In an odd social media clip that begins with two married women sexually objectifying a priest, Lila Rose, a Christian conservative and ostensible proponent of marriage, provided better anti-marriage propaganda than radical left-wing feminists or the marriage-hating manosphere could ever dream of concocting.
“That’s just a cultural narrative that basically says, ‘Men are like animals; they have to be able to do this sexual thing, otherwise they’re going to go crazy,’ and the reality is there’s whole vocations that are celibate,” Rose said.
However, instead of focusing on the celibacy of Catholic priests, she went on in the video, and then on X, to say celibacy “can also be a beautiful practice within marriage,” adding that Paul the Apostle’s First Epistle to the Corinthians argues in favor of celibate marriages.
As a matter of pure biblical accuracy, Rose bastardized the New Testament. Paul makes clear that if you do marry — one of the seven wonderful sacraments in the old church — categorically denying sex to your spouse is indeed a sin. More than arguably any other social teaching of early Christianity, Paul’s guidance on marriage, specifically on the moral goodness of sex in marriage, was radical in the context of ancient Rome. His insistence that both husbands and wives are morally compelled to mutually sacrifice themselves for intimacy was antithetical to the contemporary patriarchy of marriage as a solely economic and political, rather than emotional and spiritual, function. And his celebration of sex in marriage as an affirmative good ran counter to some of the asceticism proliferating among some of the early followers of Jesus.
So when a Catholic conservative says men need food but they “don’t need sex,” it’s weird because Paul specifically commands spouses to give their partners sex, but he never says the same about food.
Putting aside the biblical imperative, downplaying the importance of sex in a marriage minimizes what, for most people, is arguably the institution’s greatest benefit. For those not compelled by the religious imperative to be fruitful and multiply, the sheer self-interest of the fact that marriage supplies constant access to sex with a partner that actually knows what you like is its most convincing selling point.
It is true that Leviticus forbids sex for roughly six weeks after a woman gives birth. This is likely for the same reason that modern medicine forbids sex for roughly six weeks postpartum: a woman just passed a bowling ball through her nether regions. To equate that incredibly limited and rare exception to the generalized good of depriving your husband (and yourself!) of sex is so intellectually obtuse that it borders on being deliberate.
MARRIAGE MEANS BETTER SEX, MORE OF IT, BIGGER PAYCHECKS, AND THE POWER OF GOD ON YOUR SIDE
Sex in a marriage is sort of like a bathroom in a house. Though heated floors and a whirlpool tub certainly add to the home’s overall market value, a house’s bathroom doesn’t have to be fancy. However, it has to be there, and you have to use it frequently. You don’t need to buy a home with a palatial bathroom, but you can’t buy a home that doesn’t have at least one of those combination toilet-sinks that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) once mistook for illegal immigrants drinking water out of the loo. Similarly, a marriage doesn’t require constant acrobatics and theatrics in the bedroom, but it does require sex of some kind, by biblical definition. A house without a bathroom is like a marriage without sex: functionally useless.
The fact is that married folks report having more sex and better qualities of it, with religiously observant couples posting the highest rates of sexual satisfaction and frequency. Don’t believe the RadFems, the Tate brothers, or Rose: It is morally good to bang your bride, and the Bible literally compels you to do so.