Second hot-button post ot the day, and the last one.
I’ve been promising a post about masturbation for a couple of days. This is especially important because what I’m about to write may seem to at least partially contradict what I wrote last year; I have reread that post several times, and my own views have (as they sometimes do) evolved. There were some things I wasn’t ready to write back in August 2005 that I am ready to write now. What I wrote then was largely based on what I was comfortable teaching; I didn’t touch much (sorry) on how it is that I seek to live my own life. Now, I’m ready to do that.
First off, I’m not writing to titillate or to offend. I’m trying to balance several things together here as I write: my feminism, my faith, and my ever-evolving understanding of human psychology and sexuality. But in the end, this post is going to be written from a spiritual perspective, one that will be sharply at odds with conventional feminist thought.
Below this post on Monday, my reader and student "Mermade" asked:
Is it possible to masturbate without lust involved? My boyfriend, who has struggled with porn and masturbation, says that it is impossible to masturbate without using some sort of lustful stimulation (except in the cases of children, which is an entirely different topic). Anyway, we know lusting creates many problems, problems which I have personally witnessed and been VERY hurt by. Therefore, if it is impossible to masturbate without hurtful lustful thoughts, should masturbation itself be endorsed as healthy if it cannot be done without damaging thoughts?
I have always wondered how feminism views women masturbating to porn depicting naked men (Playgirl, etc.) I am firmly against the sex industry and I wholeheartedly agree that men must give up their lust after women in order to be pro-feminist. However, I have scarcely heard about how people feel regarding women lusting and masturbating after men and whether or not feminism sees that as wrong. Granted, the porn industry is mostly aimed at men’s interest. However, many women lust after porn as well, and I don’t believe that’s right either. (That kind of fits in with "me too" feminism). I would like to hear yours and other people’s thoughts on that.
It’s at this point that a great many of my secular readers, particularly feminist progressives, will start to get annoyed. (I almost said "hackles up", but caught myself in time.) In the secular feminist world in which I was marinated for years and years as a child, a college student, and a periodic activist, no one ever expressed any negative feelings about masturbation.
And this always struck me as odd, frankly. I’ve written a lot about pornography and the sex industry,and I’ve critiqued them using both a Christian and a feminist perspective. I readily concede that feminism is divided on the ills of pornography; some feminists see all porn as problematic, while others prefer to draw distinctions between porn that demeans and objectifies women and erotic imagery in which women’s pleasure matters, and in which women are active agents. But here’s what got me when I was in college, and what I could never fully understand when I was in discussion with my fellow anti-porn feminists: why is it wrong for men to purchase, view, and masturbate to pornography, but not wrong for those same men to masturbate to demeaning fantasies of women in their heads? If we aren’t just objecting to the industry of porn, but also to the way in which men and women objectify each other, shouldn’t we consider also consider the ethics of masturbation"? That’s what I intend to do here.
Mermade asks some serious questions, the sort that generally only get asked in religious circles (where the healthiness of masturbation is not taken for granted, as it is in the secular world). Her first question is critical: Is it possible to masturbate without lust (or lustful fantasies)? I suppose it’s possible, but I don’t think most people do. If there are folks who masturbate to orgasm while balancing their checkbooks, or while contemplating the Sensenbrenner immigration bill, I suppose that they’ll write in to refute me, but I am fairly certain most people, men and women, use sexual fantasy as a key part of their masturbatory routines.
I can hear the chorus now: Sure, Hugo, everyone fantasizes! It’s natural and healthy, though! Are you seriously going to question whether or not it’s acceptable to masturbate? Do you want to give all of your students a massive guilt complex? Well, hold on a bit, folks. I’m not denying that sexual fantasy is a powerful part of most of our lives, and a part of our lives that most secular voices insist we ought not even try and control. In the secular world, ethics is about our actions, not the substance of our thoughts. Fantasy, therefore, is nearly universally regarded as harmless; as long as we don’t act on all of our fantasies (particularly when they involve boundary violations of one sort or another), we’re told to enjoy our private reveries (with or without masturbation.)
But if there’s one overwhelming thing that most of the world’s great spiritual traditions agree on, it’s this: our thoughts do matter. In the Abrahamic religious tradition, the tenth commandment is "Thou Shalt Not Covet." To "covet" is to long for, desire, lust after, envy, etc. This commandment comes after earlier commandments about theft and adultery. To borrow language from our Buddhist friends, It’s clear that God is calling His people not only to right action, but also to right thought. Jesus continues the theme in Matthew 5:28: But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. It’s difficult to look at Scripture and continue to insist that masturbatory fantasy is harmless!
Fleeting thoughts are impossible to control. But it’s one thing to have a fleeting thought, and another to "entertain" the thought for any length of time. To paraphrase the famous line from Martin Luther, "I can’t stop the birds from flying over my head, but I can stop them from building nests in my hair." Fantasy and lust — for anyone other than my wife — is letting the birds build a nest on my head. And I am convinced that that fantasy life is at odds with my spiritual and physical commitments.
I remember, several years ago, meeting two very different men who helped develop my views on masturbation. One was a Dominican brother who was studying at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley; the other was a very advanced yoga practitioner I met when I was in grad school at UCLA. I became good friends with both, though I never ended up becoming either a Dominican or a yogi (hey, there’s still time!) The Dominican was just a few years older than me; the yoga teacher was in his forties. And at different times, in different ways, the subject of masturbation came up. Both men, despite their disparate religious traditions, were celibate in the truest sense — they not only didn’t have sex with other people, they didn’t have sex with themselves. The Dominican told me he hadn’t masturbated since he was 17; the yogi had gone more than a decade without ejaculating. (There is a school in yogistic thought that is big on sperm re-absorption and celibacy, but I can’t remember which one it is.)
