A beginning attempt at a Christian male pro-feminist theology of appetite -- or further proof that I have lost it completely

Not only was that a long title, this is going to be a long and meandering post.  I'm posting it now and I may amend it.

To whom does my body belong?  What limits must I place on its desires and my actions?

I was asking myself that question on this afternoon's run. You see,  I've been working out a lot these past few weeks, doing several "two-a-days" (cycle in the morning, run in the afternoon) and upping my weekly mileage.  I've been hitting the weights four to five days a week as well.  I haven't been teaching the college's winter intersession, and thus have been off since mid-December.  It has been a welcome respite from my normal schedule of 19 classes a year.  It has also given me the opportunity to give my mind a rest, and think more than usual about my body.

When I say "think about my body", I don't mean narcissistic self-regard.  I mean reflecting seriously on the relationship between matter and spirit.  In particular, I've been thinking about how critical the link is between justice and self-discipline.  Let me explain.

Born into a healthy white male body, I've had precious little experience in my 37 years of having external constraints put on my body.   My maleness insulated me against menstruation, the fear of unwanted pregnancy, and our culture's intense sexualization of young women's bodies.  (When I was younger, my worries about what was appropriate to wear to a formal occasion concerned matching my tie to my shirt; my female friends worried about being too sexy, or not sexy enough.  My burden, to put it mildly, was lighter).   Today, I can teach classes in a button-down shirt, tie, and khakis -- or in my old Lucky jeans with a Kenneth Cole t-shirt.  (I have an unbecoming fondness for labels, and for synthetic fabrics, but I do try to buy "sweatshop-free")  I can do all this with the confidence that my body will not become an issue in the classroom -- my masculinity assures me a credibility that cannot be compromised by my fashion choices.  My gravitas as a teacher is unaffected by whether I am trim or chubby, toned or flabby.   My sisters who teach cannot say the same; I've heard countless stories from my female colleagues of having their bodies or their clothing critiqued in classroom evaluations.  (This is at an urban community college - I suspect it might be different elsewhere, though I cannot know that for certain.)

Darn it, I'm already wandering off my topic.

When my fiancee and I marry and have children (God willing), it is her body that will bear the burden of nurturing that life.  I intend to be supportive in every imaginable way -- but my flesh will not be directly affected by our decision to procreate.  Hers will.  I'll be able to run an exuberant 10K the day after my child is born, if I so choose (I suspect I'll prefer to be with my family).  Even if she were so inclined, it would be some time before my wife would be able to do the same!  And, as the years pass, I fear no biological clock -- I will be able to father children (heavens forfend) into my eighth decade of life.  No woman -- as of yet -- can say that.

Ultimately, I believe a man's body is fully his and his alone in a way that a woman's generally isn't. I don't bemoan that fact, nor do I celebrate it.  Rather, I'm increasingly focused on the notion that as  a result of this unmerited privilege,  men have a special obligation to do justice with their bodies.  What on earth does that mean?  First and foremost, it means "do no harm."   Unrestrained male appetite for food, sex, and alcohol, wreaks tremendous devastation on both a small and a global level.    Am I saying that women don't abuse all three of these things?  Of course not.  But I think it can be safely argued that when speaking of sex and alcohol,  male uncontrolled desire has done far more harm. 

When we overeat, we don't merely harm our own bodies -- we rob our children and we rob our planet.  In the industrialized world, men die earlier than women, frequently due to factors related to diet.  Overeating shortens our life span, robbing our children and our grandchildren of time that might be spent with us.  (The link between calorie restriction and longevity is increasingly well-documented.)  When we restrain our appetite for food, we also conserve precious resources.  This is particularly true if we work to eliminate packaged food (which tends to end up in landfills) and meat (most of which is raised on factory farms that are not only inhumane, but a woeful misuse of land.)   Thus, what I put in my mouth is an ethical issue.   For my family, the wider human  community and for animal life itself,  I have an obligation to be a good steward of my flesh in order to be of maximum service with minimal harm.  Obviously, I'm not trying to prescribe one particular diet - just to make the case that our food choices need to be seen as moral decisions. If I have to blot out another's suffering in order to enjoy my meal, I've made a poor choice.

