According to Pastor It Takes One Man and Woman Married To Equal A Whole – so where does that leave Christian singles ? / Too Much Sex Talk
I’m typing this as I’m watching a Christian show by a guy.
I will be referring to him as a preacher, but I think he may just be a talk show host and author; I’m not sure. His site is “marriage today.com.”
(Edit, June 2021: Evans is re-branding his “marriage ministry” to call it (Link): “XO Marriage“)
His name is Jimmy Evans. His wife’s first name is Karen.
I have a couple of points of disagreement with this guy, and one area of agreement.
Evans is repeating the old cliches that men are visually responsive, men turn on instantly, while women are emotionally responsive. (Which is not true – a lot of women are in fact “visual” – (Link):please see this link for more, as well as additional links at the bottom of this post.)
I concede that men and women are not identical in some areas, and that there is a certain amount of truths in those cliches, but this trope about men being “more sexual” and “more visual” while women have no interest in sex and are not visually stimulated needs to die – because it’s not entirely true, not true for all women, or is exaggerated.
Most men may want to have sex more often than most women, but it does not follow from this that all women always want is a cuddle or to read romance novels – and this is the assumption made by male pastors giving marital sex sermons.
Now the preacher, Evans, is explaining that “men are half, women are half, it takes a (married) man and woman together to equal a whole.”
Evans also said it takes half his brain and half his wife’s to equal a whole brain.
I, your blog author, Christian Pundit, have never married, I am alone, so is Evans saying I have only “one-half a brain” and I am not whole as I am? That is not only insulting, but the Bible says singles are whole on their own.
The Bible does not teach that an unmarried person is incomplete, lacking, or less human than people in a married partnership. Yet, Evans seems to be teaching these concepts, and it was one of the more troubling aspects of his sermon.
For people who complain that preachers don’t talk about sex enough – spare me. The opposite is true. This guy I’m watching now, Evans, even went so far as to use the phrases “oral sex,” “sex toys” and “the missionary position.”
He just over shared that his wife Karen has always “met his sexual needs.” I don’t need to know that specifically about him.
The only kudo I can give this preacher guy: he is now lecturing married couples to be sexually pure. He told them to stay away from dirty sites, don’t fantasize about other people, control your thought life.
That is rare. Often, when sexual purity is discussed, it is only assumed by preachers that unmarried people commit sexual sin. It’s assumed that because married people are getting their sexual needs met, they have no cause to commit fornication – this is false.
I disagree with this pastor about his point of “don’t develop emotional relationships” with people outside of marriage.
Sorry, as a single woman, I get isolated and lonely in part because married people will not befriend me because it’s assumed either I am a temptress, or that married men are horny bastards who will make the move on every unmarried woman they meet.
Evans says according to some survey he read, that 90% of married Christian women admit to being attracted to someone other than their husband. Interesting point for several reasons.
I agree with Evans that a husband needs to meet the woman’s emotional needs and pursue her and romance her outside the bedroom. That is very important.
Now TMI (too much information): he mentioned “quickies” – yes, he used that very word – in the context of, “you know guys, sometimes sex in the morning is the best time to have sex.” Really dude, I don’t need to know that you personally enjoy sex in the mornings. Eww.
Evans briefly, very briefly, spent some time telling married men to stop comparing women to women in dirty magazines, one reason being that pr0n (pr0n = dirty magazines, films, sites) spreads the lie that all women are 100% sexual and do not have emotional needs.
There is a lot of truth in that, I suppose, and while I did not whip out a stop watch to time how long he spent on this topic, it seemed to me he spent longer chastising married women over romance novels, much more than he did over men who look at pr0n.
Evans not only seemed to spend more time lambasting women viewing romance books than he did Christian men looking at naked women in movies and X rated sites, but he seemed more animated about it.
