Chip, who is an infrequent but invariably eloquent and charitable commenter here, writes in response to yesterday’s post on modesty:
I can agree with you when you talk about not giving into the Abercrombie-type image, Hugo, but I can’t agree fundamentally with the concept that "their sexuality [is] theirs." Heck, my sexuality is not my own — my use of it is called to be a picture of Christ and the church. Just as Christ gave his life for the church and was totally faithful to it, so the apostolic teaching inspired by the Holy Spirit asks me to reserve myself for one woman and to be faithful to her … and to give sacrificially for her.
But to broaden the issue: From a Christian POV, I can’t see ANYTHING in our lives to be our own. "You are not your own; you were bought with a price. Therefore honor God with your body [or your talents, or your mind, or your emotions, or your thought life, or your work … you get the picture]." "And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves, but for him who died for them and rose again." Impossible commands? Sure, in our own human strength … but it’s still something we are called to grow into by the power of the Holy Spirit. And we are to live with the ultimate goal of pleasing God.
I need to do a better job of explaining myself. Chip’s use of 1 Corinthians 6:20 is an important one, given that it comes at the end of an extended meditation about the importance of avoiding sexual immorality. But let me be clear — arguing against the rhetoric of the "modesty movement" is not a defense of sexual immorality!
When I say "I want the women with whom I work to see their sexuality as theirs", I am not encouraging them to use that sexuality recklessly, abusively, or self-destructively. What I am arguing is that our sexuality is a gift from God, a gift with more than one purpose: Christians are indeed called to honor God with their bodies, but we are also called to take our own delight in living as embodied creatures. Pleasure is part of God’s gift; to receive and to give pleasure can be honoring to God. All Christians believe this; conservatives believe that pleasure should be limited to heterosexual marriage, while progressives believe in a more liberated and inclusive ethic, but we are united in our conviction that God intends us to have sexual pleasure, and that experiencing and sharing pleasure can be profoundly honoring to our Creator!
My body is a gift to me from God, and I am called to use that body as I believe He would have me use it. That’s not the same thing as saying "my sexuality does not belong to me". I said:
"it doesn’t belong to their fathers, their future husbands, the leering boys in math class or the older men at the bus stop. It doesn’t belong to the church, or to MTV, or to the magazines, or to their peers, or to their parents."
God was quite deliberately NOT on the list of things to which the body ought not belong! (Sorry for the double negative.) I think it’s quite possible to teach young men and women that their bodies are their own, gifts from God to be used to honor God; by the same token, their bodies do not belong to the culture, their families, or their peers.
*************
On a related topic, here’s a lengthy, thoughtful, Christian argument against masturbation at Bonnie’s blog. (You may need to scroll down). She’s making an argument that may be similar to Chip’s (though Chip, I don’t presume to know your stance on masturbation). It’s difficult to summarize her argument fairly, but here’s a key section:
Sexuality is a valuable treasure, a great gift. We give our very best gifts – our figurative gold, frankincense, and myrrh – to God. In so doing, we give our sexual gold, frankincense, and myrrh to our spouse. We do not “spread the wealth” around; to do so is to cheapen its worth and dilute its significance as well as to make a mockery of the gift itself and the covenant of marriage. Adultery isn’t referred to as “cheating” for no reason; adultery cheats a spouse of what ought to be theirs and theirs alone. Autoerotism also cheats one’s spouse (current or future) out of a portion of one’s sexuality. (Emphasis in the original; it’s Bonnie’s call to use "autoerotism" as a synonym for masturbation.)
Masturbation is a provocative subject. I share with Bonnie the belief that in healthy, monogamous sexual relationships, I ought to do all that I can to share my sexuality with my partner. For many couples, that may mean making the decision not to be sexual except when they are together; refraining from masturbating thus allows sexual desire to build for one’s beloved. I’ve known of more than one relationship where one partner regularly masturbated and then professed little interest in or energy for sex with the other; that, I think, falls well short of the mark for "sharing" and "giving"! Other couples may come (pun somewhat unintended) to different agreements about solitary sexuality within the context of their relationship. I don’t think there’s a "one-size fits all" answer here. The key thing is to be clear and honest, with the other’s pleasure and delight one’s foremost concern.
