Solitary sex: a follow-up

In the wake of my first post on the subject of autoerotism, I've been collecting additional thoughts. Yesterday morning, a Breakpoint commentary by Mark Earley titled Moral Sexuality in a Morally Neutral World appeared in my inbox. Earley speaks of Jennifer Roback Morse’s new book, Smart Sex: Finding Life-Long Love in a Hook-Up World. Both Earley’s and Morse’s thoughts relate closely to my thoughts on autoerotism.

Before I share them, allow me to explain my use of the term “autoerotism.” 1) The term is precise and descriptive; it draws attention to the two most important elements of masturbation: a) it’s about the self, and b) it involves more than mere physical reflex; it is, in truth, eroticism. In fact, it may not involve any physical action at all. 2) It is a term that will perhaps cause a person to think twice and to identify what is spelled out in (1), hopefully free (or at least temporarily so) of some of the associations that might immediately be conjured by the word “masturbation.” 3) The term is not, as some may suppose, styptically academic. It was coined by none other than Havelock Ellis, an early proponent of sexual liberation.

Says Earley, speaking of Morse:

She deals with concepts like “reproductive freedom,” “recreational sex,” and “consumer sex,” and shows how they’re not only morally bankrupt, but also anti-social.
Morse explains that the problem with these views of sex is that they focus on the individual.”

I’d like to suggest that autoerotism focuses on the individual allowing or performing it. It is a thought/act resulting from an inwardly-focused view of sex, at least in that particular instance. Yes of course this is self-evident, but I call attention to it to show that this is antithetical to the proper use of sex as a marital sacrament.

As Morse puts it, “When we engage in consumer sex, we do not fully consider the impact of our actions upon others. Consumer sex is focused inward, on personal pleasure, not on the building up of the community of the family.”

I would put masturbation/autoerotism in the category of both “recreational-" and “consumer sex.” No doubt the person who engages in masturbation does not fully consider the impact of his/her actions upon others, or else does not consider it to be problematic.

I’m aware of the practice of masturbating (by a male) prior to coitus so as to have better relations with his wife. Such an individual would claim that this is done for the sake of his wife, and that the focus of such masturbation is to build up community with his wife. Without going into detail, or claiming to be Dr. Ruth, I would offer that the problem such a man is wishing to alleviate can be addressed in other ways that directly involve his wife.

I’m also aware that there are women who claim to be better at sex and to enjoy it more because of self-discovery as a result of masturbation. This view, however, substitutes knowledge and “achievement” for relationship itself – the sharing, mutual discovery and mutual “achievement” (if it must be called that) that characterizes a healthy marital sexual relationship.

In short, the sexual revolution taught us to think of our sex lives as our own property and our own business, and nobody else’s, even though other people are obviously involved. To use sex this way is to treat it as the opposite of what it was meant to be: a destroyer of relationships rather than something that builds them. (emphasis added)

While I do not claim that masturbation is necessarily a destroyer of relationships, I suggest that its practice is part of a mentality that does destroy relationships. At any rate, I am not convinced that its practice can possibly build up a relationship, or even not detract from it if, as detailed in the first post, sex is solely for the spouse.

“So what,” someone might say. “I have a great relationship with my spouse, including the intimate aspects. Masturbation in no way interferes with that.” Well, he/she may say that, but that doesn't make it true. How can someone truly know that masturbation does not detract from a marital relationship? It seems self-evident that something given to the self or indulged in solitarily is not given to someone else. The fullness, the completeness (speaking in terms of what’s healthy, and I know that’s another can of worms, but please bear with me) of one’s sexuality is to be given to the spouse. To do otherwise is to deny two-becoming-one.

I don’t see personal privacy coming into play here, as it does for many aspects of marriage and personhood. In other words, saying that “what I do sexually in private has nothing to do with anyone else, my spouse included” is not a true statement, as per the quote above. Nor do I see mutual consent as being relevant either. (Meaning a couple mutually agreeing that they’re OK with each other’s solitary masturbation.) The buck stops at the deontology of sex.

Speaking to Christians: clearly, a redeemed view of sexuality starts with the self. Unless one develops the view that sexuality does not belong to the self, one’s view isn’t essentially different than a view whose expression involves sex with an individual or individuals others than one’s spouse, even if one limits one’s practice of mutual sex to one’s spouse. I know many may disagree, but it’s a matter of degree, I believe, not of essence. Adultery begins in the heart/mind. And of course, one can be monogamous yet merely use one’s spouse for one’s own gratification in a selfish way. In other words, the object is still, as with autoerotism, one’s own gratification. If a Christian is monogamous yet holds a self-directed view of sex, then his/her limiting of sex to the spouse is, in actuality, a form of legalism. At its root – in the heart/mind – the sexuality of such a monogamous person has not been (fully) redeemed.

There are many Christians who rightly state that the goal of the Christian life is sanctification, and it seems that sanctification is an oft-forgotten point among evangelicals. In a mindset in which sex is made an idol, it may actually be viewed as a rite of sanctification (as opposed to sacrament when used properly). But this of course is a lie – a grave misunderstanding of sanctification. I fear that such idolatry can occupy a Christian’s mindset quite easily, especially if said individual practices autoerotism. “Be ye renewed by the transforming of your mind...” Romans 12:2


Endnote: I apologize for the frankness of this post. I consider myself a modest person and honestly am not comfortable writing much of what I’m writing here. So why am I doing it? Because I think it needs to be done. I don’t know that anyone else is doing so substantially. It seems as though the pen has been put in my hand, so to speak.

(And to those of you who think modesty is for prudes, I have this to say: showing off in virtually any other area is considered crass. What is the point of publicizing something that ought to be private? (I don’t mean the topics themselves, I mean personal attitudes or specifics.) Do you really think that your not being privy to something by means of someone else “showing” it to you means that it doesn’t exist? Please, don’t flatter yourself. And don’t flatter yourself into thinking that your own blustering means you’re too sexy for your comment, or your blog, or whatever.)