Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsMonday, November 24, 2008
Sex / Religion Seven Days of Sex
Posted by Dan Savage on Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 6:50 AM
Evangelical pastor Ed Young challenged members of his congregation—legally married heterosexual members of his congregation—to have sex (with their spouses) once a day for seven days. The NYT reports...
“Today we’re beginning this sexperiment, seven days of sex,” [Ed Young] said, with his characteristic mix of humor, showmanship and Scripture.... On Sunday parishioners at the Grapevine branch watched a prerecorded sermon from Mr. Young and his wife, Lisa, on jumbo screens over a candlelit stage. “I know there’s been a lot of love going around this week, among the married couples,” one of the church musicians said, strumming on a guitar before a crowd of about 3,000....But if you make the time to have sex, it will bring you closer to your spouse and to God, he has said. You will perform better at work, leave a loving legacy for your children to follow and may even prevent an extramarital affair.
“If you’ve said, ‘I do,’ do it,” he said. As for single people, “I don’t know, try eating chocolate cake,” he said.
Ed Young and I have a history: we were both guest bloggers on Chemistry.com's website for a while, where we seriously mixed it up. (Ed bowed out of guest blogging early, and I've always wondered if it had something to do with blogging beside someone who argued for gay marriage, against monogamy, and who wouldn't take "but it's in my bible!" as an answer.) And while I've written numerous times that saying "I do" does obligate you to do it, per Ed Young, I suspect that Ed Young's "Seven Days of Sex" experiment wound up imperiling just as many marriages as it strengthened.
If you marry while you're young and still sexually inexperienced, which evangelicals tend to do, you may not realize that you married the wrong person—someone who doesn't do it for you—until it's too late. And if you believe that divorce is a big no-no, which evangelicals tend to believe (even though they divorce at higher rates than the rest of us), you may resolve to tough it out, to stay together for the kids you had early because that's what God wanted you to do. So you resign yourself to a passionless marriage, one that isn't cemented by an intense sexual bond, and settle in for the long haul. Your partner senses what's going on and you both make certain accommodations—you avoid sex when you can, you downplay its importance, you focus on the kids or your church and you both take up recreational digestion (a.k.a. compensatory overeating—chocolate cake, anyone?). You make these accommodations so that you can stay together for Jesus (a dumb reason) or the kids (a good reason, provided the marriage is otherwise loving and low conflict). And your sex life sucks but you're relatively content.
Then along comes your pastor suddenly you have to put out every day, for seven days, and then you show up at church after seven long, miserable days of going through the motions with someone who doesn't do it for you and there's your pastor up on the altar ordering you to keep it up, to keep banging away at each other, to keep on doing it. And your spouse—your previously deprived-but-reconciled-to-it spouse—is suddenly comparing your rather limp marital sex life to the apparently roaring sex lives of all the other couples in the congregation, all of whom are, according to the New York Times, glowing... as if on cue, either because they're really digging this or because they realize they'd better pretend to be digging this, lest the other couples in the pews think there's something wrong with them... and you realize that the gig is up, that your bluff has been called. You won't be able to fake it night in, night out, like you faked it for the last seven days, not forever.
And so the old, functional, unspoken deal is off—you're no longer allowed to muddle through in a sexless-but-otherwise-lovingish marriage. And you have a choice: the pressure of faking it for another few decades with this person you're not attracted to or... get the fuck out now, while you still can, while you're still relatively young.
Or you can find a new church, one where the pastor isn't going to threaten your marriage by harassing you into having sex with a spouse that does nothing for you.
2
And don't forget, Dan, evangelicals don't believe in birth control, either. So (if you're of the right age), not only do you have sex you don't want, you get knocked up too! Then there's another kid to raise, adding to the generalized resentment, and we all know where that leads...
3
OK, so...
1) The pastor didn't follow his own advice- SURPRISE! (at Day 3, he waved the white flag of surrender)
and
2) the message to single folks was so half-assed that it seems to reinforce an attitude of "if you're not married, you're not REALLY one of us" which leads to more and more of the cycle Dan talked about.
What a douchebag.
