Disconnected reflections on Lance, Playboy, fantasy, and a response to Joe

Like millions of others, I'm a huge Lance Armstrong fan.  Today, the dilemma was whether or not to read the Playboy Magazine interview with him.   The cycling site that linked to the article promised it was a "safe" link, with no obvious porn images attached.  I'm very careful about what I bring up on my work computer, even with tenure; I'm also committed to not visiting what are essentially porn sites from ANY computer.   Some images I don't need in my consciousness.!   At the same time, darn it, Playboy does do some great interviews!  After thinking about it,  I clicked on over and read the article, and was glad I did.  For those who feel comfortable visiting the Playboy site, it's a very interesting interview. If you can, make sure your browser blocks pop-ups; mine blocked several.

Jimmy Carter did an interview with Playboy thirty years ago.  (Not something I can imagine any major candidate doing today; we've shifted dramatically to the right since the mid-1970s.)   It is indeed quite possible to read Playboy "for the articles"!  I read the Lance interview because I don't want to make an idol out of anti-porn zealotry.   And I read it because I adore Lance.

Still, I've always considered "playboy" a remarkably apt title:  the emphasis on "boy" rather than "man" captures an essential truth; lusting after images of unattainable women is, in some sense, an activity for adolescents rather than adults.  And of course, not all adolescents are still in their teens!

Is that unduly harsh?  Joe Perez thinks so:

The distinctions you make between pornography and erotica (one is good, the other is bad, guess which) strike me as strained ... but then I don't buy the whole "objectification" crapola argument either. If using pornography makes you feel guilty, don't do it. But that doesn't make porn bad, except in your mind. Porn is just another human cultural invention like any other, with a whole host of good and bad and in-between qualities. It can be used for a whole spectrum of purposes from those very low in developmental maturity to very highly mature purposes; and purposes from low to high can all be valid for persons at different times and places. Even saints can need to look at a hunky jock or a buxom lass to get off now and then, and no there's nothing wrong with that, IMAJ. It may not be the highest or most noble or most selfless (what's so damn wrong with selfishness anyways?) act imaginable. Serving soup to the homeless would probably be more dignified. But there are few things more human.

I'll need help here, folks.  What "highly mature purposes" are served by using porn?

This is the part that really bothered me:

Even saints can need to look at a hunky jock or a buxom lass to get off now and then...

Much to unpack there.  I'm troubled by the "need" (which I made bold) bit.  I'm not underestimating the power of sexual desire, mind you.  But not all human societies have visual pornography -- yet folks within those societies find erotic satisfaction.  They find it with real people, or they find it with images in their own heads, but they don't all have Playboy, or an Internet connection! 

I'm not absolutely opposed to folks "getting off" either.  I'm not an anti-masturbation zealot, for heaven's sakes!  But I do think that "getting off" with images in one's head  of hunks and lasses is problematic.   I suppose I take Matthew 5:27-28 seriously.  When we lust for others, we in some sense are trying to possess them, at least in fantasy.  Thoughts are powerful things, and while no human being is ever going to gain complete mastery of his or her dream life, we do well to remember the Tenth Commandment.  When we "covet", we are betraying our communal obligations and our boundaries, if only in our minds.  While none of us are immune from fleeting desires, we don't have to indulge them.  And unlike Joe, I see indulging these fantasies as highly troublesome:  they can leave us dissatisfied and bitter; they can make our mates resentful and jealous.   I believe that our inner thought life will make itself manifest in one way or another; that doesn't mean everyone will act on their sexual fantasies,  but it does mean that they will "show up" somehow.  Just as our private  prayers for our friends and family have the power to touch them in positive ways, I'm not so sure our longings and our lustings go entirely unperceived, even if they are only felt on a subconscious level.

I believe even our most intimate and private moments are never fully private, nor should they be.   Even our desires are God's business, and frequently the community's business as well. Sexuality is the way the community builds bonds and strengthens itself, right?  That doesn't mean I want to lock folks up for lusting for their neighbor's spouse, nor does it mean I want to put everyone on a guilt trip.  We are all sure to fall short of the mark of a perfect thought life!  But it does mean that even if we choose to "get off", we need to be mindful about our thoughts as well as our actions.

