Sexuality & Relationships
MODULE 5 HEALTHY SEXUALITY
SEXUAL BEINGS IN RELATIONSHIP
A divine purpose in being created as sexual persons is to draw us into meaningful and
satisfying relationships with others. We draw on narratives throughout the Bible that describe in
familial terms the relationship between the Creator God and the people of God. We depict these
principles in figure 6.1 as spiraling inward because they deepen authenticity in our relationships.
Think of the spiral as a clock spring in which a relationship grows and matures through each
aspect of relationality. An authentic sexual relationship does not emerge fully developed but is a
process between two people intentionally moving into deeper levels of these relationship
dimensions.
Our premise is that person-centered sexual relationships are to be covenantal rather than
contractual, gracing rather than shaming, empowering rather than controlling, and intimate rather
than distant. We specify how each of these relationship principles either contributes to or
distracts from authenticity in sexual relationship.
Although the concept of covenant has a rich heritage in Christian theology, its biblical
meaning has often been eroded by defining commitment in contractual terms. The notion of
covenant includes contractual arrangements, but it involves much more. The core theme of
covenant is an unconditional commitment, which goes far beyond a simple social contract. I will
establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants
after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you.
Israel had no choice in the matter, nor was the covenant determined by their response.
Second, although God desired and even commanded a response from it had nothing to do
with Noah or Abraham keeping their end of the bargain. God gave was an everlasting covenant,
and God, being true to Godself, would faithfully carry out the promise. Third, whereas the
covenant was not conditional, the benefits or blessings of the covenant were conditional. While
Noah and Abraham were free to reject the offer, they would deprive themselves of the rewards
God was offering.
In other words, although the continuation of God’s love was not based on their action, the
blessings of the covenant were gained or lost depending on their response. In the book of Hosea
this relationship between God and Israel is presented in terms of a sexual relationship. Israel is
alternatively referred to as a faithful lover or as the adulterer, who prostitutes herself by whoring
after other lovers.
I will betroth you in faithfulness, and you will acknowledge the LORD. Ultimately,
God’s faithful commitment is seen in the incarnation and the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. God
stretches out in every way to pursue with enticing covenant love, humans have the freedom to
respond to or reject that love. God never overtakes in the pursuit, but faithfully beckons us to
respond to the lifechanging love of Jesus.
In the New Testament, the marital analogy symbolizes the relationship between Christ
and the church. When John the Baptist explains that he is not the Christ but is sent to proclaim
the one who is, he says, the bride belongs to the bridegroom. The friend who attends the
bridegroom waits and listens for him, and is full of joy when he hears the bridegroom’s voice.
The obvious symbolism is the anticipated union between the bride and groom.
God’s reaching out with an everlasting commitment of love and loyalty becomes a model
for authentic sexual relationships. The desire to love and be loved unconditionally is a godly,
human desire. We learn to trust others in the context of committed, trustworthy relationships.
Covenant commitment provides the security and safety in which people can see themselves as
worthy of love in ways that move them to intimate connection.
Some turn to promiscuous sex devoid of commitment, only making matters worse.
Sexual expression in the context of a lifelong commitment protects one from the insecurity of
conditional love. A conditional quid pro quo arrangement says, I’ll love if you love, I’ll forgive
if you forgive, I’ll make a commitment as long as you make one first, which is the exact opposite
of unconditional love. Covenant commitment safeguards love’s highest qualities.
Secure devotion, especially in our postmodern world, is a foundation that God intends for
a fulfilling sexual union. The sacred vow of unconditional commitment ensures that love is
trustworthy. Committed to finding solutions, covenant love is willing to go through the
messiness of life. This kind of covenant commitment promotes deeper sexual trust and
fulfillment.
There will be inevitable challenges and failures in the midst of life stresses in any
relationship, which is why covenant love by its very nature includes grace. From a human
perspective, the unconditional love of God makes no sense unless experienced through grace.
Grace is a relational word focusing on restoring connection when there has been a breach due to
human failure. It is the promise of grace that holds out hope for relationship healing and
reconciliation. Children who are loved unconditionally and fully accepted as sexual beings are
likely to accept themselves and their bodies without shame.
Most of us will agree that guilt is a natural human response occurring when a person does
something wrong. Shame, on the other hand, relays the message not just that one has done
something wrong but that one is flawed at the core. Since one can never measure up or be
forgiven, a person may simply stop trying completely. Viewing oneself as sexually flawed
becomes a self-defeating rejection of one’s sexual self.
This deafening message leads to a continuous cycle of shame. In her work with body
image, therapist Cissy Brady-Rogers says that Christian women with food and body problems
have lacked healthy models or teaching on how to integrate their sexuality with their Christian
faith. A damaging aspect of shaming sexual messages is the potential to undermine one’s sexual
selfworth. When a person has been profoundly shamed in this area of life, it is more difficult to
develop an authentic sexual self.
Although most people enter adulthood with certain degrees of sexual shame, they do not
have to be debilitated by it. Establishing a sexual value system that is congruent with personal
beliefs starts with the glorious truth that our sexuality has been declared by God as good. Living
by these convictions and pursuing relation-focused sexuality builds self-esteem. When they
heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, they hid.
It was only after their disobedience that they felt their nakedness and shame.
Shame is always a barrier to intimacy. A gracious response is an essential part of being in
human relationships. Having people in our life who accept us as we are, allow us to admit
mistakes, and share struggles keeps hope alive and builds confidence as we navigate our sexual
journeys. Grace is never cheap.
Grace is not wishy-washy. Grace is a gift of God in Christ Jesus, freely extended in
persistent compassion. In later chapters, we will show how sexual transgressions not only take a
horrendous toll on those who are sexually victimized but also inflict deep relationship wounds.
There should be no toleration for dehumanizing, demoralizing sexual messages and behaviors
that undermine what God has proclaimed as good.
Jesus declares, I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full. Jesus radically
redefined power. Central to his mission was a message of humility, servanthood, and
empowerment. Spirit empowers us to go the second mile, show love rather than hate, give of
ourselves beyond the call of duty as we live in relationship.
A simple definition of power is the ability to influence another person. In a very real
sense, empowerment is love in action. In terms of authentic sexuality, it means intentionally
affirming sexuality in ways that God intended. Empowering behaviors include such things as
encouraging others to live within their sexual value system, respecting personal boundaries,
honoring sexual differences, and supporting areas of relational growth and challenge. Power is
an important component of any sexual relationship.
When one person tries to manipulate or coerce another in sexual matters, it is a violation
of power. Empowered persons have no need to control others in the sexual realm. When a
partner responds respectfully to no, this guards the person from being persuaded to say yes when
they mean no. Personal empowerment involves the ability to soothe our personal fears and
anxieties from within.
