I'd begin by asking her why it is that she feels jealous of her husband masturbating. It suggests that she has a dependency on being her husband's sole sexual object. As seems to be characteristic of the very religious, it sounds as if she has fixated obsessively on sex. While I agree sex is important, if it is so important that the idea of your husband seeking sexual gratification without you is hurtful, then it seems to me that you have become too focused on it. However, her sex-fixation is tied in with her religion, which has become a cult of sexual inquiry in many instances. (I say "become," because that is the accurate word. A historical look at the relationship between sex and the church will see an increasing fixation on sex in the last few hundred years) But, in so far as her problems stem from religious belief, and by nature logic is often irreverent to religious belief, I am highly doubtful that any logical argument can be made to appeal to her. Therefore, while there is a lot that could be said, and quite a few books to point her to, I don't think she would accept any of the advice.
Does it really stem from religious belief? That's one of the things that made the passage noteworthy. Especially this,
I want his needs to be satisfied, but I want to be the one to satisfy them
What is that? It's not asceticism. It doesn't have anything to do with "controlling our appetites" (pre-kid, two or three times a day, she tells us rather too proudly).
I wanted to be charitable and see if our reaction to this passage pointed up our own hedonism: so hedonistic that even the thought of strictures against masturbation struck us as deranged, despite the wonderful (and not just theological; cf. Nietzsche) tradition of ascetic discipline that we inherit.
But that sentence pretty much gives the game away, doesn't it? Fidelity is one thing, but do you know of any Christian sect in which masturbation is a breach of fidelity?
One might, speaking her language, tell her that she may disapprove of her husband's masturbation on ascetic grounds, but she should also feel ashamed of her own jealousy. (Is she jealous of fantasy?) That tack, at any rate, seems in keeping with the logic of her religion.
You're quite right to point out that there are secular concerns to her letter, perhaps more central than the religious ones. But as to your comment about the relgiious view of masturbation and fidelity, I think there is a connection, at least in the Catholic church, of which I am guessing she is a part of. If he is fantasizing while masturbating, then that counts as a form of adultery in the Catholic faith, I am fairly certain. This brings us to the subject of sexual fantasy, which might be her more central worry. (the religion being just an excuse) Of course, one might attempt to skirt this whole problem of both religious opposition to masturbation and the wife's fears of her husband fantasizing by recommending to her that she give him, uhm, "a helping hand." Or they might begin a discourse to see if they can play into each others fantasies. (assuming she's not too ascetic to censure her own sexual fantasies)
As to your comments about our societies knee-jerk reaction to this woman's sexual ascetisim, I think it stems less from hedonism than from an ingrained belief, based upon common sense and mounds of research, that it is healthy to act naturally as far as sex is concerned, and rather unhealthy (phyisically, emotionally, and mentally), to unnecessarily restrain our sexual instincts. While she may well be exercising a will-to-power over her sexual urges, I would encourage her to ask why, and to what ends? What are the effects in her life? In her husband's life? How did this doctrine she has embraced come into being historically? What tradition, really, is she carrying on? There is of course a long history of patriarchal suppression of female sexual pleasure, from the medieval European injunction that sexual pleasure was for your mistress, not your wife, to African tribe's practice of FGM. Male sexual ascetism seeminly started to rise in prominance with capitalism. (Yes, the priesthood and monastary have been around for much longer, but they largely weren't real good at practicing abstinance) Sexual asctesim in the family produced good, reliable, predictable workers was the ultimate equation. For legitimacy, sexual asctesism was preached religiously. As far as my historical knowledge goes, this is the tradition out of which our jealous wife is writing. For more information, cf. Foucault.
My best shot at sympathizing: well, she and her husband share norms, and he's letting the side down by violating them. Shared commitments like this are important to relationships, and so it's understandable that she feels betrayed.
All of that is content-neutral, of course; it doesn't so much matter that we don't endorse those norms. I don't share the view, but I don't think it's entirely ridiculous. Cf. not being a prick
When it comes to the specifics, there's a Dan Savage-style reply that's hard to repress, viz., it's either self-abuse or something much worse, and if you think the former is as bad as the latter, wait 'til you find him humping the babysitter.
The point of my comments were that the reasons for her insecurity were an outgrowth of a lengthy, historical process. I did not in any way attempt to guess why specifically this historical process had come to be invested in this woman. I was not attempting any argument as to the validity or morality of this woman's claims, but simply showing that they do not constitute either an a priori or transcendental moral stance, but instead are, as I have said, a historical product. So, whatever situation you want to suppose wherein she learned these ideas, or norms if you prefer, from church, from parents, from friends, whatever, I would argue that said normalized perspective is a direct product of such a historical process. And, to get back to the reasons of why I wrote what I did originally, I lthink a arge part of our post-sexual revolution normalized judgements today are a reaction against that same historical process, and it is a fear/hatred for it that causes some to lash out at others who represent sexually conservative views, like this woman. So it is more than just disagreement with her personal morals, but a dislike or fear of the tradition she may be seen as representing. That is why I think even though many people might condemn her sexual conservatism, it does not immediately follow that we are a hedonistic society.
What do I say?
"You made your bed. Now lie in it."
Man it's really tough to work up sympathy for people who create problems that are 100% of their own making, isn't it?