The same is true of our sexuality.  I've offered the beginnings of a case for a pro-life, pro-feminist approach to sexual ethics.  Though it wouldn't end all abortion, getting each man to be willing to raise the children that his ejaculate helps to conceive would be a great step towards eliminating the  practice.  (If he isn't ready to be a father under any circumstances, then abstinence is an excellent alternative.)  Male sexual self-restraint is critical to resolving another justice issue: the growing global sex trade.   Though both young men and young women are exploited in prostitution and pornography, the overwhelming majority of the "exploiters" are men.    I know it's important to distinguish between the exploitation of minors and the legal activities of adult sex workers, but I am convinced that the entire industry -- from strip clubs to child prostitution -- harms the fabric of our culture.   Though I am not averse to addressing the "supply" side of the issue, I believe all truly effective moral reform focuses on the "demand" side -- and the demand for the services of the global sex industry is almost exclusively male.

When I buy porn or go to a strip club (things I don't do, by the way), I reward an exploitative and destructive industry.  I send a message that male sexual desire is uncontrollable, or at least, impossible to confine to a monogamous relationship.  Pleasuring my body comes not merely at my own financial expense, but at the expense of others' respect for me and others' respect for themselves.

I love my body, and not merely because it is "in shape" these days.  I love it because I have arms to hug with and a tongue to taste with and legs to power up a mountain with and hands to reach out with.  But I also recognize that my body is, to borrow a phrase from Stephen Carter, a "bundle of desires", some good, some not so good.  When I indulge myself in the latter, be it with a steak or a visit to a strip club,  my choices are harming other living things.  My right to pleasure stops when it extends to another's exploitation, another's degradation, another's life, or even my own health.

Good food does not have to come at the expense of an animal's life or the shortening of our own. Sexual pleasure can be found in the context of a safe, loving, committed, monogamous relationship. Self-restraint is not the same as asceticism.  Rather, it is the recognition that the most basic kind of justice we can aspire to is to do justice with our own bodies.  And for almost all of us, especially those of us who live in male flesh, doing justice will mean a deep and profound commitment to self-restraint.

Whew.  I've just edited this for the third time and I'm popping it out there.  Anyone make it through the whole thing?

I think this post is a sign I need to get back in the classroom.

 

Comments

[The Birdwoman]

Not that I think anyone here is chipping away at anyone else's self respect. Oh dear, I really am tired and incoherent this evening.

[Hugo Schwyzer]

You're absolutely right that "beauty culture" has begun to damage men's lives, Birdwoaman -- and you're not incoherent at all.

[souraaron]

djw-

As the High Priest Chris Rock says...

"You can drive a car with your feet if you want to, but that does not make it a good [expletive deleted] idea"

Seriously - of course one can construct a diet sans meat and animal products upon which a human can survive, or even thrive - if designed well enough. I am not arguing that. I do argue that, for most people, veganism is pretty far down the to-do list vis-a-vis ways to "self improve". I would argue that learning to be civil to one another on a day-to-day basis - or quoting Bill and Ted - "Be Excellent to Eachother", would be one of many areas I would focus on before worrying about the animals.

[djw]

OK, I more or less agree with your new version --that (as an empirical question) people aren't too worried about becoming vegans, and that treating other humans properly should be a higher priority. I just don't see the connection between that and your earlier claim that it's a matter of opinion that we need to be omnivorous.

[Hugo Schwyzer]

Well, souraaron, I have no trouble with being "most excellent" to each other! Still, I think it's a both/and situation -- becoming vegetarian-vegan-cruelty free in no way precludes one from improving one's human relationships!

