He doesn't need your sext: A response to Jennifer Lawrence

[MarcoPolo]

An insightful post by Matt Fradd regarding Jennifer Lawrence’s recent comments.
He doesn’t need your sext: A response to Jennifer Lawrence

Basically Jennifer Lawrence said she sent naked pictures of herself to her boyfriend, because if she didn’t, he’d look at porn, and the way to get him to not look at porn is if she sent him “porn” of herself.

 

[JimG]

"…either your boyfriend is going to look at porn or he’s going to look at you.”

Wow, is this what she learned from her grandmother?

 

[CHCL]

The world is messed up. :nope:

 

[on_the_hill]

Agreed, the world is messed up. But let’s not blame the victim here.

A young woman did something she ought not have done, and she trusted the security of a “secure” system, and she got burned.

If thousands of people are scoping out her pics, it’s their sin, not hers.

 

[hiramross]

The internet has increased EVERYONE’s exposure to so many things……. Porn (of course) but also good things like these types of websites etc.

This problem is in my Generation and the younger generations. The statement that Jennifer made is saying that people will do it and that makes it okay (even if she says she’d rather have her boyfriend look at her she does not condemn him for it as she should)……of course that is wrong… that is Relativism ideas the Church strongly trys to fight against.

The young kids do it because their not taught good values and the rights and wrongs in today’s world (a simple “don’t do that” type of talk isn’t what i’m speaking of) and most of the older people are doing it mostly because they are missing something in their lives, they fill a satisfying with porn.

It’s not a “medical” problem it’s a moral problem. **Promote what is good!! **

THis means Good clean music, Good clean TV, Good clean movies, Good clean events, etc…

As it is talked about if you live with God you will reject (because it will no longer please you) the bad things… music, tv, movies, bars/clubs etc. etc. (not saying none of these can be good but you will know which to choose).

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Agreed, the world is messed up. But let’s not blame the victim here.

A young woman did something she ought not have done, and she trusted the security of a “secure” system, and she got burned.

If thousands of people are scoping out her pics, it’s their sin, not hers.

That’s pretty much what the first paragraph says. Matt’s message to JLaw is spot on.

It is sexist because it portrays men as only being interested in one thing and incapable of self-control.
(…)
Secondly, it’s false. She says men have two options: 1) look at porn, or 2) look at you.
(…)
Finally, this statement from Lawrence is just sad. It’s as if she’s resigned herself to the belief that men are weak and lustful and so the best you can hope for is that they’ll lust over you instead of the women in porn.
(…)
However, I can still see a flicker of hope. She at least doesn’t want a man she dates to lust over other women. That is, she wants a love that is faithful and exclusive.

His response is compassionate, unlike what I might expect from that other Matt guy, who shall not be named.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

Wow, we women have really been liberated. So it’s either the bf looks at other women or her naked pics. I guess she didn’t feel free to say no to that, feeling perhaps she isn’t free to have a boyfriend without engaging in such activities.

 

[hiramross]

Wow, we women have really been liberated. So it’s either the bf looks at other women or her naked pics. I guess she didn’t feel free to say no to that, feeling perhaps she isn’t free to have a boyfriend without engaging in such activities.

I agree with you 1000%!!

She shouldn’t send her boyfriend pics to keep him from watching porn! If it was truly a problem to her that he does it (it is a problem he does it) then either aid him in understanding why not or look for a man out there that doesn’t look at porn.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Even if I was okay with porn use in general, I would not want to create my own pornography as a substitute. I wouldn’t want my boyfriend or husband to conflate something I intended as something to maintain intimacy with commercial pornography.

I admit that this has made me see how pervasive pornography is and that it’s not seen as exploitive as it once was.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

I really like this article, but had some questions. For example, when he says:

Though chastity may conjure up images of either uncomfortable belts or the notion of repressing sexuality in the name of “abstinence”… chastity is neither of these things but so much more.

I don’t understand how it is not repressing sexuality. Like, he says it’s not, but I can’t figure out why it’s not. I mean, he talks about:

And by “look at you,” I assume she doesn’t mean, “look at you while you’re praying the rosary on your evening walk together.”

…which does sound like repression to me. Am I missing something?

He says:

We call that kind of true love marriage. The Church, in calling us to the virtue of chastity, and in extolling the Sacrament of Marriage, isn’t asking us to suppress our deepest desires, she’s telling us they’re attainable.

…but, I mean, it really is part of my deepest desires to see a woman naked. Like, seriously, it really is. And to do something about it, if possible.

I guess I just wonder why, in general, the writer sees the desire of a man to see a woman naked and to act on it is something unhealthy, and how suggesting that he shouldn’t do either of these things isn’t repressive.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

I really like this article, but had some questions. For example, when he says:

I don’t understand how it is not repressing sexuality. Like, he says it’s not, but I can’t figure out why it’s not. I mean, he talks about:

…which does sound like repression to me. Am I missing something?

