It is an honor to be today’s guest blogger on DevotionalDiva.com. Big thanks to Renee Johnson Fisher for inviting me to be part of her pre-engagement series.
Click here to read what I wrote, called Fifty Shades of Virginity.
The fight for Fifty Shades and Magic Mike.
This weekend, fabulous blogger Rachel Held Evans (RHE) stuck a link in her Sunday Superlatives post to another blogger’s Christian criticism of Fifty Shades of Grey and Magic Mike.
For the (lucky) few who aren’t familiar, Fifty Shades is an erotic novel and Magic Mike is a movie about male strippers. Both are sweeping the female half of the U.S. especially, and of that half, lots are in the church. And of the ones who are in the church, lots are now involved in the fight for Fifty Shades and Magic Mike.
Some Christ followers are detractors because the book promotes lust and the movie promotes the objectification of men. Other Christ followers are proponents because, they say, both the book and the movie “validate” female sexuality.
One woman wrote the following amid the comments on RHE’s blog, re: the fight:
“How many women live in virtually sexless, or sexually frustrated relationships because they feel they can’t talk to their partner and discussing it with female friends is out of the question? So if it’s a slightly to the left of vanilla gawd awfully written novel that starts that conversation, then it should have all our blessings. And if giggling over guys in thongs gets women to talk about what they like and don’t, then bring on the baby oil and chaps!”
And another wrote this:
“Objectification is just disproportionately focusing on someone’s body. If we focus on both sexes’ bodies the same amount, the objectification ends! If men can see that they have hot bodies and minds, maybe they’ll realize it’s the same for women. I don’t think it’s the nudity or whatever that’s the problem… just the disproportion which breeds prejudice.”
The people who are mad at us for criticizing Fifty Shades and Magic Mike are mad because they are under the impression that erotic media marketed for females and movies that objectify men validate female sexuality and kick start important conversations women otherwise wouldn’t have.
As such, the same people are under the impression that we who criticize Fifty Shades and Magic Mike therefore promote female sexual repression, rob women of reasons to talk about sex and ultimately deny women the right to be sexual beings.
The reason Christian marriages are sexless or sexually frustrated and Christian women feel like they can’t talk about sex with their spouse or with their friends is complex. But hear this: The reason Christian marriages are sexless or sexually frustrated and women feel like they can’t talk about sex is not that women haven’t had enough exposure to erotic novels and men in thongs. It is not because women and men historically have been unequally objectified. It is (in part) because we are in a culture that is smack dab in the middle of an era of ultimate sexual confusion.
The truth is there are two kinds of sex. One is the world’s version, which is primarily for pleasure. The other is sex as God intended it to be, which is primarily for procreation and unity and involves the unique creation of a pleasurable sexual relationship between a wife and a husband.
And the problem is that the church generally has dropped the ball. It has said “save sex for marriage” but it doesn’t want to talk about sex.
So the only concept of sex that most people have (even among Christians) is what they learn about it on TV, in movies and in music. And the sex on TV, in movies and in music is the world’s version of sex. And when the church doesn’t differentiate between that kind of sex and sex as God designed it, the results are disastrous:
- “Saving sex for marriage” becomes “waiting until marriage to objectify my partner.”
- Wedding night confusion ensues when what happens in bed neither looks nor feels as good as the movies imply it should.
- Since people only know of one kind of sex, they are alarmed by it when we who see two kinds of sex reject the only one that they know. According to us, we are rejecting the world’s sex. According to them, we are just plain rejecting sex.
And because Fifty Shades and Magic Mike align just fine with the one kind of sex they know exists, to reject the book and movie is, to them, to reject sex, too.
But there is so much more to sex. There is so much more to love. We cannot lower this bar. We cannot accept the world’s sex as the only kind worth sharing with a spouse. The church will not get closer to addressing sex like it should when part of the church is fighting for equal objectification of women and men.
As I said in my response to one of the commenters on RHE’s blog, “If we focus on both sexes’ bodies the same amount, objectification doesn’t end. It becomes mutual. Just because two people consent to being objectified by each other doesn’t mean they eliminate objectification. In fact, they perpetuate it. And as somebody who’s of the opinion that love and objectification are incompatible, I don’t think that’s a good a thing.”
And truly, it isn’t.
Lord have mercy on us.
– – – –
Edit: FYI, the commenter on RHE’s blog who wrote that objectification ends if men and women are objectified the same amount has responded to my comment: I don’t mean it quite as literally as you’re taking it. Think what Syndrome says in The Incredibles. “If everyone’s special, no one is.” (Something like that.)” And she added the following: “Yeah I don’t know if literally objectifying men the same amount as women have been objectified is THE ANSWER. I just think that, in some contexts, it could open some eyes. Also I don’t think objectification is always wrong. Situational objectification. Temporary objectification. Isn’t that what sex sometimes amounts to be? Good lord. Too many thoughts. THIS IS NUANCED PEOPLE.”