Such sexual encounters often involve an emotionally detached partner. Resorting to
sexual prowess to get what one wants may feel powerful in the moment, but this is a false
assumption. People who come from a history of being disempowered may tolerate coercive
actions, believing they have no rights and virtually no power in the relationship. In mutually
empowering relationships there is no interest in exerting control because the focus of desire is an
involved partner being alive and present.
Both persons choose to share themselves out of their craving to know and be known.
Both persons are affirmed in their sexuality and personhood as they invite each other into a
rhythm of interaction. Shared meanings, attitudes, beliefs, and goals are the foundation of the
interdependency created in their couple relationship. Secure in the fact that they are loved
unconditionally, treated with grace and empowerment, they gladly open themselves to each other
for deeper sexual and emotional levels of knowing. Reciprocal empowerment offers the greatest
potential for developing a meaningful, deeply satisfying, person-centered relationship. Out of
covenant security, gracing acceptance, and mutual empowerment, intimacy blossoms.
INTIMACY: TO KNOW AND BE KNOWN
We are encouraged to share our deepest thoughts and feelings with God as the Holy
Spirit speaks in a way too deep for words. Emotional and spiritual sharing deepens meaningful
connection with others. Intimate connection is profoundly meaningful throughout our lives. In
the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were naked but felt no shame.
The bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh response of Adam to Eve indicates that they
could communicate thoughts, feelings, desires, and emotions in a way that was not possible with
other living creatures. Honest communication and open dialogue about sexual feelings, desires,
and struggles is important for authenticity in the sexual relationship. In addition, knowing
oneself is a critical developmental task that ideally precedes intimacy with another. In contrast,
persons with an underdeveloped self may seek to engulf, exploit, or remain detached, which
thwarts mutual sexual expression.
Satisfying sexual engagement is based on two unique individuals who make an emotional
connection leading to profound depths of togetherness. Sexual intimacy involves the production
of oxytocin, the hormone that produces feelings of relaxation, contentment, and a desire to
remain connected in the continuation of the relationship. It seems our wired-in need to seek out
and secure emotional connections with our partner provides the bond that sustains love
relationships long after the endorphins of romantic love have subsided. In a sample of 475
individuals, Birnie-Porter and Hunt found that intimacy and sexual satisfaction were positively
correlated with exclusive dating, engaged, and married relationships when compared to those in
casual dating relationships The bond of covenant love deepens the capacity for emotional
closeness and intimacy.
Becoming one flesh is an act of melding two lives together through a growing covenant
commitment. In non-person-centered relating, emotional connection is painfully lacking.
Emotional distancing in relationship often occurs out of a fear of intimacy. Persons may feel
unworthy of being known and so hide themselves rather than disclose who they are.
The fear cycle can only be broken through a trustworthy relationship of unconditional
commitment, grace, and empowerment. Sexual intimacy built on these relational principles
carries the relationship to new levels of growth and passion. Only when sex is woven into a
wider fabric of intimacy and communication can it deliver the deepest satisfaction of knowing
and being known.
SEXUALITY AND SINGLENESS
In fact, there are more adult single persons than married persons in the United States.
Single status can be a most exhilarating time of life to pursue a plethora of options regarding
interests, travel, education, hobbies, sport, personal causes, and ministry opportunities.
Relationships are a primary source of energy and satisfaction for singles of all ages and stages of
life. In fact, a special privilege of single life is the opportunity to make commitments to friends,
family, workmates, church, and community.
Freedom from obligations and responsibilities of married life allows one to establish
relationships at different levels of intimacy with a variety of persons. Single persons are no less
whole because they are unmarried, yet the church does not always value singleness on a par with
marriage. A nonexclusive love gives single persons freedom to pursue a wide breadth of
activities and depth in emotional, psychological, and spiritual intimacy with many. In his
excellent book Singles at the Crossroads , Albert Hsu points out that the New Testament
establishes an important place for singles through the life of Jesus, who brought dignity and
meaning to living life as a single adult. Indeed, engaging in meaningful relationship is the most
human behavior and the most divine.
FOUR KINDS OF LOVE
Lewis discusses love in terms of affection, friendship, eros, and charity. Affection is a
love that is widely diffused. The desire to be loved is a longing that continues throughout life.
Single family members very often become special aunts and uncles to children and have a
special role in the lives of other family members. Mutual affection shown in the family, with
friends, and in the family of God is a special place of being known and valued.
Being free to develop warmth and depth with a circle of friends is a great delight for
single persons. Eros is the state of being in love, according to Lewis. When relationships include
sexual attraction and romance, our sexuality usually urges us toward one particular person. This
is evidenced in the Song of Songs, where one lover boldly declares, I am my beloveds and my
beloved is mine.
They can’t seem to get enough of each other, spending hours in person-to-person
conversation getting to know each other in the deepest ways possible. Lewis points out that the
essential desire is for the person, not for the sex. While sexual desire is a fact about ourselves, it
is simply a wonderful byproduct of the more important relationship. Commitment to the person
safeguards the highest and deepest qualities of love. Some of the richest aspects of love are
sharing thoughts, feelings, dreams, fears, secrets, and yearning with our partner. This relational
bonding enriches person-centered love.
Subculture that flaunts personal pleasure and an anything goes message. It is increasingly
difficult to uphold the ideals of eros while being bombarded with messages to act out sexual
impulses, especially since there is a long waiting period between finding and committing to that
one love. Yet expressing sexual love to the beloved partner brings delight to one’s soul. The
attraction is so clearly about the person.
Even when sexual desire is an obvious part of allure, it does not overtake the couple in
this intimate exchange. There is no push for sexual involvement because it is much more
important to respond to the person from the core of one’s being. This is my beloved, this is my
friend. Person-focused passion is an interaction that involves all levels of responsiveness
between the lovers.
It takes little effort to just have a genital experience with someone, but making love to a
multidimensional person requires attention, responsive interaction, sensitivity, time, and
commitment. Singles have much to offer the greater community as they go beyond their own
needs and reach out to others. Acting out of compassion and tolerance, singles find meaning in
using their resources for the good of others.
States today are sexual abstinence, double standard, permissiveness with affection, and
permissiveness without affection. Sewell and Strassberg report that even though the ideal of
sexual abstinence prior to marriage is a common belief, most singles engage in sexual practices.
We will return to this standard when we address celibacy below. The double standard, which
blatantly accepts sexual intercourse outside marriage for males but not for females, was thought
to be in decline.
However, Regnerus and Uecker report that even on the most liberal college campus
where gender equality is endorsed and promoted, the premarital sexual double standard
continues. This may be partly due to cultural scripts that put sexual restriction on unmarried
females while permitting greater sexual permissiveness for unmarried males. Permissiveness
with affection, when it comes to behavior, is the most practiced sexual standard of single adults.
Many young adults believe that sexual intercourse between two consenting individuals is
permissible when they are in love and have committed themselves to one another.
