Sexvangelicals

One in six people worldwide experience infertility, according to the World Health Organization.    As the holiday season focuses on the celebration of children and families, infertility creates its own holiday horror story for individuals and relationships who experience it.   We're excited to have Dr. Niko Wilson, director of the Couples and Family Therapy program at William James College, join us for a special episode of Sexvangelicals.   Dr. Wilson's research focuses on the qualitative experience of infertility; also, each of the three of us have been personally impacted by infertility in some capacity. Join us for conversations about: Being Seen During the Holidays (6:30):   Pressures of Distance and Proximity (12:00):  Gatekeeping Grief During IVF (15:00) Benefits of Relational Satisfaction (18:00 Children and the Holidays (26:00) Navigating Feeling Invisible (32:00) Wanting to be Supportive Without Knowing How (34:00) Communicating and Sitting with Grief (38:00) Societal Acknowledgement (41:00) Grieving within a Positive Moment (43:00) Endometriosis During the Holidays (46:00) Emotional Aftercare and Rest During the Holidays (53:00)

What would holiday celebrations be without women?   No really. They would not exist without women. The holiday season often represents the worst part of Christian relationships, where gender roles define behavior and eliminate collaborative dialogue in the process.   Julia notes, "Even Hallmark movies join the nativity story, relying on women sacrificing--either their singleness, their autonomy, their career, or all the, for the sake of the relationship."   This week, we're joined by the amazing Kelley, Kelly Anne, and Emma of the Woman Being podcast. They talk with us about:  The Hallmark Agenda (3:00) Gender Norms & Christmas Movies (14:00) Bearing the Weight of the Holidays (16:00) Shame During the Holidays (19:00) Unpaid Labor (22:00) Hysteria (28:00) Expectations of Vulnerability (34:00) Burden of Decision Making (37:00) Grief During the Holidays (42:00) The Weight of Marriage (48:00)

The Christmas story starts with a teenage girl, Mary, and an angel of God.    Kelley Werner, co-host of the Woman Being Podcast, explains: “She's portrayed as this passive participant in her faith. There's an edification of her. "Lord, whatever you say, I will do. So be it." She's passively impregnated by an angel, and becomes this side character in the narrative of Jesus.    That angle was always impressed upon us as young women: Keeping our posture very open to whatever God or men determine is like our best path.”    The Christmas story, as we talk about with Kelley, Kelly Anne Carter, and Emma Williams, has significant implications on how we, and especially women, engage with our bodies. We talk more about: Implications of the Idea of Mary (11:00):  Jeremiah notes how Mary’s passiveness paves the way for women to be treated as weak and passive: "There's a parallel between God non consensually disseminating his sperm into Mary and Mary being like, I guess that just happened...That gets played out in the church..women are expected to be passive people that will just like go along with whatever is suggested.” What About Joseph? (14:00): Emma discusses how Christians's obsession with Mary doesn’t translate to Joseph, because he embodies an accepting man who believes his wife: “For men, why don't Christians also say, oh, you need to believe your wife? Why don't we say you need to blindly follow her path?" Gatekeepers of Sexuality (22:00): Kelly Anne shares how her family pressures her, not her husband, about when she will be having a child: “I’m the one that's preventing my husband from spreading his genes. Which is kind of interesting to think about because we're sitting with this together." Julia adds: “When we're talking about gatekeeping around sexuality being the role of women, the fact that people ask you about pregnancy versus your husband is super significant to that.”  Induced Grief (32:00): The Church is built upon pillars of shame, and the holidays, instead of a time for joy and being with loved ones, are centered on the idea that we are all bad, shameful, sinful people who must repent. Kelley frames this as induced grief: “It's built on the fact that you need to be reminded that you are the worst, and nothing you could ever do would be enough. And therefore, Jesus must come and save you, right? That is why this beautiful baby had to be born. That's, to me, an induced grief...We're talking about an added reminder of insufficiency that doesn't relate to grief in the way that I think of grief.” Sensuality Around the Holidays (40:00): Julia talks about how engaging in joyous activities can be perceived as indulgence, thus feeding into the Christian idea that the holidays are for loving Jesus, not gluttonous celebration: “Because sensuality has a connotation with indulgence and indulgence has a connotation with gluttony or excess, all of those things can be demonized in Christian culture, especially for women and especially around the holidays.”  The Holidays and Healing (42:00): Kelly Anne describes, “To me, the holidays are a sensual experience and, to me, that is a part of the purity culture recovery. It is reclaiming the delight of the senses. And so the holidays, if you have the capacity, and if it's something that you're in the right place for, can be such a beautiful healing experience.” Christian-ish and Incorporating Former Traditions (50:00): Kelley discusses how to incorporate former Christian traditions that bring joy, but adjust them to fit your current stage of life and family: “[What has] resonated most with me is this idea of being Christian-ish and the idea that I was raised within the Christian faith. It's built my morals, it's built my value system, and it's very much my culture and family history. Learning to embrace the parts of Christianity that bring me joy or feel like a part of my tradition feels comforting to me without necessarily having to fully believe everything."

