[rizz_loves_jesus]

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?

[picchick]

Man and Woman are both human. Thus they are equal and deserve the respect of one another. Sexual objectification is always bad because it takes the dignity of that human person, whether it is a man or woman, and make it into an object or something subhuman.

Sex is an expression of love. It is the selfless giving of oneself to your spouse. By sexually objectifying your spouse you are using sex as a selfish act for your pleasure only. You do not consider the feelings or pleasure of your spouse.

Meg

[MIkolbe]

to treat someone...anyone.. like an object rather than a person is wrong.

or am i missing something?

[rizz_loves_jesus]

MIkolbe, on Mar 16 2008, 04:20 PM, said:

or am i missing something?

To be honest, I was asking the same thing when I saw the responses o_O

My post:

Quote

Anyways, are you saying it's morally acceptable for a man to objectify his wife during sex? Lust is all about objectification, if he carries that out in marriage, the results will be disastrous.

The responses:

Quote

Sorry to butt in , but, I think a man can objectify his wife without hurting the marriage, it is good for men to lust after their wives! More power to them if "she's still the one" after lots of years. Read the Song of Solomon!

Quote

Well, the "objectifying" is a natural part of a man's makeup. It's there, and you can't just wish it away. It's what has kept our species alive and multiplying for so long, it's just how we are made.

So to contain it within a monogamous relationship seems to be perfectly innocent to me, and as it should be.

I really just can't wrap my mind around any objections to that, sorry.

[picchick]

I think that they are misunderstanding the true meaning of lust vs. love. A man should LOVE after his wife. Lust is not good. It can ruin the marriage because there is NO LOVE there. Wanting the pleasures of sex is what keeps the human race going. Not ovjectification.

What site was this?

[rizz_loves_jesus]

www.prolifeamerica.com forums. It was in a private thread- don't ask =P

[Archaeology cat]

I echo what the others here have said. I would feel very hurt & used if my husband objectified me instead of showing true, selfless, self-giving love (and me treating him in the same way).

[XIX]

Yeah. Sure. Men should always objectify their wives.


And people wonder why so many wives cry "headache" on such a constant basis. Why would anyone ever want to be used so much?


Edit: By "headache," I mean when women try to say that they are not feeling well or generally not in the mood for sex. Headache being a common example (I guess).

This post has been edited by XIX: 16 March 2008 - 05:39 PM

[GuyWithAFoil]

Quote

Well, the "objectifying" is a natural part of a man's makeup. It's there, and you can't just wish it away. It's what has kept our species alive and multiplying for so long, it's just how we are made.

So to contain it within a monogamous relationship seems to be perfectly innocent to me, and as it should be.

It may seem natural in todays world, but that doesn't mean it is how God intended it. And no, perhaps one cannot "wish it away" but one can certainly work at it and succeed in overcoming this "natural part of man's makeup".

[picchick]

Here is a quesiton to pose to your forum: If objectifying is a natural part of man's makeup, then what is natural for a woman to do?

I think that it would be interesting answer.

[rizz_loves_jesus]

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.

Okay, this is what one of them posted after I defended my position. I would think that me meaning of "sexual objectification" would be obvious :huh:

This post has been edited by rizz_loves_jesus: 16 March 2008 - 06:37 PM

[curtins]

the end of objectification is rape.


exactly what we need in today's crumbling families and marriages.

[XIX]

rizz_loves_jesus, on Mar 16 2008, 07:36 PM, said:

Okay, this is what one of them posted after I defended my position. I would think that me meaning of "sexual objectification" would be obvious :huh:

The problem is that a lot of people equate all sexual attraction with lust, and that is simply not the case.

[Socrates]

I think the primary issue here is confusion over the meaning of words.
Physical sexual attraction or pleasure does not neccesarily equal "objectification" nor "lust" in the sinful sense (though the word "lust" is often used this way in contemporary language).
Objectification is using a person purely as a means to a selfish end.

Though I'm speaking as a clueless single guy, I don't think it's objectively wrong for married sex to get "hot and dirty" so long as no intrinsically immoral acts are being committed.

[XIX]

Good post, Soc.

[curtins]

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

[Raphael]

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. Love and Responsibility 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 merely a means to an end. It's wrong in any context. Sexual objectification is when one person treats another person as merely 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.

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.

This post has been edited by Servant of the Secret Fire: 17 March 2008 - 04:35 PM

[tgoldson]

IMHO, what Raphael said with one modest change.

Love and Responsibility was not that 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 (http://www.catholicc...jp2_on_l&r. html)has a link to this .pdf summary of the book.

Here's another summery: http://www.christend...y...ryofl&r. htm


Did I mention that it's a great book?