Some differences come into play with the permissiveness with affection standard. There
are those who practice what might be called serial monogamy in that they are true to one partner
at a time yet may change partners every few years. They have affection for the partner during the
sexually exclusive relationship, but they will move on to another partner when they fall out of
love or become attracted to a new partner. In another scenario, singles report having affection for
the partners they have sex with, but that affection may extend to several partners at the same
time.
As you can see, there is a variation in how this standard is interpreted. Permissiveness
without affection, although less acceptable as a standard, has become a fairly common practice.
This view considers sexual intercourse to be a casual, recreational experience between two
consenting adults. There are serious consequences of engaging in sex with many different
persons for whom one has no affection, both from a physical and psychological perspective.
Casual sex for the sake of sexual pleasure alone has been questioned over the years, not
only out of concern for increased risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted
pregnancies, but also because of the emotional risks of removing personal connection and
intimacy from the sexual act, leading to further disconnection in an already detached world. The
term hooking up has emerged as a description of the current permissiveness without affection
standard. Hookups are generally defined as sexual encounters between partners who are not in a
romantic relationship and do not expect commitment. The greater number of drinks beforehand
was associated with more advanced sexual behavior.
2012 with youth of 1988–1996, Monto and Carey found that the current era did not report
more sexual partners since age 18, more frequent sex, or more partners during the past year than
respondents from the earlier era . It’s not a matter of repressing sexuality but a matter of
acknowledging sexual feelings in order to keep appropriate boundaries. Sexual urges do not have
to push one inevitably toward sexual engagement. Love can be expressed completely and fully
without sexual intercourse.
Individuals must acknowledge sexual urges and place them where God wants them to be.
Both persons in a relationship are responsible for making decisions about touching, holding, or
cuddling as a loving rather than sexual gesture. Meeting with trusted persons in transparency and
accountability is one way to respond to this admonition. In making sexual decisions, it’s
important first to ask what sort of person one wants to be and become.
The findings are based on a national random sample of 3,370 youth who participated in
267 in-depth interviews. He discovered that the more devoutly religious parents tend to talk less
often to their adolescents about sex and birth control but most often about sexual morality.
Whereas evangelical youth may hold less sexually permissive attitudes than most other religious
youth, it doesn’t mean they don’t lose their virginity. He concludes that religion affects
adolescents’ sexual attitudes and motivations more than their actions.
To be sure, there is concern for youth who have not yet developed a strong sense of self
nor have fully developed brains to make mature choices. It is estimated that 90% of persons who
engage in premarital sex do so in their teenage years. The average age for boys’ first sexual
experience is sixteen, and for girls it is seventeen. For most, sexual intercourse occurs while
going steady or in a serious dating relationship and usually takes place at home or a friend’s
home.
In a study of adolescent girls, a relationship was found between lower social-emotional
intelligence and sexual risk behaviors, suggesting that having high social-emotional intelligence
can be a protective buffer against sexual risk behaviors. Youth who begin sexual activity at an
early age tend to run a higher risk for a premarital birth. In a study of 3,715 youth, 7% reported
sending or showing someone sexual pictures of themselves, in which they were nude or nearly
nude during the past year. According to Rosenberg, sexting has been linked to sexual experience
among middle school students.
He found that girls are not as likely to engage in sexting as are boys, but they experience
pressure from boys to do so. When they do engage in this behavior, they are judged more
harshly. Another study found that sexting was significantly associated with symptoms of
depression, impulsivity, and substance use. But it did not find sexting to be a matter of mental
health.
An entire edited book on the topic, Adolescent Sexual Behavior in the Given that risk
taking has been shown to be a normative aspect of teenage development, it is significant to note
that risky sexting can lead to a variety of tragic outcomes, including sexual harassment,
derogatory labeling , guilt and shame, bullying, sexual violence, and even suicide. Virginity
pledges. Raising Them Chaste, which led to the virginity pledge movement. The purity ring was
to be worn as a pledge of sexual abstinence and eventually presented to the chosen spouse on
their wedding day.
This creative suggestion has spawned a number of related programs seeking to promote
chastity among single youth. Early research found that virginity pledges are effective for some,
but not for others. Most pledges decreased the risk of intercourse substantially.
Subsequent research on the pledge has come from the extensive Data collected on the
virginity pledge led to the conclusion that adolescents who initiate sexual activity are likely to
recant virginity pledges, whereas those who take pledges are likely to recant their sexual
histories. Bersamin, Walker, Fisher, and Grube found that making a private pledge or promise to
oneself to wait to have sexual intercourse or oral sex until one is older is more effective than
making a formal virginity pledge. The recommendation is for sexual health programs to
encourage young people to make an internal, personal commitment to delay the onset of sex, to
foster sexual norms supportive of delaying sex, and to be informed that early sexual initiation
may threaten one’s future. A most dramatic finding was that pledgers were more likely than
nonpledgers to engage in anal and oral sex, sexual behaviors with greater risks of sexually
transmitted diseases.
Considering the impact of religion on the sexual attitudes and behavior of teenagers, it
seems the involvement and support of the religious community is crucial. Sociologists point to
the importance of church being a plausibility structure that has influence on a teen’s life. It is
significant that the two behaviors most correlated with teenagers delaying sexual intercourse are
praying and attending church. The other message, Just say no, ignores the struggle of living in a
sexually saturated culture.
The church can teach awareness regarding media manipulation to help youth critique the
false messages about body and sex. Small discussion groups provide a confidential and safe
place where youth can talk openly about peer pressure and sexual concerns. Leaders can set up
real-life situations to role-play dating and drug temptations to offer teens a chance to practice
assertiveness with appropriate words and actions. As youth grow in faith, they have confidence
in an identity centered on being a child of God.
They also build confidence by praying for each other to uphold sexual boundaries and
drawing on the Holy Spirit to avoid sex experiences incongruent with their religious values.
Parents and youth leaders can form a network of education and support that reinforces biblical
values. Parents can certainly be influential when it comes to sexual attitudes and behavior.
Showing interest, asking questions, being aware of what’s happening in school and with peers,
keeping communication open, and making efforts to protect are ways for parents to demonstrate
care for their teens.
A large sample survey of 26,023 adolescents revealed that teens were less likely to
become sexually active if they performed better academically, were more religious, did not have
suicidal thoughts, came from two-parent families, had a higher socioeconomic standing, lived in
a rural area, believed that their parents or other adults cared about their behavior, and had parents
who had high expectations of them.
WHY WAIT FOR MARRIAGE?
Some claim that the Bible doesn’t specifically forbid premarital sex like it does adultery,
sexual immorality, and prostitution. It seems reasonable, especially for older singles, to consider
premarital sex to be permissible between two mature, responsible individuals making a mutual
decision. This explains the extremely high rate of singles who have sex prior to marriage today.
Christian singles are challenged to choose a standard that resonates with their values and
morality.
We begin with the recognition that although sexual feelings are extremely powerful, it is
possible to make personcentered choices when it comes to sexual expression. Throughout
Scripture, sexual intercourse is carefully placed within the context of marriage. Two persons
make a shared covenant commitment that is sealed in the one flesh union. Sexual intercourse is
rightly anticipated as the reward of a permanent relationship.