While individual growth and self-discovery are vital to our healing and human evolution, we live in the context of a myriad of relationships. And the end-of-year holidays are a time of year in which many folks are engaging in a lot of different relationships at the same time or in close succession.   This December, we're presenting a series called Holiday Horror Stories. The holiday season replicates the most narrow practices of family, gender, and relationships; spend three hours watching The Hallmark Channel for more information. Sometimes the advice from the psychotherapy and wellness world is helpful, and often it isn't. This series is focused on surviving through laughter.   We're joined by our editor and creative genius Nicole Marinescu, who shares her experiences of:   Orthodoxy and Culture Shock (22:00): While discussing how the Orthodox Church functions, Nicole shares her experience with culture shock, "When I went to my first Catholic service with my boyfriend, he stood there the whole time and he spoke in English, which shocked me. Because I genuinely thought all of these services were just Latin, or Greek, or whatever. And it was only an hour, people shook hands and they left.” Romanian Orthodox Christianity is not approachable, even to its own followers, and like EMPish communities focuses on dedication to God and the Church, even if that Church does not function in an accessible lounge.    Opulence (27:00): When discussing differences between EMPish Churches and Orthodoxy, Nicole points out how Orthodox Priests wear lavish gold gowns and big headpieces. Though both Church and State are intertwined in America and Romania, one tries to hide it better from the public eye: “We're opulent. So I think if you see a picture of [the Priest], then you understand politically how the church functions within these countries and how they're held in higher regard than the actual government that gives you most of the context you need.”   Blood in Context (32:00): During a discussion of how pig’s blood is openly cooked with, Julia points out the disparities in our societal view towards different types of blood: “Jeremiah and I were recently on a menstruation podcast and I'm thinking we're obsessed with the blood of Jesus, the blood of pigs, but we can't even talk about periods using accurate language. We just have sanitary items. It makes me sad that the blood of a pig would be more important than the blood that I lose every month.”   Relationships During the Holidays (35:00): Jeremiah notes societal and religious pressure on spending the holidays together as a couple, when the choice to do them apart may be healthier and more beneficial for certain people. “During the holiday season, American culture commercializes what many religious contexts do--the idea of marriage, the enmeshment of relationships, the two shall become one. That's really cool, Nicole, to hear how you and your partner have said, no, you know what, we're not going to practice that.”    Holiday Advice (43:00): Nicole discusses her favorite tip for surviving annoying Uncles who ask silly questions during the holidays, who are looking for an argument: “The best piece of advice I heard is when he says, "What do you think about gay people?" You look him dead in the eye and you go, "Kind of weird that you asked me that, why'd you ask?" Their faces go blue.” Sometimes we do not or cannot always argue, but we can make them feel uncomfortable for asking a silly question.   Bad Holiday Tips (47:00): Julia notes how the pop psychology advice of “just put up boundaries” does not work in a multitude of contexts, immigrant families, EMPish families, etc. “I was having a conversation with my best friend about this, who is also a part of an immigrant family. And Jeremiah, you and I have had conversations about this ad nauseam, the super simplistic pop psychology language of setting boundaries and just cutting toxic people out drives me fucking crazy for a lot of reasons.”

