman’s job to sort out her shit and get with the program.

While the kernel of truth in all of this is that each of us, individually, is responsible for exploring and communicating what we want sexually, the tone taken in The Act of Marriage is, well, preachy. And incredibly, incredibly callous toward people who have experienced sexual trauma. And in general absolve the husband of any responsibility to address relational issues (outside of the whole length of sexytimes/ejaculation thing) that might be contributing to sexual unhappiness — like, for example, a mother of young children who’s shouldering an unequal share of the parenting responsibilities, and is thus too worn out and/or alienated from her spouse to find much pleasure in sexual intimacy with same.

“After his fortieth birthday a man’s most important sex organ is his brain” (155).

“A rigid penis is absolutely essential for satisfactory consummation of the act of marriage” (157).

While the tragic dearth of lady-gasms can be cured with a combination of better sexual skill, physical self-improvement, and a judicious injection of Christian forgiveness-of-male-sins (and penitence for female ones),  the main struggle for married dudes is ejaculation: “premature,” “delayed,” or none at all. Like wives, husbands are counseled with a not-altogether-logical mix of “no matter how your body functions, you can still enjoy sex,” and “BUT YOU SHOULD REALLY BE FUNCTIONING IN THIS ONE SPECIFIC WAY.” While the LaHayes do emphasize that the majority of “impotence” issues stem from anxiety of one sort of another, rather than physical difficulties, they put men in a double-bind by basically increasing rather than decreasing, the cause for concern. To wit, in the section on the types of fear that contribute factor to impotence, they write:

(d) The fear that he will lose his erection. To a large degree, satisfying lovemaking is dependent on the husband’s ability to maintain an erection. A limp penis is unsatisfactory to both partners and humiliating to the husband (161). 

So basically, rather than offering reassurance that a “limp penis” can still experience pleasure and that partners can find alternate ways to engage in sexual intimacy, they just end up reinforcing the man’s fear that his ability to perform on cue is the linchpin of the entire experience.

Mirroring their advice in chapters seven and eight, the LaHayes concentrate narrowly on men’s sexual skills and knowledge vis a vis their wives when it comes to maintaining a sexually-satisfying marriage (e.g. remember to stimulate the clit! don’t penetrate too quickly! ohmygod don’t come before she does!!***) while it falls to women to maintain the broader emotional-relational health of the marriage. In the chapter on male impotence, for example, women are admonished not to be “nags” or be “passive,” and not to have a “sagging vagina” (get on those kegels!).

Once again, I’m left with the impression that while both partners in the marriage bear responsibility for successful marital relations, the work of women is much more nebulous and therefore potentially vast in scope — while the work of men is physical and weirdly self-absent. Where, in this landscape of orgasm/ejaculation delay and carefully-scripted lovemaking is there time for guys to just be with their partners and enjoy — without the anxiety or performance — sensual contact?

Stop back in on Friday to check out what the LaHayes have to say about family planning (I think it might surprise you)!

*For example, their claim that “until around the turn of the century, millions of women each year were cheated out of the exciting sexual climax that most men enjoy regularly” is wince-ably inaccurate. While women prior to 1900 navigated a cultural landscape that treated women’s sexual arousal as a disease to be cured, I’m pretty sure lots of them got off in creative and satisfying ways. Likewise, it’s not like twentieth-century gals had it easy in the “take my sexual desires seriously” department. If we had, terms like “sex-positive feminism” wouldn’t be tossed around with quite such frequency.

**Yep, you heard me right. The reason women’s sexual dysfunction takes two chapters and men’s only one is that women get a whole chapter on the wonders of the kegel. While I’m all behind exercising pelvic floor muscles, I’m not sure kegels have quite the transformative properties The Act of Marriage seems to ascribe them. They end up sounding like you’ll be able to jet around like the elderly kegel-practicing ninja lady from American Dad‘s Live and Let Fry.

***And what ever you do, DO NOT MASTURBATE. While it may not kill you or make you grow hair on your palms, it’s clearly contra-indicated from a Godly perspective and will probably destroy your marriage.

‘the act of marriage’: ch. 6 and 7 (care and keeping of a wife)

14 Monday May 2012

Posted by in book reviews

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, ,

See also: intro, ch 1, ch 2-3, ch 4-5.

Following what I’ve come to think of as the “sexuality 101” chapters come two intriguingly-titled sections, “For Men Only” and “For Women Only.” Thus I was faced with a dilemma. The “For Men Only” chapter instructs one on the care and keeping of one’s wife, while the “For Women Only” chapter instructs one how to be a wife.