Because God created this organic union of the two sexes, no one should desecrate his art
by cutting them apart. One could argue that there is no such thing as premarital intercourse since
the act of intercourse itself seals the union. However, merely having sex or making a mutual
covenant does not imply that marriage is inevitable. Until both partners have a sufficient sense of
self that allows them to separate from their parents/family of origin, we believe that they are
unprepared to enter such a demanding relationship as marriage.
Lauren Winner builds a case for the importance of premarital sexual chastity by focusing
on sex as a communal rather than private arrangement befitting the body of Christ, which keeps
the couple grounded in the community. Lifelong commitment is the anchor in the unknowns of
life. They had made a vow to each other to refrain from intercourse till marriage as a God-given
blessing. During the dinner, the entire wedding party gathered around them to pray God’s
blessing on their life.
GUIDELINES REGARDING SEXUAL
The Bible is not so clear-cut about indulging in sexual expressions of love. Being honest
about possible emotional complications keeps denial at bay. Even though sexual pleasure and
enjoyment may be a good reason, it is important to consider the potential impact of sexual
involvement for your partner, yourself, and your relationship.
If a couple decides they do have the right reasons for increasing the level of their sexual
involvement and are assured that neither of them will be harmed by it, the next step is to consider
the influence on the relationship itself. Because they love each other, are deeply committed, and
believe that good will come out of the mutual decision for increased sexual intimacy, the
question here has to do with whether it will enrich their relationship.
Biblical norms about sexual intercourse are not meant to deprive one of sexual pleasure
but are meant to ensure the sanctity of a mysterious union embedded in a deeply satisfying
covenant relationship. We recognize that some Christians have made a full covenant to each
other before God and engage in sexual intimacy before marriage. After thoughtful discussion,
they finally decided to include intercourse as part of their sexual intimacy with each other. Even
though they were not prepared financially to establish a household for at least another year, they
felt they were ready for sexual intercourse at this stage in their courtship.
By choosing to engage in sexual intercourse at this time, they shortchanged themselves of
the total package. Sexual intercourse alone loses its deeper meaning of being an integral part of
the total life of the couple. In another case, Marsha and Gregg had both engaged in sexual
intercourse with several partners before they started going steady. Neither had thought very
much about their sexual choices or earlier indiscriminate sexual behavior.
They engaged in sexual activity for the wrong reason at the wrong time. In the absence of
a covenant commitment, a crucial piece was missing, leaving a tremendous gap in their sexual
union. They each longed for a deeper level of emotional intimacy to match their sexual
involvement. Sexual involvement alone does not meet the deeper longings for secure belonging
and meaningful covenant commitment.
WRONG REASONS FOR SEXUAL
Sex used as a substitute for emotional needs. The single life can be one of loneliness and
self-doubt. The few moments of pleasure never deliver what they were truly longing for
emotionally. Going from one sexual relationship to another, looking for love in physical terms,
only perpetuates low selfesteem.
They deceive themselves into thinking that physical intimacy equals emotional intimacy.
Hiding behind this illusion, and not being able to deliver emotionally, the solution is to become
involved in another physical encounter without ever developing emotional connection. Some
persons do not have the ego strength to say no to sexual approaches, so they give in even when
they do not want to be sexually involved. They do not enjoy the sexual interaction but tolerate
the intrusion.
Believing they do not have a right to keep sexual boundaries, they say yes when they
want to say no. In this case, physical sex with the girl involved proving something to his dorm
mates rather than a desire to express affection to someone he loved. Sex can be used to control,
coerce, or trick a person. One thing led to another, and soon they were petting heavily, just short
of intercourse.
This person manipulates out of personal need, not out of love for the other. Rape and
sexual violence are other examples of hostile, coercive sex. Perpetrators have one focus in mind,
to satisfy their own needs without regard for the person they victimize. Sex is used to reassure
themselves of their adequacy, for they are filled with self-hate, a topic we will discuss in more
depth in the chapter on sexual violence.
At this point, we simply want to point out the potential danger in the contemporary
singles scene, where power and control are used in sexual encounters. Emotionally inadequate
males and females tend to be especially susceptible to coercing and manipulating their dates into
having sex against their will. Sex for sexual pleasure alone. Engaging in sex to reduce boredom,
pain, loneliness, or anxiety is an attempt to escape problems in life.
Expecting sex to alleviate these problems leaves a person constantly dissatisfied. Trying
and trying again for instant cures, the person is continually disillusioned because sexual solutions
never satisfy the deeper longings in life. Sex for the sake of sex is about bodily pleasure without
caring who brings the pleasure. Frederick Buechner makes the following comments about an
anything goes perspective on sexual behavior.
He believes that it is not just a matter of mutual consent or mutual affection or that no one
is going to get hurt psychologically, emotionally, or spiritually. What makes this a tragic
situation, I believe, is not so much that by one set of standards or another it is morally wrong, but
that in terms of the way human life is, it just does not work very well. Where the immediate need
for sexual gratification is satisfied but where the deeper need for companionship and
understanding is left untouched. The result is that the relationship leads not to fulfillment but to a
half-conscious sense of incompleteness, of inner loneliness, which is so much the sickness of our
time.
The desire to know another’s nakedness is the desire to know the other fully as a person.
It is the desire to know and to be known, not just sexually but as a total human being. It is the
desire for a relationship where each gives not just of one’s own body but of one’s own self, body
and spirit both, for the other’s gladness.
MASTURBATION
Today, most scholars agree the situation with Onan refers to coitus interruptus, not to
masturbation. We find Christians to be allured by and yet have an aversion to the idea of self-
pleasuring. Self-pleasuring is a wise provision of our Creator. Sexual desire is a fact about
myself and I am thankful for this joyous release. It was a real help to me in some problems with
sexual dysfunction.
It allowed me to affirm my sexual self and gave permission for sexual pleasure. It has
been a helpful release for me in dealing with sexual tension. Self-discovery through masturbation
is a common way for children to learn about their bodies. Early in a girl’s life, messages about
modesty often include no touching below the waist.
Later in life, for both males and females, hormonal input and sexual eroticism become
part of the pleasuring experience. The use of erotic and pornographic materials that may
accompany the act of masturbation usually causes concern about the practice for Christians.
Common reasons people masturbate range from relief of sexual tension, physical pleasure,
unavailable partners, relaxation, and aid in falling asleep.
There are circumstances in which masturbation affirms our sexuality and our
relationships. Solo practice for single persons, for example, can be a way to enjoy sexual
gratification and attend to sexual needs without a partner. Masturbation may play a role in
marriage when spouses are away from each other for various reasons. Holding an image of their
spouse in their mind during masturbation brings a loving, personal connection to the pleasuring.
