Free from Lust: The "72-hour Rule" and the Evangelical Marital Sexual Economy

This paper will track the development and spread of the so-called “72-hour rule” within Evangelical Christian teachings regarding married sexuality, as well as engage in feminist historical critique of the theological anthropology and the related martial sexual economy undergirding this “rule.” Drawing on Evangelical Christian sexual advice manuals published between the 1970s and today, as well as sermons, blogs, and Christian TradWife social media, I will argue that the 72-hour rule provides a perfect microcosm for understanding the wider complexities of American Evangelical “purity culture.” 

Purity culture is a multi-faceted constellation of ideas, practices, and values that have arisen around Evangelical ideas about sexual expression, which is garnering increased and interdisciplinary scholarly attention in recent years (e.g., DeRogatis 2014; Moslener 2015; Gish 2016; Theology & Sexuality Volume 29 2023). Much of the attention thus far has focused on the pre-marital abstinence facets of purity culture. This paper will give additional attention to the ongoing marital out-workings of purity culture and the ways its logics and assumptions both carry forward and invert themselves beyond the altar. The 72-hour rule not only provides a way to understand the evolution of purity culture logics, but also an interesting case study for understanding authority and the trustworthiness of extra-Biblical advice/directives within a religious community that views the Bible as both the ultimate authority when it comes to directing faith and practice. 

In the decades since the sexual revolution American Evangelicals have found themselves at odds with shifting cultural standards around sexual expression. While many Evangelicals maintain a wide variety of theologies (e.g., Calvinist and Arminianism) and practices (e.g., adult vs. child/infant baptism), there is a consensus amongst most Evangelicals that the only venue for licit sexual expression is within a life-long, heterosexual marriage. It is widely held in these communities that believers should abstain as much as possible from physical intimacy before their wedding night and remain physically faithful to their spouses during marriage. In these communities an individual’s commitment to purity, both before and after marriage, is seen as an indicator of spiritual health and devotion to God. 

As the gap between the wider cultural consensus around sexual expression and Evangelical sensibilities has widened, additional theological weight has been placed on the sexual component of a marital relationship. As Amy DeRogatis highlights in her 2014 monograph Saving Sex: Sexuality and Salvation in American Evangelicalism, there has been a flurry of Evangelical-specific sexual advice manuals since the 1970s. In such books sexual satisfaction held up as a "both the sign of and the reward for godliness,” (DeRogatis, 2014, 3).  Authors of these texts offer copious amounts of rather detailed advice, backed up with scriptural references, to coach Evangelical spouses to successful sexual experiences. These manuals portray an essentialist view of gendered sexual desire. Authors consistently relegate women's sexuality to a desire for “closeness” and frame their participation as service-oriented, while simultaneously positing an allegedly innate male propensity toward lust—an understanding this paper critiques through feminist theological and historical lenses.

One particular recurring thread within these sexual advice manuals is the “72-hour rule.” This refers to a tenet advocated by conservative evangelical figures, suggesting that wives should engage sexually with their husbands every 72 hours to prevent infidelity or dissatisfaction. Following this advice, the faithful are told, will ensure maximum marital satisfaction and ensure that husbands do not become over-run with lust (and compromise their purity). 

The first mentions of the of 72 hours as the ideal maximum gap between sexual encounters appear nearly simultaneously in the mid-1970s, being found in both Tim & Beverly LaHaye’s The Act of Marriage and in James Dobson’s What Wives Wish Their Husbands Knew About Women. Other Evangelical authors would parrot the talking point, such as in the best-selling Every Man’s Battle series (Arterburn, Stoeker, and Yorkey 2000). In these books the “rule” is presented to women as something to adhere to, shifting responsibility for a man’s purity from him to wife. This transfer of liability, combined with the enmeshment of purity with spiritual health and sanctity, creates a religiously coercive frame in which a wife abstaining from sex becomes a source of spiritual risk for both her and her husband. 

In more recent years the “rule” has made the rounds on social media. Christian influencers typically frame their own experience as the source of authority, rather than calling back to influential Evangelical authoritative voices. Though the medium is different, the message is the same: sexual intercourse at set intervals of 72-hours makes marriages  healthier. Through digital expansion, the influence of traditional evangelical sexual norms persists, adapting to modern platforms while remaining rooted in longstanding patriarchal frameworks.

However, also in recent years some voices within the Evangelical community have begun to call into question the wisdom and efficacy of “one-schedule-fits-all-marriages.” Some authors, like Celia and Adrian Reynolds (Closer, 2020), do so because of lack of biblical support for the mandate. Others, like Sheila Wray Gregoire (The Great Sex Rescue, 2022), reject the 72-hour rule (and the wider pattern of what she labels “obligation sex”) because of its demonstrated negative impacts. Though the source of their critiques differ, both authors challenge the idea that strict sexual calendars or obligations can inherently lead to marital stability, potentially representing a shift in some elements of Evangelical sexual discourse.

This rule undermines authentic consent by prioritizing periodic sexual activity as a marital duty over mutual desire, thus diminishing women's agency to define their own sexual boundaries. The portrayal of men as inherently vulnerable to lust posits a deterministic view of masculinity, one that suggests a lack of control over sexual desires. Such ideologies not only diminish male agency but also perpetuate stereotypes that contribute to toxic expressions of masculinity. The 72-hour rule serves as a specific example of how Evangelical purity culture employs homogenizing frameworks of what it means to be a man/woman. Like purity teachings more broadly, it reduces complex human sexual behaviour into simplistic mandates that are presented as divinely authoritative. Such reductionism overlooks the diversity and fluidity of human intimacy and partnership.