In this episode we answer common questions from newlyweds and talk about sexual frequency.
If this podcast is a blessing to you, please leave us a 5-star review on iTunes or wherever you listen to podcasts.
Sexual frequency: https://marriedchristiansex.com/blog/tag/frequency/
How To Talk With Your Spouse About Sex: https://marriedchristiansex.com/blog/marriage-advice/how-to-talk-with-your-spouse-about-sex/
Level-Up Your Sex Life: https://marriedchristiansex.com/blog/marriage-advice/level-up-your-sex-life/
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 35:40 — 36.4MB)
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | RSS | About the Podcast
In response to your advise on why the newlywed wife may be struggling, I would encourage you to read “The Great Sex Rescue” by Sheila Wray Gregoire. A number of your comments fell into the category of damaging from the study of 20,000 women. Check it out. Promote good teaching.
We link to Gregoire’s blog in our sidebar and she writes a lot of great stuff.
I’m curious which specific comments you found to be “damaging”. We don’t generally tailor our content to surveys or studies — we try to share our experiences through a Biblical lens.
I’m puzzled by this comment, too. A lot of EF’s & SC’s advice comes down to “ask your spouse what they like/dislike and why”–which, in terms of concrete advice, is as nearly the opposite of damaging as one can find. The comment should at least include a timestamp of the problematic advice and a link to the study that you mention.
In addition, I recommend taking studies like that with a grain of salt. By “studies like that”, I’m referring to any study in which the authors frame their research in ethical terms. This applies to a hypothetical FRC/FotF study seeking to find the prevalence of “developmentally inappropriate content” on children’s T.V. as much as it does to a hypothetical SPLC study on the prevalence of “anti-black racial animosity” in Republicans’ campaign speeches. Intentionally or not, the researchers tend to bake their own preconceptions into the study through faulty methodology, overly broad definitions, sloppy data analysis, or other effects.
None of this *necessarily* implies you’re wrong about the advice in this episode, but I think it demonstrates that the ball is still on your side of the court.