Sexual Objectification In Marriage

[curtins]

yeah, especially the use of the words "hot and dirty" rofl

[Thy Geekdom Come]

I've gotten scrupulous about this once or twice (as a scrupulant, my response is, "eh, if I'm not sure I sinned, I probably didn't, and it certainly couldn't be mortal, so I'll accept it and pray for more graces for next time).

Anyway, no, sexual objectification in marriage is wrong. [u]Love and Responsibility[/u] is a great (though complicated) book on the subject. I highly recommend it to anyone who wants to wade through it. Objectification is when one person treats another person as [i]merely[/i] a means to an end. It's wrong in any context. Sexual objectification is when one person treats another person as [i]merely[/i] a means to a sexual end, generally sexual gratification, although Karol Wojtyla makes the case that procreation can also be the end of sexual objectification, with one person using another sexually just to have kids.

The personalistic norm, a part of Wojtyla's philosophy of the human person, states that the only proper response to a person is love. Love is other-centered, not self-centered. So love can seek my good, but if it seeks my good alone, it is not love, but lust. A truly loving relationship seeks the good of both persons, or, if it can't be for both, then for the other (for instance, if we're in danger and I can't save both our lives, I'll try to save my wife's). When it comes to sex, there are two main ends: union and procreation. That means that I must desire both of us to have union and procreation. Of course, there's also pleasure, which cannot morally occur without union and openness to life (though they can occur without pleasure), and I must also desire pleasure for both of us. The only thing left is that some people might see this as a sort of trade: "sure, I want all these things for both of us, so I'll give them to her and she'll give them to me, then it'll be fair, as long as I get my share and she gets hers. I'll get what I want and I'll give her what she wants to keep her happy." So there's the added stipulation: love must be desiring these things for the other for his/her own sake, not just for my sake. I can't just return love because it's the price I have to pay, I have to really want to give it, for the good of the other person, which involves a willingness to give oneself even if the other is not willing (though to act on that willingness would be wrong because it would be forcing oneself on another, but in this case, it's the thought that counts).

Make sense?

That's basically a really condensed version of the basis of Karol Wojtyla's sexual ethics.

God bless,

Raphael

[CatherineM]

I think women are just as capable of objectification in marriage. I hope that I don't do that to my husband, and if I ever feel like he does that to me, that's what rolling pins are for.

[Servant of the Secret Fire]

I think CS Lewis said it well: "Lust is a weak, poor, whimpering whispering thing when compared with that richness and energy of desire which will arise when lust has been killed."

I certainly struggle with lust and often fall, but I also know the great freedom that comes when one is able (by God's grace alone) to look at a beautiful woman and feel every desire without lusting. That pure desire is indeed far more potent and piercing than lust.

Now I also speak as a clueless single guy, and I guess lustful temptations take on a slightly different character and guise when one stirs up [good and holy] passion within marriage but I am sure the fundamentals of chastity remain the same.


[quote]Who said anything about that? Is that what you meant by "objectifying"?

My impression was that you were speaking of the mentality that comes over a man at certain times when the primeval urges grow strong, and everything else is pushed out of his consciousness for a few minutes (or hours).

And if a man is able to contain those moments to ones that he spend with his wife, I applaud his fidelity.[/quote]

It seems to me that (apart from being a slightly strange understanding of objectification) this attitude also shows low expectations or targets, thinking of self-control in a purely negative sense rather than taking it beyond that to the point where you control not only what you don't do but also what you do, ie in this context having the control to be able to freely choose to say yes, to freely choose to give yourself to the other.

Sort of like damming a river: we don't want to just hold back the water until it is safe to let some through, rather we really want to choose to let it through in such a way as to do something useful with it like generating electrcity.

OK that's a rubbish analogy for something as profound and important as human sexuality but hopefully you get my drift.

Edited March 17, 2008 by Servant of the Secret Fire

[Adrestia]

IMHO, what Raphael said with one modest change.

[url="http://www.catholiccompany.com/catholic-books/1004019/Love-Responsibility/"]Love and Responsibility[/url] was not [i]that[/i] complicated. It's a great book! I always fear that people might avoid reading if they fear that it's "hard" or "challenging" or "difficult" or unsavory in another way.

This page [url="http://www.catholicculture.com/jp2_on_l&r.html"] (http://www.catholicculture.com/jp2_on_l&r.html[/url])has a link to this [url="http://www.catholicculture.com/jp2_on_l&r.pdf"].pdf[/url] summary of the book.

Here's another summery:[url="http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/may/summaryofl&r.htm"] http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/may...ryofl&r.htm[/url]


Did I mention that it's a great book?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='tgoldson' post='1479825' date='Mar 19 2008, 12:23 AM']IMHO, what Raphael said with one modest change.

[url="http://www.catholiccompany.com/catholic-books/1004019/Love-Responsibility/"]Love and Responsibility[/url] was not [i]that[/i] complicated. It's a great book! I always fear that people might avoid reading if they fear that it's "hard" or "challenging" or "difficult" or unsavory in another way.