The relationship is always the priority, so couples need to come to a mutual
understanding. Masturbation is not always psychologically and morally good. Compulsive
masturbation, like compulsive eating or compulsive anything, can be harmful. During periods of
stress, masturbation may be a way to reduce anxiety.
However, when used as a decoy for coping with stress, masturbation can be an anesthetic
to avert dealing with the real problems. Within marriage, masturbation can deprive a spouse of
sexual fulfillment. Similarly, if masturbation is used to avoid sexual problems in the marriage,
both the relationship and the partner are negatively affected. Sexual problems that hinder
intimacy must be addressed rather than using masturbation as an escape.
Masturbation and lust distinction. The Bible is silent on masturbation but not silent on
sexual sin. The realities of sexual sin, such as the use of internet pornography, which becomes a
compulsion, is a problem. Jesus does not condemn being attracted, sexually aroused, or even
having sexual thoughts about a person.
Rather, Jesus is warning that lusting after a certain person sets one on a potential path of
committing adultery. Fantasy can be used to increase responsiveness and receptiveness in the
relationship, or it can become a substitute for unmet needs. Imagining a spouse during
masturbation is a person-centered way to remain faithful during physical absences due to
military duty, travel, health, or other life circumstances. Fantasizing about a future mate while
selfpleasuring is within God’s good plan and may keep a young person from becoming sexually
active with dating partners.
On the other hand, fantasy that idealizes unrealistic expectations about a future mate may
sabotage finding a real life partner. Within a healthy context, fantasy can bring hope for a
relationship in a God-centered marital commitment. As one person commented, the dilemma is
that what is appropriate could escape distinction and be wrongfully condemned and what is
inappropriate might go undetected and wrongfully permitted. The best policy is to have a support
group to talk openly about any sexual matters.
PRINCIPLES
Here are some guiding principles in making decisions about sexual affection. The first
principle is that the degree of sexual intimacy will correspond to the degree of love and
commitment present in the relationship. Physical intimacy is meant to enhance the expression of
the love and commitment toward the beloved. The commitment to both the person and the
relationship takes precedence over sexual expression.
A second principle is the law of diminishing returns. Consider the effect that very first
kiss has on a person. The third principle is that each partner must test their personal motive for
the physical involvement and activity. It does something for the ego of both men and women to
know that they can sexually arouse their partner and be irresistible.
A fourth principle is that both persons will continually communicate about all areas of the
relationship. A caution should be raised for a couple when the physical dimension of a
relationship dominates out of proportion to the social, emotional, psychological, and spiritual
dimensions of the relationship. When these aspects are undernourished, the relationship weakens.
The fullness of a relationship comes through knowing all dimensions and multifaceted aspects of
the partner.
A fifth principle is that both persons take responsibility for establishing guidelines and
setting physical limits in the relationship. It’s not about one partner going as far as they can
sexually, while the other keeps the limits. A sixth principle is that each partner agrees to commit
to following the standard of the person with the strongest felt limits. This is a position of respect
that places the person above the desire for a certain sexual activity.
In an authentic relationship, neither person will want to intimidate the other by judging a
standard as prudish. It’s important to understand what the limit means to a partner. In the same
way, it’s important that the person with more freedom not be judged. What is essential is that
each partner listens, understands, and wants to be understood.
VICTORY IN CHRIST
The overriding principle about sexual expression is to use Scripture as your guide and
recognize your freedom in Christ. Most of us want nothing less than to be in relationship
according to God’s design. When we magnify sexual sin out of proportion to other wrongs in our
lives, we can become frozen in our tracks and stuck in our hopelessness to change. There is a
longing in all of us to follow God’s designed purpose for our sexuality.
The goal is to establish realistic rather than unreasonable rules to govern our sexual
involvement. Not everything is good or beneficial for every person or couple. When we strive for
sexual authenticity, we are seeking to be congruent with ourselves before God. Sharing where we
are vulnerable invites trusted others to keep us accountable regarding personal temptations and
keep us on the path toward God’s way.
Mutual empowerment throughout our sexual journey helps us make decisions that are in
the best interest of self, partner, and the relationship. Sex is your good gift, O God, to enrich life.
While premarital cohabitation has usually been thought of as leading to marriage, recent research
has shown an increase in serial cohabitation, a term describing those engaging in more than one
cohabitating relationship. These researchers found that women from higher socioeconomic
backgrounds are less likely to enter a cohabiting relationship. We draw on existing research,
mainly self-reported responses to survey research questionnaires or interviews, to address the
question why do people choose to cohabit? We then examine the effect of this trend and give a
response to cohabitation from biblical and social-scientific literature.
COHABITATION
Wieteska notes that our liquid postmodern society has come to accept the coexistence of
marriage and cohabitation. In the early days, a two-step approach to cohabitation was suggested
where a trial marriage would determine compatibility and then a legal marriage would occur,
especially if children were anticipated.
Whatever the reasons, premarital cohabitation has become popular practice today.
Examining cohabitation in sixteen industrial societies, Heuveline and Timberlake identified
societies where cohabitation is marginal since it is culturally rejected or even penalized. In more
accepting cultures it is considered as a prelude to legal marriage, an alternative to marriage, or
even as indistinguishable from marriage. For instance, in places like northern European countries
and New Zealand, cohabitation is treated as if the couple is married.
Women perceive cohabitation as a step prior to marriage, whereas men are inclined to
view cohabitation as a step prior to making a commitment. Bergstrom-Lynch also point out
gender differences in defining the drawbacks of cohabitation, with men being more concerned
about loss of freedom and women more concerned with delays in marriage. They summarize,
Gendered cultural norms governing intimate relationships extend to cohabiting unions and point
to gender differences in the perceived role of cohabitation union. There was a decline in most
indices of relationship quality as well as in interpersonal commitment after cohabitation began,
though the frequency of sex increased temporarily.
What distinguishes modern forms of mate selection from the past is the greater freedom
young adults have in pursuing sexual/romantic relationships without parental involvement.
Romantic love had its beginnings in European societies during the eleventh century. Courtly love
usually involved a romantic relationship between a married aristocratic lady and an unmarried
knight or troubadour. In this early version of romantic love, it was believed that true love is free
of the restrictions of sex or marriage.
This was an uncommon experience for most married persons, who were usually united in
marriage for economic reasons. The vow to be faithful in marriage is the desired prerequisite in
most societies. It is interesting to note that cultures that promote arranged marriage have little
divorce compared to those cultures based on romantic love. It may be that cohabitation is
symptomatic of a Western-style mate selection in which commitment is not given a primary
place.
During the first half of the twentieth century, the irrational head over heels concept of
romantic love reached its zenith. Confusion over the exact meaning of romantic love made it
difficult for persons to know if true love was present in their relationship. The mate-selection
process in Western societies moved to a new stage, referred to as rational/romantic love.
Rational/romantic love is especially common among college-educated persons who decide to
marry after their education is completed.
