Sexvangelicals

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. 

What did you want to be when you grew up? In EMPish (Evangelical, Mormon, and Pentecostal) settings, growing up is commonly centered around finding your soulmate, getting married, having kids, and enhancing the church community. Or, as Julia says, “A person's dreams must serve the greater purpose of evangelism.” “When we consider gender,” she continues, “the complications get worse. Women support the “dreams” of their husbands. Husbands support the “dreams” of the larger church dictated by the pastor and the broader goals of the American Christian church, often supporting white nationalism and other conservative agendas.” We talk with Nicki and Stephen Pappas, authors of the upcoming book Becoming Egalitarian, about how, by attempting to adhere to the standards of the church, they lost themselves and their dreams. They talk with us specifically about: Making Dreams Come True (2:00): This episode explores the Gottman principle of making dreams come true, individually and within a partnership. Jeremiah gives the example: “So when we consider life dreams from the partnership perspective, we may be referring to individual or shared dreams. For example, Julia and I have individual dreams of writing two different books. And we also have a shared dream of what we want to create with Sexvangelicals. Nurturing and supporting both individual and shared dreams are vital for the health of a relationship.” Gender and Dreams Within the Church (7:00): Julia explains “Sadly, a person's dreams must serve the greater purpose of evangelism. And then when we consider gender, the complications here get worse. Breaking it down. Women support the quote-unquote dreams of their husbands. Husbands support the dreams of the larger church dictated by the pastor and the broader goals of the American Christian church, often supporting white nationalism and other conservative agendas.” Gearing up for Marriage (19:00): Nicki shares what the confines of dating within the EMPish Church looked like: “There was kind of a lighthearted playfulness between us—flirty, just fun. Because of the pressure and the whole movement bolstered by I Kissed Dating Goodbye, it becomes this serious vibe of ‘Would I marry this person? Because if not, then we can't waste time.’ And I can't be emotionally cheating on my future spouse by being flirty with this person. That very much dampened our playfulness in a big way.” Motherhood and Marriage (27:00): Nicki describes existing as a woman within a Christian structure: “I want to be the definition of success in a space, right? And so when I'm told that being a wife is what I'm called to do, and then that being a mother is God's highest and holiest calling, this is what gets me like the currency in this space. This is what gets me the social capital is to be the best helper.” All desires and dreams are stripped, and the only true callings are motherhood and marriage. She goes on to say: “I can't be the best teacher and be the best wife and mom.” The Church however does not set up structures to aid people through this emotionally or physically. It is challenging to chase after dreams that are not allowed to exist within the confines of the Church walls. Lack of Sex Education (41:00): Stephen talks about how men and women were taught about sex, and how women are taught to never deny sex and to consistently encourage it once married, while men are taught no sex before marriage and that men have naturally high libidos which will activate on the wedding night. “[Nicki] was told you either can't say no to sex, you say yes or convince me. That was this model that was upheld. For me, you know, growing up in the church, it's always like no sex before marriage, that's sinful, right? And so, I didn't. And even got to the point where it's like, okay, no kissing because it's too tempting to do that and not go further.” This idea plays into the light-switch theory once again, and how the second “I Do” is said, all the knowledge and desire of sex will just flow through your veins with no education or knowledge. What Happens When You Don’t Perform the Gender Scripts, Sexually or Otherwise (45:00): Jeremiah adds: “Thinking about the cultural messages, not just the religious messages around, you know, what happens to women who have very quick sexual accelerators, the slut shaming that happens, all the negative language, that women are given both inside and outside of marriage. And then also the same thing for men who have a higher brake system, the shaming language, often the homophobic language that gets directed towards men who have a stronger brake and the dual response cycle that you were referring to.” The Church tends to hurl homophobic and sexist language at people who differ from their idea of the norm, harming folks who do not fit into the rigid mold the Church prescribes to people. No Room for Dreaming (49:00): Stephen talks about how challenging it is to realize how controlling the Church makes life. ”It can seem so weird, like how could you live like this? Looking back on it and talking about it now, it made so much sense to me. It just seemed like this is the way It's supposed to be and this is what the Bible says, and this is what it means. Therefore, this is what we're supposed to pursue, and on so many levels, whether that's relationships or how we live in the world, how we spend our money, how we spend our free time. I was just thinking about how controlling it sounds and because it is, and, I'm really just starting to see that more clearly now. It's a big process for me to heal from.” Nicki and Stephen will talk with us next week about how they rediscovered ways to build dreams individually and together. We can’t wait to share that episode with you. Let’s heal together!