I don’t intend to turn this post into a paean to masturbation. Though there is much to disagree with in Bonnie’s post on both theological and psychological grounds, at places she makes very good sense. But I am interested in rejecting the notion that if our bodies belong to God and to our partners, then they do not also belong to ourselves! Here, I’ll take the "both/and" stance: our bodies are intended both for God’s purposes and for our own pleasure (indeed, more often than we realize, these may be congruent!); our bodies are intended both for our spouse’s delight and for our own.
Ultimately, when it comes to sexuality, I think far too many people fail to distinguish between what is selfish and what is self-honoring. Selfish sexual expression is anything that robs another person of their dignity, their value, and what is rightfully theirs. Adultery is selfish, and even masturbation can be selfish when and if it deprives one’s partner of one’s entire energy and excitement. But as created beings, whose bodies — like all creation — are fundamentally good, we are right to honor ourselves. On the one hand, self-honor doesn’t mean narcissism; even when we delight in our own bodies, we are giving thanks to the Creator who gave us our flesh. And it’s worth pointing out that self-honor need not always be the same as self-denial! When we eat to satiety, and delight in the taste of rich foods, in a very real sense we honor both our bodies and God’s gift of sustenance. When we explore and enjoy our bodies sexually, we are similarly honoring both the gift which was given and He who gave it.
It’s no accident that so many people call upon God at the moment of orgasm! When we do so, wittingly or no, we are perhaps giving thanks and praise to Him for the extraordinary gift of our sexuality. As spiritual people, as believers, we must avoid twin pitfalls: on the one hand, we must be leery of a secular ethic that devalues sexuality and sees it as something to be squandered; on the other, we must be equally leery of those who, with the best of intentions, wish to too narrowly limit the time, place, and manner of sexual expression. We must always approach our own sexuality with a sense of awe and responsibility, and if we do so, we will neither use it recklessly nor unreasonably constrain it.
Hm. The notion that masturbation in 2005 will rob a future spouse of some portion of one’s sexual energy many years later demonstrates a rather breathtaking lack of understanding of human sexuality.
But it’s an old one, too. Nineteenth century reformers (ala Sylvester Graham) worried about “spermatic conservation”; they were convinced that one had only a limited supply of semen (which was the source of masculine energy), and once it had all been wasted in masturbation, one would have an insufficient supply left for procreation and other manly activities.
Of course, the same sort of reformers endorsed clitoridectomies, so I suppose the boys had it comparatively easy!
I don’t want to get too graphic, but speaking as a woman, getting to know one’s own body and what it takes to reach orgasm (something that’s often not as easy for women as for men), is one of the best gifts one can offer a future partner.
“I think it’s quite possible to teach young men and women that their bodies are their own, gifts from God to be used to honor God; by the same token, their bodies do not belong to the culture, their families, or their peers.”
NYMOM said: But I do think you owe something to your community as well. I’m just not sure what. I don’t think you have the right to be promiscuous and have unplanned and uncared for children NOR do I think you have the right to spread sexually transmitted diseases.
Sorry, but you do owe your community the certainity that you will exercise a certain level of control over your own body; as they are the ones designated to pick up the pieces of the lives you shatter along the way.
Even Dan Savage acknowledged that with his idea that people who carelessly have sex and pass a disease they knew they had to someone else should be forced to pay for the medical coverage of the person they got sick. Similar to child support now. AND could be even more, as medical coverage is NOT cheap.
People MUST be responsible with their own bodies as it impacts their community.
“But it’s an old one, too. Nineteenth century reformers (ala Sylvester Graham) worried about “spermatic conservation”; they were convinced that one had only a limited supply of semen (which was the source of masculine energy), and once it had all been wasted in masturbation, one would have an insufficient supply left for procreation and other manly activities.”
NYMOM said: NOW we’re getting into damaging stories and lies.
I guess you just can’t give some people an inch but that they take a mile. Whoever wrote this stuff went from saving yourself for one special person, which could have been translated into a few ’special relationships’ over a lifetime, to not even being allowed to masterbate.
Sigh.
It’s just getting a little too silly now.
Amba, I hear you. An important point.
NYMOM, saying that our bodies are ours is not an endorsement of recklessness; it is rather an invitation to both responsibility and delight.