He says:

…but, I mean, it really is part of my deepest desires to see a woman naked. Like, seriously, it really is. And to do something about it, if possible.

I guess I just wonder why, in general, the writer sees the desire of a man to see a woman naked and to act on it is something unhealthy, and how suggesting that he shouldn’t do either of these things isn’t repressive.

Eve Tushnet writes about repression and sublimation here. Matt doesn’t use the word sublimation or offer examples of it but he kind of comes close here:

men who are virtuous despite the temptations the world throws at them, who fight valiantly against selfishness, and desire to love the women they’re with as Christ loved the Church. That is, they’re willing to sacrifice things (including their immature desires) for the good of their beloved.

So for a single guy, that means not thinking about a woman naked but thinking about the whole person. Or I’ll give an example from my own life (this is embarrassing, BTW); so I had a little celebrity crush on Adam Levine (it was short lived). Instead of thinking about his hipbones () I focused on others things; for example I bought the issue of Men’s Health in which he was featured. Why on earth would I need to read Men’s Health??? But the article was about yoga and how he approached it, etc, etc. I turned it into inspiration for my own health and fitness.

Does that help?

 

[Gordon_Sims]

I don’t understand how it is not repressing sexuality. Like, he says it’s not, but I can’t figure out why it’s not.

I guess I just wonder why, in general, the writer sees the desire of a man to see a woman naked and to act on it is something unhealthy, and how suggesting that he shouldn’t do either of these things isn’t repressive.

I disagree with the notion that chastity represses sexuality. Not indulging in something every opportunity you get is not repression. I also don’t agree with the idea that not looking at porn and limiting sex to within the bond of marriage is repressive, while porn consumption and unbridled fornication are healthy. A study came out sometime in the last two weeks claiming that 101 million Americans have an STD. Take out everyone under the age of 10 and you’re left with about 1 out of every 2.6 people carrying some form of sexually transmitted disease. That means that if you have just three sexual partners over the course of your life, you’ve got a better than average chance of contracting something yourself. I don’t see how avoiding those circumstances is repressive.

 

[on_the_hill]

so I had a little celebrity crush on Adam Levine

So did my wife, it turns out.

I had/have one on Jennifer Lawrence.

 

[Viki63]

I
I don’t understand how it is not repressing sexuality. Like, he says it’s not, but I can’t figure out why it’s not.

…which does sound like repression to me. Am I missing something?

…but, I mean, it really is part of my deepest desires to see a woman naked. Like, seriously, it really is. And to do something about it, if possible.

I guess I just wonder why, in general, the writer sees the desire of a man to see a woman naked and to act on it is something unhealthy, and how suggesting that he shouldn’t do either of these things isn’t repressive.

The author is not suggesting that desire for a woman is unhealthy, he’s saying it should be put in context. Your desires are fine, and they should lead you to become the best man possible for a marriage partner, find a marvelous, affectionate woman to marry, and raise a family with her, There’s nothing wrong with that: marriage is the foundation of society. Note that the author is married and has 4 children.

But it’s a bad idea to lust after women you are not married to, since that is treating them as objects. So Jennifer’s BF should not be looking either at porn or at her lustfully, he should guard his eyes and mind to be worthy of her love.

It’s not repression to wait until you have a driver’s license to drive your car. It’s common sense. You make a commitment to stay with a woman for life, and THEN you have the right to see her naked, and have children with her.

 

[Sarcelle]

I really like this article, but had some questions. For example, when he says:

I don’t understand how it is not repressing sexuality. Like, he says it’s not, but I can’t figure out why it’s not. I mean, he talks about:

…which does sound like repression to me. Am I missing something?

He says:

…but, I mean, it really is part of my deepest desires to see a woman naked. Like, seriously, it really is. And to do something about it, if possible.

I guess I just wonder why, in general, the writer sees the desire of a man to see a woman naked and to act on it is something unhealthy, and how suggesting that he shouldn’t do either of these things isn’t repressive.

Depends on your intent.

Do you view women as toys put on earth for your own amusement? The desire to see a woman naked may only be legitimate within its proper context, that of respect of a husband for his wife within marriage.

We must master our own appetites. The society we live in now is screwed up, frankly speaking. Fat people are derided, mocked because others see that fat people are not in control of their appetites for food but when sexual appetites are brought up, suddenly anything goes.

 

[manualman]

I don’t understand how it is not repressing sexuality. Like, he says it’s not, but I can’t figure out why it’s not. I mean, he talks about:

Healthy human sexual intimacy is about the unique and exclusive bond that a man and wife share for one another. We aren’t “repressing our sexuality” when we are single people and we refuse to give in to the temptation to use the gift of our sexuality for mere self gratification devoid of any unitive function.

We all HAVE those temptations, of course. We’re broken by Original Sin and we have disordered inclinations. Basically that’s why we need a Savior in the first place.

btw, this is also why it’s so sadly ironic when gay people take umbrage at the CCC description of SSA as ‘intrinsically disordered.’ As if ALL of us don’t have disordered inclinations!