1) The pastor didn't follow his own advice- SURPRISE! (at Day 3, he waved the white flag of surrender)
and
2) the message to single folks was so half-assed that it seems to reinforce an attitude of "if you're not married, you're not REALLY one of us" which leads to more and more of the cycle Dan talked about.
What a douchebag.
4
Or, the Pastor's advice could be good in general and Dan's hypothetical could be the worst-case scenario, something that should be dealt with differently as the situation arises. Kind of like how a balanced diet works for almost everyone, but once in a while someone has an allergy to wheat, etc. Another example of Dan's reflexively liberal but undoubtedly rigid reactionary thinking. Another job well done.
5
Sex is only one part of a marriage.
I know it's probably outside a lot of of your sex-filled heads, but some marriages are fine without lots of it--- and yes, you get to define what constitutes "lots."
I know it's probably outside a lot of of your sex-filled heads, but some marriages are fine without lots of it--- and yes, you get to define what constitutes "lots."
6
Dan, you've got a screenplay in there somewhere. I'm thinking Julianne Moore and Aaron Eckhart as the disillusioned evangelical couple.
7
@2, you're thinking of Catholics. Evangelicals certainly believe in using birth control (just probably not the morning after variety).
8
Belief in birth control or no, most religions want people to have tons and tons of babies so that they can keep the religion going and so the army will be full of god-fearing, heathen-killing, no-questions-asking soldiers.
9
@8, just because Mormons and Catholics reproduce all over the place doesn't mean that's a feature of "most religions." I grew up in an evangelical church, and most of the families had one or two kids. I'd say there was some level of encouragement to get married and raise godly children, but not even once was there any emphasis placed on raising a SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER of such children.
10
@Rachel: Seconded.
In general: I'm usually down for a bible fight, but for you guys not to sound like total bigots, you ought to keep your religions straight. Evangelicals have no problem with birth control, and would be more likely to encourage small families or adoption over large biological families. Lazily assigning stereotypes to groups who don't fall into them is supposed to be something the other side does, right?
In general: I'm usually down for a bible fight, but for you guys not to sound like total bigots, you ought to keep your religions straight. Evangelicals have no problem with birth control, and would be more likely to encourage small families or adoption over large biological families. Lazily assigning stereotypes to groups who don't fall into them is supposed to be something the other side does, right?
12
@7 et al. -
My sister is an evangelical, and she says birth control is an absolute no-no. If you have sex (which you're supposed to, as often/long as your husband wants it), then you have children. She has 7 so far.
My sister is an evangelical, and she says birth control is an absolute no-no. If you have sex (which you're supposed to, as often/long as your husband wants it), then you have children. She has 7 so far.
13
My husband and I tried the "do it for a week" thing. We made it to day 4.
Does that mean I don't love my husband?
Does that mean I don't love my husband?
14
Rachel is right. Thank you, Rachel.
Those of you who have made ignorant statements regarding the beliefs of evangelicals on birth control are probably embarrassment-proof, but you're certainly ignorant. I was reared as an evangelical -- a really intelligent and observant one. I know what I'm talking about and you do not. Please shut the fuck up until you do. The implicit demand for a sexually enlightened, dutifully agnostic amen corner doesn't require the shouting of uninformed characterizations.
In the meantime, see the paragraph that begins with the words, "If you marry while you're young and still sexually inexperienced". Everything in that paragraph is, in my experience, heart-breaking, spot-on and well-put.
Those of you who have made ignorant statements regarding the beliefs of evangelicals on birth control are probably embarrassment-proof, but you're certainly ignorant. I was reared as an evangelical -- a really intelligent and observant one. I know what I'm talking about and you do not. Please shut the fuck up until you do. The implicit demand for a sexually enlightened, dutifully agnostic amen corner doesn't require the shouting of uninformed characterizations.
In the meantime, see the paragraph that begins with the words, "If you marry while you're young and still sexually inexperienced". Everything in that paragraph is, in my experience, heart-breaking, spot-on and well-put.
16
@5, I'm guessing that you're a woman and / or the low libido partner.
Breathnig is only one part of being alive.