Purity Culture isn’t just a collection of pithy quotes and misappropriation of Scripture about bodies and relationships.    It’s a creation of a myriad of businesses, media, and political systems that work together to showcase and reinforce the existence of particular types of relationships.   We’ve learned that understanding the larger context of Purity Culture, from the intersection of theology and American history to the cultural icons and legislative processes that these create, has helped us in our own deconstruction process.    Which is also true for our guests this week, Teddi and Nick from the podcast Oh God I Forgot About That. They study cultural and literary artifacts from the 90s and 00s and talk about how each of these got used and enhanced to propagate the larger goals of Purity Culture. They talk with us this week about:   Cosmic Consequences (10:00): “I say this basically every single episode. When you attach cosmic consequences to anything you guarantee it's going to be messed up. You're creating trauma. You're creating anxieties. And that's what I did.” Nick highlights the quintessential issue within the Church, and that is attaching God-given consequences to actions. For instance, if you have sex before marriage, you are going to go to hell. This type of thinking fosters intense anxiety within folks because it gets rid of their ability to explore life without feeling like they will be punished for stepping out of line. Deconstruction Within Relationships (12:00): Julia and Jeremiah both speak on how deconstruction happens within relationships, romantic or not, and how it is not the solo experience it is so often pictured to be. Julia says: “I’ve also noticed that some folks in the early stages of deconstruction can sometimes understandably overcompensate because they've been in these enmeshed communities for maybe decades. And so understandably, they want to start making their own individual autonomous choices as we should. However, as Jeremiah and I are relationship therapists, the deconstruction world doesn't always give good resources for how we still live in relationships all the time, not just with partners.” She mentions that many folks may struggle with moving too far into an isolated space as a form of regaining autonomy. Jeremiah adds:  “And a good reminder that deconstruction happens in relationships. This isn't a person like sailing away on their own solitary boat out into the great blue ocean. This happens through the conversations that y'all are talking about and, sometimes with partners, sometimes not with partners and that's exciting. It's complicated.” He talks about how deconstruction is happening within the context of our relationships, and it’s important to have these conversations because deconstruction looks different for everyone, however we all have people in our lives and it’s important to figure out how to navigate this enormous change. Physical Contact Through a Sexual Lens (22:00): “My partner said something brilliant, we were just having this conversation about the reason men misunderstand their sexual urges and desires. Especially men in the church are two-pronged. The first is what we've already talked about, which is you're always already in sexual temptation. But the other is, that men are conditioned to not be physical with each other, except in the context of violence. Or competition, right? So you can, you can have a football huddle. You can do the bro hug where you do the weapons check and the smack on the back. You can punch fists. But, there is no physical intimacy encouraged or allowed in masculine spheres. And then when you're man to woman, boy to girl, forget it, it's off limits. You are, as a human being, boxed into this corner where no physical intimacy, except maybe your parents. So then because the only valence for physical contact that you as a man in the church are given is sexuality, right? Yeah, all of your desire for any sort of physical contact or physical intimacy that isn't necessarily sexual. Gets filtered through that sexual lens.” Nick describes how the Church creates an environment in which physical touch is only offered to men through a violent lens or sexual one. This also creates a world view where sexuality is informed by violence and feeds into the idea that men are inherently violent.  Creating the Podcast (27:00): “Eleanor Roosevelt said something along the lines of like you'd be like delighted and disturbed to know how little people are actually thinking about you. And that proved true with the podcast. Like I have heard from no one about it. I mean, they could all be listening. All the people from my youth could be listening and discussing it behind my back. Perhaps they're not. I've had a few people who are more in the deconstruction stage of their faith, say that they're listening and that it's helpful to them, they almost presented in a kind of envious way, like, I can't wait to be on the other side and be able to talk about this the way you guys are talking about it, but for those who are deep in the church, like, I haven't heard anything from them and occasionally I will wonder what they're thinking, because how can you not?” Teddi talks about the challenges that come along with creating a podcast that talks about the Church, after years of being deeply rooted within it. The Church creates a Panopticon system, where everyone has the fear of being watched and told on, but is not sure if they are being watched at that moment. It generates an environment where trust is a challenging thing.   