Hi Hugo, thanks for linking. Just can’t agree on the “Oh God” = orgasm on one’s own celebrates God, but that’s OK. If you read my post carefully, you will note that I did not suggest that one not enjoy one’s own sexuality, but that the proper means to that is everything. The proper means is ultimately more meaningful than the end; indeed, it is the end. It’s in the losing oneself to the other that one gains, in a much more profound way than via masturbation.
Djw, note that I said that autoerotism/masturbation robs a spouse of a portion of one’s sexuality, not sexual energy.
I addressed Amba’s concern in my post as well. (Though my post is not personal, I have realized that of which I speak, and I speak as a married woman.)
Okay… I’m having a very hard time taking this seriously. WHen you are stroking yourself, you are honoring the omnipotent being who, among other things, set all the laws of physics into motion, codifiied the universal constants, and hung every one of the billions of galaxies in the tapestry of the universe? You honestly believe that such a being (whatever name you give It) would be so deeply and personally concerned over the… ahem… Honor of your masturbatory habits, or for that matter, lack thereof?
Do you really think that God, what with all the other infinite things God could be doing, appreciates the honor of your jerking off? Are you kidding?
Really, I am not being the least be facetious here, but given the incomprehensible enormity of the universe, don’t you think it’s maybe just a teesy bit… I don’t know… conceited to think that your masturbatory habits are THAT important as to be a Divine Honor?
I’m not saying that sexual pleasure is bad or good - I think that’s a matter of circumstance and personal morality. But, if you want to masturbate, which seems like a perfectly natural inclination, do you need divine validation for it? Is it really so shameful as that?
I’m almost afraid to ask what the technical differences are between “sexual energy” and “sexuality” relevant to the context of acts of masturbation permanently removing a small part of the latter, but not the former.
Autoerotism also cheats one’s spouse (current or future) out of a portion of one’s sexuality.
If I have a bowl of ice cream all to myself when I’m out with friends, is that bad because I’m cheating my husband out of a portion of my dessert? Am I cheating him out of a portion of our life together by spending time with friends without him?
I’m honestly not trying to be snarky–I just don’t get it. Yes, it’s possible to use masturbation as a way of denying one’s spouse sexually, or to be selfish or cruel. That doesn’t make it inherently selfish or ‘cheating’.
DJW, I think Bonnie may be thinking of sexual energy in physical terms, while thinking of sexuality in spiritual terms. With the latter, I think she may view it as being like a single apple pie; if one takes a slice for oneself, one has less to share with one’s partner.
Hugo, I’m no theologian, but I am at a loss to understand how one arrives at a position of opposition to masturbation that does not travel through either (1) a general squeamishness about sex and sexuality; or (2) an asceticism about the body that few would embrace.
If one believed, for example, that using the body for any purpose other than God’s work were to “fall short of the mark” (borrowing your term), then masturbation would be out, but so would individual sports under most circumstances, or for that matter, hot showers.
If one believes that we share in the ownership of our bodies, and that our own pleasure is an acceptable goal where it does not interfere with divine purpose, then masturbation ought only to be a problem under specific circumstances: when it encourages one to other sexual conduct that is sinful; or when it detracts from a committed relationship. One could add that it might drain energy better spent on God’s purpose, but that argument proves too much and requires abstention from video games and immersion in a monastic existence.
I look at Christian theology as an outsider. If I’m missing something, tell me.
Having read Bonny’s remarks in full, I understand how she reaches her conclusion. The notion that every last ounce of sexuality, from birth to death, must be other-directed by divine command is one that some folks might pay lip service to, and that only a handful of complete ascetics could achieve. But hey, if her faith tells her that’s what she needs to do, I wish her the best of luck.
It’s late & I’m fried, but I will try to respond.
In my post, I really wasn’t considering sexual energy (in any form) specifically at all, but it would fit under the umbrella of sexuality as a whole, and I thank you for bringing it up. By “sexuality” I mean everything in one’s being related to sex. Broad picture? Yeah, but it truly is what I mean.
Thomas, thanks for reading my post. May I say that it’s not about asceticism at all, but about denial of a deceptive stand-in in favor of the real thing. It’s about self-discipline, not self-denial.
I wouldn’t say that we share in ownership of our own bodies, but that we are stewards of them. We are given responsibility for stewardship of them and for decisions made regarding them.
