My question in the headline comes from this sentence of an article about the American Christian movement: The religious right is "not simply a religious movement or a political movement; it has also, and above all, been a sexual movement."
....
"For liberals, sex has become the problem that has no name; one simply does not hear liberals articulate a defense of sexual rights. Instead, what we have witnessed is a coalescing of conservative evangelical and mainstream secular perspectives on sex. The conversation on sex in America -- when sex is discussed in a serious and earnest way at all -- tends largely to adopt the parameters set by the Religious Right."
....
"We think the G-spot should be seen as one more way God gave us to share in the pleasure of sex," announced the Revs. Paul and Lori Byerly, hosts of the online site the Marriage Bed. Evangelicals Melissa and Louis McBurney have endorsed oral sex, mutual masturbation and rear-entry vaginal penetration -- between spouses. The Rev. Charles Shedd has declared that he and his wife, Martha, like anal sex just fine. As Herzog notes, these sex-positive Christians have absorbed from the women's movement of the 1970s and 1980s "an interest in intensifying women's sexual pleasure," as well as "the frustration at male fascination with pornography and emotional nonpresence during sex." The result is a kind of "Christian porn," as sexperts guide their married readers toward the holy land of "soulgasm," where spirit and flesh come ecstatically together. If you follow the rules, Herzog writes, "magnificent sex will be yours forever."
Ah, yes, the rules. A Christian wife, if she wants to keep her husband's mind off porn and his hand off his own penis (onanism is still a big no-no), will have to be a 24/7 tootsie. She is advised to wear sexy lingerie and to keep her legs shaved and her nether region douched at all times. ("Wives," as Jack Jones once crooned, "should always be lovers, too.") And she has to give it up whenever her man comes calling. The example of a woman named "Ellen" is approvingly cited. "[My husband's] purity is extremely important to me, so I try to meet his needs so that he goes out each day with his cup full. During the earlier years, with much energy going into childcare and with my monthly cycle, it was a lot more difficult for me to do that. There weren't too many 'ideal times' when everything was just right. But that's life, and I did it anyway."
In a dismayingly familiar pattern, the needs of wives give way more often than not to the needs of husbands. Writers like John Eldredge, Stephen Arterburn and Fred Stoeker, borrowing from the archetypes of the New Age men's movement, have exhorted Christian men to embrace their Y chromosome, to turn off the Internet and tap into their own "mustang minds," to become "dangerous," "wild at heart." And to somehow remain, in the midst of this testosterone sea, anchored to their wives.
To some extent, yes, you do hear some of that coming from Muslims. But as Muslims, there is a progressive way to counter that without losing sight of faith. A man's satisfaction is indeed important, but a wife need not martyr herself to her husband's libido, and many husbands could stand to redirect some attention to what's between their ears- and these notions have a home in Islamic source texts. We have duties toward one another, and unlike what some may believe, a man's responsibility does not consist solely of providing cash. "Men are the supporters and maintainers of women..." but who said that the support and maintenance was entirely financial?
I recall watching something on TV about a scholar in Egypt going on TV and making pronouncements on the permissability and even desirability of oral sex or some such thing. It's a vague memory.
I find the same frustration with women and Islamic codes that I see with secular American women who jump back and forth between feminist values and traditional values to get "the best deal" for themselves.
Muslim women I have known want what you assert here, but when it comes to money I've heard the traditional norm asserted from some of the same women where the man provides everything financially for the family and any money the woman makes is her own. That just doesn't work in a society where most families need two incomes to survive. I don't think this has been as visible an issue yet in America because alot of the Muslims here are very financially well off.
But most middle-class folk here in America need both adults working and contributing to live the middle-class lifestyle they want.
Tee hee. I do that, sometimes, asserting rights from an Islamic perspective (keeping my name, insisting that he go on Hajj with me), and others from a Western perspective (choosing vacation spots, wearing what I like). That said, I've not done the "what's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine as well". If the woman makes significantly less than the man, however, it does make a certain amount of sense. Also, as abusive husbands keep their wives on short leashes financially, it is a good way for a woman to get what she needs to get out. In homes where there is no abusive history, men are sometimes pretty clueless about what it takes to run a household well- while you may have lived on frozen pizza and wear a shirt until it rots off of your body quite cheaply, the comforts that men associate with married life require a bit more funding. I've not insisted that DH support me- but it's become necessary if we're going to live in the same state and keep him out of prison (he's in the military- I've moved 3 times in the past year). That sort of running about just isn't conducive to getting and keeping a job, but many wives follow their husbands about, sacrificing careers, friends, etc.
Salaam alaikum sister Fashion,
All good points.
However, I do know that the number one reason for divorce in the general US population is financial problems. A spouse spending money willy-nilly while the financial walls are closing in on the other, well, that situation would probably tend to exacerbate the discord in the home.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but embedded in what you say is the assertion that the level of domestic abuse/coercion is so much more in muslim families than in the general population that muslim families can't function financially in the same way that non-muslim families do. That would be bad news because the need for two-wage earner families arises out of the structure of our economy; ie, economic need, not choice. However, the problem could be masked by the fact that the muslim population in the US is wealthy, educated; Very different from that of the UK: working class, poor.