Separating the Individual and the Institution (32:00): “That's a conversation I've had with a few people in my life about the podcast because I know a lot of folks who are still in the church are still in conservatism and they have listened or they've like known that I've done it. […] I'm in a much better place where I can let everyone have their spiritual journey, and that's a very beneficial and important place for me, but the thing that I emphasize in those conversations is, again, the difference between the institution and the individual, right? When we look at somebody like Rob Bell, or we look at something like the Eldridge, you know, John and Stacey Eldridge's books, right?  They feel fluffy, they feel vapid, anodyne, but they're put in this context where they become defining for not just the culture, but patterns of thought.” Nick talks about how it’s essential to let everyone have their own spiritual journey. Many folks who deconstruct are confronted by the people in their lives who still subscribe to Church ideologies, and many of those people feel personally attacked when someone is deconstructing. What is important on both sides is allowing folks to have their own relationship with spirituality and religion. Another point Nick covers is how Christian authors define thought, despite clearly lacking deep and meaningful research. As discussed many times on Sexvangelicals, Christian authors will use small sample sizes in their research, will fall back on Biblical principles, and sometimes, just straight up lie. What is dangerous however is their impact on thought within the Church and especially on young folks to whom these books are distributed too.  Doctrine Over Relationships (46:00): “Jeremiah and I always come back to the idea of a relationship. We had a conversation with Tia Levings, who people probably recognize from Shiny Happy People, and she describes fundamentalism as anything that puts a doctrine or a dogma over a human relationship.” Julia discusses a fundamental issue within the Church, which is putting doctrine over people. A key example of this is an unmarried couple who will abstain from sex because they believe they will go to hell for engaging in sex or with their sexuality. This is putting doctrine over relationships because this can and will harm many folks and their relationships because it makes sex the enemy and then sex becomes an enemy that has to be engaged with for the rest of their married lives. 

While much attention has been given to the Evangelical contingent of American conservative Christianity, it's important to note that even though systems of worship may be different, Pentecostal Christians navigate sexuality, relationships, and bodies in similarly troubling ways as Evangelical and Mormon communities do. This week, we're thrilled to have Teddi and Nick, co-hosts of the podcast Oh God I Forgot About That, to talk more about how their upbringings in Pentecostal communities impacted understandings of gender, dating relationships, and sexuality. We talk specifically about: Defining EMPish (10:00): “So in the post-Christian, in the deconstruction world, the denominations and the language that gets used most commonly is Evangelical. But what we find is that Mormon churches and Pentecostal churches, that their structures are very similar to Evangelical churches, Baptist churches, and non-denominational churches. So the styles of worship may be a little bit different, but the leadership structures, the communication patterns within the church for the sake of our expertise, the communication around bodies and sexuality, very, very similar.” Jeremiah highlights and defines the similarities between the EMPish circles covered. Even though some of these churches may come off as more charismatic by incorporating music and fun, they still project the same messages around sexuality, marriage, and purity.  