Breathnig is only one part of being alive.
18
More and more evangelicals are in fact coming out against birth control. The modern movement to recriminalize birth control is led by evangelical groups working together with Catholics.
19
max, dan didn't say anything about these couples hating each other. just not being all that hot for each other, perhaps.
and you know what? there's a downside to being an atheist libertine, too. it's a downside most of them are willing to live with, but still, it keeps them honest and fair to admit to it.
and you know what? there's a downside to being an atheist libertine, too. it's a downside most of them are willing to live with, but still, it keeps them honest and fair to admit to it.
20
@9,10: I know protestant doctrine tends to vary rather widely, but I was under the impression that at least some evangelicals thought the pill, at least, was a pro-life no-no (on distinctly shakey scientific grounds). I assume that would leave condoms as a viable option at least for most churches, but how widespread is the pills=abortion thing? Is that the norm for most evangelical churches, or is it fringe?
22
the guy is well-meaning... but yes, churches often create problems like what dan describes. one of the reasons is because it is so difficult for people to be honest there.
23
@20 There is no one protestant doctrine and some protestant churches are OK with abortion. (Some treat it like war, supporting both conscientious objection and conscientious participation.) But the evangelical problem with the pill doesn't rest on shaky scientific grounds so much as a difference of opinion with the scientists. Science defines abortion as terminating a pregnancy which starts at implantation. Evangelicals tend to believe that life starts at conception. The pill works at least some of the time by preventing implantation. From one perspective the pill is an abortificiant and murder.
25
@10, but stereotypes are such a time-saver!
Ok, yes, only SOME religions are anti-birth control, baby crazy. It's probably because those are typically the obnoxiously vocal in-your-face ones that they tend to make everyone else look worse.
Ok, yes, only SOME religions are anti-birth control, baby crazy. It's probably because those are typically the obnoxiously vocal in-your-face ones that they tend to make everyone else look worse.
26
I just felt for all those women, when I read this story this morning. Female sexuality is a little more complicated than men's, and that they're being told they need to put out every night, whether they're getting off or not, (and from what I know of women and the level of knowledge about their own sexuality in these environments, likely not), is just licensing their partners' disregard for what they need and pushing them further away from enjoying sex.
God. I'll bet being single with the chocolate cake will begin to look pretty good to some of them.
God. I'll bet being single with the chocolate cake will begin to look pretty good to some of them.
27
it's always good to have youth worker weigh in on these questions with news from the inside.
so, yw, is there a rising tide against bc, not just iud and pill, but other stuff that DOESN'T result in any kind of "abortion"? e.g. depo provera, condoms, etc.
yes, there are protestant churches that are ok with abortion, but do you see any movement toward a more catholic view of bc within non-catholic churches? any links you would rec?
so, yw, is there a rising tide against bc, not just iud and pill, but other stuff that DOESN'T result in any kind of "abortion"? e.g. depo provera, condoms, etc.
yes, there are protestant churches that are ok with abortion, but do you see any movement toward a more catholic view of bc within non-catholic churches? any links you would rec?
28
Yeah, I thought it was the Roman Catholics who had to have big families and couldn't get divorced?
Anyway, Dan, I think your criticism is off base. Are you guarding your territory? Pastors give out all kinds of terrible advice but encouraging married couples to have sex is good advice.
If it puts pressure on their marriage... well? Maybe they need to get divorced. It's not like they're Catholic or something.
Anyway, Dan, I think your criticism is off base. Are you guarding your territory? Pastors give out all kinds of terrible advice but encouraging married couples to have sex is good advice.
If it puts pressure on their marriage... well? Maybe they need to get divorced. It's not like they're Catholic or something.
29
28 FTW. Dan, he's suggesting that people increase the intimacy in their marriage. You think you need to be a genius like you to realize that this might create problems in marriages that are surviving only because of low intimacy?
30
There is not one shred of actual evidence that the pill ever works by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg.
Please, please stop repeating that lie.
The drug companies SAY it may work that way in their advertising, but no study of the efficacy of hormonal birth control has EVER, to my knowledge, had results consistent with that mechanism.