[La Lubu]

Birdwoman: I've noticed that too---that plastic surgery is being marketed more aggressively towards men. And IMHO, that version of "equality" makes about as much sense as the increase in lung cancer for women via smoking....that's equality?! Bah!

souraaron: I am also an inveterate, unrepentant meat eater. I can dig a vegetarian meal every now and then (and I tend to eat more of them during Lent), but I still dig a grilled steak! I like what you said about mindfulness in eating in your earlier post; I'm also sold on the idea of eating "like your ancestors"....the idea that the food that has sustained your relations for thousands of years is probably going to be the easiest and most healthful for you to maintain, for both physical and cultural reasons ('cuz let's face it, part of eating is physical survival, the other part is social bonding and "comfort food").

With that said, I think Hugo's next post does a lot to explain the rationale a bit better.

[joe]

“Thus, what I put in my mouth is an ethical issue.”

Ah, VDH, The Land Was everything, I think there is a larger ethical issue here other then conservation of food and the individual. How about the overproduction of food that is wasted, i.e. burnt or left to rot, and the consumers false images of how our food should look—perfect. The individual’s concern would be better focused on the distribution of food, being that those who haven’t food cannot control this factor. The health of those who have food, well it seems rather petty to be concern whether they are eating healthy when they have choices and bountiful information about those choices.

While I am on choices and thinking of what CMC had to say the other day about men and women having different strengths and weaknesses, why are strengths used against men and weaknesses of women a source of victimization. IF men as a whole are more apathetic towards glamour, body image, and the drive to be sexy, why should we carry some extra responsibilities? Writing in generalizations, sexy women don’t “go” for men that aren’t sexy and vice versa. There seems, in cases like this, to be an equality of effort. Most couples appear to be complementary. If the "beauty culture" is starting to damage men’s lives, then maybe our sisters need to focus on limiting the demand side of beauty and what it is to be sexy.

I don’t know and so will ask. That fact that women live longer then men, is this based solely on health issues? Does this include environmental related premature deaths i.e. suicide, violence, “daredevil” antics, increased wear and tear due to types of labor etc.

[souraaron]

Hugo - true enough about not being either or. I can buy that.

Consider this, however. Is it possible to construct a vegan diet with materials that grow witin a 100 or so mile radius of where you live? This is one of those places where animal rights, as expressed by vegans, can contradict preserving the environment.

Now - if you live somewhere that grows lots of things, such as certain parts of California, that might work. I am sure you can get soybean products, most vegtables, and so forth, within such a radii of say, I dunno, Napa Valley. However, if you live in the plains of Montana, your choices in wintertime might be more limited if you want to both be vegan and subscribe to the principle of "eat locally" (something one would do to include the environmental costs of transport, or the human toll of third world working conditions, when making food choices).

That is the rub. Even seemingly "obvious" choices can become complex and debatable. I applaud your motive, Hugo. It comes from the right place. And you certainly seem educated about your decision to persue being a vegan. But you probably would admit that, in some cases, the morality of one path over another is far from clear.

[Hugo Schwyzer]

Indeed -- which is why I wrote what I did in the original post:

"Obviously, I'm not trying to prescribe one particular diet - just to make the case that our food choices need to be seen as moral decisions."

[Ophelia Payne]

How did Bill and Ted get in here?

[Trish Wilson]

I find the "infirm" comments interesting. I know people who suffer from severe depression and other psychiatric illnesses. In a sense, they have also been betrayed by their bodies, but it is not obvious in a physical way. Their brain chemistries betray them, and they feel immobilized. I'm aware that doctors say that regular exercise helps to alleviate depression, but when a depressed person feels so depleted, that person doesn't have the energy or desire to exercise. Plus, due to social stigma, people who suffer from psychiatric disorders are less likely to talk about it, get support, and get help.

I know that age is affecting my body. I'm going to be 45 next month, and my body started betraying me about two years ago. I was at one point where I could not walk without being hunched over. I couldn't put my shoes on, something I had taken for granted for decades. It turned out that the problem was that I had developed flat feet and an inflamed bursa in my right hip, and my physical therapist told me it was due to my aging. I was never particularly physically active. Ironically, I took dance classes in grade school and college to avoid "real" physical activity like playing team sports. I didn't realize that dance could be just as if not more grueling than team sports. I would have taken swimming if those classes were available. Swimming also uses every muscle in the body. As it turned out, I was getting more exercise than I bargained for, but it didn't feel like it. Now, that I'm older, I can see and feel my body breaking down. I can't just go outside for a long brisk walk anymore. Now, I have to warm up first or I'll regret it. It's an eye-opening experience.

