Chores, Sex, Marital Health, and People Who Didn’t Finish Reading the Article.

Christians for Biblical Equality, one of my favorite church organizations, took the month of September to tackle the topic of sex within egalitarian Christian marriages on their blog, The Scroll. This led to some wonderful articles. I’m thrilled to see a religious organization that values equality talk about sexuality and intimacy, since that topic comes up so frequently in complementarian camps.

This spurred me to publicize a related blog post that I first wrote almost two years ago. I was pleased with it, but life got in the way of posting until I feared too much time had passed for it to feel relevant anymore. Not wanting it to go to waste, I thought it might be an interesting companion to CBE’s September discussion of sex from an egalitarian perspective.

Here, without further ado, is a blog post I penned in February of 2014. Enjoy!

————

I really hate when things come along that appear to contradict my most dearly-held paradigms. But what I hate even more is when people take a really complex issue and reduce it to simplicity for the sake of making a pithy article.

I wasn’t very thrilled when a recent study suggested that couples who divide their chores along traditional gender lines might have better sex than couples who divide chores in an egalitarian way.

The study, “Egalitarianism, Housework, and Sexual Frequency In Marriage,” showed that, on average, couples who distribute household labor equally rather than by gender (“egalitarian” couples) had sex 1.5 fewer times a month than those who ascribe to traditional gender divisions of labor (“traditional” couples). It also noted that women tended to report higher sexual satisfaction in the more traditional relationships.

A traditional role division would be a woman doing dishes, laundry, cooking, and otherwise channeling June Cleaver, while the man did labor-intensive or outdoorsy stuff.

Things got hot when popular pastor Owen Strachan went on record with the Christian Post, stating that this study indicates God’s blessing upon couples who live traditional gender roles and reject egalitarianism. Strachan, the president of the complementarian organization Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, says, “This particular study gives evidence that there definitely are differences between men and women – that men are called to provide and there’s a certain mystery to manhood that draws women.” He goes on to state, “There’s a design for our sexuality and a design in our bodies. When we respect that design, we receive God’s blessing.”

Now, I don’t mind that Strachan immediately tied this to complementarian theology. That’s understandable; any of us would talk about research that appears to support our beliefs, and he shouldn’t be lambasted simply for opening his mouth. My problem is that he and the Post make it sound so simple.

Strachan glosses over many other things in the report and ultimately ends up ignoring factors that might contradict his conclusions—all because of his hurry to match up the findings to theological bullet points.

Keep in mind that we don’t know if Strachan actually read the study’s findings or just responded to a description given to him by the Post. It may not entirely be his fault that his conclusions fail to address the whole story. But someone needs to bring to light those other factors, and it looks like I’m the one at the keyboard.

1. The Bigger Picture

The Post focuses on Strachan’s reaction to the sex angle of this study. But the original study mentioned other factors, such as marital strife and the wife’s emotional happiness, and stated egalitarianism had a positive effect on these things:

For example, research shows that when men do more housework, wives’ perceptions of fairness and marital satisfaction tend to rise (Amato et al. 2003; Stevens, Kiger, and Mannon 2005) and couples experience less marital conflict (Coltrane 2000).

…shows that U.S. couples who have more equal divisions of labor are less likely to divorce than are couples where one partner specializes in breadwinning and the other partner specializes in family work (Cooke 2006).

Recent studies show that husbands’ participation in household labor is often associated with wives’ reports of higher marital quality (Amato et al. 2003; Stevens et al. 2005).

Clearly, it’s unfair to use sex as evidence that complementarianism works better, while ignoring important marital factors that indicate egalitarianism works better. You can’t just praise research where it supports you, and ignore the pieces that challenge you. Strachan and the Post should have looked at the whole story if they would look at it at all.

Moving on, what are we to make of the fact that complementarianism, or traditionalism, seems to positively impact one facet of marriage, while the opposite approach tends to positively impact other aspects? Which one is the “right” answer?

The truth is, no one study ever has all the answers about marriage. It’s a complex institution. That’s why I actually found the New York Times’ perspective on this story much more helpful than the Christian Post. Ironically, the NYT article was linked in the Post’s write-up. From the NYT article:

Is the trade-off of egalitarian marriage necessarily less sexual heat? It’s possible that the sexual scripts we currently follow will evolve along with our marital arrangements so that sameness becomes sexy. Regardless, more people marrying today are choosing egalitarian setups for the many other benefits they offer. If every sexual era is unhappy in its own way, it may be that we will begin to think of the challenges of egalitarian marriages less as drawbacks and more like, well, life, with its inherent limitations on how exciting any particular aspect can be.

We don’t know everything. We can’t answer all the questions. But we should at least admit the questions are there, admit when a situation is complicated, rather than looking at one piece of a study and using it as proof of sweeping generalizations.

