sex scandal: what do the books say?

Let’s start this conversation with what I found in the books (I had about 30 books I was working out of and this section of my thesis absorbed close to 20 pages but for the sake of brevity I just quoted the more popular ones).

NOTE: I wasn’t allowed to give any sort of personal opinion in my thesis, but this is my blog so any of my own commentary—the not so scientific kind is in PURPLE

Current youth group sexual educational literature divides men and women’s needs into two separate categories—or as I like to call them “myths”:

1) Men need sex; sex is for men.

The language used to describe men’s sexual appetite is often rye but always affirming:

“…guys are sexual beings” (Technical Virgin DiMarco, 2006, p. 52). Most literature of this genre starts by addressing men’s sexual needs. For instance, the first page of Every Young Man’s Battle reminds young men, “you’re a sexual being” (Every Young Man’s Battle Arterburn & Stoeker, 2002, p.1). 

Men are allowed to have an intense interest in sex. It is normal for a man to think about sex and seek physical gratification. Again, Technical Virgin states: “Guys want sex” (DiMarco, 2006, p.86). Also, it is not seen as sinful or wrong that men seem to only want sex on a purely physical level. “A guy wants sex for the sex, period, the end. His urges want to be satisfied.” (DiMarco, 2006, p. 86). 

Anyway, it is not seen as “unchristian like” for a man to desire sex; these books acknowledge that men were created with a need for sex in a primarily physical and biological sense. Technical Virgin states:

“What he wants is some sort of physical payoff. It’s the way he’s made. So for him the time he spends with you just talking is an investment in the future. That doesn’t mean he’s a scumbag; it just means he’s a guy, and guys have different wants and needs. (DiMarco, 2006, p. 96)”

(I shouldn’t even have to point out how disgusting that sentence is, you’ll see how women are degraded in just a minute, but may I say that when we paint any members of a society as animals controlled by their physical impulses, we do everyone a great disservice.)

(also note the wording: different wants and needs).

Men can be sexual beings and Christians. In their book, Dateable (arguably the worst book ever written), Lookadoo and DiMarco (2007) remind young people to be careful of a young man’s sexual nature: “See, guys are males first and Christians second… our basic nature comes from being male. And our first thought is sex” (Lookadoo & DiMarco, 2007, p. 77).

2) Women need love; sex is not for women.

Every Young Woman’s Battle (second place for worst book ever written) by Ethridge and Arterburn states that “for a woman, the relationship is the prize; the sex was simply the price she had to pay to get the prize” (Ethridge & Arterburn, 2004, p. 19). Books like Every Young Woman’s Battle these teach that women see sex as an opportunity to pursue something superior to sex—love.

Women are categorized as purely relational beings. These authors assert that strong Christian women do not have an interest in sex, and the closer to God a young woman becomes the less she becomes interested in sex. DiMarco encourages her readers in Technical Virgin that dependence on God will help diminish their sexual desires: “But trust me, when you fully commit to God’s Word and believe it to be true, you get stronger. The pull of sexual fulfillment suddenly doesn’t seem as strong” (DiMarco, 2006, p. 33).

DiMarco treats a woman’s desire for sex as something which is fixable, tamable, or correctable. This language suggests that a woman’s longing for sexual gratification is a result of the flesh, a result of sinful nature, not a biological imperative created by God.
These sex and dating books describe young women as passive members of the human race who are pursued rather than inspired to purse. They are enticed by the promise of love and romance. They are told that that sex is a response to an invitation rather than something they invite. According to these books, women use sex to get to what they really want: love and romance.

Messages such as these suggest that young Christian women do not have or are not supposed to have a physical sexuality. Women are asked to believe that being physically or mentally stimulated is not appropriate or normal. They even imply that if young women do find themselves sexually turned on by something physical or visual which is void of emotion that something is wrong with them and that they are not functioning like a Christian woman should.