Books in 2012: Love and Responsibility
If I tried, I couldn’t concoct a sufficient synopsis nor come up with enough pomp to express with exactness how completely Love and Responsibility blew my mind. The book – the fifteenth I’ve read in full in 2012 – is by Karol Wojtyla, who is both brilliant and Pope John Paul II before he was pope.
The book is about love, marriage and sex and is chock full of profundity and articulate versions of the reasons you give when your friends ask why you’re so excited not to have sex until you’re married. (That happens to everybody, right?)
To anybody who has hopes or plans to wed, I offer a suggestion: PLEASE DON’T BOOK THE CHURCH UNTIL YOU’VE READ THIS BOOK. Worst case scenario? You’ll call off the wedding. But best case, you will learn how to exemplify with your marriage what marriages in our culture rarely really involve: Love.
See below for commentary and several of my favorite excerpts.
On sex, and on what love isn’t:
Wojtyla, to whom I’ll refer as JP2 for the rest of this post (because it’s way easier to spell), writes a lot at the beginning of the book on utilitarianism (the idea that the value of a thing is in how useful it is to you, the philosophy that aims for the greatest good for the greatest number of people), and egoism (which, simply put, is self-focus).
JP2’s description of egoism reminds me a lot of the reasons lots of people give for why it’s important to have sex with a person before you marry him or her:
- “If sexual satisfaction and compatibility aren’t at least quick to achieve if not effortless, the sex is bad…and I don’t want to commit to a life of bad sex.”
- “What if I marry a person who doesn’t know what he or she is doing in sex?”
- “What if his penis is small?”
…all of which boil down to “I always have to have what I want,” a.k.a. egoism, or, frankly, selfishness.
I encountered a guy once who said while he won’t wait until marriage to have sex, it isn’t because he’s selfish. He isn’t selfish, he said. In fact, he added, he is generous in the bedroom – eager to pleasure whatever woman winds up there. He enjoys pleasing her (whoever she is).
To which JP2 would probably say this:
“If, while regarding pleasure as the only good, I also try to obtain the maximum pleasure for someone else – and not just for myself, which would be blatant egoism – then I put a value on the pleasure of this other person only in so far as it gives pleasure to me: it gives me pleasure, that someone else is experiencing pleasure. If, however, I cease to experience pleasure, or it does not tally with my ‘calculus of happiness’ – (a term often used by utilitarians) then the pleasure of the other person ceases to be my obligation, a good for me, and may even become something positively bad. I shall then – true to the principles of utilitarianism – seek to eliminate the other person’s pleasure because no pleasure for me is any longer bound up with it – or at any rate the other person’s pleasure will become a matter of indifference to me, and I shall not concern myself with it. It is crystal clear that if utilitarian principles are followed, a subjective understanding of the good (equating the good with the pleasurable) leads directly, through there may be no conscious intention of this, to egoism.” -page 38
And egoism and love, JP2 says, are incompatible.
“…an objective common good is the foundation of love, and individual persons, who jointly choose a common good, in doing so subject themselves to it. Thanks to it they are united by a true, objective bond of love which enables them to liberate themselves from subjectivism and from the egoism which it inevitably conceals. Love is the unification of persons.
In reply to this reproach consistent utilitarians can (must, indeed) invoke something called the harmonization of egoisms, and a dubious idea it is too, since, as we have seen, on utilitarian premises, there is no escape from egoism. Is it possible to harmonize different egoisms? Is it possible, for instance, to achieve harmony, in the sexual context, between the egoism of a man and that of a woman? This certainly can be done according to the principle ‘greatest possible pleasure for each of the two persons’ – but the practical application of this principle can never deliver us from egoism. Egoism will remain egoism in this type of harmony, the only difference being that these two egoisms, the man’s and the woman’s, will match each other and be mutually advantageous. The moment they cease to match each and to be of advantage to each other, nothing at all is left of the harmony. Love will be no more, in either of the persons or between them … ‘Love’ in this utilitarian conception is a union of egoisms, which can hold together only on condition that they confront each other with nothing unpleasant, nothing to conflict with their mutual pleasure. Therefore love so understood is self-evidently merely a pretence which has to be carefully cultivated to keep the underlying reality hidden: the reality of egoism, and the greediest kind of egoism at that, exploiting another person to obtain for itself its own ‘maximum pleasure.’ In such circumstances, the other person is and remains only a means to an end, as Kant rightly observed in his critique of utilitarianism.” p. 38-39
To use someone as a means to an end is a violation of what JP2 calls “the personalistic norm.”