Today marriage is as much a rational decision as it is a head-over-heels response to the
partner. It is good to be cautious in the romantic stage of love since committed love involves
faithfulness and loyalty rather than the mushy feelings during the in love stage. Developing a
relationship beyond initial attraction, however wonderful that feels, demands so much more than
being focused on each other. Dramatic changes in each partner can be observed during the
romantic period of courtship.
Research concludes that an area of the brain known as the caudate is associated with
romantic passion. During the intense romantic love, disparate emotions may quickly go from
euphoria to anger to anxiety, especially if the partner withdraws. As a relationship deepens, the
neural activity associated with romantic love alters to long-term attachment. Commitment is the
hard work of relationship building and making plans for a future life together.
STABILITY
On the basis of their comprehensive review of research on cohabitation before marriage,
sociologists David Popenoe and Barbara Whitehead at Rutgers University caution young adults
to think twice about cohabiting before marriage. Multiple cohabitation is repeatedly found to be
a strong predictor of the failure of future relationships. They advise to limit cohabitation to the
shortest possible amount of time. It seems that the longer one cohabits, the more likely the low-
commitment ethic of cohabitation will take hold.
In a survey of 2,898 married women, James found that cohabitation is negatively related
to marital happiness and communication and positively related to conflict. Kuler and Boyle
reported that cohabitation was related to lower commitment to the partner, increased incidence of
divorce, lower marital satisfaction, and higher rates of wife infidelity. After an extensive analysis
of twenty-six research studies on the effect of premarital cohabitation on marital adjustment and
stability, Jose, O’Leary, and Moyer concluded that cohabitation has a significant negative
association with both marital instability and marital quality.
Joint investments increased as interpersonal commitment increased, with cohabiters
without marriage plans investing the least and couples who directly married without prior
cohabitation investing the most. Factors like early age of cohabitation may account for some of
the negative factors. In the article reassessing the Link between Premarital Cohabitation and
Marital Instability, Steffen Reinhold gives some support to the thesis that the once-strong
association between premarital cohabitation and marital instability has weakened over time.
Mosher agree that the well-documented early studies regarding cohabitation and marital
instability for first marriages must be tempered with other factors.
Bumpass reported that the change in a range of measures tapping psychological well-
being, health, and social ties is similar in cohabiting and marriage relationships. They conclude,
overall, differences tend to be small and appear to dissipate over time, when the greater
instability of cohabitation is taken into account. While selection factors certainly have some
influence on the high correlation between premarital cohabitation and lower marital adjustment,
there is much evidence that the relationship between cohabitation and future marital quality is a
negative one. Drawing on 2011–2015 interview data in the National Survey of Family Growth
study, Stanley and Rhoades detail why moving in together before marriage can be risky.
These researchers reason that couples who otherwise would not have married end up
married because of what they refer to as the inertia of cohabitation. The obvious implication is
that persons do not make their expectations about marriage explicit before cohabiting, and that
becomes a problem after they marry. Xu, Hudspeth, and Bartkowski found that post-divorce
cohabitation is associated with lower levels of re-marital happiness and higher levels of marital
instability.
THE EFFECT OF COHABITATION ON CHILDREN
In their summary of research on cohabiting, Heuveline and Timberlake cite studies
estimating that between 25% and 40% of all children spend some time with a parent in a
cohabiting arrangement. Since cohabiting parents break up at a much higher rate than married
parents, the effect of cohabiting on children can be destructive. Aronson and Huston report that
among mothers with infants, those in cohabiting relationships tend to fare worse economically
than married mothers. An interpretation of this finding might be that cohabiting parents invest
less in the welfare of their children than do married parents.
In a study of over 2,000 families, Schmeer reports worse health for children born to
cohabiting parents than for children with stable married parents, and that a child’s health is better
among those whose cohabiting parents marry than for those whose parents remain stable
cohabiting .
Commitment in cohabiting relationships. The prominent reasons people enter cohabiting
relationships include love, companionship, sexual exclusivity, economics, ambivalence toward
marriage, loneliness, and peer pressure. Though many of these are understandable reasons for
living with a chosen companion, the noticeable missing piece is a lifelong covenant commitment.
The cohabiting couple may have a difficult time grasping the value of covenant love. The desired
independence that keeps them from making a relationship commitment limits the deepening
vulnerability possible in a more secure relationship.
Christian marriage is modeled after the covenant God made with Israel. God is forever
faithful with covenant love. The very foundation of covenant love is permanence, on which
sexual and emotional intimacy are built. The deepening of love throughout the years expands
into an even fuller and more complete covenant.
There are a variety of ways to cement a covenant commitment and fulfill societal
expectations for marriage. While familial consent was part of Jewish marriage during biblical
times, this was a cultural practice based on the mate-selection process. Though parental consent
is certainly desirable, it would be difficult to find scriptural evidence requiring that for marriage.
One could argue that though it is wise to have support from a faith community, it is not a
scriptural directive.
Roman Catholic Church decreed that marriage could commence only by consent of the
church. Those who believe that persons should have the consent of civil authorities point to
health concerns, such as blood tests for the Rh-negative factor or sexually transmitted diseases,
which have ramifications for each partner and their future children. At the same time, we think it
is important to understand the spirit of the law, which recognizes family, community, and civil
structures that support marriage. God because they have a mutual covenant commitment, yet fail
to make it public, miss out on a vital source of collective encouragement.
The strength of a commitment is multiplied when it is made before a witness of believers
who offer resources as well as a place of accountability. The wisdom of making commitments
within a believing community is especially noticeable during times of trouble. Partners who fail
to legalize their marriage often lose out on the government’s obligation to look out for the
welfare of each partner, the couple, and their children. This especially has ramifications for
spouses and their children regarding financial and property rights, benefits that occur when a
relationship has the legal support of society.
There is a sense in which a personal commitment is maintained through a supportive
community and society. The modern individualistic ethic keeps people from fully realizing the
importance of personal commitments embedded in a community context. In response, the
church can offer an informed voice to support a societal practice that undergirds marriage and
family life. At present, marriage is institutionalized and cohabitation is not.
The welfare of children continues to be a grave concern since there is ample evidence
that the economic and emotional stressors have deleterious effects on children. A detailed
discussion of how the Christian community can wisely respond to each of these cohabiting
situations is beyond the limits of this book.
The Christian community should uphold the biblical standard of a permanent covenant
commitment between two people and present that standard to couples in a compelling way.
When a couple engages in sexual intercourse without sharing a mutual covenant commitment,
the church should lovingly help them understand how the biblical concept of covenant
commitment can enhance and bring depth and stability to their relationship. When a cohabiting
couple makes a covenant commitment to each other, the church should offer a public ceremony
within the community of faith to celebrate the covenant union. When a couple shares a mutual
covenant commitment but still chooses a cohabiting arrangement, the Christian community
should continue to show love and grace.