Since I’ll both have  AND be, well, I decided the best  thing was to read both chapters just to be sure I had all my bases covered. I have a few overall observations about the differences between the two sections and the overall assumptions being made about what makes for positive sexual intimacy and martial relations. But first, the nitty-gritty details (you know you want them!).

Here’s what one must do in order to sustain one’s marriage:

Husbands Wives
1 Learn as much as you can.
Quote: “Since skilled lovemaking is not instinctive, a wise husband will learn as much as he can from a reliable, Christian source.” (i.e. the last two chapters of this very book!)
Adequate lady-spouse metric (8/10): I love learning about sexuality, but I can’t say I depend very heavily on “reliable, Christian source[s]” so why don’t we say five out of ten for this one.		 Maintain a positive mental attitude.
Quote: “Three areas in a woman’s sexual thinking pattern are very important to her: (a) what she thinks about lovemaking; (b) what she thinks about herself; (c) what she thinks about her husband.”**
Alsm (10/10): Lovemaking = awesome, self = good enough to be getting on, wife = sexy, compassionate, smart, and kick-ass. Think we got this covered.
2 Practice self-control.
Quote: “Be careful not to overdo it, but concentrate on something that will delay your ejaculation and give your wife sufficient time for her emotional build-up.”
Alsm (2/10): I’m all for paying attention to where my partner’s at and making sure she’s enjoying  herself – but I’m not sure how that jives with delaying orgasm by thinking about football.		 Relax! Relax! Relax!
Quote: “It should come as no surprise that a virgin will be rather tense in anticipation of her first intercourse.”
Alsm (5/10): While I’ve got the relaxing bit down, I think I probably lose 50% for not actually being virginal on my wedding night.
3 Concentrate on your wife’s satisfaction.
Quote: “Since a woman’s orgasm is much more complex than a man’s, it takes her longer to learn this art.”
Alsm (5/10): With two complex lady-gasms to worry about, you’d think future-wife and I would have it extra hard! Maybe that’s why the fundies are against same-sex marriage — because they worry lesbians won’t achieve enough simultaneous orgasms?		 Chuck your inhibitions.
Quote: “Though modesty is an admirable virtue in a woman, it is out of place in the bedroom with her husband.”
Alsm (4/10): I’ve got the bedroom covered, but what about the living room or kitchen? And the whole we-aren’t-actually-technically-wedded-in-holy-matrimony-yet thing might move my lack of inhibitions from the “admirable quality in a wife” column to the “shameless hussy” column.
4 Remember what arouses a woman.
Quote: “Men are stimulated by sight whereas women respond more to other things — soft, loving words and tender touch.”*
Alsm (10/10): Not gonna be a problem, so much. 		 Remember that men are stimulated by sight.
Quote: “The sight of a bedraggled wife may engender sympathy (though it’s doubtful) but it will rarely inspire love.”
Alsm (0/10): Oh, god, I’m always bedraggled. Future Lady Spouse despairs.
5 Protect her privacy.
Quote: “Men are far more inclined than women to be sex braggarts.”
Alsm (5/10): Since I’m a woman, you’d think I have this covered but I write a blog in which I talk about stuff like orgasms and erotica and how much I enjoy both, which probably makes me a braggart on some level.		 Never nag, criticize, or ridicule.
Quote: “Nothing turns a man off faster than motherly nagging and criticism or ridicule of his manhood.”
Alsm (6/10): I agree that “ridicule” and treating one’s spouse as if they were a dependent to be controlled*** rather than a person to be respected as an equal it’s time to re-evaluate what you’re doing with this person as a spouse. But I don’t agree that avoiding confrontation, substantive argument, or asking for change is wrong.^
6 Beware of offensive odors.
Quote: “A thoughtful lover will prepare for lovemaking by taking frequent baths, using effective deodorant, and practicing good oral hygeine.”
Alsm (10/10): I have it on the authority of Future Lady Spouse that she is in favor of my odors.		 Remember that you are responder.
Quote: “Except for those occasions when a wife is particularly amorous and initiates lovemaking, a husband makes the first approach most of the time.”
Alsm (0/10): We don’t have a husband, so there’s a technical difficulty here. Oops!
7 Don’t rush lovemaking.
Quote: “The time spent lovemaking varies with the culture. Researchers have indicated that the average experience runs from two minutes in some cultures to thirty minutes in others.”
Alsm (10/10): I just gotta say I find it really amusing that “more is better!” is something that has to be spelled out here.		 Observe daily feminine hygiene.
Quote: “Every woman must be careful of body odors for two reasons: first, in some women the vaginal fluids … can emit a strong odor unless they bathe regularly; and second, she may become immune to her own smells.”
Alsm (8/10): While I’m a fan of the daily shower, and enjoy our wide and indulgent array of Lush products, I’m deducting points here on principle ’cause I think our ladybits smell just fine thank you.
8 Communicate freely.
Quote: “I have been appalled to learn that even well-educated people find it difficult to discuss their love lives frankly.”
Alsm (10/10): I hyperverbalize and I love sex … need I say more?		 Communicate freely.
Quote: “Unless a man has read the right books or sought knowledge in the right places, much of what he knows about women is likely to be wrong when he enters marriage.”
Alsm (10/10): <– See left.
9 [I guess men aren’t responsible for prayer?] When all else fails, pray.
Quote: “I’m convinced that God never intended any Christian couple to spend a lifetime in the sexual wilderness of orgasmic malfunction.”
Alsm (5/10): While I’m all for a pro-orgasm God, I … what? (Although bonus points for phrasing!)
Okay, so … lots going on here, but a few general observations.

