Tag 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? [https://tolovehonorandvacuum.com/2012/10/what-does-1-corinthians-7-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.


Dictionary.com 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.

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.

Washer Exaggerating The Problem of Lust

Starting at 50:28:

Paul told Timothy to flee youthful lust. Timothy was a young man. He said flee youthful lust. You live in one of the most lustful and exposed ages in history, not because men have gotten worse, it’s just the opportunities have gotten greater. Internet, media, everything. So, you’re bombarded by every sort of image and every sort of lustful thing. Young men, if you want to have a passionate love-relationship with your wife, guard your eyes. Because here’s what’s going to happen-the world put- does any of you remember Cindy Crawford? The famous supermodel Cindy Crawford? Okay. I was listening to her one time I was on, I think it was CNN or something, I don’t know where it was. I think it was an airport. And she said a statement that I thought was remarkable- she said what everyone needs to understand is Cindy Crawford doesn’t look like Cindy Crawford. And her poll point was after they take a picture of me they do all kinds of things. They make my legs longer. If I’m bent this way, and that little roll of fat they take it out. You see, here’s the problem, young man, you fill your mind with a bunch of images of something that’s not even real. Not even those girls look like that. And then you marry and you enslave your wife. Do you see that, you see how it can mess with your head? You didn’t marry a beautiful woman, you didn’t do this because our whole view of beauty is just absolutely twisted and perverted. I hate it because it kills women. It kills them dead. That’s why one of the reasons why you want to protect your eyes, because the more you protect your eyes now from looking at media and looking at other human beings, the more you will be able to passionately love one woman.

This was posted at least as early as March 4th, 2011 (see here).

Here we have a passionate brother in the Lord succumbing to the temptation to exaggerate the danger of a problem to pander to feminist sensibilities. Obviously Paul Washer didn’t literally mean that when men consume sexual imagery, it enslaves women, or causes women to die. What he meant is that you will conceive an unnaturally high standard of what a beautiful woman is, and then you’ll be unable to passionately love your wife since she could never meet your standard.

I.) When you blow a problem out of proportion, you always leave yourself wide open to saying things that make no sense. Paul Washer is proposing that a Christian man’s standard of beauty could be so high that he could not “passionately love one woman”, but he would desire to marry in spite of that. Why would such a man even propose marriage if he felt no passion in the first place?

II.) Maybe Paul Washer thinks that a Christian man will marry an unattractive woman and have delusional expectations that she will become unnaturally beautiful later on. Again, this is a fake problem. It’s not real. Even the people who read Doug Wilson’s books aren’t that brainwashed, and he literally does teach that.

III.) Even your average Christian male porn-addict knows better than Paul Washer about manufactured beauty. Supermodel bodies are not fake. They may be rare, but they are not fake. So he heard Cindy Crawford talk about how her photographers alter the appearance of her skin and shape. Big deal. I guarantee you that at the height of Crawford’s career, that editing was minimal if not absent altogether in her best work. Men are also well-aware that women beautify their faces with makeup. That’s technically fake beauty, but I doubt Washer would say that “kills women”.

IV.) I will grant that a man who has no passionate feelings towards a woman should not marry that woman IF passionate feelings = sexual arousal. But again, this is where a Christian man addicted to porn would have greater insight into this issue. The industry is over-flowing with pornography produced by complete amateurs. Their ugliness and bodily flaws are on full-display, and yet men devour it regularly. They are quite capable of passionately loving such women, even though they could click away to look at women who are far more beautiful by comparison.

V.) Paul Washer did say he was speaking off the top of his head just prior to the quote above. While that’s not how you want to approach such a complex subject, that’s not why he was wrong to say what he did. We have a cloistered preacher who learned about photo editing once, ran wild with it, started bemoaning fake problems that don’t exist, and used all of that to warn young men to guard their eyes. This is a classic example of why you really need to just stick to what the Bible says. It’s often far more simple and straightforward:

Proverbs 6:23 For the commandment is a lamp and the teaching a light,
and the reproofs of discipline are the way of life,
24 to preserve you from the evil woman,
from the smooth tongue of the adulteress.
25 Do not desire her beauty in your heart,
and do not let her capture you with her eyelashes;
26 for the price of a prostitute is only a loaf of bread,
but a married woman hunts down a precious life.
27 Can a man carry fire next to his chest
and his clothes not be burned?
28 Or can one walk on hot coals
and his feet not be scorched?
29 So is he who goes in to his neighbor’s wife;
none who touches her will go unpunished.

Is Sheila Gregoire An Expert on Marriage or Isn’t She?

Buckle up. We got a long one here.

