I know a girl who knows a girl.
I know a girl who knows a girl that is part of a radio show in Texas. I don't know much about what was said about this topic because I didn't hear the audio. I only saw the poll that the radio station put up on their website. The question was "Jaime rips these pictures out of magazines before her husband sees them. What are your thoughts?" And below were pics of some girls in bikinis. Just regular ol' girls in bikinis. Like ones you would see in a Victoria's Secret catalog for swimwear.
The girl I know that knows this radio talk show girl posted on Facebook....and I quote..."Jamie - I am so glad that you and Aaron have decided together that this is a good thing to help protect your marriage. I wish more couples would talk about this stuff and consider each other before they do themselves. Its not like you are tearing these out behind his back. Thank you for being willing to talk about this when you know so many would disagree. You for sure trust each other but we are all capable of making bad decision and you are just doing your part in making sure you both don't make those mistakes!"
Now....how can I put this delicately? I think a simple "I disagree" will suffice, but I'll explain more because I think it will eat at my soul if I don't speak my mind.
So...
Seriously?
For real?
Ok, let me back up...like I said before...I didn't hear the audio, so it's very possible that her explaining herself makes more sense than me just guessing her reasons for tearing out those pictures. But let's just get real here.
Obviously she cannot shield her husband from seeing all women. Obviously she cannot shield her husband from the posters that hang in the mall, the billboards that are up on the highways, the commercials on tv, the movies they watch, that all have women in bikinis in/on them. What in the world is the point of tearing out the magazine pictures? One could argue that even though she cannot shield his eyes from ALL of these images, blocking out just a few of them at least will lessen the load. But then a different One would argue logic. Is this husband going to go have an affair because he sees images of women other than his wife in bikinis? How exactly is taking 10% of these images away from his eyes "protecting his marriage?" And exactly what "mistake" would be be making?
13 year old Youth Group Shaunna would gasp at the thought of someone's husband feasting their eyes on another woman's body! 13 year old Youth Group Shaunna would also gasp at the thought of listening to "secular music."
Modern Day, I Live In The Real World Shaunna is realistic. And not an idiot. Is Chris going to cheat on me because he sees random bikini ads out in the real world? No. If Chris cheated on me it would be for a much larger reason....something along the lines of he's a bad guy, a creep, and he didn't deserve to be married to me. And Modern Day, I Live In The Real World Shaunna isn't going to go out and do bad things because I like to listen to Ke$ha songs on the radio.
So what if the girl I know was just trying to prevent her husband from lusting? Can we talk about Charlie Hunnam, AKA Jax Teller from Sons of Anarchy? HOTT. Yeah, with two T's. Chris and I watch Sons of Anarchy together. We love the show. And Jax is a sexy man. It's just a fact. Does me saying that make me a bad person? No. Does that mean I'm going to hell? No. Does that mean I'm going to go out and try to get with someone other than Chris? No. If Charlie Hunnam himself, in the flesh, offered himself to me...would I take him up on that offer? (Insert obvious "eh.....maybe" joke here), but really.....No. Because Chris is my husband. I made vows in front of God and everybody. I love him and I would not do anything to compromise our marriage. And no, I don't think me seeing Jax with his shirt off is compromising our marriage.
So, I will not be attempting to shield Chris's precious eyes from these horrible, secular, worldly girls in bikinis. I don't feel the need, because I'm not a naive person.
I'm fully prepared to hear feedback about Jesus and the bible and thing similar to what I would have heard from JB Kitts in 1997, but honestly, I don't know that there's anything that could change my opinion about this. I'm open for a devil's advocate though because I feel like my Dad will be popping up in the comments section.
Also, here is Charlie Hunnam. Shield your eyes!
posted by Shaunna Faye @ 9:03 AM
8 Comments:
You expected me to comment and I hate to disappoint so here goes.
I totally agree with you! Surprised?
The only thing I might add that's different from your arguement is this. If both partners have agreed in good faith and honesty that this is how they want to live, then who am I to say it's wrong. It's not immoral or illegal so let them live that way and I'll try not to be too judgmental.
Personally, I think it's unfortunate and should be unnecessary... and where do you draw the line? This picture is ok, but that one is not?
Ok, let's suppose their reasoning has to do with the larger picture of not being a part of the "sexy" culture. Then isn't tearing out the pictures only a half-hearted attempt. Why not toss the entire magazine, or better yet, stop subscribing to the magazine. It borders on the hypocritical to limit their efforts to just tearing out a few pictures.
You probably expected me to bring the Bible into the comment, so here goes. I was always taught that we have no choice but to be "in" the world, but we don't have to be "of" the world. In other words we don't have to subscribe to or condone the sinfulness of the world just because we live in it. Now, to what extent you fight against the sinfullness or simply ignore it is between you and God. Sadly, I can't quote the scripture to back up this statement.
Having preached the mini-sermon now I'll flip-flop and make a borderline crude comment. If she's going to limit his exposure to all things sexy, then she needs to "be all she can be", if you catch my drift. Men generally don't stray because they see something they want. They stray because they can't get something they already have. I'm just sayin'...
I suspect that last statement caused a few eyes to roll so I'll shut up now.