Notice how the instructions for men involve practical things (keeping clean, gathering information, controlling ejaculation) and are largely confined to the specific situations of sexual intimacy. Men are encouraged to slow down their love-making, learn how their lovers bodies work, respect their partner’s privacy, and to communicate with their partners about sex. So far, so good! Except for what it leaves out: men’s emotional lives. Men are assumed to want sex basically whenever their wives take their clothes off, and all of the instructions in the husband’s section are geared toward getting him to control his bestial (physical) urges and pay attention to his partner’s needs.

Now notice how much emotional work is expected from women. First on the list is the admonishment that women get into the right headspace for sex, which in the chapter involves three sub-sections worthy of discussion. Women, not men, are expected to have emotional baggage around sex being shameful, their bodies being shameful, and their partners being undesirable. In addition to basic bodily hygiene, women are expected not to look “bedraggled,” not to “nag,” and to pray (attend to the spiritual health of the couples’ relationship) when all else “fails.” Men have no analogous last-resort advice.

Finally, although none of these specific points touch on it, I want to recall from chapter five the argument that the best lover is an unselfish lover who attends to their partner’s needs and desires above their own. I think this assumption continues to play out in chapters six and seven: Husbands are instructed to subordinate their physiological response to the course of their wife’s arousal, while wives are instructed to tidy up all messy emotional and psychological issues so their husbands will be able to love them. While mutual empathy is, obviously, a major indicator of any successful relationship (sexual or otherwise), there’s a serious case to be made for the notion that selfish sex is the best kind of sex. That is, learning and owning what you enjoy, how your body responds, and how to communicate your desires, is key to pleasurable sexytimes. While focusing on your partner’s pleasure is laudable, knowing what you want and need and how to ask for it is equally important. And that’s one of the key pieces I see missing in The Act of Marriage.

IN SUM:

Ability and willingness to fulfill the duties for having a wife: 60/80 = -20
Ability and willingness to fulfill the duties of being a wife: 48/90 = -42

Chapters 6-7: -62

Chapters 4-5 score: +30
Chapters 2-3 score: -33
Chapter 1 score: -50

Cumulative ALSM Score: -115

*Having experienced first-hand what seeing my wife’s nakedness does to stimulate arousal, I’m baffled by this assertion.

**Aren’t these a good rule of thumb for anyone in sexually-intimate relationships, regardless of sex, sexual orientation, or gender?

***This isn’t the place to unpack the “motherly nagging” assumption, but if you’re treating your kid through passive-aggressive control and shaming ridicule, you’re doing it wrong.

^See also.

‘the act of marriage’: ch. 4 and 5 (how to do it 101)

10 Thursday May 2012

Posted by in book reviews

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, ,

See also: intro, ch 1, ch 2-3.

Once the LaHayes have established that sexual intimacy is God-approved (chapter 1) and that men and women both get things out of it, even if they be different things (chapters 2-3), they move on to the basics of anatomy and how-to. Chapters three and four are a really amusing mix of accurate, fairly non-judgmental sexual health information and prescriptive sexual coaching that would put a drill sergeant to shame. It follows the 90%/10% rule*: You’re reading along with a sentence and nodding and then — what the fuck?! it just takes a u-turn into not-good places.

Let me illustrate with several verbatim passages.

On sex education:

An in-depth study of sex is best pursued just prior to marriage. Let’s face it — the material is simply not that complicated. God didn’t give Adam and Eve a manual on sexual behavior; they learned by doing. We are convinced that modern Adams and Eves can do the same, provided they are unselfish enough to consider their partner’s satisfaction more than their own. A few good books on the subject, studied carefully two or three weeks before marriage, a frank discussion with their family doctor, and pastoral counseling are usually adequate preparation (45).

Continue reading →