As you might suspect, I had a hard time believing either man! At first I though they were lying. Then, choosing to believe them, I began to suspect they were stark raving nuts. I argued with my Dominican friend, pointing out that God says nothing about masturbation in the Bible; I argued with my yogi friend, saying that it simply wasn’t healthy to go that long without orgasm. Both men were patient with me (they’d heard this sort of thing before). My Dominican friend emphasized what I emphasized above — our obligation to honor God with our minds as well as our actions; my yoga friend emphasized the extraordinary physical and psychic benefits of restriction and self-control. I wasn’t convinced by either man, though I’ve never forgotten what they shared with me.
I’ve come to the following conviction in my own life: for me, as a Christian man on a radical spiritual journey, masturbation at this stage in my life falls short of the mark. All of my sexual energy (in thoughts as well as behavior) goes towards my wife. Now, that’s easy for someone in a relationship to say, of course. I haven’t posted on this before for that reason! First of all, it’s an intensely private subject. Second of all, I know that my words in a public forum such as this have considerable power. My goal is not to shame anyone. Please know, I don’t tell the teenagers that I work with in my youth group not to masturbate; when the topic comes up in my courses on gender, I never make the suggestion that I think that masturbation "falls short of the mark." . Indeed, I know that masturbation can be redemptive, as my Clitoris and Corinthians post makes clear. But when it comes to my own restriction, this a private conviction that I’ve arrived at — and yet, it’s such a vital part of so many people’s lives and it’s so intimately connected to other issues that we discuss on this blog — that I felt compelled to address it here.
More recently, I’ve met several young men and women in a variety of spiritual traditions who have chosen not to masturbate as well as refrain from sex outside of marriage. I’ve seen young celibate men (at their stereotypical sexual peak) choose to channel all of their sexual energy into other aspects of their lives; some are Kabbalists and some are Catholics but all are convinced that is indeed humanly possible to live without masturbation. As one young man I know who studies Kabbalah put it, "I believe that the purpose of sex isn’t necessarily procreation — I believe it’s sharing. Sex is only truly appropriate and sacred when it is an act of sharing light and joy with another human being. Masturbation is all about me, and my goal is to think less about me and more about the world I am called to serve. It’s very difficult to restrict, but it isn’t impossible."
Do I think masturbation is a sin? No. Do I think folks ought to be ashamed of masturbating, or of sexual fantasies? Of course not. But have I seen very real benefits in my own life and in the lives of others from giving it up? You bet. At nearly forty, I still have a strong and vibrant libido, thanks — but today, all of it is directed towards one other human being, and that human being is not myself. On my spiritual journey, I’ve come to the point where I find tremendous liberation not in following my impulses but in sublimating them. (I’m just the latest in a very long line of men and women who have come to that same conclusion, of course.)
In the end, I chose to let go of masturbation and sexual fantasy because they were at odds with my vision of what it meant to live a life of servanthood and discipleship. I believe today that everything I do and say is an ethical issue. How I spend money, how I eat, how I vote, how I share my time, how I love, how I think, how I fantasize, how I use sexuality. It’s easier, of course, to live up to these commitments as a married man — but I have a large number of friends of a wide variety of ages who have made the same decision, and many of them are single. They are not bitter and angry; indeed, though their lives are not without struggle, they seem more joyous and energetic than many of their peers who have not made the same decision.
I am convinced that good people can disagree strongly about this issue. I am convinced that one can masturbate and be psychologically healthy. (Masturbation can even be a tool, for some, to achieve greater emotional and sexual health.) But from time to time, folks like Mermade have asked me what my personal feelings were about masturbation and fantasy. And at long last, I feel comfortable and confident enough to offer my true answer in a public forum.
But here’s what got me when I was in college, and what I could never fully understand when I was in discussion with my fellow anti-porn feminists: why is it wrong for men to purchase, view, and masturbate to pornography, but not wrong for those same men to masturbate to demeaning fantasies of women in their heads?
Because real women aren’t the same as imaginary women. Mental fantasies of women aren’t real.
I don’t think a feminist analysis of porn or masturbation can progress very far without a firm understanding of that point.
Private fantasies can demean nobody but the fantasizer. If you are convinced they do, there’s your reason for stopping, but it’s nothing to do with women or feminists, who are not obliged to object. Men’s thoughts are not magical forces; only their actions have power over women, however much some of them would like it to be otherwise.
Why you don’t mention non-demeaning fantasies, I do not know.
sharply at odds with conventional feminist thought.
The non-distinction between real and imaginary women, sure. The rest of it? Conventional feminist thought doesn’t really give as much of a damn about men’s private, non-harmful self-pleasure as men do. It’s a good deal more concerned with harm done to real live women and with women’s erotic pleasure, neither of which is a part of this post.
the tenth commandment is “Thou Shalt Not Covet.”
…thy neighbor’s wife.
anyone who looks at a woman lustfully.
Those of us who direct our fantasies elsewhere aren’t really mentioned, are we?
Sophonisba, read the whole verse:
You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.
In any sensible understanding, that includes your neighbor’s husband, your neighbor’s boyfriend, and so forth.
So… what does that do with this?
Wow, I wasn’t going to, as the kids say, ‘go there’, but since you have: in the modern world, your neighbor’s wife doesn’t belong to him. She does not belong in the same list with his work animals and his slaves. Wanting to have sex with her is not equivalent to wanting to own her. It is not, in a sane brain, even distantly related.
In a society in which your neighbor’s wife does belong to him just as his animals do, your neighbor’s husband does not belong to her. The equivalence does not exist.