My main thought on this mirrors a point that Dad already put up. In the past seven years, I have gotten married, and I have seen a number of my friends and family members get married as well. The biggest lesson I have learned from observing the "terms" of my marriage and the "terms" of the marriages of my peers is (and I've said it many times before): What works for me and mine may not work for you and yours, and vice versa.
As Dad said, if a couple agrees that it would be beneficial for a wife to tear racy pictures out of a magazine before a husband has access to the magazine, then far be it from me to say that's wrong. ALSO as Dad said, if that effort is going to be taken for the sake of shielding one's eyes from temptation, then why not just cancel the subscription? Seems it would just make things easier. My (probably incorrect) assumption is that this relates to Sports Illustrated. Something like Maxim would probably not be subscribed to in this particular scenario (nor in my marriage, for that matter), so if SI is the culprit, why not go over to Sporting News or something? It just seems that there are better ways of directing your attention than ripping pictures out of a magazine.
Here's the thing: I'm a male. I grew up in a church where my youth group had a huge influence on my life (then and still now). My fellow youth-group-mates and I, being teenage boys, certainly had our fair share of instruction on the subject of lust. I think this is more an issue of lust than an issue of temptation to cheat. That being said, I understand the premise. If a husband and wife (both are equally important in this situation) decide that this would be a good way to avoid the lust factor altogether, good for them. I'd bet they have a pretty healthy marriage. If the wife decides on her own that the pictures should be removed without any input from the husband...well, then there may be a problem. That in and of itself may not be the problem, but it could be evidence of a larger trust issue.
Oh, and Jax...ehh.
Bob Harper is where it's at.
And another thing (sorry, I can't leave it along)...why is it perfectly okay and accepted for a female to openly fawn over an attractive man, but if I male does that over an attractive woman, he's a pervert and a sleazeball?
I think it depends on the woman. I do not get upset if Chris open fawns over an attractive woman. In fact, I use it as helpful information as to what he likes in how a woman looks so I can use that to my advantage. Maybe the difference between me and a woman that would get upset about it is that I'm confident in myself and I don't doubt that Chris is still attracted to me.
This is so interesting! I'll throw my 2 cents in.
I guess I can offer you this perspective- I think that the addictive "ruin-your-life" kind of lust like watching internet porn all day while you lie to and physically deny your spouse or the urge to commit the horrible act of actually going all the way to cheat physically with someone outside of your marriage may be really difficult things for some individuals to overcome or avoid (like a mental disease they inherited in childhood that they cannot shake). These two behaviors in their extreme forms tend to come from a place in childhood (usually at no fault to the child), where they learned to behave this way as a coping mechanism or never learned *not* to behave this way and so ended up addicted to the "excitement" they provide (usually they are already very addicted before they even fall in love or get married to the person they want to spend the rest of their life with). The marriage then has the grueling task of dealing with the spouse with this fatal mental addiction.
I have a friend whose marriage failed. This was a very conservative, Christian couple. The husband was found to be a sex addict. Like, the kind that lies about where he is while he's paying for a prostitute. It came as a shock to us all that knew them. Thing is, the marriage didn't end until his *second* time of screwing up. His wife gave him a second chance (God bless her!)... and I'm sure she did a lot more like demand his internet passwords and check their browser history (or at least I hope she did).
But this is a HUGE extreme. I often wonder what would have happened if they were able to alter his behavior. Maybe she would have done extreme things too like clip images out of a magazine. Nobody wants to see their marriage "fail". If saving my marriage meant that I needed to do everything conceivable to help my man not be tempted, then I'd do it. Maybe this dude you write about confessed that he was literally on the cliff's edge, ready to jump. Maybe he used the "d" word. Maybe it was enough to scare his wife into doing totally pointless things like clipping images.
Thing is, not everyone's marriage is like this couple. Not even close for most. And I totally agree with you that this kind of behavior is completely unnecessary in most cases. But there may be exceptions in some marriages.
Really, the scenario you've described kinda reeks of silly desperation. Sounds like this woman is desperate to feel like she can maybe help or try to control the direction her marriage is going in. She's taking shots in the dark because that's all she can do. She probably already knows deep down that if her husband is going to lust or cheat, he's going to do it regardless of what she does... and that scares her so much that she's willing to try any and all things. Or maybe she just needs to feel like she "at least" did something.
And seriously, I think that *regardless* of what she does... having more sex or "pleasing" her husband more won't save that scenario either if the other partner is determined to behave differently (or addicted to it). It's not enough to offer yourself up to someone if they don't act like they want you to begin with. If the cheating or lusting spouse is finding his or her kicks elsewhere then the opposite spouse will be far less inclined to put their body on a platter for them. Could you blame them? Maybe they have already been rejected so many times by their spouse that the thought of being rejected one more time is more than they can bare.
There are any number of countless painful scenarios as to why this woman might have done this or why this couple might have agreed that it is best.
But as for me, it's a bit silly. A bit like throwing pebbles at a dragon. If this guy has issues that might actually fester into a serious lusting or serious cheating problem, then he needs a LOT more than for someone to clip his magazines.
i completely agree as well. my reasons are along the same lines. the world we live in is real, as you said, and it's full of lust and sin. we as christians have to be stronger than that and not give in. we can't control the world and what it does. we are called to be in the world but not of it.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home