Purity Rings (20:00): “So we worked at a stable together and I remember her like showing me this like glistening ring on her fourth finger and she was about maybe 14, 15. And she explained the promise ring concept to me. And you know, it was all so exciting. It was like, she got to pick out the ring and her dad gave it to her. And then the Pentecostal church that I was in, we had something called the Missionettes program for girls. I want to say around 14, you had the opportunity to do a promise ring ceremony where the girls wore white and then they got their ring from their fathers. And then the whole church attended. So there was just so much excitement built up around it and I, it was one of the first times that I like paused and was sort of like, oh, like, this is like something that I'm planning for that I am anticipating, which the great irony of this being, I wouldn't have been thinking about sex had the church not brought it to my attention, like I was still very innocent.” Teddy shares her experience around purity rings and talks about how the Church brings sex to the forefront of children’s minds when sex would not have been on their minds if not for the constant shame. The Church consistently shames people for thinking about sex and sexuality all while making that the main focus of sermons, learning, and life. Jeremiah adds: “Teddy, thinking about the role that fathers play in this fairy tale as well. The father-daughter relationship in the evangelical and Pentecostal church. The connection between the father-daughter relationship and the purity ring ceremonies. The fact that father's jobs in theories are to simultaneously protect their daughters from objectification. But Teddy, also like what you're saying, protect their daughters from objectification when they're like eight.”  Double-Edged Sword (23:00 - 25:00): “[This] two-pronged thing where sexuality was always pitched to me and the other boys as a source of temptation. It was exclusively and explicitly a temptation that was inevitable and shameful. And any single woman or girl you know could be the target of this uncontrollable thing that you unleash, right? So it created sort of this two-pronged, like, struggle with any sort of friendship that could be potentially viewed as a romantic relationship, you know? Having friends that were girls. When I was a boy, just, oh, are they thinking this about me, or, oh, you know, I try to just do something that's a normal friendship thing, and it gets misconstrued as an advance, or something that needs to be defended against” Nick speaks about the double-edged sword the Church presents young men with, which is that they cannot control their sexual impulses and any attempt at friendship is misconstrued into an advance. Julia then adds: “I think I say basically every single episode that what you're describing around the gender construction is this awful combination of both misandry and misogyny at the same time that you as a man are this inherently sexual predator. And that women exist as floating bodies that are the object of objectification. And also, for men, there's this double bind that they are these sexual monsters, and that's how God made them. But also they have to fight it, and it's such a mindfuck!” She highlights once again this idea that God made men sexual predators and they must fight this instinct, but also how this idea shrinks women down to essentially objects because they cannot and do not have any sexual desires or thoughts.  Passiveness (32:00): “It was just boring as hell and at its worst it made you passive in your own life. It made you just a spectator to your own life. So I think that that probably explains why I didn't even become really all that interested or willing to pursue relationships until college, or even like curious about my identity until college because there was no script for what it looked like for women to pursue, talk about these things, explore these things because you were just waiting.” Teddy talks about how women were given no script or support or even an idea of what sexuality looked like for them. This plays back into the light switch metaphor touched on last week, and how the script essentially does not exist until your wedding night, and suddenly it’s just supposed to flip on then and there. “And you could argue that that passiveness also creates another narrative about women being objects in the passivity. Prior to marriage, women are essentially these asexual beings, and that asexuality is what protects the purity of the relationship.” Julia highlights how the idea that women are asexual pre-marriage, protects the integrity of the relationship from the sexual predator man that they are dating, feeding into the misandry/misogyny the Church spews. Infantilization (42:00): “That double bind is perfectly encapsulated by these two moments that I very vividly have in my mind. The first is, I remember going on a trip with her church, and her youth pastor had taken over the church, and we sat next to each other on the church van, and he leans in the church van over her, and he starts, like, jamming his hand between our thighs. And like doing this and I scooted over and he goes, just making sure there's room for the Holy Spirit. And then he closed the door ominously on and we went off. So there's that like infantilization.” Nick covers an aspect of the Church’s approach to sex and sexuality which is the infantilization of teenagers and adults. Within EMPish circles, people are encouraged to get married incredibly young, which is a very adult decision, yet they have hands jammed between their thighs in Church vans to leave room for the Holy Spirit.        