As long as you’re claiming that masturbation saps energy, (”They are not bitter and angry; indeed, though their lives are not without struggle, they seem more joyous and energetic than many of their peers who have not made the same decision”) would you like to add that masturbators have hairy palms, in addition to being listless and tired? You’ve gone past claiming that masturbation is spiritually damaging to suggesting that it takes a physical toll and that its mark can be seen on the masturbator by outside observers. This is throughly, patently ridiculous. You say it’s a “private conviction,” but you don’t restrict your judgments to yourself.
I don’t think his point was to describe all celibate people, I think it was just to point out that these two didn’t fit into a common stereotype of what celibacy has to look like (bitter, angry, etc.).
I must say that while I’m no theologian, but it’s always seemed to me that sophonisba’s reading of that passage is rather commonsensical, and the standard reading of the passage seems as though it’s heavily refracted through the prism of our late modern sexual obsessions (as well as our drifting away from a straight wife-as-property model of marriage).
Without getting too personal, I’d also confess that I agree, not just in theory but in practice, with sophonisba’s criticisms of the “energy-sapping” theory of masturbation. Whether or not avoiding masturbation improves the sexual life of a monogamous relationship is dependent on many factors, including the idiosyncracies of sex drive. (Furthermore, what if all your fantasies were about your wife? Would that be acceptable within your personal ethics on this issue?)
Fantasizing about my wife is fine. Masturbating to those fantasies — rather than restricting and bringing all of my energy to our marriage — is not. Again, that’s just me.
Sophonisba, “ownership” is a common theme in modern marriage ceremonies. It is not at odds with egalitarianism. 1 Corinthians 7:4 says that a husband’s body belongs to his wife just as a wife’s body belongs to her husband. It’s not anachronistic to read that as offering a vision of mutual ownership, mutual submission, and mutual sovereignty over each other. Of course, like most Christians, I read the tenth commandment in light of my understanding of the New Testament notion of mutual submission in marriage.
Vacula, the post about the clitoris stands. I’m writing at someone who arrived at a radical understanding of sexuality as an adult man after a great deal of experience. I wouldn’t ever call someone to a standard that I couldn’t meet when I was there age.
But if I contradict myself, I contradict myself. Sometimes, to quote an old saying, Hugo worships the “Either, the Or, and the Holy Both.” It’s not very intellectually impressive, but it’s honest. Remember, my blog reflects not only long-held opinions, but temporary musings — of the very sort that I will subsequently question. I realize it makes me infuriating. It’s a character flaw, and I’m workin’ on it.
I disagree with you! People don’t masturbate to sexual fantasies of other people. Where did you get this from? You don’t need to have anyone in mind when you do this!…..You don’t have to be thinking of your wife! You don’t have to be looking at porn! My word!…….Where did you get this from? …..And it certainly doesn’t take away from your relationship with your wife!……I’m sure other people will agree with me!
Nance, do you contemplate the glories of the tax code? Do you compare Coke and Pepsi? The vast majority of research supports the notion that masturbation and fantasy are closely linked.
But if I contradict myself, I contradict myself.
Honestly, it doesn’t read so much like a contradiction as like the entirely coherent thoughts of someone who thinks that male sexuality is powerful, mighty, and important - so that its proper management is of crucial importance (’Don’t point that thing at somebody, it might go off!’)- while female sexuality, is nice, consciousness-raising, and harmless. That’s not unproblematic.
Interesting point, sophonisba. Usually your zingers miss their mark, but you might have scored a direct hit with that one. I’ll muse about that around the Rose Bowl this afternoon.
So, what we’ve got here is a call to keep our hands off our junk A. because that’s the wife’s job (which is nice if you have one on call) and B. to further some spiritual purity thing (which is nice if that’s what gets you off). That is a rather flimsy rack to hang suc a broad hat on.
While I respect your thoughts and agree with many of the things you pointed out, I am not convinced that lusting for one’s wife or husband is any different than lusting over any other person in any other situation. It’s lust, it’s human, and it’s ok. Or, it’s not OK, ever. If you want to say that lust is a negative force (wich it certainly can be, just like spending too much money on trendy clothes, or eating too many twinkies or drinking too much beer), then I think you ought to be more consistent, which means you also shouldn’t lust after your wife. As crudly as it was written above, I agree with David Thompson. I don’t agree that just because you are married to someone makes your lust any less of a negative force. A person like yourself is not comprable to an ultra-celibate yogi or Dominican or religiously inclined teenager. You seem to feel absolute in your opinion, with only the one exception of your wife.
I personally do not have any strong feelings on this subject, but I’m also not sure you really have yours completely sorted out like you say you do.
Lydia, as far as I can tell, Hugo is saying that all his sexual energy - including his lust - should be directed at his wife. There’s nothing inconsistent about that, that I can see. Just as having sex with your wife is positive but having sex with Amy down the street is negative, lusting towards your wife is positive but lusting towards Amy down the street is negative.
Why? I am sort of playing devil’s advocate on this one, but I’m not entirely convinced that his wife and Amy down the street are all that different.
I will probably lose this argument, and that’s ok because I do see his point and it’s not a bad one, it’s just not air-tight, that’s all.
What is “me too feminism” and who espouses it?
Usually your zingers miss their mark
You say that like you think I’m more interested in being pithy than in being accurate. Interesting indeed.
But in any event, I have no problem whatsoever with any individual adult who chooses to focus their sexuality in the manner they desire. Your marriage and your spirituality are your business. In society at large, however, anti-masturbation views, when generally accepted (as they once were), put lots of extra pressure on women to satisfy mens’ “needs” (since for men to satisfy themselves would be demeaning) and contributes to a view of women as mere outlets for male energy.