“This norm, in its negative aspect, states that the person is the kind of good which does not admit of use and cannot be treated as an object of use and as such the means to an end. In its positive from the personalistic norm confirms this: the person is a good towards which the only proper and adequate attitude is love. This positive content of the personalistic norm is precisely what the commandment to love teaches.” -p. 41
Something else often mistaken for love, he writes, is something that is, in truth, only part of love: sentimentality.
“Feelings arise spontaneously – the attraction which one person feels towards another often begins suddenly and unexpectedly – but this reaction is in effect ‘blind.’ Where the feelings are functioning naturally, they are not concerned with the truth about their object. … And this is just where emotional-affective reactions often tend to distort or falsify attractions: through their prism, values which are not really present at all may be discerned in a person. This can be very dangerous to love. For when emotional reactions are spent – and they are naturally fleeting – the subject, whose whole attitude was based on such reaction, and not on the truth about the other person, is left as it were in a void, bereft of that good which he or she appeared to have found. … This is why in any attraction – and indeed, here above all – the question of the truth about the person towards whom it is felt is so important.” -p. 77-78
On what love is:
“Love in the full sense of the word is a virtue, not just an emotion, and still less a mere excitement of the senses. This virtue is produced in the will and has at its disposal the resources of the will’s spiritual potential: in other words, it is an authentic commitment of the free will of one person, resulting from the truth about another person.” -p. 123
JP2 also writes that love is selfless, but that because it’s selfless does not mean a man or a woman will be stifled, or that either spouse should sacrifice any part of who he or she truly is. In fact, the opposite is true:
“Love proceeds by way of this renunciation (of ‘autonomy’), guided by the profound conviction that it does not diminish and impoverish, but quite the contrary, enlarges and enriches the existence of the person. What might be called the law of ekstasis seems to operate here: the lover ‘goes outside’ the self to find a fuller existence in another.” -p. 125-126
And love, not sex, leads to unity. Sex comes later:
“From the ethical point of view the important thing here is not to invert the natural order of events, and not to deny any one of them its place in the sequence. The unification of the two persons must first be achieved by way of love, and sexual relations between them can only be the expression of a unification already complete.” -page 127
On why it’s important to commit “as a result of the truth about a person” instead of solely your senses or your sentiments:
“(Love) is put to the test most severely when the sensual and emotional reactions themselves grow weaker, and sexual values as such lose their effect. Nothing then remains except the value of the person, and the inner truth about the love of those concerned comes to light. If their love is a true gift of self, so that they belong to each other, it will not only survive but grow stronger and sink deeper roots. Whereas if it was never more than a sort of synchronization of sensual and emotional experiences, it will lose its raison d’etre and the persons involved in it will suddenly find themselves in a vacuum. We must never forget that only when love between human beings is put to the test can its true value be seen.” -p. 134
On chastity (and how our culture feels about it):
“Has the virtue of chastity in particular ceased to be respectable? … in modern man, (there is a) characteristic spiritual attitude which is inimical to sincere respect for it: (Resentment.)
Resentment arises from an erroneous and distorted sense of values. It is a lack of objectivity in judgement and evaluation, and it has its origin in weakness of will. The fact is that attaining or realizing a higher value demands a greater effort of will. So in order to spare ourselves the effort, to excuse our failure to obtain this value, we minimize its significance, deny it the respect which it deserves, even see it as in some way evil, although objectivity requires us to recognize that it is good. Resentment possesses as you see the distinctive characteristics of the cardinal sin called sloth. St. Thomas defines sloth as ‘a sadness arising from the fact that the good is difficult.’ This sadness, far from denying the good, indirectly helps to keep respect for it alive in the soul. Resentment, however, does not stop at this: it not only distorts the features of the good but devalues that which rightly deserves respect, so that man need not struggle to raise himself to the level of the true good, but can ‘light-heartedly’ recognize as good only what suits him, what is convenient and comfortable for him. Resentment is a feature of the subjective mentality: pleasure takes the place of superior values.” -p. 143-144
On marriage:
Some people who aren’t proponents of saving sex for marriage wonder why we wait until marriage – why informal commitment isn’t enough. JP2 answers that question, and adds the reason why Catholics (tend to) opt for church weddings (on top of legal ones):
Believers who intend to marry “must seek justification above all in (God’s) eyes, must obtain His approval. It is not enough for a woman and a man to give themselves to each other in marriage. If each of these persons is simultaneously the property of the Creator, He also must give the man to the woman, and the woman to the man, or at any rate approve the reciprocal gift of self implicit in the institution of marriage.” -p. 214
In other words, a church wedding is a ceremony in which as a man and a woman receive each other from each other, they also receive each other from God, to whom they both belong.