SHOW NOTES   Positive Perspective (4:00): “Let's very quickly review what we mean when we say the positive perspective, specifically as it relates to sexuality. As you may be, and are probably intimately aware, folks from Evangelical, Mormon, and Pentecostal communities, EMPish communities, often struggle to have a positive perspective about sexuality when dominant messaging from these communities focuses on no.” Julia starts us off by defining positive perspective in the context of EMPish communities, as most of the sexual education is focused on denying sexuality. Jeremiah adds: “Positive perspective is not necessarily about the emotional expression. It could be about emotional expression. But it's more so about supporting you in creating an openness to possibility. The possibility to have a mutually pleasurable sexual experience.” A positive perspective focuses on a positive outlook rather than just positive emotions, and a positive outlook on sexuality is not fostered within EMPish circles.   The Post-Marriage Script (9:00): “The enmeshed nature of Christian relationships, which we will come back to at the end of this episode. In one of the classes about sexuality, the instructor talked about the importance of abstinence during the dating and engagement period because, and I quote, this is the only time in the course of your relationship that you won't be having sex.” Julia shares her experience during “Leap of Faith” in which an instructor perpetuated the EMPish myth that a healthy non-stop sex life will come about the second people get married. Jeremiah says, “So that's a perfect example of what I mean when I say that the post-marriage script not only focuses on the expectation of sex but the expectation that sex will always be present on a very regular basis.” The post-marriage script essentially promises people that sex will be regular and consistent but gives them no tools to actually create a healthy sex life.   Communication (14:00): “Communication skills for navigating sexuality are essential for couples to develop a sense of sexual positivity. In EMPish communities, couples do not learn about how to solve problems or negotiate differences between couples outside of prayer and these weird metaphors for sacrifice like washing feet.” Jeremiah talks about how the only system in place for couples to negotiate differences is prayer, but no other systems are put in place to aid in communication. He continues: “EMPish communities also say that sex is a representation of Jesus caring for the church. Which, going back to the Joshua Butler book that we talked about a few months ago. When you're representing Jesus and the body of Christ, that puts a lot of pressure on the sexual relationship without either general communication skills or sex-specific communication skills.”    Light Switch (29:00): “That is actually the myth that we are debunking. So I'd like to come back to the idea of the light switch that both of us referenced. The myth from the church is that upon getting married, we transition seamlessly into marital sexual bliss. I've noticed that a similar myth in the deconstruction and sex therapy world […] So when folks leave religious communities, or maybe they are still a part of a religious community and they are unpacking and unlearning some of these negative messages, they expect a similarly fast transition for healing to occur.” Julia speaks about the light switch metaphor which essentially boils down to the idea that the second people get married, their entire sexuality and sexual life just switches on. This is harmful because when that doesn’t happen, people feel ashamed of themselves. The light switch metaphor also applies to deconstruction, because many folks find themselves confused that after they leave the Church that all their problems have not disappeared overnight. It is important to give ourselves patience and time to heal and grieve.      Enmeshment, Individuation, and Differentiation (35:00):  “I want to talk about three things. One is enmeshment. Two, individuation. Three differentiation: ENMESHMENT: “Enmeshment is a relational marker. Enmeshment is essentially a lack of healthy boundaries. One way this looks is that a person's sexuality belongs to the community or a spouse. A person's not allowed to make individual choices. They must conform to the dictates of the community. And if you are a woman, you must submit to male authority.” Jeremiah defines our first term, which is key to understanding EMPish relationships. The relationship is not private, it is held to the standards of a group and thus has no room for individuality and choice. INDIVIDUATION “In the early stages of deconstruction, they sometimes overcompensate when moving into individuation. And individuation is a process of doing things for yourself, regardless of what other people might say.” Jeremiah notes that as people move through their deconstruction journey they may go too hard into individuation, which then erases the needs of their partner and relationship.  DIFFERENTIATION: “Differentiation is a process of doing things for yourself in a relationship with other people. This means that you have to take into account that your partner may want to do something completely different. Or their style or personality traits means that the way that they do the thing you want to do is different from the way that you want.” Jeremiah closes out by defining differentiation, which Julia and Jeremiah use examples to contextualize further.  Relationship 101 (51:00): “Relationship 101 today is in two parts, and both of these will sound very basic and very simple. In some ways, they are basic in the sense of being foundational, but not so simple in practice. So number one is talking about a sexual experience before, during, and after. And number two is paying attention to differences.” Julia lays out foundational relationship 101 for today. One of the key elements is talking about and engaging with sexuality before, during, and after. Sex does not begin with foreplay, a sexual experience can begin hours before with sexting or flirting with your partner, which can make for a more extended and meaningful experience. 