And this is how people really acted before masturbation was generally admitted to be healthy and normal and allowed to be mentioned in polite society. Not that they have entirely stopped, but it’s gotten better since “secular society” has gotten its collective head around the concept. “Blue balls” is a phrase that the female generation before mine had to hear a lot more than I did, I’ll wager. A girl who can’t say “Go jerk off, if you’re so horny - it’s not my problem!” is a girl who can be guilted much more easily into having sex she doesn’t want.
See David Thompson’s joking summary: “because that’s the wife’s job”.
If it strikes you as odd, Hugo, that no one expressed any negative feelings about masturbation to you when you were growing up, as you say above, well - you’re a historian, for heaven’s sake! Surely you’ve read about the not-far-distant times when masturbation was heavily disapproved of, and the everyday horrors that produced.
And in those days, just as now, female masturbation was a side-note, if thought worthy of mention at all.
I completely agree with Nancy. Hugo, when you describe your fantasies, I’ll show you mine.
I also agree with sophonisba. The position you’re taking doesn’t seem to account for the work of lesbians on this issue. And I’m not sure why you’d want to ignore research on fantasy and masturbation — we may find that whatever it is you say you fantasize about is thoroughly grounded in cultural habits. What about the guy I know, who’s actually published an article on this, who loves to watch people being pied? Women who fantasize about, not a person, just sensations. Women who fantasize about their own bodies, or just think of hands running all over here, having nothing to do with a particular man or woman?
I was just reading Gayle Rubin the other day and she was saying that, what we really need (and feminism has failed to provided) was a theory of sexuality, which is why we have these wild wars that break out about sexual practices.
Hugo, thank you so much for addressing my questions! I gained a lot of insight from reading your post as well as the responses to it. Thank you!
I’ve been thinking about how I must come across to people here, based on the few comments that I’ve written. (I know Hugo might be thinking, don’t apologize, don’t apologize!) but I feel a disclaimer on who I am and what I believe is necessary here. I probably seem like an uptight-religious-zealot-jesus-freak-prude, but in hopes to defy my stereotype if there is one, let me just say this:
The reason why I feel so strongly about abstinance, masturbation and the sex industry is not 100% based on my Catholic background, although that has a lot to do with it. My beliefs are also based on the fact that my boyfriend was heavily addicted to this, um, stuff, which in turn affected his expectations and assumptions about me when we started dating years ago. Before I became a serious Catholic/Christian, I believed that it was “normal” for guys to masturbate and look at porn, and thus accepted it. But when you’re asked indirectly many times why you don’t want to do ______ (fill in the blank) because, after all, the girls in porn are “happy” to do it, it changes your perception on things.
I don’t think that most girls feel comfortable with the thought of a guy thinking about having sex with her and masturbating to it. As in my case, my boyfriend’s thoughts about me quickly turned into actions, actions that were against my will. As the popular saying/poem goes:
Sow a thought, and you reap an act
Sow an act, and you reap a habit
Sow a habit, and you reap a character
Sow a character, and you reap a destiny.
I respect everyone’s choices and understand that we all have different feelings on the matter. We each have (and rightfully should have) the power to decide how we feel about this. I do not look down those who masturbate, but I do believe that the act (and NOT the person who does the act) of lusting after someone (no matter who it is) and masturbating to that thought is wrong. Again, that’s because I’ve been very hurt by the two and not because I’m some annoyingly pious and arrogant Christian.
I know what you’re saying Mermade, but I’d argue those who expect normal people to act like porn stars haven’t known many real people, or might not have the firmest grip on reality. That might sound really judgmental of me, but yeah…
Mermade, I respect your choices and I don’t think you’re uptight or a prude, not at all. But I think that giving men’s fantasies primacy, as you’re doing when you ask how girls feel…about men’s thoughts!, is in its own way a capitulation to the porn culture, where men’s fantasies are the only ones that exist and matter. When I think about masturbation, I think about what’s good and ‘normal’ for me, first. Not for men. Why should I have to have an opinion about men’s fantasies? Mine are more important.
And a boyfriend expecting you to mimic a fantasy object whether you want to or is wrong and unfair. “Normal” doesn’t matter when it comes to what you do and don’t want to do in bed. I think every decent person would agree with that, whatever their masturbation habits.
Cripes, I go for a workout and two hours later, have lots to answer.
Yes, I think there’s a huge difference between lust for my wife and lust for other women. Because my wife and I are in a covenantal relationship, our bodies belong to each other. This does not give me the right to do things to her against her will, nor does it obligate her to please me (or me to please her). It does mean that our sexual desire for the other is grounded in a concomitant commitment to live out the consequencs of that desire. Our sexual desires and actions are thus congruent; when we fantasize about someone who isn’t “ours” in this sense we’re doing something completely different.
I am very familiar with the history of masturbation (including Laqueur’s book by that title). Read my post under popular posts about “Surgery, Sex, and Paternalistic Feminism” — I know well what was done to masturbating women in an earlier era.
Bitch Lab, you’re right — we don’t yet have a sufficient theory of sexuality that incorporates faith perspectives, feminist experience, and the extraordinary variety of human behavior.
That said, as I reread my post, I count half a dozen caveats; I’m constantly explaining why I don’t expect everyone else on the planet to live the way I do! I don’t intend to explain why feminists shouldn’t masturbate, because I don’t think you can make a secular feminist case against masturbation; my case is based on theology (both Eastern and Western), personal experience, and my own fundamental desire to live a life of service. Mermade asked an honest question, and I gave her an honest answer.
Mermade says (quoted by Hugo): “…I wholeheartedly agree that men must give up their lust after women in order to be pro-feminist.”
Hugo - is Mermade agreeing with you? Have you said any such thing?
I can see believing that one must usefully channel one’s lust, and/or must limit it to where it is appropriate, but “give up their lust after women”? That turns (pro)feminism into an anti-sex caricature of itself.