In upholding marriage as God’s way with one hand, we should extend God’s grace with
the other. Our gospel must be full of truth and grace. We recognize that sometimes holding truth
and grace together will be offensive to some. The church will have a minimal influence on the
lives of those who are cohabiting until it clearly offers the hands of both truth and grace.
God-ordained marriage is a covenant relationship between two people who will live out
their lives in the context of a supportive community. It takes a committed community to support
the couple through the thick and thin of marital challenges and disappointments as well as
celebrations of joy and hope. We are saddened when couples miss out on the community
celebration. In the past, the wedding was a simple ceremony, with local congregation and family
members gathered to witness the couple taking covenant vows.
Jack’s parents had a similar ceremony after the Sunday morning church service. They
invited the family and a few special friends over to the house for a light Sunday brunch
reception. A wedding was an occasion to support the couple’s covenant commitment without all
the fuss and flair of an expensive, elaborate wedding. Both pairs of our parents were married
more than sixty years, covenant commitments that lasted over their long lives.
When a couple establishes a covenant commitment, they have understood something
essential about God’s way. The Christian community can nurture a couple’s natural inclination to
continue to move in God’s way through patience, respect, and love that point them in that
direction. The longing to help cohabiting couples find the joy of covenant love is a great
privilege.
So let the Christian community show forth God’s love in faithful, engaging ways that will draw
those who cohabit closer to the way, the truth, and the more abundant life.
ECCLESIASTES 4:9-12 NRSV
Marriage is a holy place in which profound personal, spiritual, emotional, and sexual
growth is possible. Interdependence happens when spouses bring their unique gifts to support
and empower each other in united strength. I must lean on you to be strong. But two spouses
hanging on to each other for dear life have no solid ground on which to stand. Strength is
multiplied when each spouse stands on their own two feet to lend a helping hand when needed.
Marriage is a sanctifying process where each spouse strives for unity in the presence of
the unique other. It is a refining process of living and loving in relationship. Transformation of
oneself in relation to one’s spouse is the ultimate grindstone on which marriage is sharpened.
Each spouse is challenged to round off the rough edges and fill out the flat sides to make a more
complete person.
It takes determination to proceed in the direction of two becoming one because it requires
putting the best interest of the other and the relationship in the forefront. Building on the biblical
framework presented earlier, the relationality found in the Holy Trinity is to be mirrored in
marriage. To reflect the image of God means to become part of a relationship unity, without
giving up unique identity. In other words, unity does not mean absorption.
MARITAL SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP
The sexual relationship requires a solid sense of self if one is to reap the benefits of
reciprocal intimacy. There is a vulnerability as they open themselves up to each other during the
sexual engagement. In fact, these two aspects of marriage are so completely intertwined that
therapeutic intervention to treat and prevent marital distress may benefit by targeting the sexual
relationship and interventions to treat and prevent sexual distress in marriage may benefit by
targeting the marital relationship. Marital sexuality is meant to be a mutually satisfying
engagement between two whole persons.
Each spouse experiences sexual satisfaction as he or she perceives sexual responsiveness
in the other. Indeed, sexual satisfaction was found to be related to marital satisfaction, and the
relationship was enhanced when partners perceived high sexual responsiveness from their
partners. From a nationally representative sample of older Americans, it was reported that men
reported religious influence was associated with higher self-reported satisfaction with frequency
of sex, as well as higher physical and emotional satisfaction with sex. The researchers speculate
that the morality found in religious traditions is especially important among men who report
more satisfaction when they feel that there is a proper place for sex, namely when it is motivated
by genuine love for their partners.
Not long ago a married couple in their forties came to talk to us at the close of a marital
sexuality workshop. Can you help us get the passion back into our marriage that we once had?
Ironically, when you ask married couples about their courting days, you often hear about the
struggles they went through trying to contain the fiery passion they felt for each other. Sexual
Satisfaction Change with Relationship Duration? Schmiedeberg and Schroder surveyed a sample
of 2,814 couples. They found a positive development of sexual satisfaction in the first year of a
relationship, followed by a steady decline.
While the impact of health issues must be recognized, the couple can certainly work on
communication and conflict resolution. Partners often differ in their consumption of
pornography, and the greater the differences between them, the less relationship satisfaction, less
stability, less positive communication and more relational aggression, according to Willoughby,
Carroll, Busby, and Brown. In other words, a focus on physical pleasure lessens the connection
with the real person. Marital sex doesn’t have to lose its luster.
It is possible for a couple not only to rediscover sexual passion but also to increase the
capacity for deeper levels of emotional and sexual fulfillment. Putting a priority on the
relationship means working on all aspects of the relationship. When they notice the sexual
energy proudly displayed by young couples in public, they think to themselves, just wait a few
years. It won’t last. Or when a young couple hears an older couple speak about sexual passion in
their marriage, they roll their eyes in disbelief, doubting that it is possible.
God created humans with the capacity for intimate, passionate sex throughout their
married life. On the basis of our model of sexual relationship presented earlier, we look at the
factors important in achieving a high level of marital sexual fulfillment.
COVENANT ESTABLISHES TRUST
The permanence of lifelong covenant commitment establishes a solid foundation for
sexual expression. In the vulnerability of the sexual relationship, spouses learn to be in tune with
themselves, their partner, and the relationship unity. The role of marital sexuality is to energize
the marital bond through mutual respect and trust. A sexual principle based on covenant is that
the more secure a couple is in the relationship, the more complete and satisfying is the sexual
response.
Shere Hite reports that women consistently say that they are most able to invest
themselves sexually in a lifelong, monogamous relationship. When security is lacking, emotional
restriction hampers their sexual responsiveness. This same survey found that men also benefit
from a covenant commitment. They report feeling warm, secure, and affirmed in their
masculinity during sex with their spouse.
These relationship themes of security and trust bring authenticity to the sexual act. The
pleasuring principle in marital sex involves a mutual giving and receiving of each other. The
greater the sensory pleasuring in a relationship, the greater the sexual adequacy. Person-centered
sexual passion opens lovers up emotionally as well as bodily through expressions of touch and
talk during the lovemaking.
The sexual act celebrates not the act itself, not the technique, not the intensity of
attraction two people can feel for each other or the fulfillment of desire one can find in each
other. It celebrates a covenant, begun in vows, carried out in fidelity, and given to a future of
Christ’s righteousness.
GRACE ESTABLISHES ACCEPTANCE
Accepting a spouse just as he or she is means accepting the spouse’s unique way of being
a sexual person. Having deep regard and respect for a spouse’s sexual value system is having
deep regard and respect for the spouse. Acceptance allows the couple to determine what is right
for each spouse and what is right for the relationship at any stage in the marriage. For example,
after partners listen carefully to each other and honor their different value systems, sometimes a
spouse will relinquish a sexual request for the sake of the other, while at other times a spouse
will reevaluate and stretch beyond a comfort zone for the other’s sake. The key is that both
spouses are working for the good of the relationship toward a loving resolution.