We're back from our month off hiking the Alpe Adria in Austria, Slovenia, and Italy. And we pick up today where we left off, talking about the Sound Marital House model from couples therapy gurus John and Julie Gottman.   For a friendly reminder, the first three levels of the Sound Marital house are curiosity, appreciation, and leaning toward your partner. And this week, Julia and Jeremiah talk about the fourth value: the positive perspective, including: Defining Terms (10:00): “For the sake of today, we're going to say that being positive about sexuality in a partnership means being positive about the existence of eroticism in a relationship, which to be clear is not the same as sex. […] To simplify it for today, eroticism is ultimately about the presence of sexual desire, whether or not you consummate that sexuality. So we'll be focusing on positivity about the presence of sexual desire, and since this is a relationship podcast, We'll talk about the presence of sexual desire within a partnership or whatever other relational structure you have.” Julia defines positive perspective, eroticism, and sexuality in terms of today's episode. Defining clear terms is an important value for Sexvangelicals, and it is important to have a clear understanding of how we will be using these terms to navigate our topic. Hierarchy (17:00): “The gatekeeping around marriage creates an exclusionary social hierarchy in which you've got married Christian folks at the top, accessing all their God-given sexual rights. And unmarried Christian folks, one rung below, who are either dating or pursuing marriage in some sort of explicit way. Eventually, those folks may have full access to the post-marriage sex script. But until marriage, they are inherently limited. Unmarried folks who by choice or not by choice will not ever get married are the next level lower. They are not able to access the joy of sexuality in marriage.  […] And all of this is important in setting up the episode today because we are highlighting that dichotomy of the pre-marriage sexual script and the post-marriage sexual script. And I suppose if we have this hierarchy... The secular folks are just outside of this system because they refuse to participate because they're relishing in their heathen ways. Like us. Us unmarried folks who are still having sex.” Julia highlights the hierarchy within EMPish communities based on marriage status. EMPish Churches only have two scripts, one for those pre and post-marriage, creating a system where only those two realities exist. This is incredibly damaging as all your relationships in the “pre” sphere exist as a march to the wedding, as Julia will go on to share today. Preserving Purity (19:00): “So due to the gatekeeping around marriage, the dichotomy between the pre-marriage and post-marriage scripts inherently function to protect the system of social and sexual hierarchy that we just described […] So, if the pre-marriage script focuses on preserving the purity of your sexuality until you can access the post marriage script, folks hoping to get married face some, some unique sexual challenges.” Jeremiah talks about how the pre-marriage script is incredibly limited in fundamentalist communities and that the only information people hoping to get married receive is that they will unlock all these secrets about sex when they’re already married. This causes a lot of pain and grief, because the reality is without proper sex education and knowledge around sex, most of people confronted with the post-marriage script do not know what to do. He also says: “Depending on the level of fundamentalism in a person's community, the rules limiting access to sexuality may vary in strictness while still serving to protect sexual purity.” This statement encapsulates the issue at hand because the rules around sexuality in fundamentalist communities are structured around preserving purity, however, once you are married, your “purity” goes away.  It’s All About Sex (28:00): “Because I wanted to have sex. Even at the time, I had some shame around that because I knew, according to the church, that I as a woman was not supposed to have those sexual desires. Interestingly, by eradicating any meaningful sexual expression, the church's teachings actually make dating relationships all about sex.” Julia speaks about how by repressing any means of sexual expression, the church inadvertently makes dating all about sex. A lot of young couples instead of enjoying their time dating, spend time focusing on “not giving in to sin.” This puts sex on a pedestal, which in turn makes people want it more.  