Hugo, I appreciate very much that you’ve taken my thoughts seriously and made effort to truly understand what I’m saying. I’d like to comment further, but for now: your apple-pie analogy isn’t bad :-). But there’s even more to it than that (the quantitative): it’s the whole intimacy thing. It’s sharing the existence of the totality of one’s sexuality. Nothing is kept from the other. It’s the process, the adventure, the mutual learning, even the times when things stink. Nothing is sexier than true intimacy.
(It’s impossible to cover these things thoroughly in a comments box but hopefully I’m conveying the gist.)
Peace,
Bonnie
I guess that the only problem I have with the apple pie theory is that my sexuality is not finite. That’s like saying my love is finite…if I had a child, and loved him/her more than anything it the world, but then had a second child, would the second child be taking love away from the first or would my love grow to accomodate them both?
Same thing with sexuality…my pleasure of understanding my body enhances sex when I’m with someone else, not detracts from it.
Yes, and I am also not following the argument that intimacy precludes privacy, or any self-directed sexuality.
I again don’t mean this in a nasty way, but I get the sense that Bonnie is an extrover.
I wonder whether extroversion does affect, if not our sexual morals themselves, how it’s natural for us to cast them. I’ve sometimes thought that my gut aversion to casual sex with other people (which is basically, ick, why would anyone want to do this) is part of a broader dislike, as an introvert, for too much contact with casual acquaintances. A more sexually extroverted person might still believe that some standard should be met before having sex, but that belief wouldn’t be accompanied by the same degree of gut level aversion to actually sleeping with someone you don’t trust that well yet. On the flip side, I don’t feel any aversion to masturbation, and certainly find it subjectively a whole lot preferable to sex with someone I don’t know and trust. Not that our morality depends on our temperament, of course, but what comes easily to us does.
Now, I actually do think my sexuality is finite, just not fixed in quantity, if that makes sense. There’s only so much sex I’ll ever be up for, but time and circumstances can still affect that, within limits.
Mythago, to respond to your comments: the apple-pie analogy (as well as my view of masturbation as outlined in my post) must be understood within a context of one’s sexuality belonging to one’s spouse. (Note that this is reciprocal; as the wife’s sexuality belongs to the husband, the husband’s also belongs to the wife.)
Issues of privacy are rooted in the concept of belonging. They have to do with to whom things belong and with whom an owner chooses to share his/her things.
In your scenarios, your dish of ice cream does not belong to your husband, not does your time with your friends (unless you are spending too much time with them to the neglect of your husband.)
Hope that makes sense.
Oh, and FWIW, I’m an introvert :-)
Okay, so here’s where we must part company. My body DOES belong to me. It does not belong to any theoritcal husband, it does not belong to any theoritical children, it is mine to do with as I wish. And masturbation is healthy; it’s a cheap, effective way to get rid of stress. It requires next to no money, just a little privacy and a little time. So arguably, it’s one of the most wide-spread stress-relievers. It doesn’t hurt anyone, it helps blood-flow, and one has a greater understanding and appreciation of how their body works.
So, no. It’s mine, I’m keeping it. NO marital rape for me.
Bonnie - Suppose my hypothetical husband’s sexuality really does belong to me. Why shouldn’t I let him masturbate? Why should it bother me?
If I’m not aroused and not interested in becoming aroused at a particular time - and this happens to most people of both sexes once in a while, however rarely - trying to seduce me, asking that his desires be expressed on my reluctant body, would be selfish. Masturbation would be the generous, thoughtful choice. Of course, I could ask my husband to wait a day or two in sexual frustration until I felt more like sex, and because his sexuality belongs to me, he would have to obey. But why would I want to do that? What would I get out of it, except a petty excercise of power?
Antigone makes an interesting point– doesn’t the idea that one’s sexuality belongs entirely to one’s spouse put the concept of marital rape on rather shaky ground? The language of “ownership” creates a difficult situation– if we do not own our sexual energy, how can we stay in control of when, where and how the person who supposedly does own it chooses to use it? Are we obligated to offer sex whenever our partners want it– is it just as immoral and “selfish” as masturbation to refuse (since, after all, we are denying them something that is rightfully 100% theirs)?