They say there's no one as prudish as a reformed libertine, and I suppose that in an odd way,  I'm living proof of that.

But I'm still glad I read the Lance article.

UPDATE:  I cleaned up some of the links; sorry, Joe Perez, about not linking to you correctly yesterday. 

Comments

[Amanda Marcotte]

I have one question--it is impossible for people to come without engaging our brains. When with a partner, that person and you are regarding each other and that is arousing. When by yourself, you must fantasize or you won't get there. So, being against fantasy is anti-masturbation, don't you think? And being against masturbation is deeply unsympathetic to people who are unpartnered, I would say.

[Amanda Marcotte]

Plus, I have known so many people who deny themselves a little fantasy while masturbating and then just burst from frustration and go act it out in damaging ways. Better to adopt the attitude that some fantasies are great if indulged in private than bottle up and then explode in ways that are potentially harmful. Better my partner masturbate occasionally thinking about another woman than try to stay faithful in mind to me and then one day let the frustration of pretending I'm the only woman out there overwhelm him in real life, where I am a casulty.

[Hugo]

I said "problematic", Amanda, not forbidden. For example, I think there's a huge difference between fantasizing about someone who's "taken" and someone who's "single". That may seem meaningless to others.

Masturbation is a subject that defies attempts at easy answers. I'm not going to give it a universal endorsement nor a universal condemnation,and I'd agree with the "realists" who'd argue that folks are going to masturbate whatever we tell them. I don't want to instill shame. But I don't buy that all fantasies are harmless, either, especially when they are transgressive.

[Lauren]

As someone who was essentially abused with porn (long story and one that should be kept to myself for his privacy) I have a tenuous relationship with it. I agree that in some sense it is a desire to posess -- for most dropping oneself into a fantasy for fantasy's sake, and for others a desire to posess the unattainable fantasy. I myself look at porn on occasion and I know my SO does, but after my experiences hinted at above I don't think I will ever be able to view it again with a partner.

For me, I draw the line at which porn hurts others. If it hurts your SO, if it hurts a person involved in the making, whatever, these desires should be stopped and unpacked.

Incomplete thoughts here, but I both agree and disagree with Amanda and Hugo.

[Lauren]

Ignore that second paragraph -- it makes no sense. Naptime?

[Hugo]

Oh, it makes sense to me just fine.

[sophonisba]

For example, I think there's a huge difference between fantasizing about someone who's "taken" and someone who's "single". That may seem meaningless to others.

It doesn't seem meaningless, it seems revolting. Single people are not somehow public property in a way that married people are not.

Taken together with your previous remarks about the inevitable harmfulness of pornography, it becomes more and more difficult to take your feminism seriously. I realize that it flatters teenage boys immensely to tell them that alone in a room with a dirty picture they have power over adult women they've never met, but it's not actually true. Misogynists love this line, ok? They love it to pieces; they want to believe that imaginatively manipulating a mental image is a way to meaningfully dominate real live women. But they're wrong, and so are you.

[Amanda Marcotte]

I'm iffy on the possession thing. I think fantasizing about someone as a form of possession only is an issue for people (specifically men, I'm afraid), who see sex itself as possession. Well, that's icky with porn but when it gets out of the realm of porn and displaced onto real women, the results are rape and other forms of violence at its worse and low-grade, but damaging misogyny at best.

This is why I think attacking this issue by appealing to men intellectually is our only hope. Attack porn and sexual desire is damaging to things that have a great deal of potential for good while not addressing the underlying issues and alienating potential male allies all at once. Even well-meaning men I know have fallen for the delusion that lusting after a woman is by definition disrespect--I assure you that I have no desire to wipe male lust off the face of the planet since you know, I need it for sexual reasons. ;)

Most men I know have a decent handle on porn if they can accept two things--it's fake and sexual desire for a woman is no excuse to wipe out her humanity. Women are perfectly capable of respecting men as human beings while also having physical desires and fantasies for them, so I don't know why men can't be asked to do the same.