Shame and Grief (40:00): “The reason that this story is so essential to this episode is that you met someone that you liked, you briefly dated, you enjoyed some sexual experiences, which would be completely developmentally appropriate for a 19-year-old who's working during the summer months while in college, but instead of enjoying it, instead of learning about yourself and exploring relational and sexual values, you obsessed over your sin.” Jeremiah says in response to Julia’s story. He talks about how instead of being able to relax into developmentally appropriate desires she had to spend her entire relationship worrying about sinning. Julia then adds: “Yes. I'm sad for my 19-year-old self, and I know that this story is not unique. I can't tell you how many times I've supported clients in grieving what they lost due to sexual shame. And I'm not specifically grieving the relationship itself, I'm grieving that I lost the opportunity to get to know myself and I'm grieving how much pleasure and fun not just sexual pleasure and fun that the shame stole from you.” She shares the grief of not being able to have those “normal” experiences because of the fundamentalist community she was in. EMPish communities have a focus on teaching people shame, not on teaching people about sexuality, and shame dictates the pre-marriage script.  Lack of Eroticism (49:00): “Sex was finally allowed. And that actually killed a big part of the eroticism for me and for many people. The massive barriers to sexuality created by purity culture actually make sex pretty sexy. But folks like me and like so many others didn't know how to create and build eroticism on their own without those barriers. Which often causes sex to be pretty disappointing after the barriers of purity culture are no longer present.  […] Second, sexuality was now not only allowed, it was expected. Which I know you'll discuss more in your episode, Jeremiah, and that generated a lot of sexual pressure for me. This thing, intercourse, was expected, but I didn't have relational or individual literacy about sexuality or tools to co-create a pleasurable experience.” Julia shares how after the barriers to entry were removed, there was no eroticism present nor was there a way for her to engage in sexuality due to the lack of resources and knowledge. EMPish communities foster an environment where people are forbidden to have sexual desires and thoughts up until their wedding night, and they are just expected to know right after they say “I Do.”   Beginning the Conversation Around Neutrality (1:04:00): “Neutrality means that you do not actively want sex. And you are open to go full circle to the possibility of a sexual experience. So, I learned that you don't have to wait until you really want to have sex to have a great sexual experience. So, if the responsive desire is a big part of the sexual template for many individuals, many couples, or throuples or whatever your group, then we've got to actually figure out what to do with that. Simply knowing that responsive desire is important for folks or the dominant template for folks isn't enough. And in future episodes, we're going to be talking about what does it mean to take that neutrality. Take that responsive desire and build something that hopefully is really fun and pleasurable.” Julia explains what neutrality and responsive desire are, a topic that will be explored more in the coming months. It is important to highlight in this Relationship 101 that sexual desire looks different for everyone and to not hold yourself to the same standard as everyone else, because it looks different for everyone as Jeremiah notes:  “And one of the things that we'll come across when we do this, just to skip ahead a little bit, is the idea of conflict. Yes. Because... How you access sexuality, Julia, is going to be different from how I access sexuality. And we've got to figure out how to navigate those differences and to create something that works for both of us. That both of us really enjoy. And conflict doesn't have to be scary, it doesn't have to be fighting, anything like that. Even though some emotions will probably come up for folks, even for you and I, as we navigate this.”