In the initial stages of what we typically call deconstruction, folks tend to focus heavily on meeting individual needs, self-advocacy, engaging the body in different ways, and finding new personal connections.  And while all of this is fantastic, much of the resources within deconstruction communities, and popular psychology for that matter, use the language of boundary setting.  Just set those boundaries. And, if we're not careful, individuation comes at the expense of our most important relationships. In today's episode, we explore how I statements aren't always helpful, how to integrate personal growth into relational growth, and ultimately how to reclaim the "We" in our relationships. Join us as we talk about: Crumbling Foundations (3:00): “Even when I got married within a fairly progressive Christian community, at least progressive compared to my growing up community, my ex-husband and I centered our lives around the church community and the social services connected to it. Then the Jenga tower started to fall. When the Jenga tower of my faith crumbled, so did the foundation of my marriage. My ex-husband and I had the choice to get divorced or create a new shared meaning. In my case, I got divorced.”  Individuation (6:30): Jeremiah recaps last week's episode and the process of individuation: “In the initial stages of what we typically call deconstruction, folks tend to focus heavily on meeting individual needs, self-advocacy, engaging the body in different ways, and finding new personal connections.  And while all of this is fantastic, much of the resources within deconstruction communities and popular psychology for that matter use the language of boundary setting, just set those boundaries and individuation at the expense of our most important relationships.”   My Voice, Your Voice, and the Relationships Voice (21:00): Julia offers the metaphor of the sports team's health, which boils down to, even if one player is not doing great, the health of the team (relationship) still can be. “Think about a relationship like any team, and if there's two people in the relationship, maybe you're playing doubles volleyball. If you're in a family, maybe you do have an entire football team. And, if a coach only focused on the health of each player rather than the health of the team, the team would probably not do very well. So, what we are going to talk about in the next chunk of time is what it means to consider not just the health of each player on the team, but the health of the team in general.”  Relationship Anarchy (31:00): Jeremiah explains, “Relationship anarchy suggests that decisions about the function and operations of a relationship are based on the specific desires and needs of the people in that particular relationship.”  Sexual Menu and Relationship Anarchy (38:00): Julia shares, “This idea of relationship anarchy takes a very common intervention in sex therapy, which is the development of a sexual menu, and says you can have a menu for any other number of functions in your relationship. So if you have a shared business together, hey, you get to create a menu of what that means. If you’re co-parents together, you get to determine what that means.”  Deconstruction and Sex (41:00): Jeremiah talks about how sex is not the singular most important element of a relationship, and can be de-centered, going against pretty much everything EMPish communities preach about marriage. “In this process of deconstruction and rediscovering what a shared meaning might be,  you may decide that sex plays a less significant role in your relationship, especially during the initial season of deconstruction. Or, as we're seeing in our work, that sex plays a more significant role, but there's a desire to explore sex with other people, often with folks of the same gender.”  Differentiation and Religion (51:00): Jeremiah covers how differentiation is a process that requires communication: “Healthy differentiation requires us to consider three things in decision-making processes: me, you, and the relationship. And ultimately, relational health requires decisions that lead to outcomes that work for the relationship and each partner communicating in ways that align with their values.” Julia adds: “We acknowledge that this is an especially difficult task for people moving out of religious spaces, because for many couples, some element of the religious world was the shared meaning. And, when you take religion out of the equation, that can be destabilizing for some couples, such as us in our first marriages.” 

Deconstruction can be an exciting time for folks. We read new books. We explore the world and build relationships with a more diverse group of people. The world gets bigger. We see numerous amounts of options for living a happy life. However, especially for folks in long-term relationships, deconstruction can result in some really challenging relationship dynamics. As we talk about in this week’s episode of Sexvangelicals, individuation, the practice of self-discovery for the sake of learning about oneself, independent of the larger world, can result in quite a bit of relational harm, especially if you and your partner don’t have healthy ways to navigate differences. And if you grew up in the Evangelical or Pentecostal church, you likely did not learn healthy ways to navigate differences with your partner. Julia and Jeremiah talk about how self-discovery interfered with our ability to build collaborative dialogue with former partners.  And we provide ways that you can begin to talk with your partner about the new things that you’re discovering about yourself, without threatening the relationship or trying to protect the other person. Shared Meaning  (3:50): “Couples, or folks in other relational structures, create shared meaning by developing a purpose or vision for the relationship, which incorporates both individual and joint dreams and goals.” Julia then adds: “Each person in the relationship has a strong individual voice. They have their identity as I or me. The relationship has a voice too. This is the We. In healthy relationships, we can hold on to our autonomy. Without losing the strong, secure foundation of We. Of course, this is easier said than done, especially if you grew up in an Evangelical, Mormon, or Pentecostal {EMPish} community.”  How the Church Skews Rituals (8:00): “The Gottman principle of creating shared meaning through the development and use of rituals, roles, goals, and symbols might be challenging for folks from EMPish communities whose experience with these things were damaging or limiting.” Jeremiah talks about how relationship rituals and symbols may be tough for folks from EMPish communities to create due to a painful callback to the Church’s rituals. Part of the deconstruction process is taking elements the Church may have created painful associations with, such as rituals, and redefining and re-contextualizing them into meaningful and helpful things.  