I have seen no statistics so I have no confirmation that muslim women are housewives in greater numbers than the general population. But assuming that that is the case, we can expect that as we move into what looks to be a severe economic downturn that will likely not spare even well-to-do American muslims, the pressure for muslim women to contribute financially will be greater. Right now would be a good time for the muslim community to marshall its resources in anticipation of an increasing need for social services. That goes for the society in general too, but we know with the ideological right-wingers in charge there will be little help available, at least until next year.
-----------
On the question of marital well-being, the most interesting book I've read on marriage and divorce was written by a researcher by the name of John Gottman who discovered that whether a marriage was volatile or sedate did not predict divorce. He found the key to avoiding divorce was a five-to-one ratio of good interactions to bad. Good interactions range from reassuring smiles, hand squeezes and "glancing eyes," to orgasm. Bad interactions (conflict) are still needed from time to time to clear the air and balance the relationship.
And then there are some issues that Gottman referred to as "the four horsemen of the apocalypse."
(Begin quote) The four horsemen are criticism, defensiveness, contempt and stonewalling.
The lead horseman is criticism. Gottman says, "The difference between complaint and criticism is that criticism has blaming in it. It’s attacking someone’s personality or character, instead of being specific about a complaint." [Example: Instead of saying, 'I'm mad at you because you did x,' you say, 'I'm mad at you because you're a jerk.']
The second horseman is defensiveness. Criticism is more likely to create defensiveness in someone. It becomes more personal. It’s perceived as more of an attack. A person will try to defend himself or herself by denying responsibility and dishing back calculated insults. A couple can drop right into defensiveness without passing "go" by being too sensitive to legitimate complaints.
The third horseman is contempt. Dr. Gottman says, "What separates contempt from criticism is the intent to insult and psychologically abuse your partner. Contempt is the acid in the relationship." Putting down your partner with insulting jokes, critical comments, facial expressions and verbal abuse can destroy any chance of intimacy. Men who are negative and contemptuous can make women physically ill.
All hope is abandoned when the last horseman, stonewalling, is saddled up and sent from the starting gate. Stonewallers withdraw from interacting emotionally in the marriage. They just stop communicating, even if an insulting situation occurs. Eighty-five percent of stonewallers are men. This might be an evolutionary survival technique. (End quote)
-----------
As I was googling for a link for you to the book above, I came across this interesting nugget about marriage and divorce:
(Begin quote) This matters: the hazards of heartbreak are confirmed in a study by psychologists at Michigan State University. The researchers were surprised to find that divorce has a more lasting emotional effect than the death of a spouse. The research, published in the latest Current Directions in Psychological Science, found that when it comes to your long-term happiness, it’s worse to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all.
Losing a spouse takes on average seven years to recover from, but divorce can plunge you permanently into the emotional dumps. The good news is that divorced people can climb back to relative happiness by getting remarried. And the findings indicate that it’s not so much marriage that makes you happy – it buoys the spirits for about two years – but that “happy people are more likely to get married”. (End quote)
I did not imply that domestic violence was more common in Muslim households than in non-Muslim households, and I'm not sure how you came to infer that. What I said is that having access to money is quite useful when leaving an abusive marriage, and that access is often hindered by abusive husbands. This is true regardless of faith tradition. I also did not imply that Muslim women in America cannot work outside the home; what I said is that many women, regardless of faith tradition, uproot their lives to keep up with their husband's careers, often sacrificing their own in the process. Sometimes, families can choose a location where both spouses can find work, but that's not always possible. Families with a member in diplomatic or military service are subject to frequent moves with little choice in location. Families fleeing war-torn areas often have little choice in their destination. Spouses of those who have been deported often have a choice between making a new life in their spouse's homeland or face potentially permanent separation. The option of working is not always available.
I'm sorry sister that I misunderstood you. Thanks for clarifying.
And I have no preconceptions about the prevalence of domestic violence in the muslim community vis-a-vis the broader society. We were pivoting back and forth between references to cultural stuff in the muslim community around money and the general US culture. I thought you were still on the muslims when you made that comment. Somehow we switched up from my anecdote about different financial expectations to that anthropological landscape that Willow identified. I'll just be quiet now.
One final thought though: As I said, I grew up in the Bay Area, where there is a large gay population. I recall seeing figures for domestic abuse reported on the news that the incidence of domestic violence was higher among gay couples than among straight. The best answer they could find for that was that gay couples were under so much more stress from discrimination, persecution and alienation. The stress prompted more frequent incidents of stress-related behavior, such as domestic violence.
Again, I don’t know. But to the extent that discrimination, persecution and alienation is the experience of muslims, it makes sense that there could also be higher rates of stress-related behavior there too. There's nothing new under the sun here, as I'm sure anyone who has lived the persecuted minority experience in any community can attest to.
On the evangelical Christian perspective on sex, from a womans eye view I recommend "Every Womans Battle" nothing is off limits in this book. She discusses masturbation, emotional infidelity, etc etc.
The book is candid and very good at looking at the feminine struggles with "self" in relationships. Women it seems are just as prone to sexual foibles as males.
For my part I find that in Islam there is very little candid discussion about marriage and sex. Instead what I know of these things is found on the internet because a good muslimah will not discuss sex. I think Christians are finding their way out of the dark ages and into reality. It's not about a woman making herself slave to her husbands sexual needs but rather feeling empowered to discuss, and indulge openly from her own need perspective and not fear that there is a punishing God hovering over the marriage bed with a paper and pencil writing down al the naughty things we do.
Post new comment