If you believe that people have a moral obligation to share their sexuality with only one long-term monogamous partner in their lifetimes, fine– I strongly disagree that it’s the right path for everyone, but we’re all entitled to our opinions. I think it’s quite possible to express that sentiment without getting into all the sketchy stuff about sexuality being a “thing” that “belongs” to an “owner,” however. Since it is nearly impossible to separate the intangible “sexuality” from the physical acts that express it, that’s akin to saying that a woman’s body belongs to her husband (I acknowledge the “vice versa,” but I don’t think it makes up for anything). That doesn’t sound romantic or spiritually affirming to me– it sounds like slavery.
Mythago, to respond to your comments: the apple-pie analogy (as well as my view of masturbation as outlined in my post) must be understood within a context of one’s sexuality belonging to one’s spouse.
As somebody said above, the problem with the apple-pie analogy is that the pie is finite. It doesn’t grow back. If I eat a piece of pie, there’s that much less pie forever. Yet you don’t apply the same logic to time with my friends. I have finite time, right? And while “time with my friends” does not belong to my husband, my attention and presence are an important part of our marriage. If I am spending time with friends, that is time I am not spending with my husband.
I don’t see how masturbation is more like eating a finite piece of pie than spending finite time with friends. For the apple-pie analogy to work, I would only be able to have so much sexual activity in my life–ever–and if I masturbate, some of that potential sexual activity is gone forever, as if I’d eaten a piece of pie. (Yet we don’t treat time with friends that way; surely if I spend an hour with a friend, that hour is gone forever, but nobody chides me for taking an hour forever away from my marriage.)
Mythago, up above I qualified the apple-pie analogy in my comment to Hugo — I stated that sexuality cannot be understood merely in a quantitative sense.
Sophonisba, if the point of sexuality is that it’s not for the self, then that’s where communication, love, respect, compassion, etc. enter in, on both sides, in the same way they do for any event that people share. People’s needs and wants are not always going to line up together, therefore loving concession is made on each side, and the concessions may differ at different times.
I would give a similar answer to Keri. I don’t view sexuality as a mere “thing,” nor see it as a commodity to be kept or shared. I don’t know exactly how to describe it except to say that I think it *is* an intangible that is shared/expressed in a tangible way, and meant for relationship. I do believe that a woman’s body belongs to her husband, and vice-versa, but in a generous way, not a slave-objective way. If one waits to get married (& have sex) until one finds a person with whom one can have a generous, committed relationship, then the context is set for a mutually-respectful and giving sexual relationship.
(Note that I don’t claim to have “all the answers,” but I offer my understanding of things in answer to questions & for your consideration.)
People’s needs and wants are not always going to line up together, therefore loving concession is made on each side, and the concessions may differ at different times.
This sounds nice, but is so vague that it’s impossible to tell whether you’re agreeing with me or not. I think I would agree with you, with the caveat that I do not consider “allowing” a lover to masturbate to be any kind of concession, or even a favor. I don’t believe that love is generally properly expressed by directing the ways in which another person may touch themself (though I do, with difficulty, accept that others may privately agree to express their love in such a fashion.)
if the point of sexuality is that it’s not for the self
The problem with this idea of sex not being for the self is this: Suppose my hypothetical husband owns my sexuality, and I his. I certainly couldn’t ask him to perform sexually when he didn’t wish to, not because it would be a terrible hardship for him to do it, but because I find the idea of sex with an uninterested or unaroused person completely unerotic - I don’t want the kind of sex where each person ’services’ the other any more than I want sex with a selfish, ungenerous lover. But if he was interested in said sexual act, he would be performing it for his own pleasure as much as for mine. That is the only kind of sex I’m interested in, but it appears to be the kind of sex you find unacceptable.
(Please bear with me in my attempt to be clear without being explicit.)
I don’t think many people would have much of a problem with the sexual ethics you espouse if you had said sex isn’t only for the self. Good sex requires concern for your partner’s physical pleasure and emotional comfort; everyone I know (few of whom are Christians) accepts that as axiomatic. But truly selfless sex is not good sex; it’s barely pleasureable at all for the person who has to politely endure such a ‘gift’. So there’s the paradox: a husband who won’t own his own sexuality and pursue his own pleasure with me may be doing great things for his own self-esteem and storing up treasure in heaven, but he’s lying to himself if he thinks it’s an act of generosity towards me. And I know for a fact that I am very, very far from unique in this respect.
If one waits to get married (& have sex) until one finds a person with whom one can have a generous, committed relationship, then the context is set for a mutually-respectful and giving sexual relationship.