Which is beautiful.
– – – – –
Click here to learn more about Love and Responsibility.
Chastity, love, marriage, etc.
Today’s one of those “I can’t believe I get paid to do this,” days, as in I have the best. job. ever! So while the reporters who surround me chase news and news of thefts and crashes crackle through the police scanner speaker between my desk and my editor’s, I get to read about chastity, love and marriage. Like I said, best job ever. Rather than alarm my colleagues by throwing my fist in the air in a fit of joy, I thought I’d share some fabulous quotes with you. Enjoy!
On sex:
“What can ‘union’ mean when the partners make no commitment to one another, each exhibiting a lack of trust in the other, in him/herself, or in the future?”
On chastity:
“Chastity includes an apprenticeship in self-mastery which is a training in human freedom. The alternative is clear: either [humans govern their] passions and find peace, or [they let themselves] be dominated by them …”
On engaged couples (although parts are applicable to those who are still dating/discerning):
“They should see in this time of testing a discovery of mutual respect, an apprenticeship in fidelity, and the hope of receiving one another from God. They should reserve for marriage the expressions of affection that belong to married love. They will help each other grow in chastity.”
And on marriage:
“It can seem difficult, even impossible, to bind oneself for life to another human being. This makes it all the more important to proclaim the Good News that God loves us with a definitive and irrevocable love, that married couples share in this love, that it supports and sustains them, and that by their own faithfulness they can be witnesses to God’s faithful love.”
and
“After the fall, marriage helps to overcome self-absorption, egoism, pursuit of one’s own pleasure, and to open oneself to the other, to mutual aid and to self-giving.”
and
“It is by following Christ, renouncing themselves, and taking up their crosses that spouses will be able to ‘receive’ the original meaning of marriage and live it with the help of Christ.”
Source: The Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Casual sex.
I was asked recently why I’m opposed to casual sex.
I’ll tell you:
The purpose of sex is twofold: procreation and unity (spiritually, emotionally, biologically). A lot of people among the people who disagree with that embrace an assumption that we who believe sex is for babies and bonding don’t also believe sex should be pleasurable. That assumption is false. Sex should, in fact, be pleasurable (spiritually, emotionally, biologically) — yes, even according to we who believe sex is for babies and bonding.
But we who believe sex is for babies and bonding also believe the following:
1. We aren’t supposed to decide to unite because uniting is pleasurable. We are supposed to experience the pleasure because we decided to unite permanently.
2. When sex is as it should be, it isn’t about getting. It’s about giving.
And we don’t take that lightly. Both the unity and the procreation imply that sex should be selfless.
In uniting, sex is meant to be selfless: Each person gives self to the other, turning two into one. It’s at once a metaphor for the marriage covenant and a reflection of Christ’s covenant with the church. Procreation also requires selflessness: If sex partners make a baby, each person gives of self to and for the child, before and after the child is born.
In our culture, unity (the biological part of it) happens in multiple contexts:
- marital sex
- pre-marital sex (the partners intend to marry each other)
- non-marital sex (the partners either don’t necessarily intend to marry each other, definitely don’t intend to marry each other or haven’t gotten that far in their thoughts about the future)
- extra-marital sex (one or both of the partners is married, and neither partner is married to the other)
Mostly within the contexts of non-marital and extra-marital sex, the sex might just be casual. Casual could mean no strings attached, no commitment. It could be a “friends with benefits thing,” or an “I just met you” thing. It is, in any case, “happening by chance, without serious intention, careless or offhand, apathetic,” according to dictionary.com.
By default, to engage in sex that is casual is to be closed off to the possibility for procreation. Few who have casual sex are ok with it if it results in the making and subsequent co-parenting of a baby, in other words. Also by default, to engage in casual sex is to take sex lightly. And since the purpose of casual sex is not procreation and unity, the purpose of casual sex is pleasure, be it physical or emotional or both. But whether one, the other or both, the sex, therefore, is self-focused.
It’s a decision to unite temporarily because uniting is pleasurable.
It isn’t about giving. It’s about getting.
And when sex is about getting, sex is distorted. It becomes mutual use.
And to use your partner is to turn your partner from “person” to “object.”
And to objectify someone is to rob him or her of what comes standard with hearts and souls:
dignity.
And that is why I’m opposed to casual sex.