Michael: Frankly, I think a lot of the fur flying over Driscoll’s comments is just plain jealousy; a lot of people are mad because he apparently is getting action every day, and they aren’t.

There is a large segment within the contemporary evangelical church that has bought just enough of the Oprah agenda of pop psychology and feminism to find the ammo they need to resist gaining an honest, human, biblical perspective on their husbands’ sexuality, desires and needs. “Mutual submission” is just new-speak for “She doesn’t have to put out.” Anyone who talks about headship or submission in the context of marital intimacy – treacherous ground on which to tread anyway, to be sure – is lambasted as a misogynist (or worse, as a closet bondage freak.) The rest of us tolerate this nonsense, and then march out for the hand-wringing ceremony over dirty pictures on the Internet. John had words for where that will take the church – cf. Revelation 2:18f.

I’m well past 20, and while I’m currently celibate, sex once a day strikes me as by no means excessive; Were the appropriate partner available, I’d do it for the obvious physiological benefits (sex is excellent exercise; it also relieves tension, evens out the testosterone cycle, and it promotes a healthy prostate), If that’s offensive to Christians, perhaps we take Paul’s better-to-marry-than-burn argument to its logical conclusion, and admit that for some men, the best situation would be to allow for Islamic-style committed polygamous marriages (which require financial arrangements and conjugal rights at parity for each wife), rather than giving our de-facto endorsement to the serial polygamy that no-fault divorce legislation has given us.

(I can’t wait to read the mail I get from this one…)