So it's actually only from the "perspective" of the ill-informed that the pill is an abortificiant and murder.
Please, please stop repeating that lie.
The drug companies SAY it may work that way in their advertising, but no study of the efficacy of hormonal birth control has EVER, to my knowledge, had results consistent with that mechanism.
So it's actually only from the "perspective" of the ill-informed that the pill is an abortificiant and murder.
31
@23- What @30 said. I realize that many protestant churches define the fertilization of the egg to be the moment life begins, but there is almost no evidence that the pill actually is preventing fertilized eggs from implanting. Mostly it works by preventing viable eggs from descending in the first place by convincing your body that you are already pregnant.
32
@30 The problem is that early in this debate--the big one, not this thread--some were using "the pill prevents implantation sometimes" as a reducto ad absurdum to the claim that life begins as conception. At the time there wasn't the political will to take on the pill. As they seemed to get the idea from us opponets to their position I'm willing to let them have this one. If life does begin at conception and if stopping it is murder then even a chance is bad. The better point is that if life begins at conception then God himself is the world's biggest abortion provider.
33
@9: "No Evangelical family I know thinks that way!!!" Hmmm, looks like #12 knows at least one.
@10: Criticizing religion is not bigotry, and the posts at 12 and 23 seem to indicate that at least a few Evangelicals do have a problem with the pill. Colorado's failed "personhood" amendment was also supported by quite a few evangelicals.
@14: I guess the Evangelicals referenced in posts 12 and 23, and all those that supported the aforementioned amendment are "No True Evangelicals". Perhaps they should "shut the fuck up", too?
@23:
"Science defines abortion as terminating a pregnancy which starts at implantation. Evangelicals tend to believe that life starts at conception."
Which would mean that Evangelicals' problems with the pill lie on shaky scientific grounds.
"The pill works at least some of the time by preventing implantation."
Because, as you agree, science says that pregnancy begins at implantation, the above is not an example of abortion. We aren't talking about pulling the bun out of the oven before it is done. Instead, the pill simply stops the baker from putting his bun in the oven at all and chucks the uncooked ingredients in the garbage.
"From one perspective the pill is an abortifacint (sic) and murder. "
Yes, from the non-scientific perspective. Hence the whole "shaky scientific grounds" thing.
@10: Criticizing religion is not bigotry, and the posts at 12 and 23 seem to indicate that at least a few Evangelicals do have a problem with the pill. Colorado's failed "personhood" amendment was also supported by quite a few evangelicals.
@14: I guess the Evangelicals referenced in posts 12 and 23, and all those that supported the aforementioned amendment are "No True Evangelicals". Perhaps they should "shut the fuck up", too?
@23:
"Science defines abortion as terminating a pregnancy which starts at implantation. Evangelicals tend to believe that life starts at conception."
Which would mean that Evangelicals' problems with the pill lie on shaky scientific grounds.
"The pill works at least some of the time by preventing implantation."
Because, as you agree, science says that pregnancy begins at implantation, the above is not an example of abortion. We aren't talking about pulling the bun out of the oven before it is done. Instead, the pill simply stops the baker from putting his bun in the oven at all and chucks the uncooked ingredients in the garbage.
"From one perspective the pill is an abortifacint (sic) and murder. "
Yes, from the non-scientific perspective. Hence the whole "shaky scientific grounds" thing.
34
hmm, chocolate cake huh? you know, i think i'm gonna have sex tonight instead....and maybe have some cake too.
35
@33 Science sits atop a whoe series of non-scientific ideas. Or put another way, the term "pregnancy" is just a word, a hanlde that we can attach to anything. Science is attaching it to one thing and certain Evangelicals are attaching it to something a little different. The same with the word "abortion". Were the evangicals to adopt the language of science it wouldn't change their position. Terminating implantation would still be murder but so would terminating before implantation, something that we don't have a good term for.
These folks are way off base but not because they are on shakey scientific ground. They're not speaking to a scientific issue.
But we digress. The important issuse is that people shouldn't get married unless they are prepared to have lots of sex. And the person with the higher libido gets to decide what "lots" is.