I would prefer to see a male preacher spend equal time on stereotypical male fondness for pr0n and stereotypical female fondness for romance novels, or show an equal amount of hostility for both, but in my view, Evans seemed a bit more peeved about women reading romance novels. I find that sexist. If you’re going to condemn the stereotypical female use of romance novels (I say “stereotypical” because not all women read them or enjoy them), you need to be equally livid about men looking at “Playboy” magazine and so on.
My suspicion is that most men, even the Christian ones, are delighted to compare (Christian) women to airbrushed, naked models in magazines and in X rated movies, but it pisses them off and offends them to be on the receiving end of that kind of comparison when females do it to them. So they prefer to think that women aren’t as judgemental when it comes to male physical appearance – but we pretty much are.
By the way, I think it really worries and offends Christian men to realize that women are visual too – we do hold you to standards of looks. (I’ve been meaning to write another blog post about this very topic for weeks now.)
The truth is that most women (Christians included) prefer, and would rather sleep with, “Mr. Tall/ Dark/ Handsome, with full head of hair and muscular body.”
But you Christian men like to live in fantasy land where you believe because you once handed out punch and cookies to five year old children in Sunday School ten years ago that this enough should lure in the movie star sexy (Christian) ladies. You are wrong about that. Most women are not going to excuse or overlook your beer gut, flabby arms, or baldness or receding hairline because you read your Bible once a year.
We Christian ladies are supposed to only be turned on by a man’s “spiritual walk,” that he reads his Bible daily, or some other inner quality, and I suspect a lot of (Christian) men find it troubling when they find out the truth that (Christian) women care about what a man looks like on the outside.
I used Evans’ site’s contact form to shoot him an e-mail to inform him of a couple of points I brought up on this page. The last time I did this, the pastor did not write me back, all I got was a standard, “Hi, thank you for your response, we will pass your thoughts on to Pastor X.”
There was another aspect of Evan’s sermon that I may want to address in a future post, because I found it very disturbing.
Related material on other sites:
(Link): Driscoll: Single men “cannot fully reflect God”
Related post(s), this blog:
(Link): It Doesn’t Take the Combination of Male and Female to Image God by S. O’Connor
(Link):Atlantic: “The case for abandoning the myth that ‘women aren’t visual.’”
(Link):Women Are Visual And Like Hot Looking Men (Part 1) Joseph in Genesis Was A Stud Muffin
(Link): Superman, Man Candy -and- Christian Women Are Visual And Enjoy Looking At Built, Hot, Sexy Men
(Link): Online Dating: Women Want Younger Men (article)
(Link):Women Are Visually Oriented Too – Reminder 1
(Link): The Annoying, Weird, Sexist Preoccupation by Christian Males with Female Looks and Sexuality
(Link):Article: Scientists: Why penis size does matter [to women]
(Link): Married Women Engage in Sexual Sin – and most men in denial particularly Christian conservatives
(Link): More ‘Men Are Visual’ Baloney, Discussed at Another Blog
————————
Christian Pundit 
Maybe single celibates are whole-brained, and married people are half-brained. That might explain why married people were stupid enough to go through the whore-system that is modern dating; they don’t have a whole brain. It actually makes sense to me now.
“By the way, I think it really worries and offends Christian men to realize that women are visual too – we do hold you to standards of looks.” I don’t think its looks that “Christian” women go for, but the bad-boy image. They will totally ignore a good-looking stable guy in favor of a butt-ugly man-whore.
I still think you may be a troll.
Regardless. Christian women and Non Christian women do not always go after “bad boys.”
If they do on occasion date ‘bad boys,’ it’s not necessarily the “badness” they are attracted to (it’s too long to get into here). Women go out with whomever will ask them out. Usually the socially awkward, weirdo, insecure, or dorky guys are too afraid to ask a woman out.
You sound a bit too much like “nice guys,” the ones who complain about women being inscrutable, the ones who are hostile towards all, or most women in general, the “I’m so nice, why can’t I get any dates” sort of “nice guy.” If you are that type, women will pick up that vibe from you, it turns them off, or creeps them out, and they will not want to date you I’ve posted about that phenomenon before: About “Nice Guys”