Christian Marriage Model (19:00): “Here's the script.  A couple meets,  courts each other with the intention of marriage, gets married, and then lives in this codependent state for the rest of their lives. Leaders hold up this enmeshed relational model as the standard of excellence. Enmeshment goes by the name of, quote, unity in these cultures.” Jeremiah offers the script used for EMPish dating which creates unhealthy codependency patterns, Julia then adds: “Within EMPish communities, many folks like me meet, date, and get married within that two to three year window before the bonding ends.” Differentiation v.s. Individuation (22:00):   Jeremiah defines: “Differentiation is the active ongoing process of defining self. Revealing self, clarifying boundaries, and managing the anxiety that comes from risking either greater intimacy or potential separation. {Ellen Bader’s Definition).” Julia defines: “Individuation is the process of individual growth and self-discovery that exists within isolation without any consideration of the myriad of relationships that exist in that person's life.”   Sacrifice Seesaw (28:00): “Think about this like a seesaw.  In, mutually engaged relationships, differentiated relationships can move like a seesaw in which sacrifice moves back and forth between partners, different seasons of life may require more sacrifice from one person than the other. And we think about not then as a vacuum, but in a greater context, Jeremiah, I like the language that you used around damn the consequences, because what I've heard in pop psychology and what I've heard from friends is exactly that damn the consequences. And while that might be an important step towards self-growth. Well, Damn, the consequences mean that there could be some very real consequences from those choices. And we have to walk into that with some awareness.” Julia discusses how sacrifice in a relationship functions like a seesaw.  Seeing the Light (36:00): “We see these two dynamics a lot in couples where one or both people are leaving behind religious ideas and communities or are beginning to deconstruct. One person will begin to quote, see the light, so to speak, perhaps they'll have conversations with their partners about it, but in having conversations about it, that injects anxiety and destabilization into the relationship, or perhaps they won't talk about it, as what happened with me and my ex, the decisions that get made about community, faith practices, and communication will become unilateral, will become secretive even.” Jeremiah talks about how when the deconstruction process begins, one partner may be moving more rapidly through that process, leaving their partner behind.  Ultimatums (41:00): “I started with a differentiated approach in which I wanted to really kindly and sensitively explain my experience to my ex-partner. When he understandably had some difficult emotions arise,  I very, very quickly... moved into that ultimatum space. I didn't give him much time to sit with it. The really challenging situation that we were in. Now, ultimately, we got divorced. And even if I had practiced a more differentiated approach, we still might have ended the relationship. My regret and what I failed to do was to practice this conversation  about other sexual relationships from a differentiated perspective. I said, I'm doing this and you can get on board or you cannot get on board. That is not a healthy relational process.” Julia talks about how offering an ultimatum instead of an ongoing conversation about boundaries and practicing a differentiated approach hurt her and her ex-partner.  Relationship 101 (48:00): Julia and Jeremiah go through four tips in today’s Relationship 101 #1: “Talk to your partner about your new interests and self-discoveries, or ask your partner about their new interests and self-discoveries.” #2: “Assess what shared interests still remain.”  #3: “Find new ways to bond with your partner.” #4: “Stay calm and patient. Don't panic.”   

Desire discrepancy is a set of differences about the quantity, quality, or types of experiences that a couple or a group want to have. As we mentioned in the last episode, desire discrepancy is not inherently a source of conflict. The difficulty or inability to negotiate these differences is what leads to conflict. So how can we talk about the different ways that two (or more) partners might access sexuality? And not just who wants it more? But the different fantasies, preferences, scenarios needed for a positive sexual experience, and much more? Julia and Jeremiah talk more about a different way to think about desire discrepancy, including: Defining Terms (7:54): “Simply put, desire discrepancy is a set of differences about the quantity, quality, or types of experiences that a couple or a group want to have. As we mentioned last week, Desire discrepancy is not inherently a source of conflict. The difficulty or inability to negotiate these differences, that's what leads to conflict.” Jeremiah defines desire discrepancy and how it does not spur conflict, but the lack of communication around it does. Julia adds, “EMPish communities tend to discourage conflict and encourage enmeshment within couples and families. Lack of conflict in EMPish communities is a sign of moral superiority and successful marriage, at least according to their rules. EMPish communities tend to view conflict as a threat to the relationship and ultimately the unity of the couple.” She contextualizes the definition within EMPish (Evangelical, Mormon, and Pentecostal) context. Building upon last weeks episode, Julia, and Jeremiah discuss how working on desire discrepancy often has pitfalls within the sexual health context. Orgasm Gap (24:00): “According to Jennifer Rubin and colleagues, typically speaking, in opposite-sex relationships, You find that 90 percent of straight men consistently orgasm while only 65 percent of women consistently orgasm […] So Jennifer Rubin and colleagues also write about how the prioritization of the male partner's sexual pleasure, as well as larger gendered cultural scripts, were negatively associated with the female desire for sexual activity.” Jeremiah discusses how the perception that women have a lower sex drive than men is inaccurate because a majority of the studies on the topic fail to include the orgasm gap as outlined above, the domestic labor women typically are burdened with, and fears that men do not typically associate with sex. Julia then adds: “That is just so deeply depressing. Considering how often women fake orgasms and accounting for the shame of not being able to orgasm, I would highly suspect that 65 percent is high.  The super sad part is that women don't actually have a refractory period as men. So if anything, women should be having way more orgasms than men, like way more.” The orgasm gap between men and women is influenced by a load of factors, however, as Julia notes, since women do not have a refractory period, it is insane how big the gap is.  