2. Complementarianism—Or Just Housework?

I also find it problematic that Strachan uses this study to defend complementarianism in general. Complementarianism encompasses all aspects of marriage, from who makes decisions to who is considered the spiritual leader to who works or takes care of kids. The study cited in the Post was looking at one thing, and one thing only—the division of household chores along gender lines.

Strachan brings up issues of breadwinning (“Adam was made to…provide for his family”), childcare (“Men who return home sweaty do more to attract their wives than men who have been at home all day caring for the children”) and male leadership (“dominion-taking nature in masculine work”), when in actuality, this study did not mention breadwinning, childcare, or leadership qualities.

As far as we know from this study, a dad could stay home with his kids and let his wife make spiritual decisions, but as long as he mows while she’s loading the dishwasher, they’ll be getting it on once the kids are in bed.

Maybe Strachan brought those things up, and the Post quoted them, simply because they’re the bulwark of complementarian teaching and bore repeating. But it ended up making Strachan’s argument look overblown compared to the actual study.

(How often do you think a Christian pastor like Strachan comes home sweaty, by the way?)

3. 60/40? 50/50? 70/30?

Well, maybe Strachan brought up the breadwinning thing because of that other study, mentioned in the NYT article and again by the Post, which says couples are less likely to divorce if the wife only earns 40 percent of the household income as opposed to a more equitable split.

In all the hoopla about what this might mean, one important point got overlooked. The statistics cited claimed that the BEST role division (in terms of divorce statistics) is the breadwinning divide of husband 60/wife 40. That means couples in which the husband earns 70 percent—or all of it!—while the wife earns less or is a STAHM, actually have a slightly higher chance (statistically) of divorce.

How does that fit with the idea of man as God-ordained provider, if the marriage will be stronger with the wife putting in more than 30 percent of the provision?

I mean, come on. We’re describing a relationship that, percentage-wise, is as close to 50/50 as you can get without actually going there, and we’re saying that DISPROVES the benefits of sharing roles more equally?

Really?

4. I’ll Trade You

If complementarian roles do lead to better sex—what then?

Strachan believes the increased libido in traditional couples proves God’s “blessing” on marriage, but how do you define what God’s “blessing” is? Couldn’t decreased friction in marriage, increased emotional intimacy, and lower levels of divorce—things found in egalitarian dynamics—be considered “blessings” as well?

In fact, those things seem to mirror the fruits of the spirit. I don’t remember strong orgasms being on that fruit tree. That’s not to say sexual satisfaction is unimportant—just pointing out that it’s weird for a Christian to prioritize steamy bedroom shenanigans as indicators of a good marriage over and above harmony and emotional intimacy between partners (usually Christians accuse The World of having such backwards priorities…hm).

But this brings up an even bigger question. Let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that you do have to become more complementarian to have the hottest sex possible. Well, what would you be willing to trade off in your marriage for the best possible sex?

I’ll pose this question to myself. Would I be willing to feel a little less “in tune” with Jaron because our roles had differentiated? Would I be willing to understand him a little less, to see him as a little more “other?” Would I be willing to be a little less honest with him about my thoughts and feelings in the name of submission (submission being something that is part and parcel with Strachan’s view of traditional gender roles)? Would I be willing to feel a little less like his best friend and a little more like a woman fulfilling a role to him?

For me, the answer is no. These things are not worth bedroom benefits, because they’re too important to the rest of the relationship. Put it this way: if we assume, for the sake of argument, that I’m choosing between sex/comp and emotion/egal, it’s way easier to choose egal and work to make the sex better, than to choose comp and work to make EVERY OTHER PART OF MY MARRIAGE better.

5. Well, this is embarrassing.

Let’s not forget that the NYT article referenced in the Post also described the sexual benefits reaped by gay men who choose sexual partners based on differences. Strachan believes that increased libido due to different roles clearly shows God’s favor. Yet he also believes that same-sex relationships are against God’s will. So what does he do with the fact that gay couples who choose different partners seem to reap the same “blessings” as more traditional heterosexual couples?

For these and other reasons, I found the Post article to be oh so lacking, and Strachan’s comments to be predictable but ultimately useless. If you’re not going to look at the whole issue, then what good are your comments?

I do have to give him kudos, though, for saying things like “I don’t do theology by polling.” I don’t do theology that way either. And thumbs-up to the Post for including a viewpoint from the other side in Mimi Haddad.

In any case, for now, let’s choose our relationship arrangements based on what builds healthy, long-lasting partnerships, and leave concerns about the hottest sex possible to magazines in the supermarket aisle (I mean, let’s face it, they’ve already got that subject matter well-covered).