[Trish Wilson]

Hugo: ""The link between calorie restriction and longevity is increasingly well-documented."

Souraaron: "So is the link between calorie restriction and feeling hungry most of the time. lol"

Hi, Souraaron. :) Isn't there also a link between calorie restriction and gaining weight? I remember reading that the body has a natural thermostat, and that when one restricts from a previously set caloric intake, the body reacts as if it is being starved, and burns fewer calories to make up for it. Eventually, the person who burns fewer calories may begin to gain weight.

I'm not a nutritionist, and I don't know much about this particular issue. I just remember reading that and wondering if it was accurate.

[Trish Wilson]

I'm another unapologetic carnivore. I love red meat. I probably eat too much of it. I balance it with vegetables and I don't drink soft drinks, but I'm loathe to give up my porterhouse steaks.

[craichead]

I'm an unashamed meat eater as well. Just started reading "Kitchen Confidential" and it's a tough one to put down.

[Sheelzebub]

I was a vegetarian for one year--I was living in a place where mad cow disease was becoming known, and salmonella outbreaks made the news rather frequently. My weight dropped like a ton of bricks--not good, as I was underweight anyway--and I started craving cheese, something I hated up until then.

I could probably be a vegetarian again except for the fact that I like bacon too much. And sushi. Yum.

[souraaron]

Hi Trish - been awhile...

I think - though I can't confirm, that you are correct. I suspect that caloric restriction is like going on Atkins - in at least one important sense... if you slip - e.g. lack the discipline to stay on the diet after a few weeks - you very much risk messing with your metabolism and ending up net heavier.

Such would make sense intuitivley - your body gets used to surviving on less, and therefore, metabolism starts processing more calories. Which is fine until you screw up in your diet and start eating excess calories, at which time, due to the new metabolism you developed, you end up worse off (at least in terms of pure weight).

[Trish Wilson]

Oooh, Sheelz, bacon. Bacon is your friend. In my first job out of college I worked for a federal half-way house for convicted felons. The guys would become vegetarian for "religious reasons," but they would not give up bacon for breakfast. :D I had a friend who since moved to the West Coast who was a vegetarian. I "cured" her. LOL The day I got her to eat bacon, she was ruined. My husband and I had her eating all kinds of things she hadn't had in ages, and it changed her for life. She learned to once again appreciate beef in moderation. That I think is the key - moderation. Anything is good as long as it's balanced.

I admit it. I was bad. From what I hear, she still eats bacon, but she's trying to scale down the meat.

[Trish Wilson]

Souraaron, that's one criticism I've heard of Atkins and South Beach diets - they don't consider that if you slip just once your weight balloons. The caloric restrictions are too punitive and harsh on the human body. I've always been told that gentle moderation in changing diets is what matters.

When my husband and I went to our doctor, he recommended the South Beach diet to both of us. I was a bit worried about how restrictive it was, but I understood that it was only for the first couple of weeks. I saw a nutritionist when I was pregnant, and he recommended a similar diet to get me off of refined sugar, caffeine, and white flour. He also had me take injections of folic acid before physicians knew its connection to spinal bifida when folic acid is lacking in pregnant women. It wasn't an easy diet but I did it. To this day I don't crave soft drinks. I don't like them anymore.

I don't know if I could take a restrictive diet like that again. It's too harsh, and there seem to be too many problems with it. I think a less intensive approach works better.

[Hugo Schwyzer]

My primary concern with a diet is justice and sustainability -- my second, with my own health. All I am asking is that folks think of their food decisions as moral choices as well as personal preferences.

[rocaltrol]

Honesty, integrity and a persuasive mentality are the most important qualities of an elected official
http://imovane.kadm.biz/index.php?qq=imovane overdose imovane overdose

See you

[cover]

Space Exploration Benefits Our World, costs too much

[Steve]

A one-night stand is wrong, is not wrong