But of course you must know that most women whose husbands rape them believe they’ve waited for just that. Sure, most men who are kind and respectful out of bed will behave the same way in it. But not all of them. And you can’t tell for sure until you sleep with them, and if you don’t sleep with them until you’re married - well then. The best gift an abuser can have is a wife who believes she owes him the use of her body.
I stated that sexuality cannot be understood merely in a quantitative sense
Which is why the apple-pie analogy is not, IMO, a very good one.
I do believe that a woman’s body belongs to her husband, and vice-versa, but in a generous way, not a slave-objective way.
How can you own somebody in a “generous” way? If a woman’s body belongs to her husband–and not to herself, or at least more so than to herself–that is in an objectifying way, however nicely the ownership is handled. That also has all kinds of unpleasant implications I don’t think you intend. (For example, if my husband wants me to get a breast enlargement because he sincerely believes it would make me much more sexually attractive to him, who am I to refuse if my body belongs to him?)
Sophonisba, by “concessions” I wasn’t referring to allowing a spouse to masturbate; I was referring to concessions one to the other over matters such as libido and the timing of such.
Yes, love allows others to make their own decisions. That has no bearing on the morality of those decisions.
I didn’t say that sex was not for the self at all; I said that one’s sexuality exists to build the marital relationship. Good grief, I don’t support your definition of selfless sex. To me, the paradox is that in the giving is the ultimate receiving.
But of course you must know that most women whose husbands rape them believe they’ve waited for just that.
Huh?
Sure, most men who are kind and respectful out of bed will behave the same way in it. But not all of them.
In those cases, I question how well the woman really got to know the man before she married him. I would think that the Hyde factor would show up in more areas than just sexual ones. It is certainly not necessary to have sex with someone to find out whether or not they are sexually selfish; a person’s character is going to be reflected in many areas, and it is highly unlikely that one’s sexuality will be completely incongruent with the rest of one’s character. Besides, there should be enough conversation on the topic before marriage to figure things out.
Mythago, can we agree that the apple-pie analogy works for the quantitative aspects of sexuality but not the other aspects, all aspects being equally important?
Spousal-body-ownership is not about any sort of objectification at all. I am seeing that there are problems with use of the word “ownership;” the implications are those which you are pointing out, but they are not what I intend, or what I think God intends. My belief is that God owns us and gives us responsibility of stewardship over our persons, including our bodies. I think the idea regarding sexuality is that a husband or wife deserves, by nature of his/her spouse-dom, the full sexuality of his/her spouse. A husband or wife is not to withhold his/her sexuality from his/her spouse. Masturbation represents a withholding from the spouse.
Bonnie, I think you make a compelling case about masturbation in marriage. I’m not sure how that works in the case of a sixteen year old of either sex, who is years away from being with a spouse. Arguing that masturbation for teens is robbing FUTURE spouses is a very different argument indeed.
Mythago, can we agree that the apple-pie analogy works for the quantitative aspects of sexuality but not the other aspects, all aspects being equally important?
No, not really, because I don’t see how it works at all. I assume by the “qualitative aspects” you mean such things as time and the physical ability/inclination to have sex. Those “qualitative aspects” fit just as well with the lunch-with-friends model. If I eat ice cream with my friends, I won’t feel like having ice cream with my husband when I get home, because I’m full; if I spend an afternoon out with friends, that’s an afternoon I’m not spending with my husband. (And, again, the apple-pie analogy is terrible because it is so misleading in all the other aspects.)
Masturbation represents a withholding from the spouse.
It can be, but isn’t inherently. And “withholding” suggests unfairly keeping away something your spouse both wants and deserves. Trying not to venture into TMI here, but in a marriage there are times when one person can’t or won’t engage in sexual activity, and it’s hardly “withholding” if they aren’t currently interested in what is on offer.
Sorry, should have said “quantitative” above.
Me: But of course you must know that most women whose husbands rape them believe they’ve waited for just that.
Bonnie: Huh?
That was in response to these words of yours:
If one waits to get married (& have sex) until one finds a person with whom one can have a generous, committed relationship
- which I quoted, as a matter of fact. “Just that” = “a person with whom one can have a generous, committed relationship.” What don’t you understand? You can google spousal abuse and “honeymoon period”, if you’re not familiar with the concept.
