Deti noted in the comments of the last post that there is a deep aversion in modern Christians to the idea that both spouses (not just husbands) owe sex to each other, as outlined in 1 Cor 7.
Pastors and theologians are among the most uncomfortable with the idea that husbands are entitled to sex in marriage.
This is true, and it is tangled up with the modern elevation of romance/emotion out of all proportion. The belief is that marital sex needs to be purified by romance, or it is unseemly. You can see this in the wording of both Mohler’s and Moore’s pieces.
Many individuals–especially young men–hold a false expectation of what sex represents within the marriage relationship. Since the male sex drive is largely directed towards genital pleasure, men often assume that women are just the same. While physical pleasure is certainly an essential part of the female experience of sex, it is not as focused on the solitary goal of genital fulfillment as is the case with many men.
By definition, sex within marriage is not merely the accomplishment of sexual fulfillment on the part of two individuals who happen to share the same bed. Rather, it is the mutual self-giving that reaches pleasures both physical and spiritual. The emotional aspect of sex cannot be divorced from the physical dimension of the sex act. Though men are often tempted to forget this, women possess more and less gentle means of making that need clear.
Therefore, when I say that a husband must regularly “earn” privileged access to the marital bed, I mean that a husband owes his wife the confidence, affection, and emotional support that would lead her to freely give herself to her husband in the act of sex.
Romance/emotion is needed to make married sex “spiritual”. Otherwise it is dirty. A priestess is needed to bless the marriage bed to make it holy and pure, and this priestess is the person in the marriage who is the expert in marriage/emotion (the wife). Telling her to stop the nonsense and have sex with her husband when she isn’t channeling this emotional holiness is horrifying. That would just be rubbing body parts together!
And rubbing body parts together is what Mohler explains is the real problem with porn. Not (fundamentally) that it is channeling sexual desire outside of marriage, but that it is channeling sexual desire outside of emotion. The problem is (as Mohler explains it) that when men can view porn their wives’ ability to control them via denial of sex is weakened, and this means the priestess/wife can’t enforce the need to bless sex with romantic love.
Likewise, Moore explains that porn is satanic not because it is focusing sexual desire outside of marriage, but because it lacks romance and emotional intimacy:
Pornography is uniquely satanic because it drives you further, and further, and further from intimacy. Why? Because there is an occult pull upon you that is driving you toward the kind of mystery and the kind of intimacy that you are designed to find in the one-flesh union. It severs that away from real life—covenant, flesh and blood love—in such a way that you become numbed over to the joy of sexual intimacy itself.
Pornography lures you in with sexiness; and then, totally eviscerates your capacity for sexual intimacy. Pornography will move in and destroy you because it will start to create you into the kind of person for whom intimacy is simply body parts rubbing together—not one flesh.