Spontaneous v.s. Responsive Desire (28:00): “Spontaneous desire is a desire that comes fairly naturally, fairly quickly, fairly innately. Whereas responsive desire requires context, requires space, requires time, requires an on ramp, requires a lot of different variables in order to be able to access.  So although the field of sexual health has been considering a more expansive definition of sexual desire beyond spontaneous desire in recent years, there's still a move in our field to equate desire with spontaneous desire. When in fact, spontaneous desire and responsive desire or both are equal forms of desire.” Jeremiah talks about the difference between spontaneous vs responsive desire, and how the field of sexual health tends to hold spontaneous desire as the best form of desire. Julia then shares a metaphor for understanding the difference between spontaneous and responsive desire: “The metaphor that Emily Nagoski used during her talk to describe spontaneous and responsive desire. She described spontaneous desire as waking up in the middle of the night Remembering that you have a piece of your favorite cake in the fridge and then thinking Oh my god. I want cake. I want it now. I'm going to get that cake and it's going to be amazing. That's spontaneous desire. Responsive desire is you received an invitation to a birthday party. You responded to that invitation. You go to the party. You might not even really be especially in the mood for cake, but you're at the party. You're with your friends. You see the cake. Your friends are eating the cake. You remember that you love strawberries and chocolate together. You take a bite. You take a couple of bites and oh my god, it's amazing.  So the cake is great. The cake is equally good in both scenarios. I would maybe even argue that the cake at the birthday party might even be better. That's just a personal preference. That's one way to consider an image for spontaneous versus responsive desire.” Falling into Gendered Scripts (36:00): “This second pitfall within the field of sexual health, which is the emphasis on more desire rather than co-creating a quantity of experiences that works for any group. So to link back to the pitfalls within the field of sexual health, the field of sexual health does not help folks negotiate sexual differences when they either reinforce the unhelpful, untrue messages about gender scripts or when they focus too heavily on creating more desire rather than helping folks co-create an experience that works for all involved parties.”  Julia describes how the sexual health field is eerily similar to the Church is pushing desire over healthy conflict and communication. Without an effort to navigate desire discrepancy, folks tend to fall into their gendered roles, in and outside the Church, as a default to avoid conflict.  Relationship 101 (45:00): Jeremiah lists the four tips:  #1: “Refrain the idea that spontaneous desire is the only or superior form of desire. Responsive desire is just as important and meaningful.” As previously mentioned, spontaneous desire is not the only valid form of desire, and a tip Julia adds on how to foster responsive desire is sexy texts throughout the day. #2: “Consider accelerators and brakes or exciters and inhibitors. Dr. Emily Nagoski has a fantastic and brief assessment on her website called the sexual temperament assessment.” Julia expands on this tip by adding: “Accelerators or exciters are whatever helps you to move into a sexual experience. It doesn't have to be fast, but they are the factors that contribute to you enjoying a sexual experience with a partner or a partner's. Breaks or inhibitors are the things that get in the way either before a sexual experience starts or in the middle. That doesn't allow it to continue or doesn't allow it to be pleasurable in the way that you want.” #3: “Have a conversation with your partner or partners about the sexual experiences that you want to have. Be as specific as possible. Paint the picture like an erotic scene.” It can be hurtful when a sexual experience does not go as planned, so put the time into communication.  #4: “Foreplay is a 24 to 48 hour long experience.” This can be anything from flirting via text throughout the day or while doing something non-sexual together. Foreplay does not begin 10 minutes before sex, but almost two days before. 

Desire discrepancy is one of the most common challenges that we see in sex therapy.  Desire discrepancy is ultimately a difference in a couple or a group's interest in frequency, quality, or types of sexual interactions. Desire discrepancy does not necessitate conflict. Conflict occurs when folks are unable to manage those differences, which is a necessary skill inside of and outside of sexual interactions.  However, what happens when you grow up in a system (i.e. the church) that both refuses to talk with you about sexual health, and also encourages you to avoid having conversations that may result in one of you being angry before you go to bed? Julia and Jeremiah talk about how the discouragement of talking about sexuality negatively impacted their former relationships. Listen to this week’s episode, and learn more about: Defining Sexual Conflict (10:00): “Sexual conflict and inability to name and navigate sexual differences is still a leading factor in divorce and relationships ending. If we want sustainable and fulfilling relationships, we need the skills to address sexual conflict with a partner or partners.” Jeremiah defines the term that is the focus of today’s episode. This is a principle from the Gottman’s research, which is explored in this series through personal experience and professional training.  Reasons for Divorce (12:00): “So in 2014, Relationships in America conducted a national poll with over 15,000 people in the U. S. 3, 000 of those folks who took the survey said they were divorced, with 2,100 providing specific reasons for divorce. The top five reasons, all of which approximately 30 percent of the respondents identified, were spouse unresponsive to my needs, grew tired of making a poor match work, spouse's immaturity, spouse's sexual or romantic infidelity, getting back to what you said, and emotional abuse.” Jeremiah outlines a study on the reasons couples get divorced. It’s important to note that the top reason, infidelity, is a sexual conflict. Infidelity does not exist in a vacuum, and there are a multitude of reasons for it to occur, Julia then adds:  “Infidelity is a complicated topic that deserves its own series.  You can also reference our Episode from The Seven Deadly Sins, Don't Commit Adultery. But for the sake of today, infidelity often involves a sexual or erotic component, which I would argue puts infidelity in the sexual conflict category. If it was a factor for divorce by more than one-third of research participants, then that's obviously significant and also significant in terms of research.”  