[*Christopher]

Hugo,

I never thought I would find myself being commented upon, but apparently Joe Perez offered some thoughts...so I'm off to give pornography and pornea more thought...I still think they're connected...especially given the general nature of the industry...and the interconnected potential between sex and violence...

I do wonder about my own incongruity, something Joe mentions at the end of his comment on my thoughts on pornea as he passes by the Hunk of the Day poster.

Given gay male cultures and Christianity, of finding a sanctifying middle?

Clearly Christianity has no possibility of redemption on that score from what he posted on his blog, but I continue to muddle a way...if ever so failingly...

Given that I'm partnered...he wouldn't object to a Hunk of the Day bit, but does that make it okay...I always use the partner test, the spiritual director test...as outside tests...What are your thoughts?

I'm no reformed libertine, never having been one myself, I'm not primarily a moralist either, or a stoic, but looking for that sanctifying middle ground as a gay Christian man that takes up my sexuality and fantasy in such a way that even the shadow and "darkness" is integrated.

To deny these, which Joe has a point about, is to often given them power in other ways. The alternative is to sanctify, to give thanks and praise...in all of our joys and desires...and to bound them lovingly...the via media...

[mythago]

What "highly mature purposes" are served by using porn?

What "highly mature" purposes are served by eating ice cream?

[Jeff]

Even well-meaning men I know have fallen for the delusion that lusting after a woman is by definition disrespect

I know that for me this took a long time to get over. Back when I was one ot those "nice guys" that get so much discussion recently, this was one of the primary foundations of it - it's a false dichotomy between sexlessness and disrespectfulness, between "nice guys" and "jerks."

The idea of respectfully lusting after someone is pretty much unheard of in our culture; outside of relationships, we view any sexualization of another as either disrespectful, especially if it's unreciprocated. But that, I think, is what's needed to separate attraction from entitlement.

How does pornography play into this? I'm not sure; I doubt there's a single reaction common to all who view it, or a single idea behind all forms of it. I do think it's possible for this idea of "respectful attraction" to extend to interactions with representations of people as well as interactions with the people themselves.

[Lynn Gazis-Sax]

It doesn't seem meaningless, it seems revolting. Single people are not somehow public property in a way that married people are not.

At the risk of not being taken seriously as a feminist either, I'm not quite getting this reaction. Fantasizing about sex with a single person doesn't seem to me to be treating that person as public property; what's treating her as public property is not leaving her alone after she's said no.

On the other hand, given that everyone other than my husband is off limits to me, it's not clear to me that sexual thoughts about married people that I should never have sex with are intrinsically different from sexual thoughts about single people that I should never have sex with. When I was single, and could plausibly see fantasy as a prelude to action, it was another story.

[sophonisba]

Lynn: Fantasizing about sex with a single person doesn't seem to me to be treating that person as public property; what's treating her as public property is not leaving her alone after she's said no.

Fantasizing about sex with a person is not doing anything to him or her at all. I do not believe there is anything wrong with fantasizing about anyone - I do believe that what goes on in your head is entirely your own business unless and until information about it passes your lips.

Hugo, however, cited Matthew 26-27 - I'm thinking he meant the verse which goes, But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

If you're going to go with that, then surely anyone who looks at a single woman lustfully has already committed fornication with her in his heart.

What is this "huge difference" he speaks of if not some implied entitlement to freedom from lust that married people possess and single people do not? If I were the sort of woman who is upset and threatened by being the subject of mens' fantasies, I don't think I would look kindly on the suggestion that getting married would afford me a protection or a justification for outrage that I don't otherwise naturally possess.

[Stentor]

The "no fantasizing about non-single people" standard seems odd to me. Single people may have plenty of other reasons that they would refuse a real-life sexual encounter. So why is it that fantasy is allowed to change those other reasons, but not the "I'm with someone else" reason? Why is it OK to have a fantasy about "Jane, except that she likes me," but not "Jane, except that she's not married to Bill"?