You’ve made it clear in your responses to both me and Mythago that you agree that husbands can make unreasonable and unacceptable demands. You’ve also implied that it’s the woman’s fault for choosing the wrong spouse if that happens. But you haven’t answered the question: if his demands are unacceptable, does she still have to yield her sexuality to him? Saying that she should have known better before she married him is not an answer.
Hugo, thanks for your comment. I’d be interested to know what you mean specifically by the argument being “very different” for the teenager vs. the married man. (Not that I don’t have a clue, but it would help me respond better. :-) ) Would you elaborate, for my sake?
A married man has made a commitment to a specific woman. He has — before God and his community — pledged his fidelity (meaning, if you like, his entire sexuality) to his spouse. Thus masturbation can be seen as a violation of his commitment to be completely, utterly, at the service of his wife and to love her sacrificially.
A teenage boy (or girl) who is single has made no such commitment. Yes, they have a future spouse, but that spouse is known only to God. There’s no contract being broken (if one believes that masturbation breaks a contract at all).
Mythago and Sophonisba, it seems we’re going around in circles, but I’ll go one more round. I hope you don’t mind if I combine responses to you both in one comment.
I assume by the “qualitative aspects” you mean such things as time and the physical ability/inclination to have sex.
No, I mean any aspects that can be quantified in any way.
There would be a problem with you having ice cream with your friends so as to be uninterested in having ice cream with your husband when you got home, if you had promised him that you would have ice cream with him when you got home. (It seems that your ice cream argument has morphed a tad since you first brought it up.) If the issue is your time, of course your husband doesn’t require (and I don’t mean personally require) all of your time.
It is legitimate, if not necessary, to spend time with friends, and it is necessary to spend time with one’s husband. This is not analogous to masturbation since it is not legitimate nor necessary to have sex with oneself, yet necessary, except in abusive circumstances, to have sex with one’s spouse.
What I am saying about sexuality belonging to the spouse is that one is to give one’s sexuality, in toto, to one’s spouse. Mythago, you say that I am wrong to speak of it as quantifiable in any way, yet you speak of sex and sex acts as if they are quantifiable: but in a marriage there are times when one person can’t or won’t engage in sexual activity, and it’s hardly “withholding” if they aren’t currently interested in what is on offer.
I’m not ignorant of the ebb and flow of sexual desire and ability within marriage; I’ve been married for 17 years. So, you’re in the mood, and he’s not. You have to get that “quantity” of sex out by yourself then?
Yes, masturbation does inherently withhold sexuality from the spouse, because it is a portion (quantity) of one’s sexuality given to oneself, not one’s spouse, even if the spouse is not ready to receive that (not necessarily exhaustible) portion at that time. It is a development of one’s (quantifiable and unquantifiable) sexuality for/with/by oneself. The issue isn’t timing or exhaustibility (some certain # of sex acts), as I said before.
Suppose you have aquired an expensive item that would have special, exclusive significance to someone and to your relationship with that someone. You can’t wait to give it to him/her. You stop by, and s/he’s not home. Maybe s/he’s not home for a while. What are you going to do with the item (gift)? Use it for yourself? Give it to someone else? Or save it til you can give it to that person?
You’ve made it clear in your responses to both me and Mythago that you agree that husbands can make unreasonable and unacceptable demands. You’ve also implied that it’s the woman’s fault for choosing the wrong spouse if that happens.
No, I’ve said that someone got married too hastily.
But you haven’t answered the question: if his demands are unacceptable, does she still have to yield her sexuality to him? Saying that she should have known better before she married him is not an answer.
Up above, I said, “Good grief, I don’t support your definition of selfless sex.” My meaning was not clear. What I meant to say was, “Good grief, I don’t support what you are defining as selfless sex.” Yes, I do believe that a wife’s sexuality still belongs to her husband even if he’s abusive, but this does not mean that the husband has right to abuse.
But you haven’t answered the question: if his demands are unacceptable, does she still have to yield her sexuality to him?
This question was not asked.
When I’m speaking of purpose and belonging regarding sex & sexuality, I mean that it is applicable to the view a particular person has over their own sexuality. It does not therefore give license to the spouse to abuse it. The spouse’s concern is to be loving, respecting, receiving, etc., not merely taking, using, or abusing, which would be to objectify the thing that belongs to them. No, I don’t think that a person’s sexuality being for the spouse justifies objectification. I also don’t see where ownership of anything gives the owner the right to abuse what is owned; it may give them the ability to do so, but not the right, unless nothing has intrinsic worth.
