Category Archives: Sexual Morality

Refuting Sheila Gregoire’s Assertion That “Deprive is not the same as refuse”

1 Corinthians 7:1-5 has been a standard text that people like myself reference when arguing against feminists like Sheila Gregoire. Sheila is one among many feminists seeking to give wives an excuse for not giving their husbands what 1 Cor. 7:3 describes as their “conjugal rights”. While Sheila acknowledges that verse 5 clearly forbids both spouses from depriving one another, she had to devise some way around it. At least as far back as 2012, she has had this to say (bolding is mine):

First, let’s note what this verse does not say. Paul did not write:

Do not refuse one another, except by mutual consent and for a time…

He wrote do not deprive.

Deprive is not the same as refuse. I believe many people interpret this verse to mean refuse. Are women obligated to have sex every time a man wants it? Are we ever allowed to refuse?

Well, let’s look more closely at deprive.

If I were to say to you, “do not deprive your child of good food,” what am I implying? I’m saying that your child should get the food that is commonly recognized for good health: three healthy meals a day, with some snacks. I am not saying that every time your child pulls at your leg and says, “Mommy, can I have a bag of cheetos?” that you have to say yes. You are not depriving your child of good food by refusing a request for Cheetos.

Deprive implies that there is a level of sexual activity that is necessary for a healthy marriage.

What Does 1 Corinthians 7:5–Do Not Deprive Each Other–Really Mean? []

More recently, this year in her new book The Great Sex Rescue, Sheila repeated this same assertion.

A Closer Look at “Do Not Deprive”

Let’s take a step back and ask, What is God really asking of us in 1 Corinthians 7:3-5?(…)what does it mean not to deprive, and what is it that we’re being asked not to deprive our spouse of?

Saying “Do not deprive” is not the equivalent of saying “Do not refuse.” When we say “Do not deprive,” we’re saying, “Someone has a need that has to be fulfilled.” But this is not the same thing as saying, “A person gets to have whatever they want.” God made us with a need for food. If your child asks, “Can I have Cheetos?” and you refuse because lunch is in an hour, you are not depriving her of food. The child’s need is for a healthy, balanced diet, not to eat anything she wants, any time she wants.

Likewise, the sexual need that God created us with is not for intercourse whenever we want or however we want. It’s for a healthy, mutual, fulfilling sex life, and sometimes that means saying no for a variety of reasons.

The Great Sex Rescue, 2021, Pages 173-174

As you can see, Sheila is quite attached to this assertion, but it remains just that. An assertion. Notice I did not call it an “argument”, and that’s because she argued for nothing. She claims that “Do not deprive” is not the equivalent of saying “Do not refuse,” but she never proves that. While we frequently use these two words interchangeably, Sheila insists they mean distinctly different things. Yet if one simply examines the word “deprive” in the dictionary, what do you find?

deprive [ dih-prahyv ]
verb (used with object), de·prived, de·priv·ing.
to remove or withhold something from the enjoyment or possession of (a person or persons): to deprive a man of life; to deprive a baby of candy. explicitly refutes Sheila’s definition of ‘deprive’. Even her ludicrous comparison between a husband’s sexual desires and a child’s desire for Cheetos is debunked by this definition: “to deprive a baby of candy.” Clearly babies do not need candy, they merely want candy. And yet, to remove/withhold candy from a baby is still an act of deprivation. The word can be used either way, as can the word ‘refuse’.

In light of this, when we see 1 Corinthians 7:5 say, “Do not deprive one another,” its meaning is clear. Neither spouse in a marriage is permitted to refuse sex to the other. This interpretation doesn’t simply rest on the use of the word deprive, of course. Verses 1-5 flow together in an unbroken line of thought. Men and women are commanded to marry because of temptation to sexual sin in verses 1-2. Verse 3 follows up by describing access to your spouse’s body for sexual intercourse as a conjugal “right”. Not a reward or something you must first earn- it is a right, I.E. something each spouse is entitled to receive from the other. Verse 4 fortifies this by saying that both the husband and wife must have sex with each other because they don’t have authority over their own body, but their spouse does. Verse 5’s condemnation of depriving your spouse of sex except in highly exceptional circumstances is the final nail in the coffin.

That is how we can know how the word “deprive” is being used. The word in itself does not carry some special meaning that redefines what came before it. On the contrary, what came before it defines the meaning of that word. Sheila’s bare assertion ignores Paul’s flow of thought, ignores the interchangeable meanings of “deprive” and “refuse”, ignores how the words are defined in the dictionary, and hence, she doesn’t have a single leg to stand on.