Rather than trying to persuade a spouse or hold grudges, mercy softens the sharp edges of
differences. Misunderstandings and blunders that are part of every human relationship need to be
forgiven so the couple can move on to better places. Undoubtedly, spouses will fail each other in
a number of ways in the marriage, for no relationship is ever perfect. Each spouse will
disappoint, offend, and make mistakes in the sexual arena, which will be hurtful.
One spouse, for example, may feel rejected when the other fails to respond to a sexual
invitation. Circumstances like busy schedules, young children, hormonal changes, illness, and
work will sometimes inhibit or alter sexual interest.
EMPOWERING ESTABLISHES POTENTIAL
An individual spouse becomes even more defined through self-discovery in the context of
the sexual relationship. Behind the two are better than one model is the idea that two independent
persons have unique strengths to offer the relationship, which gives a potential that is not
possible in isolation. A sufficient self gives each spouse an increased capacity for expressing and
clarifying sexual desires or values in a way that enhances the marriage. This passage
acknowledges that spouses have separate bodies and separate sexual desires.
Spouses are encouraged to express personal preferences and sexual requests. It’s a matter
of finding ways to incorporate the needs of one’s spouse in sync with one’s own desires. There is
no place for the misguided idea that one spouse initiates while the other acquiesces. The give to
get sexual exchange model focuses on power issues.
Spouses with less interest in sex can easily control the sexual relationship by withholding
sex, just as the spouses with more interest in sex can be coercive in trying to get what they
believe they deserve. Control and sexual fulfillment are at basic odds with each other. Sexual
fulfillment comes out of desiring and being desired. Emotional satisfaction comes from knowing
the response is out of choice, responsive desire, and love.
Spouses choose to make room in themselves for their partners and join freely into a union
of mutual exchange. The empowering principle seeks the full potential of each spouse through a
synchronous rhythm of interaction and interdependence.
INTIMACY ESTABLISHES CONNECTION
Finally, sexual intimacy deepens emotional intimacy. Sexual disclosure and vulnerability
open spouses up to deeper levels of knowing each other. A common saying is Men want sex!
Women want intimacy! Actually, both notions are true since emotional intimacy is experienced
through sex and sexual intimacy is a sweet aspect of emotional bonding for both men and
women. A balance between these two dimensions of intimacy is the bestcase scenario.
It’s not a matter of faking orgasms to make a spouse feel good because that keeps the
illusion going that all is well in the marriage. It takes honesty and intentional steps to make sure
sexual and emotional intimacy is worth working toward. Taking mutual responsibility for sexual
satisfaction and emotional gratification is saying yes to couple intimacy. The market is flooded
with material on how to enhance the sexual relationship.
Browsing the many books on marital sexuality at any wellstocked bookstore will reveal
the extent to which couples are interested in improving their sex lives. Pick up any one of these
books and you will find an emphasis on technique. Based on our technologically oriented
society, these books presume that the correct technique is the answer to most problems. Some
sex manuals present page after page of illustrations depicting different positions that are
supposed to enhance sexual pleasure.
In addition, when disillusioned or dissatisfied with how things are going in the sexual
relationship, it is now possible to blame a spouse for not getting the technique right. Imagine, if
you will, a couple in one of those incredibly challenging sexual positions. Good marital sex, we
believe, is much more an art than a science. This bold decision of giving oneself and receiving
the other is an exciting interaction that maximizes emotional and sexual intimacy. It has to do
with the meaning of the sexual and emotional connection for the two individuals who are giving
themselves to each other. Their sexual expression tells a story of their love for each other.
COMMON SEXUAL STRUGGLES
Sexual inactivity in marriage is a warning signal. McCarthy reports that when sexuality
functions well in a marriage, it’s a positive, integral component, contributing 15–20% to the
marital bond. However, when sexuality is dysfunctional or non-existent it plays an inordinately
powerful role, 50–75%, robbing the marriage of intimacy and vitality. Factors such as
unhappiness with the marital relationship, dissatisfaction with sexual or emotional connection,
sexual frequency and preference differences, increased age or health issues require attention.
Resolving these common struggles will make a difference to the marriage. Keeping the
sexual relationship vital. If evidence from advice columns is to be trusted, then many married
couples struggle to keep sex vital in their marriage. Ann Landers asked, Has your sex life gone
downhill after marriage? If so, why? In response, she received over 140,000 replies, with 80%
indicating that sex after marriage was less exciting.
Sexual desire is not always an automatic response but a purposeful action. The mind has
a lot to do with sexual receptivity. To become sexually aroused, one must be in tune with the
sexual side of themselves. If the mind is saturated with worries, commitments, and
responsibilities, it will keep sexual thoughts from entering in.
Regular sexual activity is generally conducive to keeping passion alive. Carving out time
from a busy schedule for quiet moments of conversation or spending time in each other’s arms
while listening to music are examples of how to stay in tune with sexual availability. Using sex
as a bargaining tool or weapon to punish, express anger, or gain power sabotages the
relationship. In well-functioning marriages, spouses choose to work out conflicts without
carrying them into the marriage bed.
Sexual ebb and flow. The mutual active enjoyment of being erotically attracted to and
stimulated by a spouse is ego gratifying and empowering. Yet there will be natural ebb and flow
in sexual expression. Life circumstances such as work, child care, and household tasks tend to
take a toll on sexual responsiveness.
The wife who works at an office all day, fixes the evening meal, and cares for the
children until bedtime is not likely to have much sexual energy when she flops into bed, dead
tired. The husband who works long hours on a demanding job, spends the evening helping his
son with homework, does the laundry while worrying about a report that is due the next day will
be depleted of sexual energy. Recognizing these dry spells and adapting to the particular life
circumstances will maintain the relationship through the ebb and flow. But, having weathered the
dry spell, efforts must be made to bring the sexual energy back into the relationship.
Mutually desiring and being desired is what drives the relationship dynamic of person-
centered sex. Diminished sexual desire. A problem more acute than regulating ebb and flow is
diminished sexual desire. Whatever the situation, it undoubtedly affects the relationship. Keeping
alert to a spouse’s needs, moods, emotions, thoughts, and desires in nonsexual ways can combat
some of this feeling of neglect. McCarthy, Ginsberg, and Fucito encourage couples to establish
resilient sexual desire through an array of activities, such as expressions of intimacy, pleasure,
satisfaction, and realistic sexual experiences. Planning creative ways to enhance the relationship
through weekly dates, spontaneous lunch meetings, or weekends at the beach or mountains will
go a long way in helping a couple reconnect. Writing down small requests or desires that the
partner can respond to each day will help spouses feel appreciated.
These actions of care keep spouses in tune with each other’s wishes. Approximately one
out of five married couples have infertility problems at some point in their relationship. Sexual
routines quickly become ruts of dissatisfaction. Scheduling periodic couple discussion about the
sexual relationship is helpful. `Making commitments with each other to keep the sexual
relationship fresh and alive is well worth the time.
