Wedding Messages Have to Change

Photo by Jim Nyamao on Unsplash

I attended a wedding recently and, as is often the case, I left feeling frustrated by the wife-centered messages delivered by most of the preachers at the event.

A few things stood out like thumbs dipped in palm oil, and I knew I had to talk about them.

First, one of the preachers — someone you could immediately tell was old-fashioned — spoke at length about the role a wife should play. As with many weddings, the emphasis was on submission. I was not surprised by his message; I have heard it far too many times. What did surprise me was a statement he made as he wrapped up his message:

"When you come to town, do not go to your father’s house, oh. Go straight to your in-laws’ house. That is your new home."

I was stunned.

Before I delve into all the emotions and thoughts that went through me when I heard that, let me highlight the second thing that really got me hot and bothered.

Another preacher — this one more modern and cosmopolitan — came up to deliver his message to the couple. He focused on what men and women need in a relationship.

According to him, women needed:

1. Public display of attention;

2. Love;

3. Care... among others.

For men, however, their needs were described as:

1. Sexual satisfaction;

2. Loyalty;

3. Peace... among others.

I was immediately piqued by this categorization. Was he suggesting that men and women have fundamentally different needs? Especially when these broad categories appeared to be deeply stereotypical? I understand that there are exceptions to every generalization, but is there truly anyone — man or woman — who does not need love, care, peace, or loyalty? The idea that only women need public displays of attention is already debatable, but only men need sexual satisfaction?

I waited for the balance. I expected him to say these are human needs, not gendered ones.

That moment never came.

I must admit that I was disappointed. Perhaps I expected too much. But I had hoped that a more urban preacher would at least mention sexual satisfaction for women. You hardly ever hear any preacher talk about it. Female sexuality is rarely addressed in church settings. Many people still believe that female sexuality is some sort of perversion; that women should not like, want, or need sex. That sex is something women give to men, not something that is mutually enjoyable or satisfying.

This is deeply troubling, especially given what we now know biologically and emotionally about sexuality. And yet, these outdated thoughts persist.

Here is the kicker:

Women are sexual beings, just as men are.

Let me take it a step further:

Women want sex.

And before anyone experiences cardiac distress, I must say it again — clearly and without apology:

Women. Need. Sex.

Women want to be touched, kissed, aroused, taken to unimaginable sexual heights, pleasured, and satisfied — just as much as men do. And this desire is not tied to ovulation or the intent to conceive children.

The way female sexuality has been framed — at best, as an oddity; at worst, as promiscuity — has caused many women to suppress their needs to fit into the rigid behavioral norms of society. This has led to far too many women who are sexually unfulfilled, who simply go through the motions because it is considered respectable to be a wife and a baby-making machine — the only socially acceptable outcome of sex for women.

This is a problem.

It is so severe that I heard a story of a young couple who loved God and each other deeply. Despite dating for several years, they waited until their wedding night to have sex. The experience was terrible. The husband tried everything to make it better. They discussed it. He was eager to please her. But the bride had internalized the belief that sex was a duty. That was all she knew to give. She could not understand why he kept insisting on her own pleasure. In less than three years of marriage, the husband has all but given up on sex — except when she wants to conceive. And she is not ready for children.

Had this woman been taught that her sexuality was valid — that pleasure was her right — she might have embraced intimacy. She might have taken charge, enjoyed her body, welcomed his affection, and screamed with joy as he explored her desires. For those who subscribe to the sex-only-in-marriage model, that night could have been a celebration of their union — if she had known it was okay to want and enjoy sex.

I hoped that the preacher would mention that. That he would encourage couples to please each other, to be sexually adventurous, to give and receive oral sex, to roleplay, to enjoy each other fully. Perhaps not with explicit detail, since it was a wedding banquet. But if it was acceptable to mention male sexual satisfaction, why was it not equally acceptable to mention female satisfaction?

Still, that disappointment did not compare to the preacher who declared her in-laws' house her "new home." To me, that statement reeked of isolation — of taking her away from her family simply because she now had a husband. Perhaps that was not the preacher's intent, but that was certainly how it sounded.

I am deeply concerned about this narrative. What if she does not get along with her in-laws? What if she simply prefers the familiarity and comfort of her childhood home? Even if she adores her in-laws and they adore her in return, she should not be expected to center her life around them. And why must she "go to her father's house"? As though her mother has no stake in that home?

Why is the burden of "leaving" always placed on the woman — especially when the Bible clearly places it on the man?

Genesis 2:24 says:

"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

Let us pause on one word there:

Cleave
Verb: to adhere firmly and closely or loyally and unwaveringly.

The Bible explicitly instructs the man to leave his parents and cleave to his wife. To leave behind and then cling to, closely and loyally. Why then do our wedding sermons insist on the exact opposite? Why is the woman expected to leave everything behind — her name, her family, her life — while the man remains largely unchanged?

I could write an entire piece just on that verse. And by the way, is it not interesting that "cleave" also means to split or sever? That alone deserves its own discussion.

So no, I am not just trying to stir up trouble. I must commend one preacher at the wedding who spoke beautifully about his own 30-year marriage. He mentioned serving his wife breakfast in bed every day. He talked about how they support each other — in ministry, in work, in purpose. You could see that theirs was a partnership built on mutual love, respect, and service — in everyday tasks and larger pursuits. As it should be.

Messages to new couples should emphasize human values — not assigned by gender. Most people, regardless of sex, want love, care, loyalty, peace, and sexual fulfillment. The difference lies in individual temperaments, upbringing, culture, and religious background. Sermons should focus on couples learning what works for them — unlearning harmful ideas, supporting each other, pleasing each other, and being committed to one another's growth.

The outdated idea that "man is the head and woman must submit" needs to be re-evaluated. The same Bible also says, "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." That should be the focus — mutual submission, mutual love, mutual respect.

Why are those messages so rare? Why do preachers gloss over the man's role in leaving his family? Why do they keep using the Bible to erase a woman's identity and deny her needs?

Honestly, the messages delivered to couples at weddings need to evolve.

Thankfully, the best part of this particular wedding was the couple themselves. The bride is a strong woman. The groom is a strong man. It was evident that he cherishes her and will treat her well. I believe they will build a home grounded in love, respect, and partnership. Like every couple, they will face challenges. But I believe they will find their rhythm, their balance, and make it work together.

As it should be.