Haha. The church of “the either, the or, and the Holy Both.” That is so you, Mr. Hugo!
Why is it that knowing you live your life like this makes you even hotter to me? I wawnt to clone you and marry your clone.
“Currently”, I don’t foresee cloning happening anytime soon. Thanks for your kind words.
Anthony, Mermade is misquoting me slightly. I’ve made the case that pro-feminist men ought to match their language and their life, and that porn use (and the rest of the sex industry) is incompatible with pro-feminist commitments. In that sense, I’m referring to behavior.
From a CHRISTIAN pro-feminist standpoint (something I don’t teach in class, but give voice to on this blog), I think that indulging lustful thoughts for women with whom one is not in relationship is problematic.
When I mentor Christian students, I challenge them in ways I might not challenge secular students. Where a common vocabulary of Scripture and church tradition exists, I’ll use it in a heartbeat. But I don’t proselytize.
“Sow a thought, and you reap an act
Sow an act, and you reap a habit
Sow a habit, and you reap a character
Sow a character, and you reap a destiny.”
Hmmm. Odd little thing I’ve never seen before. The first two lines follow on, the third is a leap, and the fourth doesn’t track at all.
“As in my case, my boyfriend’s thoughts about me quickly turned into actions, actions that were against my will.”
There is a difference between asking you to do something and expecting you to do something. The latter is an imposition. How would you have felt if your boyfriend had told you about his fantasies but explicitly said he did NOT want you to participate in them?
On my spiritual journey, I’ve come to the point where I find tremendous liberation not in following my impulses but in sublimating them. (I’m just the latest in a very long line of men and women who have come to that same conclusion, of course.)
Is that “liberation” really the same for men and women, though? Women don’t tend to get anywhere near as much admiration or credit for having strict sexual self-control as men do– it’s just what’s expected of them, and if they don’t live up to an ideal that’s considered near-heroic for men, they’re treated as “sluts.” No one’s going to pat a woman on the back for channeling her sexual energy into other constructive pursuits, because women aren’t supposed to have all that much sexual energy.
All the stuff about freedom through sublimation, taking pride in denying one’s desires, “channeling” one’s libido and so on seems to be coming from an awfully privileged perspective; it’s easy to take pleasure in choosing not to indulge your urges when you know there aren’t any social sanctions preventing you from choosing to do so, and easy to deny yourself the right to desire certain things when you know that no one else is ever going to deny you that right. It’s also easy for men to see overcoming “lust” as a subversive, liberating act when they’ve been told all their lives that their sexuality is an incredibly powerful, almost uncontrollable force– for women, suppressing desire isn’t anywhere near as exciting or romanticized, because society at large has never much cared about their desires to begin with.
Very interesting post and comments as usual Hugo. I would only add that Mohandas Gandhi, who was celibate for religious reasons, was so committed that he would not have sex even with his wife (obviously after his kids were born). That’s taking your position on lust and going the extra mile.
Because real women aren’t the same as imaginary women. Mental fantasies of women aren’t real.
I see at least two distinct issues with porn, though: 1) the treatment of the actual people involved in producing the porn, and 2) the effect of the fantasy on your attitudes and behavior (or the effect of a market for that sort of fantasy on attitudes and behavior of people in general).
Both Christianity and feminism have a place for considering both potential issues, but the analysis winds up different, the boundaries wind up different, and the relative weight given to the fantasy is different.
Treatment of people involved in porn: From a secular feminist point of view, what you want is to avoid exploitation of the models and actors; you’d want to encourage what Arwen calls “cruelty-free” porn. It’s similar to thinking about stuff like sweatshops in other countries, unionization, whether you honor strike lines, or whatever. From a Christian point of view, sex belongs in the context of a larger relationship and commitment, and asking other people, for your pleasure and benefit, to do things that are outside that can’t be right. If you believe that sex for money falls short of the mark, then you darn well better also believe that paying someone by proxy to have sex for money also falls short of the mark - and at least as much so as anything the sex worker may be doing.
When it comes to what fantasy, from a secular feminist point of view, there’s certainly a place for being critical of the ways in which culture shapes our thoughts, fantasies, and expectations (whether it’s porn, ads, or other movies, magazines, etc.). And I might, even if I were a secular feminist rather than a Christian one, choose to avoid looking at something either because I don’t want to buy it and promote its cultural influence, or because I personally don’t like the way it affects my mind. But it’s not, from a secular point of view, too big a deal if my fantasies don’t always reflect my values, as long as my actions do.
Christianity has generally focused in more on thoughts (I can well remember the confessional prayer in the liturgy from when I was a child, in which we’d confess to having offended against God “in thought, word, and deed”), as well as actions, and so it’s not clear to me that, as a Christian, I get to be quite as free to indulge fantasies (sexual or otherwise) as if I weren’t.
Fantasizing about my wife is fine. Masturbating to those fantasies — rather than restricting and bringing all of my energy to our marriage — is not. Again, that’s just me.
It’s certainly not me. My nearly eighteen year marriage has included months apart (once) and lots of chronic illness. I think masturbating to fantasies of your husband or wife is a fine way to deal with significant breaks in your sex life.
contributes to a view of women as mere outlets for male energy.
Yeah, one reason I don’t tend to buy the anti-masturbation version of Christianity (given that Christianity doesn’t seem to me to absolutely require it) is that I’d rather see people masturbate than use other people as mere sexual outlets. (Of course, that includes an obligation to care about the people who might be involved in supplying your masturbatory aids. It’s only better to masturbate if the way you masturbate doesn’t itself involve using and exploiting people.)
From a CHRISTIAN pro-feminist standpoint (something I don’t teach in class, but give voice to on this blog), I think that indulging lustful thoughts for women with whom one is not in relationship is problematic.