Then again, why worry about such things when you think you know better than the Bible anyway? (From pages 177-178)

Rescuing and Reframing

  • Instead of saying, “Do not deprive your husband,” say, “Sex is a vital part of a healthy marriage relationship that you are both meant to enjoy.”(…)
  • Instead of saying, “You do not have authority over your body; your spouse does,” say, “God wants sex to be a mutual, loving experience.”
  • Instead of saying, “The only activity that is to break regular sexual relations is prayer and fasting for some specific cause, and this to be only by mutual consent for a very limited time,” say, “Our sexual needs are very important ones, but they are not the only ones. Show love to your spouse by caring for all of their needs.”

Interesting approach from a woman who wrote a book with the subtitle, “…How to Recover What God Intended” by telling people not to say what God himself said.

Debunking the Myth that “Marital Sex Is Not A Solution For Lust”

Bnonn & Foster sent out their latest newsletter yesterday titled, “Notes on manhood 2021 week #25″. In it they revealed that they’re still just as stunted in their views of biblical sexuality as your standard Christian feminist:

Let us leave behind magic numbers, and move onto wise principles for knowing whether a couple is ready for marriage. Here are five: (…) 5. Focus on training your sons and daughters to harness their sexual energy towards productive ends. So much of the young marriage stuff is motivated by parents who think their children can’t overcome lust and stay chaste into their early 20s. But marrying young is not a solution for this. Sex does not cure lust; it merely channels sexual energy licitly. A man who has not learned to control his eyes before marriage, for instance, is not going to do any better after marriage, and is frankly not marriage material.

This kind of attitude towards marital sex can be found everywhere. At Blazing Grace, Mike Genung wrote a scathing piece on this subject, but it can be summed up with this paragraph:

Continue reading

Struggling With Pornography And Assurance Of Salvation

Despite my very strong disagreement with Jason Engwer in the comments section of this post, the article he wrote is excellent. If you’re a Christian man weary of the struggle with looking at porn, quitting, succumbing to looking at it again, then read this article. It encourages you to keep up the fight, but lays out why you shouldn’t despair when you fail. No excuses are offered, but comfort can be found once you’ve been able to take a step back and assess your walk with the Lord in spite of your struggle.

“The fact that your use of pornography casts doubt on the genuineness of your faith doesn’t change the fact that your pornography use and other sins are accompanied elsewhere in your life by evidence of salvation. Just as it would make no sense to look only at the positive aspects of your life while ignoring the negatives (like pornography use), it likewise would make no sense to look only at the negatives.”

Daring To Enforce Modesty Standards

Not so long ago I had a discussion with some family members about weddings being a church-sanctioned slut-fest for the women. For some reason, the bride, her maids, and even the women in the pews think it’s okay to wear low-hanging tops, super transparent dresses, skirts with slits, and so on. The bride especially seems to get away with the most blatant of it all, in terms of the low-cut tops.

Why do Christians allow this? It’s the same reason fathers in homes are reluctant to confront their teenage daughter when she starts breaking the boundaries for proper attire in his home. When daddy’s girl suddenly starts wearing inappropriate outfits, most fathers with rose-tinted glasses are stunned. They’re reluctant to confront her because they can’t comprehend what’s going on. Why is my baby girl doing this when she knows full-well I don’t approve of this?

The answer is simple: She knows you don’t want to confront her. It’s a dare- what the manosphere likes to call a s**t-test.

Daughters don’t usually ask permission to wear a slutty/near-slutty outfit. They just start wearing it to see what happens; To see if daddy will actually make them put on something more appropriate. This is a painful thing for a father to endure, even if he does muster up the willpower to call her out. No father wants to deal with that if he has to. He would rather delude himself that his daughter has a good reason for it, or even a lame but semi-plausible excuse. For example:

“It’s a prom dress! It’s only for one night!”

“I don’t have anything else to wear!”

“I’ll only be wearing it around the house!”

“It’s just when I’m hanging out with my friends!”

Daughters give these kind of excuses, hoping that their dad will just let the issue go. They have good reason to hope that will happen, because very often, it does. They know their dad is their friend, and he doesn’t relish the prospect of getting into a confrontation. Should Daddy have the nerve to see through this nonsense and call his daughter out anyway, there’s something else to worry about. It’s when his daughter goes to her mother for sympathy behind your back, and the wife confronts her husband.

“Our daughter is 15! It’s not a big deal! She needs to have her freedom! You know we can’t control her forever!”

Most men can see through this B.S. The Mom is fighting for her daughter’s freedom to be a slut.* The response to this kind of confrontation is very simple. It could be,

“Stop. Our daughter isn’t allowed to dress like that. End of discussion.”


“Our 15-year old daughter is trying to dress like a whore. That is a VERY big deal to me, and I’m the man of this house. You will not team-up with my own daughter against me like I’m the enemy. I get it- We can’t control her forever, but we can now, and we will. If you find her wearing inappropriate clothes, you’re going to take them from her and throw them away the very same day. She doesn’t need “freedom”. She needs to act like the Christian she claims to be.”