This page [url="http://www.catholicculture.com/jp2_on_l&r.html"] (<a href="http://"http://www.catholicculture.com/jp2_on_l&r.html"" target="_blank">http://www.catholicculture.com/jp2_on_l&r.html[/url])</a>has a link to this [url="http://www.catholicculture.com/jp2_on_l&r.pdf"].pdf[/url] summary of the book.

Here's another summery:[url="http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/may/summaryofl&r.htm"] <a href="http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/may/summaryofl&r.htm" target="_blank">http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/may...ryofl&r.htm[/url]</a>
Did I mention that it's a great book?[/quote]

I know it's already obvious, but I disagree. It is a tough read...it took me a long time to understand the various terms and nuances he uses. It is a challenge.

I believe in challenging people, so perhaps I have a different philosophy about encouragement, but I think the people who will take the most from it are the ones who are looking for a challenge.

Anyway, perhaps I'm just a poor reader (I do read very slowly). It was a challenge for me, but well worth it.

[prose]

So how is the thread going?

[jeffpugh]

interestingly.

[Sirklawd]

To answer your question. Yes. Objectification is TOTALLY wrong. Love does not seek it's own ends. Objectification takes a person and removes everything of worth about that person and leaves only an empty shell to be used for another person's own selfish ends. Sexual objectification is the worst kind, as it takes this divine act of communion and turns it into a single-person afair.

It's so sad that the people on that forum responded in such a way. Especially on 'proflifeamerica'. sigh. I also agree that it is a matter of misunderstand 'objectification' and 'lust'. This may come out way to bluntly, but maybe you should try re-wording what you are saying. Something like 'should a man use his wife to masturbate?" That will certainly get them thinking. Lust is not generic sexual drive. Lust is making your own sexual pleasures the end-goal.
The physical pleasure of sex is not the end goal. It is an awesome byproduct/effect of the act. The spiritual/emotional bond that is created by the two people in love and the fact that this bond is creating an entirely new individual is a million times better.

Unfortunately, of those two better ends, society today tries so hard to prevent the later, and even harder to forget the former. This has lead alot of people to believe physical pleasure is the only end of sex. This is pretty much the worst thing ever.

[thessalonian]

Lust in marriage is no better than lust outside of marriage. Objectification is not either. It is not a part of the natural order before the fall. Love desires the best for the other person. Both objectification and related lust are in fact contrary to love. Christopher West deals with this alot in his series on JP II's theology of the body. www.christopherwest.com.

[Sirklawd]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1481166' date='Mar 21 2008, 10:43 AM']Lust in marriage is no better than lust outside of marriage. Objectification is not either. It is not a part of the natural order before the fall. Love desires the best for the other person. Both objectification and related lust are in fact contrary to love. Christopher West deals with this alot in his series on JP II's theology of the body. www.christopherwest.com.[/quote]

I ALSO RECOMMEND THIS.

like this goes beyond recommendation. its basically a prerequisite to living.

[MC IMaGiNaZUN]

sexual objectification

it removes the person, the human person, and puts the person as a mere object of sexual gratification.

I think a real man would do everything in his strength to say, show his wife how much he loves her, and do everything in his power to make sure he knows she is valuable. and then they should have the courage to engage in a good sex life as well.

[apparent]

After over 25 years of marriage, I still find my wife attractive and desirable. We've grown old and fat, cancer has ravaged and mutilated her body (total mastectomy) and yet nothing has change about our intimate time together. You could call it sexual objectification, you could call it lust, but this feeling of desirability, for each other has enhanced has enriched our lives together.

I remain committed exclusively to my spouse, forever in body and soul.

[Adrestia]

[quote name='apparent' post='1488968' date='Mar 30 2008, 05:26 PM']After over 25 years of marriage, I still find my wife attractive and desirable. We've grown old and fat, cancer has ravaged and mutilated her body (total mastectomy) and yet nothing has change about our intimate time together. You could call it sexual objectification, you could call it lust, but this feeling of desirability, for each other has enhanced has enriched our lives together.

I remain committed exclusively to my spouse, forever in body and soul.

[/quote]
That is NOT objectification! That is the antithesis of objectification and it is beautiful.

[Veritas]

[quote name='rizz_loves_jesus' post='1478233' date='Mar 16 2008, 03:56 PM']I brought up the matter of sexual objectification in marriage on another board that I post on. I said that it can be disastrous, even in marriage. Everyone that responded said that a man will objectify his wife no matter what, and that it is actually a very good thing within marriage.

Is this true? I always thought that sex was an expression of love, but if couples are allowed to objectify each other... doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose?[/quote]

+

They are wrong. Lust is wrong because it objectifies the human being. Making the human being an object is always wrong. Consequently, lust in or outside of marriage is wrong.