These folks are way off base but not because they are on shakey scientific ground. They're not speaking to a scientific issue.
But we digress. The important issuse is that people shouldn't get married unless they are prepared to have lots of sex. And the person with the higher libido gets to decide what "lots" is.
36
@16-- You're wrong on both counts.
And you just illustrated my point about making assumptions....thanks.
And you just illustrated my point about making assumptions....thanks.
37
One thing I find interesting is that no one has thought to mention the notion that having to have sex with a partner that doesn't get you off for 7 days in a row might have a genuine benefit. It might actually encourage the parties involved to TALK about what gets them off. That would be rad, because lack of communication is frequently the problem anyway when it comes to bad sex lives.
38
Seriously Dan what happened with the Marlee Ginter thing? Did you get served? Explain why the Slog pussied out and changed all of your stories.
39
@31--sorry, but I just twinged to see you correcting misinformation with another piece of misinformation.
"Mostly it works by preventing viable eggs from descending in the first place by convincing your body that you are already pregnant."
Not really. The pill works by convincing a woman's body, through manipulated hormone levels, that it has always *just finished* ovulating and thus doesn't need to do it again. It doesn't simulate a pregnant state.
But you're right that the pill's main mechanism for preventing pregnancy is to prevent ovulation--i.e. no eggs are stimulated to develop, no eggs are released for fertilization to occur.
"Mostly it works by preventing viable eggs from descending in the first place by convincing your body that you are already pregnant."
Not really. The pill works by convincing a woman's body, through manipulated hormone levels, that it has always *just finished* ovulating and thus doesn't need to do it again. It doesn't simulate a pregnant state.
But you're right that the pill's main mechanism for preventing pregnancy is to prevent ovulation--i.e. no eggs are stimulated to develop, no eggs are released for fertilization to occur.
41
I must know different evangelicals than you guys--there are a lot of non-denominational, teetotaling, anti-choice, anti-birth control, premarital-sex-is-a-mortal-sin-for-our-daughters fundamentalists in my corner of the world, many of whom believe that the Southern Baptist convention is too liberal (I guess because some of those churches ordain women?). "Interfering in the will of God" is a big no-no for them, hence the no birth control, especially for teenagers who need it.
An article of interest: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/…
An article of interest: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/…
42
Agreed with fnarf @18 and Griffin @41 My sister is an evangelical who has 8 children and counting because she and her husband are fervently opposed to birth control. Here's an evangelical talk radio dude who seems to cut sort of down the middle alluded to above; he gives the history of distinct CHANGES in the evangelical stance regarding contraception over the last 50 years or so, as they have moved from a pro-birth control stance and come considerably closer to the Catholic stance (although he doesn't think people are mandated to have big families): http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_r…
43
"Or you can find a new church, one where the pastor isn't going to threaten your marriage by harassing you into having sex with a spouse that does nothing for you."
I lost count of the assumptions packed into this sentence when they outnumbered the actual words in said sentence.
I lost count of the assumptions packed into this sentence when they outnumbered the actual words in said sentence.
44
@33 "Criticizing religion is not bigotry"
Let's try that a couple other ways.
"Criticizing gay people is not bigotry"
"Criticizing black people is not bigotry"
Criticizing any broad group for the actions of a small number of members of that group is, in fact, a textbook definition of bigotry.
Let's try that a couple other ways.
"Criticizing gay people is not bigotry"
"Criticizing black people is not bigotry"
Criticizing any broad group for the actions of a small number of members of that group is, in fact, a textbook definition of bigotry.
46
I was just watching TV when he was challenging for “congregational copulation” sitting on a paisley-covered bed. Do you remebber Madonna's bed-on-the-stage video "Like a virgin"? You know she did it better than Mr. Young. I'm for separation of sex and church. And after reading this post , I'm even more certain of my position. Church should promote moral values, sex should be promoted by sex toy shops.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
Dear Huffington Post... by Dan Savage
-
Because Guns Make Us More Safer by Goldy
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
The Rick Santorum Rally in Tacoma Probably Could Have Gone Better by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (46) RSS