Muslim refugee intimacies, whether conjugal, extramarital, normative, or non-conventional are often imagined as potential sites of gendered oppression and thus perpetually defined as a problem to be solved through public health intervention. Sensationalized accounts of Syrian refugees’ “backwards” sexualities and “oppressive” culture abound in clinical and humanitarian settings. These hyperbolic narratives echo wider, transnational discourses that construct Muslim women as victims of patriarchy who must be taught—often by Western feminists—to exercise their right to freedom, equality, and individual autonomy. Within the realm of sexuality, these Enlightenment values coalesce in what Giddens (1992) has termed the pure relationship, characterized by two autonomous individuals consenting to remain in intimate relation with one another for as long as it serves their respective self-interests (Giddens 1992:58). Liberal ideals of freedom and gendered equality define the pure relationship in explicit contrast to the imagined pre-modern society in which individual choice is constrained by tradition and social convention (Povinelli 2006). These binaries co-produce the Western Subject of Rights and Orientalized subject of culture— the civilized and the savage—and, in doing so, justify continued EuroAmerican imperialism in the Middle East. This chapter draws upon 12 months of ethnographic fieldwork to explore the ways in which these hegemonic norms continue to inform evaluations of Syrian refugees’ deservingness after resettlement in Southern California. This account illustrates how refugee encounters with disciplinary institutions, specifically the clinic, are frequently structured by the demand that they affirm their deservingness as properly-assimilated sexual subjects by performing love in ways that reflect liberal ideals of autonomy in intimate relationship.