When I was single, I tried to draw the line at lustful thoughts for people with whom I could ethically eventually be in relationship. Otherwise I’d try to divert and redirect my thoughts.
But I also think it’s possible to beat oneself up too much over such things; better to let the thoughts you don’t want float by like clouds and observe that you’re thinking them, than to have to fight every last one. And that goes for anything else - depression, anger, whatever - as much as for sexual desires you’d really not want to act on.
“Sow a thought, and you reap an act
Sow an act, and you reap a habit
Sow a habit, and you reap a character
Sow a character, and you reap a destiny.”
Hmmm. Odd little thing I’ve never seen before. The first two lines follow on, the third is a leap, and the fourth doesn’t track at all.
David Thompson: I disagree. This slogan goes awry on the first line, unless you have no faith whatsoever in self-control and, frankly, a fairly mimimal level of maturity.
Sophonisba:
“Why you don’t mention non-demeaning fantasies, I do not know.”
My suspicion would be that it is presumed they do not exist.
and
“…someone who thinks that male sexuality is powerful, mighty, and important - so that its proper management is of crucial importance (’Don’t point that thing at somebody, it might go off!’)- while female sexuality, is nice, consciousness-raising, and harmless. That’s not unproblematic.”
I’ll say. Now, if you’d replaced “powerful, mighty and important” with “vile, disgusting, and dangerous” you’d more nearly approach the upbringing I had… (now there *I go making it about me… sorry). Frankly, Hugo’s rationale - sublimating and refocussing sexual energy onto service-to-others and a relationship (should Providence deign to grant you one) is a tremendous improvement over simply feeling ashamed of one’s feelthy thoughts and the old, stiff, stained t-shirt wadded up under the bachelor bed…
That said, I have mostly given up masturbation since about the fourth week of Advent just past. I’m helped immeasurably in this by the fact I’m also in a torrid affair with a married woman since about the New Year. (When you can’t approach the ones you want for fear of giving offense, the ones who want *you enough to approach you can really set up some awful predicaments.)
“powerful, mighty and important” with “vile, disgusting, and dangerous”
But they really are two sides of the same coin: as your penis goes, so goes the world. It’s silly and self-important, even when it’s not giving people horrible guilt complexes.
What I was told about masturbation in sex-ed class as a child:
It’s normal not to masturbate. It’s normal to masturbate ten times a day, or once a month. If you don’t like doing it, you can stop. If you like it, that’s fine. It’s normal to feel abnormal. If you feel guilty, that’s normal too, but maybe you should talk to somebody about it. Whatever you’re doing, you’re not the only one.
I wish everyone could have heard that when they were young enough to have it sink in. It’s all true, and it would save a lot in therapy bills and angst.
Hugo; What you do with your sexuality is your own, and if you’re happy with where you’re at, then I’m glad for you. I also imagine that if someone has had previous porn addiction, and masturbation is wrapped up in that, then staying away from one may mean staying away from the other.
But, a few things. First, people don’t necessarily just masturbate to pornographic images. You talk about tax returns in incredulity; but I have a friend who’s got a masturbation thingy for waterfalls! So it’s possible… it depends what turns you on, I suppose. Granted, that person is probably in the minority.
I have one concern which I’d like to throw something out for your consideration. I’ve always had a strong libido, and sex has been important in my relationship. During my pregnancy with my second son, my libido was yanked out from underneath me: first, I wasn’t interested, and second, I developed an aversion to body smells. (Even my own. It was a gaggy nine months. I kept telling the baby I wasn’t planning to *eat* people, to no avail.) Anyway, this absolutely stalled our intimate life. Now, we don’t consume porn: however, I would have been really sad if my husband wasn’t able to celebrate/enjoy his own sexuality during that time. My husband and I enjoy sharing ourselves, but I personally would feel a fair amount of emotional strain if I was handed his sexuality as my keepsake. Exactly because I love him. I’d feel guilt, probably inappropriate, but there nonetheless: because his sexuality a part of him that I love and respect. In our long lives, that may happen again: pregnancy has interrupted our coitus once (pun intended), but possibly in the future there will be illness, or depression, or whatever. Anyway, another perspective.
Or, of course, what Lynn said.
What I was told about masturbation in sex-ed class as a child:
You got taught about masturbation in sex-ed class as a child? I don’t remember them saying anything about masturbation in my sex-ed class. I learned about it by reading books about psychoanalysis on my own in junior high (which at some point got into patients’ sex lives).
It’s normal …
Popular magazine advice articles aren’t too helpful sometimes; in some of them, the main message about what’s normal is: Women, understand that it’s normal for men to masturbate and use porn a whole lot, whether you like it or not, and no matter what your sex life is. And if they say otherwise, they’re lying. We take for granted that you, being a woman, won’t like it, but you must understand, Men Are Different From You.
Lynn: I heard that spiel when I was in middle school, I think, yes. Not that I first learned about it there, of course, but it was the first official pronouncement, I think. And yeah, they might have meant to imply that ten times a day is normal for boys and hardly ever for girls, but I don’t think they said so explicitly, for which I must thank them. I don’t remember whether this was in a girls-only or a mixed -sex class. I think mixed-sex.
I don’t know how many women I’ve heard admit that they always thought they were the only girls in the world who masturbated until they had a drunken bonding session in college or Girl Scout camp or wherever and found out that actually, everyone does it. Hilarious or sad, I don’t know, but yeah, the women’s magazines are not a lot of help there. Every time they have a bait-and-switch article about masturbation that turns out to be, not about girls, but about being okay with your boyfriend’s habits, it’s another message reminding you that your own subjectivity is irrelevant, that only boys’ sexuality is real. That you should be more concerned with their feelings about porn than your own, that the only feelings you are presumed to have are approval or disapproval of other people’s desires. It’s horrible.