Desire Discrepancy (18:00): “Desire discrepancy is about more than the frequency of sexuality. So often folks say desire discrepancy and are referring to frequency. Desire discrepancy encapsulates so much more about a couple or a group's sexual experiences. The most important thing that I want to note right now is that sexual discrepancy is actually just a difference or a set of differences within a couple or within some sort of other relational system, which is not actually an inherently bad thing.” Julia discusses desire discrepancy which is a sexual conflict. With EMPish (Evangelical, Mormon, Pentecostal) communities, it is encouraged to avoid any and all conflict, which leads to issues such as desire discrepancy not being discussed. Jeremiah adds: “EMPISH communities encourage couples to avoid conflict altogether, both explicitly and implicitly. Mitigating conflict of all kinds, about sex, money, child-rearing, and anything else, is usually a sign of moral and marital success in the EMPISH Christian world. EMPish communities rely on rigid gender roles to prevent conflict, and they tend to promote a relational style that we would call enmeshed in the family.” Enmeshment as defined by Jeremiah is “Someone in an enmeshed relationship is overly connected to a partner or partners and needs to meet the other person's needs so badly that they lose touch with their own needs, goals, desires, and  feelings.” An enmeshed family does not allow healthy conflict to exist, because the very existence of conflict go against established gender norms.  Defining Christian Gender Norms (22:00): “Just in case any of our listeners are unfamiliar with genitalia-specific gender roles, I don't know how you found this podcast, but so that we're all on the same page, let me give you a quick little Christian sex ed lesson. This will be very fast. Penis owners, who are exclusively men in EMPish communities, require sexuality in the marital context due to their uncontrollable sexual urges. This means that they are the sexual initiators, which reinforces their dominance and authority within the Christian sphere. Don't let those women be preaching, and don't let them have sexual desires. Sexuality is their right, and wives show respect and deference by being sexually available at all times. In return, men are the providers and protectors for the family system, encouraged lightly to show their wives some nurture because women crave a dash of emotional coddling after their long days caring for the domestic needs of the family.” Julia offers a breakdown of Christian gender roles that sustain traditional marriages. Essentially sexual conflict will exist in these dynamics, however it has no room to develop into an actual conversation which leads to people being angry or upset with themselves and their partners because they have no room to express these feelings. This also creates dangerous ideas for what it means to be a man or woman.  Lack of Sexual Health Principles (37:00): “So once again, our conflict management style was really just conflict avoidance without language about consent, really any of the other sexual health principles, honesty, shared values, mutual pleasure. We avoided talking about sexuality altogether. We had sex fairly consistently, actually. There was a routine that we went through on Saturday morning that we seldom talked about, but both of us knew, both of us participated in, with brief check-ins on each other afterward.” Jeremiah shares how gendered roles affected his marriage and created conflict avoidance. Without any of the sexual health principles, it is difficult to engage in a healthy sex life, and thus can foster resentment.  Sexual Script Theory (40:00): “I’ve noticed as a sex therapist in my work with Christian or ex-Christian couples that sex tends to hold a high degree of routine, which I suspect is due to the lack of language about Sexual conflict and sexual conflict management.  Once you've got a routine, whether or not you like it, whether or not you want it sometimes or all the time, you can rely on that and the gender norms to get a pass on the hard and vulnerable conversations, which was, again, a big theme in one of my client sessions last night.” Julia talks about how routine is common within Christian couples because of gender roles and a lack of engaging with sexual conflict. Routine makes sex less exciting and does not allow room for a couple's sex life to grow and explore. Jeremiah then details the sexual script theory:  “Sexual script theory, and there's a lot to this, but the way that we see this in the sex therapy room is couples will end up having sex the same way in the majority of the sexual experiences, which much like the, the performance of gender in the church. Which restricts options. So, so part of what we want to do in sex therapy is to help folks create more options, create more diversity, more variance within, the way that they have sex.” He explains how a sexual script mirrors that of gendered performance within the Church. Most elements of EMPish communities center around routine, which is dangerous because it does not allow space for people to break out of it, and if they do, they are seen as going against the norm.  Double Bind (48:00): “I really enjoyed the sexual experiences that I had with my ex, limited though they were by purity culture restrictions while we were dating. I felt a high degree of desire for my ex, and I felt a high degree of desire from my ex, which was really exciting and affirming. Now, that being said, I rarely initiated kissing or any other physical exploration because I had internalized the messages around female gatekeeping of sexuality and also the idea that I should be less interested in sex than my male partner, even though at the time I was highly interested in sex.” Julia describes the inner conflict many women experience within EMPish communities, where the lessons they are taught within the Church do not align with the feelings they are having themselves.  Examples of Discrepancy (1:00:00): “So to go back to the gender roles, What I knew as a woman is that my sole worth was in being a sexually desirable partner. And that was so difficult to access because one, I hated sex to my partner, my ex-husband. was not initiating sex in the way that I wanted or the way that I expected. The way that you were taught.  So I learned that men wanted sex all the time. Not an exaggeration. Every day, multiple times a day if possible. My ex did not initiate sex every day or multiple times a day. Now, what I know now as a sexual health professional is that, News alert! Not all men want sex all the time, or think about sex all the time.” Julia exemplifies how desire discrepancy looks like for EMPish couples, where what you are taught does not align with real life and real people. Once again, couples are not allowed to engage in sexual conflict, and that conflict typically finds its cause within the way sex is taught in EMPish communities. 