I checked Amazon.com, and confirmed that Sheila really is writing another book about sex, and it’s set to be released on March 2nd, 2021. I gotta say, that’s a pretty blasé cover. This looks like some cheap cover you’d find printed back in the early 2000’s by a publishing company that didn’t have any faith in their product. Maybe Gregoire and co. haven’t made up their minds on the final design.

I’ll tell you one thing I can’t figure out about Sheila- has she even made up her mind on whether she’s an expert on marriage? She’s claimed to have an informed perspective on marriage since at least March 6th of 2012*. Take this description from The Good Girl’s Guide to Great Sex on Amazon: Continue reading

As a Matter of Fact, Yes- God Takes Women’s Sexual Sin VERY Seriously.

If we believed Christian women every time they spoke of their past in terms of their sexual sin, you wouldn’t think they were normal people who sin like everyone does. No, you would think at least 75% of them were perfectly innocent women who were all raped and/or molested as a child. I can’t remember when I heard someone make that remark for the first time, but I believe it wholeheartedly. Christian women will even lie to prospective Christian husbands when they inevitably discuss what she’s done sexually in the past. She’ll claim that her old boyfriend(s) forced her into sex. That’s not what happened, but since women refuse to bear any shame for what they’ve done, they make malicious accusations of rape to salvage their non-existent purity in the eyes of a Godly man.

A Christian women can lie like this knowing full-well that her naive Christian boyfriend is more than willing to play the sympathy card should she even imply that the sex she had in the past wasn’t consensual. On the off-chance that he doesn’t fall for it, it’s still okay. Should he dare to call her out, he’ll be dog-piled by his church and his family for his cruelty.

Frankly, we don’t even know the meaning of that word. Let’s allow God’s law in Deuteronomy to cleanse the feminism from our minds:

Laws Concerning Sexual Immorality

Deuteronomy 22:20 But if the thing is true, that evidence of virginity was not found in the young woman, 21 then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done an outrageous thing in Israel by whoring in her father’s house. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

Please note that this not God condemning a woman to death for literally being a prostitute. This was a woman who married a man with the understanding that she was a virgin, and her husband discovered that she wasn’t. To the utter shock of modern day Christians who quake at the thought of preaching to women about their own sinful behavior, God calls such a woman an outrageous whore. God even told the MEN—those despicable slut-shaming brutes—to not only judge her (how dare they!), but to KILL her. They were to bring her to the door of her dad’s house and hit her with rocks until she was dead.

God doesn’t screw around when it comes to women’s sexual sin. Contrary to what most preachers will tell you, God did not put men down for daring to demand they receive what they rightfully deserve. A man who marries a virgin in good faith deserves a virgin for a bride. If a woman lied that she was a virgin in order to take advantage of a man, then that man had the God-given right to fight back. He could expose her and demand evidence of her purity from her mom and dad. If there was no evidence, then death awaited his lying whore bride.

That just won’t do for Christians these days. Even when clear and irrefutable evidence of women’s sins are placed before them, they’ve got one more tactic. They’ll grant that you’re right- okay, it’s true, she’s in the wrong, but guess what? There’s still something wrong with YOU. You’re supposed to model Christ, right? Then if your wife cheats on you or lies about her virginity, just look it as a golden opportunity to exemplify the love of Christ! And if you don’t, you’re a big bad meanie!

You know what? I bet 100% of the whores who were stoned to death thought the men of the city were pretty mean too. That didn’t stop God from mandating their execution.

If you think about it, God’s mandated punishment is downright ferocious. Consider how this punishment would impact her parents as well! Can you imagine the agony that her father and mother would feel as they listened to their daughter bang on the door of their house, begging for daddy to come and save her, and not being able to come to her rescue? And then to come out and see her shredded corpse with her blood and brains splattered all over the place? And then having to clean it up afterwards!? It’s terrifying when you really think about it.

God wasn’t done though. Not by a long shot.

22 “If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman. So you shall purge the evil from Israel.

God doesn’t just look down on women who lie about their virginity. If a woman cheats on her husband, she also deserves to die. What about women who cheated on a man she was betrothed to?

23 “If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, 24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor’s wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

Wait- so even if the man initiates the sex, the woman is obligated to make a good faith effort to make him stop? What kind of victim-blaming is this!? Who do we think we are?

We’re men mandated by God to see the world as he sees it. That’s who we are. If God thinks a woman is required to make a good faith effort to fight for her purity, then that’s what we need to think. If God thinks a woman is an outrageous whore for lying about her sexual past in order to snag a man, then that’s also what we need to think. All Christian men need to consider just how desperate they are to marry if they suspect their girlfriend isn’t as pure as she claims. God wants us to take women’s sexual sin seriously, because as Deuteronomy makes crystal clear, he takes it very VERY seriously.