Interesting thread. I have nothing in particular to add but I did want to comment as another woman whose masturbation fantasies have nothing to do with people (known or unknown to me). I find the idea of masturbating to the idea of someone else very, very odd but obviously that’s just not my bag, baby. From what I’ve seen and read in general I imagine I’m in something of a minority on this.
I’m constantly explaining why I don’t expect everyone else on the planet to live the way I do! I don’t intend to explain why feminists shouldn’t masturbate, because I don’t think you can make a secular feminist case against masturbation
If a secular feminist case can’t be made against masturbation, then shouldn’t the first step be to convince feminists that they ought to become Christians? It’s odd that you’re a member of an evangelical religion that says salvation is only for believers in this religion, but to take such a relativistic viewpoint about not trying to convince others of this part of what you believe to be true.
Stentor, I work for a public community college. I live and work in a pluralistic cultural environment; of necessity, like so many evangelicals in public life of any kind, I have to wear two hats.
Hugo: What “necessity”? Jesus didn’t say “go and make disciples of all nations, unless someone might be offended or think you’re criticizing them, in which case you should point out that believing my teachings is just a personal choice.”
In any event, you are clearly happy to be evangelical about your feminist convictions (a practice of which I approve, btw). So it just strikes me as odd that you would treat those two parts of your identity so differently. If anything, I would say our pluralistic cultural environment is more accepting of evangelical Christianity than of evangelical feminism.
I don’t mean to turn this thread into “slam Hugo for his hypocrisy,” but this post just triggered something that I’ve had trouble understanding about your philosophical approach in general over the years that I’ve been a fan of your blog.
Stentor, I teach a women’s studies class, predicated on feminism. If I were teaching a theology class at a seminary, you can bet your bootstraps I’d be doing Christian apologetics.
I’m a feminist in my personal life, but I’m also a feminist “by profession”. No one pays me to be a Christian; I volunteer at church, of course, but I don’t work there. But I am paid to teach courses at a public college that are rooted in feminist thought. The real issue, I suppose, is why some liberal public colleges are so much more welcoming to feminist scholarship than to overtly Christian scholarship — given that both have immense capacity to discomfit and offend!
Nance, do you contemplate the glories of the tax code?
Umm..Hugo, when Congress changed the tax code to shelter 500K of capital gains on a house (if married; 250K if single), well, that produced a certain euphoria that required..well, you know..
You don’t have to fantasize about someone you shouldn’t be with. You don’t even have to fantasize about someone who exists; you can think about some imaginary person, or imagine a scene about two imaginary people that doesn’t involve yourself. And your fantasies don’t have to be demeaning towards anyone.
I don’t think these things involve lust, which I think is treating someone else like an object and wanting to possess them. This is more like you desire some sexual release and that the acts you imagine are something you would want to participate in, and not that you want someone to engage in them with you.
I also don’t think there’s a problem with feeling desire for someone, but the moment you start dwelling on it and using them as a tool to fuel your fantasies, you’ve crossed the line. (In Matthew, when Jesus talks about looking at a woman with lust, the Greek actually strongly expresses intentionality: Matt. 5:28 pas ho blepon gunaika pros to epithumesai auten, everyone who looks at a woman in order to covet her)
abc’s comments are a good lead into my thoughts on this issue: it seems like there’s an unspoken assumption here that thinking sexual things about someone is an insult, or in more extreme terms, an assault. abc says that lust is “treating someone like an object and wanting to possess them,” and I can’t help but feel that a lot of feminist thought (a good example might be this thread at Feministe) has not done a good job of teasing out the difference between objectification and wanting to have sex with someone. In regard to pornography, fantasy and masturbation, there tend to be rules given - parameters like not directing lust (I’ll use it here differently than abc (I hope) as a term for sexual desire and general horniness) at anyone but your partner, or only feeling lust for people who you don’t see on film, etc. I don’t find these rules satisfactory, though, because they seem more like behavioral controls without clear reasons behind them. Ultimately, I think that the reason why these reasons aren’t very well-clarified is because they still hinge on the idea that sex is bad and dirty, and that by fantasizing about someone or something, you’re foisting this bad and dirty thing on them. Just like sophonisba was already saying, though, these are just thoughts, and I daresay they probably aren’t demeaning. When you’re fantasizing about having sex with someone, you (probably) are fantasizing about their active, willing, and happy participation in it. Unless you have some major issues, you’re probably not turned on by the idea of having sex with an uninterested or unwilling partner. And as I mentioned the other day, a lot of pornography works this way too - it’s meant to encourage the fantasy that these people want to have sex with you, not to do something against their will.
Hugo, when you say that secularists (of which I am one, to the core) don’t believe in bad thoughts, I think that’s a misperception. If I find my mind wandering to some unkind or violent or otherwise objectionable thoughts, I do try and stop them. It’s the conviction behind the thoughts that make them objectionable, and if I’m feeling something I know is hurtful or wrong, I’ll do my best to stop feeling it.
When it comes to sexual fantasy, I am happy to let my mind wander onto any non-demeaning, non-violent subject it ends up at. Sure, I’d like to have sex with Dude X, and I can think about it, but it doesn’t diminish my commitment to my husband or my love and lust for him. I think the difference between a secular treatment of sexuality and a religious one is that I don’t feel that there is any purpose to my sexuality - it’s here, so I might as well enjoy it, but it’s not here for anything. It’s a useful tool to use to express my love for my husband, but it can be used in a lot of ways that just please me.
This is a useful attitude in many ways - think of the many women who only have orgasms via vibrator - and I think such an open-ended view of sexuality can be useful for people to whom sexual pleasure does not come naturally (whether their reason is physical or psychological).