It takes resolve for a man to stand his ground against his wife, but most Christian men simply don’t have it. When we cave early in life, are we at all surprised that daddy’s baby girl wears a strapless-dress with a super low cut top at her wedding? Of course we aren’t. By now that’s an accepted practice to which no one dare raise objection.

That’s what the battle for modest apparel boils down to: A dare. Go ahead, tell your daughter not to wear jeans- see how much WRATH you will incur from your friends/neighbors if you do! Tell your daughter her prom-dress is too-low cut, and tell her she will not be permitted to attend unless she dresses like a lady. Let’s see you do it, big man! You sure you’ll do it? Do you have the guts? You know she’ll hate you. She’ll cry. She’ll try and turn your wife against you, and then you’ll have to deal with HER next.

When I talked about this with my family, I realized that most men won’t even try to impose a modesty standard at weddings specifically because they’re facing this battle alone.

However, if only the groom and 2 other men agree that they will not tolerate immodesty at the wedding no matter the fallout… Then… Who is going to stop them?

I doubt most Christian men have ever considered this before, but it’s quite simple. Think about it- It takes 1, maybe 2 men to keep the doors locked and only allow select persons into the building. As long as those men are prepared to turn away any woman at all- even the mother of the bride herself on the wedding day, then the problem is solved.

Bear in mind that you will have women who will test your resolve. I expect that on my or my brothers wedding days, some nice Christian lady will hear of our rule against, say, low-cut tops, and decide to take this opportunity to flaunt her disrespect. As men, we wouldn’t expect her to. After all, we had been reasonable, so surely, she will be reasonable in return! This is our wedding, we were clear about the dress code, and she wouldn’t pull some dirty trick on today of all days! That would be horrible!

But then this nice Christian lady does exactly that. Why wouldn’t she? She’s going to dress the way she likes, and no MAN is going to stand in her way. She has every reason to expect that she can break the rules and get away with it. This isn’t daring for her- the only one being dared is you. Surely you won’t turn her away at the door- it’s the wedding day! She’s the mother of the bride! Just let her in!

Most Christian men would just give up imposing their standard of modesty at this point. There was no plan for something like this! They probably prayed, “Dear God, please don’t let her screw with us today. Just let this one day be one where she just does what we asked!” But God didn’t grant your request, and you just feel that sinking feeling in your chest when you realize it’s all on you to put a stop to this, and you know you don’t have what it takes.

That’s why you have to plan ahead to take the ultimate dare. If you’re going to impose a modesty standard, prepare as if the absolute worst case scenario is a guarantee. Prepare mentally, as though the wedding ceremony will have to proceed without the mother of the bride and/or groom. Hopefully, the worst will not happen. But should you dare to impose your standard, be prepared to accept the worst.

*God only knows how it is that mothers find it so important to fight for their daughter’s freedom to act like a whore. I don’t understand why. No husband thinks it critically important to defend his son’s desire to have sex with women. But even Christian mothers have this unique, bizarre desire to prove what a friend they are to their daughters by going to bat for them when daddy disapproves of her whorish behavior. I welcome discussion on this.

Marital Sex MUST Be “Mutual”!

Sometime back Sheila was going on a Twitter-campaign to let the world know just how eeeeevil the book Love & Respect is.

I’m not interested in defending the book Love and Respect per say, but rather, this assumed belief Sheila has that sex must be mutually gratifying or mutually fulfilling in some manner.

I challenged Sheila to provide Scripture to prove this assertion of hers- that “sex should be mutual.”

Unsurprisingly, this stalwart rescuer of Christian women around the globe eventually just blocked me.

For a man standing behind what the Scripture says and only what the Scripture says, he can see Sheila’s nonsense with perfect clarity. The Bible never says that if you have sex purely for physical reasons that you are committing a sin. Nor does the Bible say that it’s a sin for a husband or a wife to have sex purely for their own satisfaction and not their spouse’s. On the fundamental level, there isn’t a verse that even hints at such a concept.

Sheila didn’t care to acknowledge this fact. Instead she resorts to good old-fashioned poisoning of the well. “It is pornography that talks about sex as being about a man taking what he wants.” No, Sheila. That’s the way God talks about sex. It’s straight out of the book of Proverbs:

Proverbs 5:15 (ESV) Drink water from your own cistern, flowing water from your own well. 16 Should your springs be scattered abroad, streams of water in the streets? 17 Let them be for yourself alone, and not for strangers with you. 18 Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth, 19 a lovely deer, a graceful doe. Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight; be intoxicated always in her love. 20 Why should you be intoxicated, my son, with a forbidden woman and embrace the bosom of an adulteress?