[Hugo]

Clearly, I need to clarify:

Lynn's right. The issue of fantasy concerns both the fantasizer and the object of the fantasy. For married/taken folks, it's inevitable that fleeting thoughts of others will pass through the mind -- but one has a choice as to whether one allows those thoughts to linger!

Biblically speaking, "adultery" isn't about lust per se -- it's about violating trust and boundaries. Therefore, it seems reasonable to me to suggest that fantasy about someone who is married is more problematic than fantasy about someone who is potentially available. Admittedly, it's not an idea I've sketched out well; it wasn't in my original post -- I threw it in quickly in a comment to Amanda, and perhaps should have done a better job of thinking it through!

[mythago]

Biblically speaking, "adultery" isn't about lust per se -- it's about violating trust and boundaries.

Hugo, I don't know where you get this. The Old Testament treated adultery as a married woman having sex with a man other than her husband. (Remember that polygamy was acceptable.) Jesus was very clear that lusting after a married woman was wrong, perhaps as wrong as the act of adultery--there's no language about trust, betrayal, hurting your spouse's feelings, etc.

[Hugo]

Mythago, I'm drawing this from (among other places) John Paul II's "theology of the body", summarized briefly here:

http://www.nfpoutreach.org/Hogan_New_Vision_sins.htm#2e

[djw]

I'm no fan of pornography but your attitude toward fantasy sticks in my craw a bit. Agency is the proper realm of action. If I'm having fantasies that are highly inappropriate to ever act on, I don't. This is part of what makes me a successful functioning agent, and a good person. If the fantasies are weird or persistent enough to colonize more of my mind than I would like, I try a bit harder to ignore them or stop thinking about it. But basically, I have about 27 times as much control over what I do and say as over what goes through my mind. I'm pretty good, but of course not perfect, and properly regulating what I do and say with respect to the basic moral rules that govern behavior toward others. I think I'd go insane if I tried to ban all fantasies that don't meet a certain set of criteria. But if the existence of an inappropriate fantasy doesn't make me any more likely to behave badly than I otherwise would, why should I worry, as long as I'm on top of what I do and say?

I know, I know, you approach morality from a biblical perspective, whereas I'm more of a Millian. Still, I always felt like the condemnation of lust is a bit different than simply fantasy--more like some sort of combination of fantasy and scheming. So, idle sexual fantasy about non-single person, which takes place in your mind in some parallel universe in which this person isn't taken isn't the problem. Sexual fantasy in conjunction with serious thoughts about how you might go about acting on them, that's where the problem lies. In other words, lust requires directed, active thoughts, not passing fantasies. But, my Sunday School days are well behind me, so I could be remembering all wrong here.

[Hugo]

DJW, I agree -- I'll say it again (I thought I had made it clear): I am not condemning the passing, fleeting flashes of desire which are surely inevitable responses! I am saying it is problematic to indulge those fantasies. I agree that lust requires active thoughts (the will plays a part) but not necessarily an actual "plan of action" for going about satisfying those lusts.

[mythago]

It's an interesting piece (which also condemns masturbation and homosexuality), but I don't see that it does away with the biblical notion that adultery is about extramarital sexual behavior, and about lust, as Jesus says.

I admit I scratched my head a bit at his bright-line distinction between art and pornography--as if one could never find a piece of great art both aethetic and arousing.

[djw]

Agency is the proper realm of action.

What an embarrassing and unfortunate sentence. What I mean here is that it actions--words and deeds--are the modes of human existence over which the notion of agency (and the capacity for moral judgment thus entailed) lies. Fantasy, if properly contained, needn't have anything to do with our status as agents, and consequently aren't obviously part of the realm of morality.