Sara writes:
Hugo, when you say that secularists (of which I am one, to the core) don’t believe in bad thoughts, I think that’s a misperception. If I find my mind wandering to some unkind or violent or otherwise objectionable thoughts, I do try and stop them. It’s the conviction behind the thoughts that make them objectionable, and if I’m feeling something I know is hurtful or wrong, I’ll do my best to stop feeling it.
When it comes to sexual fantasy, I am happy to let my mind wander onto any non-demeaning, non-violent subject it ends up at. Sure, I’d like to have sex with Dude X, and I can think about it, but it doesn’t diminish my commitment to my husband or my love and lust for him. I think the difference between a secular treatment of sexuality and a religious one is that I don’t feel that there is any purpose to my sexuality - it’s here, so I might as well enjoy it, but it’s not here for anything. It’s a useful tool to use to express my love for my husband, but it can be used in a lot of ways that just please me.
Thanks for making the first point, Sara — I accept it completely. It is wrong to imply that only folks with a strong connection to religious principles work to keep their thoughts in harmony with their values.
As for the second, I think you do encapsulate the gulf between our positions; I do feel very strongly that sexuality has a purpose. That purpose is not necessarily procreative, but it is always about establishing connection with another human being and with God.
At nearly forty, I still have a strong and vibrant libido, thanks — but today, all of it is directed towards one other human being, and that human being is not myself.You must be lucky enough to be married to a woman whose libido closely matches yours. Don’t forget that not all men or women are that fortunate.
I don’t believe I ever made any implications about matching libidos. Frankly, whether they match or not, the obligation to direct all of my energy in one direction is the same. If we’re having sex nightly or fortnightly, it makes no difference to the principle.
I completely believe you, Hugo, but I would like to know more about how you resist temptation in this area? What do you tell yourself to stop from fantasizing? I really want to know!
Personally, if I’m being plagued by sexual thoughts I want to distract myself from, I trade lust for gluttony, and go eat something yummy instead. Sometimes it works. Maybe cold showers work better, but I’m too much of a hedonist - I go for good food.
Luke, I highly recommend you read the blog series Why Your Wife Won’t Have Sex With You. It’s not about blaming or telling you to suck it up; it’s about ways to think about the problem and find solutions that are within your control.
Whoa, how did you infer that my comment applied to me specifically? I’ve read enough of Dan Savage’s advice column to know that not all marriages have libidos that are anywhere near each other.
I’ve discovered that, as a male, the best sex is no sex. That way, when you have a “wet dream”, you KNOW what you like, since the dream came from the subconscious. Of course, if I was married, I’d kiss “wet dreams’ good-bye for the wife’s sake.
Hi Hugo,
interesting post - “The moral nature of thoughts…”
What I’m wondering about is this -
and how it relates to your apparently very strict views on the impossibility of “compartmentalization”. The latter, it appears to me, cannot be seen as a one way street. You seem to see it as impossible to make conscious decisions about how to control and combine different parts of ones sexuality, yet you’re claiming that you *can* let go of sexual fantasies, which, as you’re certainly aware, are often not a product of the conscious mind. If you can actually do this, you are “reverse” “compartmentalizing” your sexuality.
No, not quite, though I appreciate the careful reading of my words, Sam. What I’m talking about here is the conscious decision to direct my sexuality in a very certain way — towards my wife. That’s not repression or compartmentalization, because I don’t have a “secret” life that is at odds with my public one. And while, to paraphrase the Luther line, can’t stop the birds from flying overhead, I can prevent them from building nests in my hair — in other words, I have some control over how long I entertain thoughts or fantasies that aren’t congruent with my values.
This isn’t about shame, either. I like my sexuality just fine, thanks. The challenge of my adult life has been to make the most private parts of myself match my deepest convictions. It’s an ongoing work, and one way I do that work is by deliberately refraining from certain things (like fantasizing about other people or masturbating). I do this not because of any special virtue on my part but because of a real hunger for a kind of congruence that I think is possible and desirable.
Hugo, thanks for replying. This is interesting -
hmm, as I understood your use of “compartmentlisation” you weren’t just referring to the the cognitive dissonance that can occur when it’s hard to reconcile public values with private ones, but to the impossibility of having ONE complete entirely *open* sexuality that is a combination of several elements (ie, having a girlfriend and masturbating - see your post about the “girlfriend-porn talk”).
Absolutely, but if “congruence” or absence of cognitive dissonance is the key here, then “compartmentalisation” is only impossible in a situation lacking intellectual congruence - which, I would think you would agree - usually depends on individual morality.
I haven’t mentioned “shame” anywhere, I did not think so. Although I’m not entirely certain you always “liked” your sexuality in the way you possibly do now. You seem quite (I would say ‘overly’) critical of yourself and your (earlier) desires at times. If or whatever that may mean - I’m not a psychologist…
Which is fair enough. I think a lot of what I think are logical inconsistencies in your writing stems not from the fact that I’m not accepting that multiple attributions of actions or thoughts are a given in the subject area, but from the fact that you have taken a deeply spiritual and individual concept you call “congruence” and generalize from this point, often without - I think - intersubjectively accessibly explaining your reasoning. It’s the pitfall of standpoint epistemology - useful, helpful to you, inaccessible for other people.
Do you think you could define “congruence” as a general principle?
Congruence:
What I think, what I feel, what I say, and what I do are all more or less the same thing.
Hugo - yeah. But, sorry, that’s a little tautological here. I mean, c’mon, with that definition even Jack the Ripper could achieve “congruence”. But if “congruence” is entirely relativist, it’s an empty shell as a recommendation to anyone but you. Could you *fill* said congruence with meaning that incorporates what you feel, think, say, and would still not be entirely relativist/individualist?