Note: They have entire slew of controversial statments to spew out about female pornography as well. Dateable warns young women: “Your porn isn’t sexual, it’s romantic” (Lookadoo & DiMarco, 2007, p. 218). There’s so much more on that topic that it might warrant it’s own post. 

Now let’s look at how these premises intersect:

Godly men can have a sexual drive. They are encouraged to keep themselves pure and to not sin; but these authors acknowledge that despite all of man’s best efforts, men were still created with a libido that will cause them to want sexual satisfaction. Every Young Man’s Battle explains why men engage in sexual sin so frequently: “Why the prevalence of sexual sin among men? We got there naturally—simply by being male” (Arterburn & Stoeker, 2002, p .55).

(quick check, scale from 1-10 how mad are you about that statement?)

However these same authors warn young men to stay away from young women who they perceive as only wanting sex. In many of these books young women who pursue sexual gratification for their own physical pleasure are equated with prostitutes, harlots, and adulteresses. 

(NICE!)

Time and time again these authors come to the defense of men’s sexuality and present their longing for sexual gratification as something that is natural and God given. Young women are asked to excuse men’s sexually assertive behavior because God created men with a sexual appetite. Technical Virgin reminds young people that: “This isn’t some horrible thing. They aren’t all jerks; they are just hormonal. It’s natural. God made them that way” (DiMarco, 2006, p. 86).

(I love rationalization and creating excuses for bad behavior based on… well, bad science would imply that science is actually involved—so let’s go with “I love rationalization and creating excuses for bad behavior based on conjecture.”)

Now, please compare DiMarco’s last statement with this one from her book Dateable:

“What [girls] want is for you to love them and for the two of you to connect. (Note: there are some girls who really only want sex—stay away from them.)” (Lookadoo & DiMarco, 2007, p. 203)

(Double standards FTW)

When young men want sex just for the physical experience they are considered normal—slightly hormonal and out of control, but still normal. However, when a young woman wants sex just for the physical experience, young men are warned to stay away. Sexually assertive women are labeled sinful, corrupt, and backward—but sexually assertive men are simply acting out of a biological need for sexual satisfaction because “God made them that way” (DiMarco, 2006, p. 86).

(But wait! It gets better!)

In an attempt to validate their opinions of male and female sexuality, the authors of Every Young Woman’s Battle make references to God’s divine plan for the human race by equating their logic and opinions to God’s design:

God gave men the incredible responsibility of being the progenitors of the human race. To equip man for such an enormous task, God placed in him exactly what he would need in order to fulfill his responsibility: the desire to be physically intimate and experience pleasure. (cont.below)

Men are continually affirmed in their sexuality and women are continually reminded of the needs and desire that God put in man. These authors remind young men and women that God created men with a strong sexual appetite which is driven by hormones and special chemical reactions that take place throughout a male’s body. They are told that the male body was created with these cravings in order to fulfill God’s purpose for humanity. They are also told that a man’s needs can be fulfilled by having sex with a woman. As far as the texts suggests, a woman’s body is the answer to mans’ problem. Men experience pleasure though the help of a woman. The authors contrast this image of man with their opinion of Eve:

But God places in Eve the desire to be emotionally connected and involved in caring for and nurturing others. God wanted her to obey His command to “be fruitful” or to “make grow.” He gave her, and all females, the responsibility of being the nurturers of the human race, and he placed in her exactly what she would need to fulfill that responsibility: the desire to be emotionally intimate. (Ethridge & Arterburn, 2004, pp. 18-19)

(Any feminists out there vomit yet? No, not yet? Don’t worry, haven’t even hit you with the hard stuff yet.)