Hope I’ve made myself clear.
Question for Bonnie–
(all, pardon the frankness of this post, but I don’t see any other way to pose the question)
When I’m planning to have sex with my wife, I often masturbate earlier in the day. I do this to best share the glory that is sexuality with my wife–I am able to perform much better, and satisfy my wife’s sexual desires much more effectively if I do this. She knows, and she approves. This makes our sex life better.
Do you really think God has a problem with this?
Bonnie, you’re gift analogy is still off. When I give my partner that gift, I no longer have it. If I use that gift, then my partner no longer gets it.
With sexuality, it isn’t zero sum: mine or his. If I use my sexuality, I still have plenty to give to a partner. It doesn’t tarnish it in any way shape or form.
And, excuse me, but sometimes masturbation is necessary. Cheap stress reliever in which no one gets hurt.
Andy, that’s between you and God.
Antigone, thanks for the comment, but I don’t agree. You’re still quantifying. Even if you give the gift, you still have the memory of it and the significance of it (as well as what makes it significant) within yourself, and, as long as you are connected to the person you gave it to, you still have it in that sense as well. These things are intangibles. Sexuality is full of intangibles in the same way.
If you keep the gift, then yes, the someone you originally intended it for loses out.
Something being a cheap stress reliever in which no one gets hurt (which is also a questionable assessment) does not qualify it as being necessary.
I was searching around on-line for some info. on masturbation. This whole theory that masturbation actually glorifies God is a bunch of crap. Where’s your biblical evidence? Using masturbation to relieve stress… Sure, it works, at least partially. But Paul writes (in Phil. 4:6-7) about how to relieve anxieties (and stress, at least in my life, usually stems from anxieties). He doesn’t say, “Do not be anxious about anything but by jacking off and pleasuring yourself will the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, guard your heart.” No! He says to relive stress by turning to God with “prayer and supplication.” Masturbation as “stress-relief” is a cheap substitute. God wants to use the stresses of living in a fallen world to deepen your love for him as he shows himself strong and faithful in your life. Speaking from my life and from every guy I’ve talked to, there is no such thing as masturbating “from time to time.” Masturbation is a cycle. The more you do it, the more it takes to satisfy. The more it takes to satisfy, the more you do it… In my own life, I found that what used to satisfy me when I had first started masturbating soon wouldn’t satisfy. Masturbation is a cycle that feeds your desire. Just like when you’re thirsty, drinking a Sprite feels really good at first. But with all the sodium, it ends up only making you thirstier in the end. So grab water to quench your thirst, and leave behind the Sprite.
You can be free from masturbation, and wonderfully free. I am, and I enjoy every minute of freedom. It would’ve never made sense to me when I was masturbating, but now that I’m free I so much enjoy it.
Ben, I won’t argue with your success, but I will assure you that your experience with the “cycle” is not universal. If you have found great joy in your decision, I rejoice for you.
Of course, I always wonder why folks in your position are doing searches for the subject. Were you looking for validation of your position? Or looking for those who disagreed, and in order to bolster yourself, hoping for an opportunity to share your experience?
You know, I don’t understand the ‘need’ to masturbate at all. I’m a 23 year old female, and I’ve never had the desire to do it. I tried once, because my boyfriend said I should, and it didn’t get me anywhere. I was just not into that sort of thing. I really don’t underststand the point. I have better things to do with my time… :-P
PS. I’m just looking it up to prove to a friend that it’s not neccissary or moral…
Personally, I can’t believe you people are spending so much time discussing something that is natural and has been going on forever, God or not. Masturbation just is. It’s part of being sexual beings. And, each of us choose if, when, and how to use it. In my opinion, you are way over-thinking something that is natural instinct.
Natural instinct is a huge influence on us. But many things are natural that are destructive. Monogamy isn’t natural, neither is using the toilet instead of urinating on oneself. Restraining one’s own desire to bash the person who cut one off in traffic isn’t natural.
All I’m asking is that we consider the possibility that for some, masturbation isolates from intimacy with others. For some, it may help them become more available for that same intimacy. But blanket approval and blanket condemnation worry me, as the practice is too fraught with multiple potential meanings to be judged so easily.