The Holy Spirit who inspired King Solomon to write this book felt quite comfortable talking about sex being about a man taking what he wants. The man wants sex, and so he is commanded to drink from his own cistern/well. He’s even being explicitly told to use his wife’s boobs to satisfy him at all times. No such mention of the mutual gratification/fulfillment on the wife’s part is mentioned, and for Sheila, that just won’t do.

Proverbs 5 “never once talked about how sex should be mutual and how it was created for her too” either. As you can see though, that isn’t important to Sheila. She never offered a verse proving what she kept asserting was a required feature of marital sex. Does that phase her? Not one wit, because the Scriptures simply don’t matter to her. If we’re going to talk about pure and simple abominations, I’d say that comes pretty darn close.

Purity Balls: Women-Worship Fests

Purity balls are an exclusively feminine celebration. Making a public promise to remain sexually pure would be awkward and embarrassing- unless you’re a collection of young women in a church. Then it’s time to celebrate! Glorious times are ahead! A celebration is in order! Let’s have a banquet at church!

Some of these purity balls dial it right up to 11. The young women are given fancy dresses, purity rings, and even tiaras to wear like they’re literal princesses. The young men in the church may even be made to dress up in suits and be their servants, laying out the food for them. Seriously, I am not making this up. Even the young men in the church are forced to participate in this cringe-fest. They’re acting like literal servants to royalty.

There is nothing true, good, or beautiful about this. It should never be permitted to happen in any church where the men are truly in charge. If anyone were to propose such an event to me, I’d offer by way of refusal, “How about we also hold a purity celebration for the young men in the church? We’ll do it the exact same way, except the young men will dress like royalty. They’ll be treated like princes, and the young women will dress in maid outfits to serve the meal at the banquet later.”

No Christian, male or female, would ever agree to host such an event. But why not? Because it’s creepy? Yeah, no kidding, but it shouldn’t be. If it’s totally not-creepy for young men to dress up as servants and literally serve women their food, then it’s also not-creepy to dress those young women as maids and make them servants to the young men.

But the people who will propose such an event are mostly women, so they don’t care about such reasoning. I went into this with Sharkly back in September when we talked about how to deal with disobedient wives- Women do not care if you can prove they’re being hypocritical. They can dismiss such legitimate criticisms in the blink of an eye, and feel no shame whatsoever in doing so. It’s not just because women are dumb, but it’s because a much more sinister plan is in mind- the brainwashing of young men.

Most moms want young men to believe the best about women, even if it means convincing them to believe a lie. They have to teach a lie, because the truth is too damning to admit. I’m not just talking about secular, unsaved women here. I’m including Christian mothers as well. They could never sit down and have a frank, honest talk with their sons as to what young women are really like. Imagine a Christian mom sitting her son down and explaining this to him with complete honesty:

“Johnny, if you want to find a good wife, you can’t keep being such a nice guy. In fact, it’s better that you act like a jerk than act so nice. The truth is, even the girls at church think about dirty things just like you do. Why, when I was a teenager, I saw the movie Labyrinth with David Bowie. He was such an ugly creep, but I couldn’t stop thinking about him for months! I would give anything to be with him even for one night! I know, I know, it’s embarrassing, and you don’t want to hear this- but Johnny, that’s what women are like. They say they like nice guys, but they’re lying. They’ll laugh at you behind your back as soon as they’re left alone. Don’t fall for it, okay, Johnny?”

Yeah, no. No mom, no matter how Christian, no matter how sanctified would be caught dead talking to her son this way. However, do not make the mistake of thinking, “Well, that’s just because it would be embarrassing.” That is NOT true. Moms are quite capable of saying and doing embarrassing things in front of their family, but they’ll never have a truthful conversation about female sexuality with their sons. That’s too hot to handle.

So why do moms want their church to have purity balls then?? If you can’t teach the young men in the church the truth, why lie to them instead? Why not just remain quiet and let the Father handle their sexual education? Because they want to teach a lie. Nobody is forcing them to lie. They are doing so of their own accord, and their determination is strong. That’s why your silly counter-offer for a men’s purity ball would will be dismissed without hesitation. So what’s a little hypocrisy if it means pushing through with the end-goal, namely, the brainwashing of young men?

And so a purity ball is held where the young men are taught that these young Christian women really aren’t the sexual degenerates their own mothers know them to be. Thus, Johnny is made to believe a complete and total lie by the nice Christian ladies in the church.

You know, when you take this all into consideration, it truly is a sober reminder that even our Christian sisters in the Lord really are still sinners. Let’s not kid ourselves, they aren’t just mischievous- they’re evil as hell. Next time someone proposes a purity ball be held in your church, shut it down immediately, if you have the power. Protect your young men, dear readers.