[Christopher Bernard]

The issue of sexuality is a problematic one, not because sex is bad by any stretch of our imagination, but because it is so deeply rooted in us all, whether someone lives a life of celibacy, or not. Sexuality is a part of humanity, a part that is often neglected, misunderstood and abused. It reflects intimacy and satisfies a primordial need or inclination to be connected with the other.
Regardless of “how far right” we have come since the mid-70s, we have entered an age where sex is open, frequent and public, meaning it also been distorted and where once it was an act intended to be only between husband and wife, it is now something that happens casually with no ‘real care’ and with false intimacy. For the record, by ‘real care’, I mean a life long commitment to the other, to be joined to and with the other, despite what may happen. This definition may offend some people who read this, but for those of you who have abandoned someone (for having sex outside a truly monogamous relationship is precisely that) and feel the weight of guilt for your act of abandonment, your frustration is not with my definition, it is with your internal dialogue, conscious or subconscious. And for those of you who fundamentally disagree with me, deal with it.
When entering the conversation surrounding masturbation, having a healthy understanding of sexuality is critical, for if you see sexuality as being “bad”, then your perception of masturbation will be that it is also “bad”. Therefore, masturbation must be understood with some sensitivity and an openness to complexity.
Without being criticized for pointing out the obvious, masturbation for men and women are different, meaning that for men, sexuality is external, and for women, sexuality is internal and the reason behind this is obvious. Being that I am not a women, I will not speak on the sexuality of women.
However, as I have shared in the male experience, I feel I can at the very least share what I have understood our sexuality to mean. In understanding masturbation, one must understand in two parts: the biological and the psychological. I do not mean to sound Gnostic on this issue, but it is necessary for us to understand it in at least two parts if we are to understand sexuality as a whole. As most men know, our bodies generate a large amount of sperm daily and, whether we mean to or not, ejaculation will happen. There is also the potential for the chemical addiction in regular masturbation.
The psychological aspect, which is often diminished for whatever reason, can be understood in our longing for connection. More often than not, it seems that masturbation is a product of not being able to find fulfillment in any number of areas in our life, most commonly in our relationships with others and less recognized in our relationship with ourselves. Our perception of ourselves shapes how we understand our sexuality as it shapes our relationships with others. Thus, if one is not able to take one of the great commandments seriously, “to love your neighbor as you love yourself”, they cannot enter into healthy relationships in general and will undoubtedly have a false sense of sexuality.
The problem, therefore, is not in masturbation or sexuality. The problem is in how one goes about exercising one’s sexuality or, a common problem, porn. The problem with porn is not tied in masturbation; it is in treating women or men as objects, rather than people, even if they themselves are will to see the dignity that they have. By treating a person as a object or as a means to an end, rather than an end in themselves, you are treating that individual as if they were less than human, and in the instances of prostitution, as a slave.
This analysis is not new, or unique, in anyway, but I am often surprised by the lack knowledge that is present on this particular issues considering that sex is always sexy and how unwilling people are to actually in engage in these kinds of conversations with dignity, maturity and respect of the subject matter.

[mythago]

And for those of you who fundamentally disagree with me, deal with it.

Wow, what a persuasive argument: I'm right and if you don't like it, too bad! That will sure make us see the validity of your points!

and where once it was an act intended to be only between husband and wife, it is now something that happens casually with no ‘real care’ and with false intimacy

Waving your arms and making up a false Golden Age to contrast with the current sordid state of things is an old chestnut, and again, not terribly persuasive. I mean, with bizarre statements like More often than not, it seems that masturbation is a product of not being able to find fulfillment in any number of areas in our life, most commonly in our relationships with others and less recognized in our relationship with ourselves, what is there to say?

[Amba]

Christopher, what do you mean when you say masturbation for men and women is different, and that male sexuality is external, and female sexuality is internal? Are you talking about physiological differences or something deeper than that?

[Helena]

Christopher said:

"...for men, sexuality is external, and for women, sexuality is internal and the reason behind this is obvious..."

Like Amba said, what do you mean by this? It's obvious that both men and women have "external" sexual organs, so I'm guessing you don't mean this in the physiological sense. And also, what is the obvious reason for this, once you've explained what you meant by it?