Thread by @sheilagregoire

I'd like to address how I'm quoted in the first chapter of Josh Butler's book Beautiful Union--where the TGC article that caused a ruckus was taken from.

Though he quotes me talking about "the theology of the clitoris", it appears he misses the whole point of what I was saying.

The point, in the larger context of the quote he pulled, is that women's bodies are not necessarily designed for maximum pleasure from intercourse alone, because the clitoris is outside the vagina (though the clitoral roots travel up the vaginal wall).

While many women can & do orgasm through intercourse, most women in our study found other routes to orgasm more reliable. And this is how our bodies were made! For women to feel pleasure, men need to do things to bring us pleasure. Quick intercourse alone won't cut it (for most).

I was writing, then, about female orgasm and the need for specific foreplay (ie. manual or oral stimulation). But Josh has sandwiched my quote in between paragraphs that are talking about how women's "desire" can be stoked.

Desire, arousal and orgasm are three separate things that are all being conflated here, and this is a problem. He is picturing the man being the one with spontaneous desire who thus initiates, and says foreplay is necessary for HER desire.

But one should NEVER do foreplay to try to cultivate desire. If she has no desire, don't touch the bits! Foreplay is done when one is already excited (and when desire has already arrived), to build arousal leading to orgasm. Foreplay is not to build desire.

He says: "A woman’s need for foreplay to
enjoy full sexual satisfaction is a sign of our affections being warmed as the bride of Christ by his amorous advances and pursuit." Foreplay is not about amorous advances and pursuit. Foreplay is PLAY. The pursuit is long over.

This may seem like semantics, but if you're going to write a book about sex, you do need to understand the sexual response cycle. I'm glad he mentioned female "full sexual satisfaction" (he didn't actually say orgasm), but he's just conflating so many things.

This is one of the dangers of overspiritualizing everything, and why writing about sex like this is not a good idea. If you're going to write about sex, then get the parts about sex right.

(I will do a longer thread, likely this weekend, on how I would talk about the symbolism of sex and our relationship with God. It is important; I have spoken about this a lot. But in a very different way, and I'll elaborate on that soon).