This passage alleges that women were also created in a particular way as to fulfill God’s plans. According to these authors, women were designed to satisfy men’s natural desire for sex. They claim that a woman’s natural desire is to satisfy others. A woman’s greatest desire is to bring pleasure to man rather than being able to experience physical pleasure herself because she was created to be a nurturer. There is no mention of a woman’s desire for sex with in these passages. Furthermore, the text goes so far as to implicitly say that a woman has no desire for sex (I call this the pies de resistance of my research):

Now if Adam was so much like Eve that all he wanted to do was walk in the garden holding hands with his wife, pick flowers, and share his innermost thoughts and feelings, would they have ever gotten around to having sex? Probably not. (Ethridge & Arterburn, 2004, p. 18)

Following the logic of these passages it becomes apparent that a woman’s only desire is to connect with a man and to help bring him pleasure. The authors of Every Young Woman’s Battle continue defend this imbalance through the use of Biblical narratives (Oh I lied—this is definitely the pies de resistance of my research, ready for it?):

Now, if all Eve wanted to do was chase Adam and have sex, work in the fields, arm wrestle, and play football, would she have raised healthy, well-balanced sensitive children? Probably not… A woman is made to cradle, caress, converse with, and care for the object of her affection. (Ethridge & Arterburn, 2004, pp.18-19)

(BAM!)

This passage implies that a woman who engages in sex as a means to connect with and serve a man should be satisfied for that is how God intended her to be satiated. Women who seek affirmation, love, affection, and motherhood are deemed to be normal and healthy. According to the writers a normal and healthy woman engages in sex to please a man who will show romantic love to her in exchange.

Technical Virgin takes this logic one step further and suggests that women who engage in sexual activity for purely physical reasons are backwards, manipulative, and irrational:

So a lot of girls, and maybe you’re one of them, have decided to play the game more like guys—emotionless. And you think that will give you more control. You come up with ideas like friends with benefits or recreational sex games in order to feel more detached from the female ache for true love you have inside. (DiMarco, 2006, p. 35)

Again, young women are told that they were not created with an intrinsic desire for sex. They are told that women who pursue emotionless sex are like men—that they are unlike a woman. A woman who seeks out sex for physical reasons is in denial. These messages suggest sex for recreational purposes is something that only men are interested in because men are the only ones able to benefit from sex physically. These ideas again imply that women only benefit from sex emotionally. Every Young Woman’s Battle explains the differences between men and women’s libidos:

While a guy gets tempted sexually because of what he sees, you are more likely to be tempted sexually because your heart is crying out for someone to satisfy your innermost desires to be loved, needed, valued and cherished. (LOL) While a guy also needs mental, emotional, and spiritual connection, his physical needs tend to be in the driver’s seat and his other needs ride along in the back. The reverse is true for you. A young woman’s emotions are usually in the driver’s seat. That’s why it’s said that guys give love to get sex and girls give sex to get love. (Ethridge & Arterburn, 2004,) p. 19)

Now, there is a good chance you are feeling the same way I did when I read all of this—like you want to leave the church, very possibly renounce your salvation and come to Ann Rice’s defense on every web forum you can find, but before you do any of that, take a breath, and remind yourself that although the authors of these books are whack-a-doo’s they also have a goal in mind here: to keep young people out of each other’s pants.

Although I am seriously offended by their assertions, I do believe that at best they have good intentions at worst an agenda:

It seems to me that the Christian community has taken it upon itself to educate young women on their innermost desire for love and affection above all else. It does not appear that these author’s intentions are to educate young people on sexuality. Rather, it seems that they intend to prevent young people from having sex by rewiring young people to have incompatible sexual needs.

If young women can be convinced that they were only designed to enjoy the emotions that accompany a sexual encounter and then they are told that young men only have emotionless, meaningless, and carnal sex—then young women should no longer want to have sex because they will realize that their needs are not being met.

The thoughts and messages conveyed by this literature may help young women say no to premarital sex because they “realize” that they do not benefit from sex in anyway. However, the long term consequences of young women believing this message have gone unexamined.

Take some time to digest what you’ve just read & I’ll be back tomorrow with what the research (scientific research, mind you) says about women’s sexuality and how messages we receive from those around us and in authority may shape the way we view ourselves.

(NOTE: I should also mention that if at any point anyone would like to read my whole thesis, let me know & I’ll email it to you with all the references and everything else)

xo

em

emily has blogged 207 posts here.