Sex-related sexism in the church? SHOCKING!

Thaddeus Matthews brings to our attention the curious case of the pastor of World Overcomers Church (the church that brought us the crazy cross-wielding Statue of Liberty) who felt the need to urge the women in his congregation to get freaky in the bedroom to keep their husbands faithful.

From Thaddeus:

In the pulpit was a Queen sized bed draped in burgundy and gold.

Members were wondering why the place that normally Pastor Alton R. Williams preaches the word of God from had turned into a large bedroom, when he entered wearing a robe and pajama pants with his bible in hand. the lights are dimmed, mode music is playing,Williams at this point lays on the bed reading from the Songs of Solomon.

While still reading the bible his wife Sherrilyn enters the sanctuary wearing a long red feathered seductive fitting gown. Mrs. Williams very seductively walks across the pulpit turn bedroom and sits on the bed next to her husband. She closes his bible and begins to rub on him, and then lefts him from the bed and very passionately embraces and kisses him. Pastor Williams whose Sunday morning freak session is designed to save marriages tells the women in the congregation "This is how to keep your husband so the Hoe don't get him".

Mmmmmkay.

This is an old schtick, dressed up in gaudy bedsheets. Just a few months ago, megapreacher Joel Osteen — he of the impossibly smiley gums — apparently encouraged the women of his congregation to shop at Victoria's Secret to keep their husbands interested.

Obviously you know what I'm going to say at this point.

[Sarcastic remark and possible ad hominem attack on both preachers.]

[Snark regarding the insanity of the people who must attend these churches.]

[General musing about the state of Christianity today, and how it is so pathetically off-track of its stated goal, which is to make people more like Christ.]

[Sincere denunciation of the pervasive sexist practice of making women responsible for the behavior of men.]

[Pissy indictment of the culture's insistence on placing a woman's highest power and value in her sexuality, and not just her sexuality, but her ability and willingness to please men with her sexuality.]

[Acknowledgment, once again, that the most subtle and ubiquitous form of man-hating comes not from feminists, but from those who seem to believe that men are sub-human animals who can't control their own behavior and must rely on the womenfolk to do it for them.]

Repeat. Ad nauseum.

Single-arity

I've got a post up at iDiva about the frustrations of trying to meet men to date in a city where there are 20,000 or so more single women than men. (Check out that map. Hello, west coast!) It already seems like an uphill battle when you work an odd schedule that takes away most of your nights and weekends, and if you mix in your own anti-outgoing personality and weirdness about meeting new people, well, you're cooking up a helluva recipe for a crazy cat lady.

I love that the first suggestion offered by a commenter is to go to church to meet men. I suppose I should have mentioned that the conversation in question was taking place between an agnostic and an atheist two agnostics. Ah, well.

Sex advice tripe o' the day: A follow-up

My comment got to be a bit too long for this post, so I decided to pull it out and continue the discussion here.

One problem with this column is that it presupposes so much based on stereotypical assumptions that it's basically meaningless. What about men with low sex drives? What about women with high sex drives? What about men who like talking about emotional stuff with their partners? What about lesbians and gay men? What about women who are not emotional talkers? What about couples that actually understand how to love each other and get along regardless of the amount of fucking that's happening?

I've got lots of problems with this column, but the bit I pulled out and quoted Friday was just some of the more egregious crapola — the idea that a man can't be inconsiderate and selfish in his pursuit of sex because it's how he's built is silly. Even if a man is having a genuine sexual jones — one that's based on intense love and affection for his partner — if he's being a hound about it even as his partner is telling him no, for whatever reasons, that's being selfish and he needs to be called on it. The same goes if the sexes were switched.

Sex is not so all-important that we get to go around acting entitled about our right to have it. You can have as much sex as you want with yourself. But drag another person into it, and you better stop to consider his or her feelings about it every step of the way. There is little that is more toxic to a relationship than the feeling of being nagged to do something. A chorus men will sing "amen!" at that notion (about whatever stereotypical man-job you can dream up: Mowing the lawn, taking out the trash, etc.). Being nagged for sex is just as exhausting.

Cox said in the comments of the previous post:

Sexual urges are natural and healthy — not something to be ashamed of.

I think that's true. But I think an extension of this is a lack of sexual urges is natural and healthy — not something to be ashamed of. People who want to fuck, people who don't want to fuck, people who can't fuck — they are all capable of healthy, loving relationships.

This may be a revolutionary concept, but I don't believe that sex is absolutely essential for a healthy romantic relationship. There are people for whom sexual activity just isn't that important, and people for whom sexual activity is physically impossible. I can't imagine that these people are incapable of making long-term relationships work.

Sexuality, for everyone, exists on some sort of continuum that science has just barely begun to understand. Every person has his or her own preferences about sex. Some people have high libidos, others have low libidos. Everyone's libido likely fluctuates depending on life circumstances.

To embark on a long-term, monogamous relationship without understanding that your own sexual appetite is probably never going to completely synch with your partner's is short-sighted. We have to understand that things will happen in our lives that will shift sex's position on our priorities list. Or, if not our own, then probably our partners'. It may not be a permanent shift, but it will be a shift nonetheless. And if we're willing to run off and get our jollies with another partner because ours (whom we love, we swear!) isn't capitulating to the awesome will of our horniness, then maybe we aren't entirely ready for a long-term relationship anyway.

Sex advice tripe o' the day

Shorter Globe and Mail column: Who cares if you don't want to do it; STFU and spread 'em to hang onto your asshole boyfriend/husband.

Those poor dudes, having to endure that constant need to pork things.

What's so hilarious (and by hilarious I mean, of course, sad) is this quote by some pseudonymous dude:

“If men don't feel respected or loved, if they don't feel like a man, if they have to walk around on eggshells when it comes to their sex drive, if their horniness is treated like an inconsiderate act of selfishness – like typical male behaviour – then they will reassert themselves with another woman."

And several paragraphs later, the columnist writing this garbage says this:

Most young mothers will tell you that after having their bodies taken over by pregnancy, and then the demands of breastfeeding and constant monitoring of a baby, what they would really like at night is to be left alone for a bit, untouched. They've overdosed on closeness for the time being.

But husbands still want their wives to view them as the primary relationship.

Got that? You shouldn't treat an inconsiderate act of selfishness — the act of hounding someone who does not want sex for sex — as exactly what it is: An inconsiderate act of selfishness. Because, you know, it hurts dudes' feelings and emasculates them.

Unbelievable. Completely predictable.