I’ve written before on the fact that God made sex in marriage to be something pleasing to both husband and wife, desired by both husband and wife, and freely able to be initiated by both husband and wife. Because of that, in even writing this post, some may think I’m now beating a dead horse. But I think it’s an incredibly important topic to address again, and I’ll share with you why.
I have shared at length the issues I have with complementarianism and how I no longer see how we can take the Bible and use it to defend that belief system. The issues with complementarianism and the staunchness with which many theologians hold to it extend far beyond a wrong understanding of words like “helper“, “head”, and “submission”, however. They even extend to their views of male and female sexuality and what goes on in the bedroom.
As some of you may already be aware of, Douglas Wilson wrote these words in his book, Fidelity: What it Means to be a One-Woman Man:
“In other words, however we try, the sexual act cannot be made into an egalitarian pleasuring party. A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts. This is of course offensive to all egalitarians, and so our culture has rebelled against the concept of authority and submission in marriage. This means that we have sought to suppress the concepts of authority and submission as they relate to the marriage bed……True authority and true submission are therefore an erotic necessity.”
Wilson offers no Biblical references here to back up these shocking words, nor does he give any attention to an entire book of the Bible dedicated to the topic of sex - the Song of Solomon. If he had, he would have known that his view of sex is not only offensive but dead-wrong, Biblically-speaking.
The real problem here is that his primary mission is to uphold complementarianism, not to teach the Bible accurately. Because of this, in his mind, anything even hinting at any kind of egalitarianism in any shape or form is off-limits and to be fought against - even if it is actually Biblical in nature!
5 Problems with what Doug Wilson Teaches About Sex
1. His words are not faithful to the Bible’s portrayal of sex in the Song of Solomon.
Wilson describes sex as an act in which the husband initiates, dominates, conquers, and controls. It is a one-sided act in which the man is “in authority”, while the wife must “submit” to her husband’s sexual advances.
This is the complete antithesis to what we find in the Song of Solomon, an entire book given to us by God that is on one topic: His design for sex. In this book, we find both the husband and the wife initiating sex at different times. We find them both yearning for intimacy. We find them both enjoying sex. Sometimes Solomon initiates sex and the Shulamite woman responds, while at other times the Shulamite woman initiates and Solomon responds. Not once do we find Solomon “conquering” his wife in the bedroom. Not once. What we do find is - if you want to call it this - an “egalitarian pleasure party”, because it is graphically obvious that they are both rather pleased with their sex life!
This fact completely turns Wilson’s claim on its head and exposes it to be the unbiblical and false teaching that it is.
2. His words are not faithful to Paul’s description of sex in 1 Corinthians 7.
While Wilson is so busy claiming that the husband has the authority in the bedroom and the wife must submit, Paul tells a different story. In 1 Corinthians 7:3-5, he writes:
“Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time,”
There are several things to note from this passage:
*It’s a two-way street.
It is false to claim that sex in marriage is about the man having the authority and the wife submitting. Paul clearly shows in this passage that it is the same for both - both spouses surrender their bodies, their affection, and their love, to their spouse. The husband has authority over the wife’s body in the bedroom, while the wife, likewise, has authority over her husband’s body. It is clearly a two-way street.
*Note the phrase Paul uses - “let the husband render to his wife the affection due her”.
This is not about conquering and colonizing. This is about affection. This is about something the husband owes to his wife - not something he demands by nature of his “authority”.
*Note what Paul says at the end - “Do not deprive one another”.
This means that both spouses are expected to desire and enjoy sex. Again, there’s proof for you of a God-ordained and Paul-approved “egalitarian pleasure party”!
3. His words are not faithful to the Bible’s portrayal of marriage.
In his effort to speak to the Bible’s concept of “authority” and “submission” in marriage, Wilson makes one serious mistake - this is not what the Bible teaches about marriage. Undoubtedly he is referring to the passage in Ephesians 5 where Paul tells wives to submit to their husbands. But what Wilson ignores is that the correlating command given to husbands is not to lead or to have authority. The command given to them is to love. And Paul elsewhere makes it clear (see 1 Corinthians 13:-8) that in order for someone to love someone else, it is impossible for that person to insist on his own way - he must give up his own desires for the sake of the one he loves. Therefore, there is no “authority and submission concept” when it comes to marriage, which means there is no problem with sex in marriage being what Wilson would call an “egalitarian pleasure party”!
4. His words are not even biologically accurate.
I studied advanced biology in high school and I can tell you - female anatomy proves the legitimacy of “egalitarian pleasure parties”, if we’re going to call them that. Unlike males, females possess a body part the sole purpose of which is sexual pleasure. To represent sex as something that only the man, as the conqueror and dominator, enjoys is not only completely contradictory to the Bible, but it is contradictory to biology, as well. God intentionally created women to be able to enjoy sex just as much as men do, and His desire is that wives would understand that.
5. His words are borderline abusive.
One of the most disturbing aspects of Wilson’s words is that there is no intimacy whatsoever to be found in this description of sex. A husband is not “conquering” his wife in the bedroom. She is not his enemy, last time I checked. She’s not a trophy. She’s not an opposing army that must be fought and conquered. She is bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh. She is his wife. She is his lover. She is to be the most special person in his life - one to be treasured, cherished, and tenderly loved. Not “conquered”!
If Wilson expects to find proof of complementarianism and a defense for his disdain of mutual enjoyment in sex, he certainly won’t find it in the Bible, in science, or in common sense. There is nothing wrong and everything right with both husbands and wives enjoying intimacy together. And it is time the church understood that.
Are you a member of the conservative Reformed community? If so, it’s nice to finally see some more reality and sense about sex from this community (I’m personally not Reformed; I’m conservative Lutheran, FWIW). Some of the public comments I’ve seen on this topic from men and women who have current or past affiliations with the likes of Vision Forum, CREC, etc. boggle my mind. I’ve known since I was young that I like physically attractive men, and ever since puberty especially, I’ve had a strong awareness of this. I’m married now, and it amazes me that this notion that women are supposedly universally wired to be asexual robots persists in many Christian circles, especially the conservative Reformed. I got married in large part because I burned with the passion of a thousand suns. Sex totally lived up to the hype, and I’m glad God makes it available for the vast majority of us who cannot live up to the single ideal that the Apostle Paul preferred. The vast majority of Christians — men and women alike — are hard-wired to be fruitful and multiply, and we’re given the desires pertaining to such. Anyway, good on you for repudiating false teachings; falsehood must be exposed, and truth defended, especially in the highly consequential spiritual realm. We must submit to God first, and if male leaders aren’t teaching the truth, and double-down on their error, move on and find male leaders who actually do teach truth.