We did it! We just released our 100th episode! And we could not have a more fitting episode than with Nicki (@broadeningthenarrative) and Stephen Pappas. Nicki and Stephen answer the question: What happens when one person in a partnership begins the deconstruction process before the other partner? This can be a really intimidating, vulnerable process for a lot of folks, and Nicki and Stephen talk about their process of simultaneously navigating exploration, discovery, hope, grief, and fear of abandonment. We talk about:  Function of Dreams Within the Church (3:00): “Last week, we talked about the unique challenges of identifying and pursuing a life dream when you grew up in an Evangelical, Mormon, or Pentecostal context, or Empish, E M P. In these Empish contexts, women support the dreams of their husbands […] And then husbands support the quote dreams of the larger church, which is really dictated by the pastor and the broader goals of the American Christian church, often supporting white nationalism and other questionable conservative agendas.” Julia contextualizes how ‘dreaming’ functions within the Church. It exists in a hierarchal system that mirrors that of the patriarchy and is ruled by it. Jeremiah then adds the context of dreaming within the deconstruction process: “This [EMPish Communities] is not a context that fosters dream development individually nor relationally […] Some of it is super exciting and magical. Some of it is downright gut-wrenching, especially while trying to do all of this healing work in a partnership with someone who is deconstructing and healing in different ways.” Being able to dream while moving through the deconstruction process is incredibly challenging, as a whole new world and way of thinking has been opened up, however, this presents unique issues within a partnership.  Jesus: The Foundation of a Marriage (18:00): “I want to acknowledge how much it shakes a couple that your very foundation is no longer that foundation. […] The language you've entered the covenant and our sand symbolize, like here's the white sand on the bottom. This is Jesus. Here's his brown sand and my blue sand. Swirling together, becoming so enmeshed because the two become one, the whole reason you're joined together, the whole reason you were attracted to each other, the whole reason you decided to marry was Jesus. That was the foundation. That's the thing you found that you loved about each other. And so when that is gone. What do you have?” Nicki describes how deconstruction shakes the very foundation EMPish marriages are formed on, which is Jesus. Once Jesus is removed from the equation, and thus from the foundation, it is challenging to build a new foundation not based on biblical principles.  Deconstruction is Disorienting (23:00): “My whole bearings are off. Like what I believed about the world is not the reality and what I believed about Christianity or about this life or the afterlife or God is not what I thought it was. And it's just like really disorienting. Yeah, I think a lot of it would come back to if what I had always believed the Bible taught, and now it's being questioned, that would be a really hard conversation, because then it's like, that's the last firm foundation. Cause if I let this go, then what is there?” Stephen talks about losing the foundation Christianity provides and profoundly speaks about a common feeling most folks who are deconstructing experience, which is disorientation. It is a confusing experience to realize a majority of ideas you built your life upon are not right, or do not resonate anymore. Deconstruction affects every element of our lives from our profession, our relationships, our friendships, and more. Julia then synthesizes upon what Stephen says: “That when folks often and I can relate to this move through deconstruction we move through deconstruction, taking this quote-unquote liberal or progressive lens to, to the Bible and to Christianity, so you still have that foundation, that foundation just looks different, and you have new values coming from that same foundation, and at some point for one or for both of you, that foundation eroded, and and and you couldn't fall back on that in the same way you would use the language of disorientation, great language. It also sounds like destabilizing in a literal and a figurative sense.” Julia talks about how attempting to apply a progressive lens to EMPish values causes them to fall apart, and once that progressive lens is applied it is nearly impossible to unsee.  Non-Monogamy (37:00): “I don't think that love is a finite resource. And so people who will say they're not monogamous as a lifestyle choice like they choose to be this way. And for other people, it felt like another coming out of, okay not only am I queer, but this is also like who I am and I've been shamed. There's a stigma about that. Not just in the church. There's a larger culture built around monogamy, you know, so just that whole thing there. But again, I embrace this part of myself, even if like, you know, I have not explored it. We haven't opened our marriage. That kind of thing, but I can embrace that part of myself and stop shaming that part of myself and be grateful for that part of myself and the capacity of love that gives me for humans.” Nicki discusses the larger cultural perception of non-monogamy in and out of the Church. The Church has no room for dreaming, and thus has no room for folks exploring their sexuality and coming into their sexuality later in life. It takes active communication and generosity to have these discussions with a partner, as deconstruction is a foundation-shaking process from which new dreams and challenges arise.  