Posted by Maynard Handley | Link to this comment | 08- 7-03 9:11 PM
I'd begin by asking her why it is that she feels jealous of her husband masturbating. It suggests that she has a dependency on being her husband's sole sexual object. As seems to be characteristic of the very religious, it sounds as if she has fixated obsessively on sex. While I agree sex is important, if it is so important that the idea of your husband seeking sexual gratification without you is hurtful, then it seems to me that you have become too focused on it. However, her sex-fixation is tied in with her religion, which has become a cult of sexual inquiry in many instances. (I say "become," because that is the accurate word. A historical look at the relationship between sex and the church will see an increasing fixation on sex in the last few hundred years) But, in so far as her problems stem from religious belief, and by nature logic is often irreverent to religious belief, I am highly doubtful that any logical argument can be made to appeal to her. Therefore, while there is a lot that could be said, and quite a few books to point her to, I don't think she would accept any of the advice.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 08- 8-03 12:26 AM
Does it really stem from religious belief? That's one of the things that made the passage noteworthy. Especially this,
I want his needs to be satisfied, but I want to be the one to satisfy them
What is that? It's not asceticism. It doesn't have anything to do with "controlling our appetites" (pre-kid, two or three times a day, she tells us rather too proudly).
I wanted to be charitable and see if our reaction to this passage pointed up our own hedonism: so hedonistic that even the thought of strictures against masturbation struck us as deranged, despite the wonderful (and not just theological; cf. Nietzsche) tradition of ascetic discipline that we inherit.
But that sentence pretty much gives the game away, doesn't it? Fidelity is one thing, but do you know of any Christian sect in which masturbation is a breach of fidelity?
One might, speaking her language, tell her that she may disapprove of her husband's masturbation on ascetic grounds, but she should also feel ashamed of her own jealousy. (Is she jealous of fantasy?) That tack, at any rate, seems in keeping with the logic of her religion.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08- 8-03 12:53 AM
You're quite right to point out that there are secular concerns to her letter, perhaps more central than the religious ones. But as to your comment about the relgiious view of masturbation and fidelity, I think there is a connection, at least in the Catholic church, of which I am guessing she is a part of. If he is fantasizing while masturbating, then that counts as a form of adultery in the Catholic faith, I am fairly certain. This brings us to the subject of sexual fantasy, which might be her more central worry. (the religion being just an excuse) Of course, one might attempt to skirt this whole problem of both religious opposition to masturbation and the wife's fears of her husband fantasizing by recommending to her that she give him, uhm, "a helping hand." Or they might begin a discourse to see if they can play into each others fantasies. (assuming she's not too ascetic to censure her own sexual fantasies)
As to your comments about our societies knee-jerk reaction to this woman's sexual ascetisim, I think it stems less from hedonism than from an ingrained belief, based upon common sense and mounds of research, that it is healthy to act naturally as far as sex is concerned, and rather unhealthy (phyisically, emotionally, and mentally), to unnecessarily restrain our sexual instincts. While she may well be exercising a will-to-power over her sexual urges, I would encourage her to ask why, and to what ends? What are the effects in her life? In her husband's life? How did this doctrine she has embraced come into being historically? What tradition, really, is she carrying on? There is of course a long history of patriarchal suppression of female sexual pleasure, from the medieval European injunction that sexual pleasure was for your mistress, not your wife, to African tribe's practice of FGM. Male sexual ascetism seeminly started to rise in prominance with capitalism. (Yes, the priesthood and monastary have been around for much longer, but they largely weren't real good at practicing abstinance) Sexual asctesim in the family produced good, reliable, predictable workers was the ultimate equation. For legitimacy, sexual asctesism was preached religiously. As far as my historical knowledge goes, this is the tradition out of which our jealous wife is writing. For more information, cf. Foucault.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 08- 8-03 2:21 AM
Maybe someone important in her life told her that masturbation is a sin, and men only masturbate when their wives don't perform their duties.
There are a lot of ways she could have ended up with these funny ideas. Human beings do not approach their personal lives logically.
For more information on this cf. empathy.
-Magik
PS, I've definitely known women who were jealous of their boyfriend / husband masturbating. I don't think this is exceptional.
Posted by Magik Johnson | Link to this comment | 08-10-03 12:26 AM
My best shot at sympathizing: well, she and her husband share norms, and he's letting the side down by violating them. Shared commitments like this are important to relationships, and so it's understandable that she feels betrayed.
All of that is content-neutral, of course; it doesn't so much matter that we don't endorse those norms. I don't share the view, but I don't think it's entirely ridiculous. Cf. not being a prick
When it comes to the specifics, there's a Dan Savage-style reply that's hard to repress, viz., it's either self-abuse or something much worse, and if you think the former is as bad as the latter, wait 'til you find him humping the babysitter.
Posted by Fontana Labs | Link to this comment | 08-12-03 10:23 AM
The point of my comments were that the reasons for her insecurity were an outgrowth of a lengthy, historical process. I did not in any way attempt to guess why specifically this historical process had come to be invested in this woman. I was not attempting any argument as to the validity or morality of this woman's claims, but simply showing that they do not constitute either an a priori or transcendental moral stance, but instead are, as I have said, a historical product. So, whatever situation you want to suppose wherein she learned these ideas, or norms if you prefer, from church, from parents, from friends, whatever, I would argue that said normalized perspective is a direct product of such a historical process. And, to get back to the reasons of why I wrote what I did originally, I lthink a arge part of our post-sexual revolution normalized judgements today are a reaction against that same historical process, and it is a fear/hatred for it that causes some to lash out at others who represent sexually conservative views, like this woman. So it is more than just disagreement with her personal morals, but a dislike or fear of the tradition she may be seen as representing. That is why I think even though many people might condemn her sexual conservatism, it does not immediately follow that we are a hedonistic society.
ps. majik johnson, sorry about your AIDS, buddy.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 08-13-03 1:06 AM