Dogmatic Beliefs (40:00): Jeremiah poses the question: “Stephen, as you've been watching Nikki kind of make some of these acknowledgments begin to talk about identifying as queer, what does this look like in real-time? I'm also curious, you know, what are some things that you've begun to explore about yourself as well? Related to or not related to sexuality?” Stephen then responds: “A big change for me has just been not being so dogmatic in my beliefs. Anymore or trying to not be, and a lot of that has been because of the journey we've been on and just the nature of changing beliefs. So it's like if I was off before, then I could be off about whatever it is now. So not to try to hold things so tightly, so dogmatically […] I just try to actually get to know myself better and like who am I really and why do I do the things I do? And why do, why do these things happen to me? Why do these things that happen affect me this way? And what are some tools I can put in place to help me try to live from a more centered and grounded place and not just my instinct, but from my true essence? And so that's still a long process for me to go, but that's been really helpful for me as well.” The concept of unwavering belief is instilled in folks within EMPish communities from the moment they are born, and it is a challenging thing to begin to question things within the Church. Opposing change, differing opinions, and having absolute loyalty is the foundation of EMPish Churches, and it is why deconstruction so often leads people to be ostracized from their communities of origin. Stephen highlights one of the many benefits of not being dogmatic about beliefs, which is gaining the ability to ask questions, to think about actions, and to think about emotions.  The Myth of Scarcity (46:00):  “I think too, so much of my journey too, has been detaching from the myth of scarcity. And so then I can engage in a conversation, like we may never open our marriage, right? Like I can accept that that may never happen. And like I've told Steven, there's not a timetable for this. There is no scarcity. There's not an urgency. So I think that when we can approach a conversation like this or any other potentially charged conversation. Believing the best about each other. You know, like I believe the best about this person. I'm not going to assign, you know, nefarious motives or think that he's trying to keep me from growing or from freedom and have a ton of compassion for realizing that what I'm putting out there completely. You know, goes against this whole thing and has the groundedness that comes from saying, there is enough, there is enough time. There are enough resources. There is enough love. There is more than enough. And I think that that's a huge game changer, just not operating from scarcity, because I'll say, like, we had a conversation where I said, I married so young out of scarcity mindset. I married because I was told it doesn't get better than Steven.” Nicki highlights on of the greatest achievements of the Church, which is convincing folks that the scarcity myth is real. When folks are encouraged to get married right out of college and to live within prescribed gender roles while only “ideally” dating the person they’re going to marry, it creates the perception that dating and romance are finite experiences. This idea is then carried on into other aspects of life, including communication, and it stifles conversations because of the fear of running out of time. “And I appreciate what you said about having the conversation without urgency. I'm thinking about what I wish I had done differently when I was married and conversations around queerness and opening the relationship were conversations that I did not handle well. And one of the reasons, probably the primary reason that they didn't go well is because I came to those conversations with my ex with so much anxiety and uncontained sadness about what I had lost that I wasn't able to have The generosity that so clearly exists between the two of you because I couldn't envision life without this need met.” Julia offers an example of how the myth of scarcity affected her previous marriage and how if that had not been present the conversations may have gone differently.  Relationship Anarchy (54:00): “This is written about kind of in the poly community, but I think it's applicable to every relationship, this idea of relationship anarchy and relationship anarchy is basically this idea that your relationship can serve any function really that it wants to […] maybe the function of this relationship is I only talk with this person about money. I actually have a friend that, that actually fits into the bill. Like, the function of our relationship is we talk about financial growth, professional growth, and that's kind of it. That's the function of that. There's some emotional connection that happens as a by-product of that. It's not a sexual relationship. We're not interested in parenting, family of origin, or anything like that.” Jeremiah talks about the concept of relationship anarchy and how we can focus specific relationships on specific things. One relationship can not, and should not, fit all of our needs. This is why we have romantic and platonic relationships because they fulfill different needs within our lives.