Yeah, sure…

Well, I’m sure that the author had only sooo much space to work within so Mr. Carter may not have been INTENDED to “get into these things” therefore, I cannot fault him totally. But I found his SCOPE to be too narrow in terms of developing not only a BIBLICAL/SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY based in biblical texts and teachings such as the Trinity (though he doesn’t totally omit such grounding, I just think he could have been more explicit), but a philosophical one (understanding) in terms of personhood/the self which should also be grounded in scripture and theology. In other words, Mr. Carter did not develop the philosophical underpinnings as to why there is “industrialized sex” in the first place. Industrialized sex is more or less a SYMPTOM of a more DEEPER PROBLEM in my opinion.

Let’s expand this a bit, aside from the question of a woman masturbating rather than being frustrated in her marriage. There IS a case in which a woman/man is a LAWFUL OBJECT OF ONE’S DESIRE.

Here are some scenarios. Pease check all that apply (in your own head):

[ ] It would be legitimate for a single man/woman to look forward with anticipation to enjoying marital relations with a man/woman whom he/she is marrying tomorrow.

[ ] It would be legitimate for a single man/woman to look forward with anticipation to enjoying marital relations with a man/woman whom he/she is engaged to.

[ ] It would be legitimate for a single man/woman to look forward with anticipation to enjoying marital relations with a man/woman whom he/she has/is been in a long-term relationship with and it's assumed that they'll be married someday but nothing's official.

[ ] It would be legitimate for a single man/woman to look forward with anticipation to enjoying marital relations with a man/woman whom he/she is has been in a relationship with for a couple months.

[ ] It would be legitimate for a single man/woman to look forward with anticipation to enjoying marital relations with a woman whom he/she has/is been in a relationship with since yesterday.

[ ] It would be legitimate for a single man/woman to look forward with anticipation to enjoying marital relations with a single man/woman whom he/she is going to ask out for the first time tomorrow.

[ ] It would be legitimate for a single man to look forward with anticipation to enjoying marital relations with a single woman whom he has plans on asking out someday when he gets up the courage. (I didn’t put the man/woman thingy, because it is still the usual case in which gals don’t ask guys out if you as a woman do this, then add “woman” in there).

[ ] It would be legitimate for a single man/woman to look forward with anticipation to enjoying marital relations with he’s/she's dating.

[ ] It would be legitimate for an attached man to look forward with anticipation to enjoying marital relations with a single woman whom he has plans on asking out once he drops that monotonous bore he's dating. (Again, as is mostly the case, more than likely a man will still be doing the asking).

[ ] It would be legitimate, if really uncool, for a married man whose wife is on life support and is likely to die tomorrow to look forward with anticipation to enjoying marital relations with a single woman whom he has plans on asking out a couple weeks after the wife dies. (Need I explain?)

[ ] It would be legitimate for an married man to look forward with anticipation to enjoying marital relations with his wife (assuming the church doesn't accept their attempt at an annulment) and, at the same time, a single woman whom he has plans on asking out (assuming the church does grant an annulment). (For any of our RC friends).

Now, I wouldn't condone lying in bed for half an hour stewing in one's juices (For lack of a better term. Alright already!) thinking about “tomorrow night.” Pleasure remembered, anticipated, or desired is all well and good, but give over to it and it quickly becomes all about getting pleasure right now.

So, while I do think there's a reasonably clear line between who is or isn't a lawful object of one's pursuit, I'm very far from saying that as long as you can reasonably foresee it happening at some point, go ahead and let your imagination run wild. There's no legalistic line in the sand here. But in general I would say that the more remote the goal, in time or probability or both, the more circumspect one ought to be in how attached to it one allows oneself to become.

Behind the phrase "a man/woman who is a lawful object of one's pursuit" are ideas that might be expanded upon with the following broad categories:

A. a man/woman whom one is actively courting with an express aim of getting married.

B. a man/woman whom one is not actively courting but whom one is currently in a position to take active steps toward this state.

C. a man/woman whom one is not currently in a position to take any steps toward pursuing but who, given a particular set of future circumstances, could conceivably become the lawful object of pursuit at a future time.

The first category would include the first two scenarios above.

The second category includes most of the middle group of the scenarios. Scenario 3 is ambiguous without further information about the nature of the understanding, but 4 through 9 all involve cases of a man/woman who is essentially a lawful object of pursuit. Forget about details like "she's dating a jerk" or "I'm still involved with so-and-so." Dating one woman doesn't mean one isn't in a position to contemplate breaking up with her and courting another woman, nor does the fact that the object of one's interest is dating someone else prevent one in principle from making one's own overture toward her. Even if a woman is engaged to be married, one is in principle free to make a counter-offer. All's fair etc. etc.

The third category would include the last two scenarios (more on these later).

With respect to the first category, where marriage is the express aim of the relationship, a couple may certainly take pleasure in the anticipation of their future wedded life, including their CONJUGAL LIFE (WHOO-HOO!), as long as this anticipation doesn't become a proximate occasion of sin HERE AND NOW.

With respect to the second category, where one is in a position to take active steps toward pursuing a man/woman, the man/woman in question is a lawful object of pursuit. In the course of thinking about whether or not to pursue him/her, the man/woman may certainly think about the man/woman in the capacity of a prospective bridegroom/bride. This includes a whole range of relevant considerations, including how the man/women feels about his/her personality and company, his/her interests and talents, his/her beliefs and opinions and style, the sort of /father/mother and husband/wife she is likely to be, and how attractive he/she finds him/her, how sexually appealing. At this stage I wouldn't condone developing elaborate scenarios or wallowing in such thoughts for prolonged periods, because it would be “fostering an attachment” (using RC language here) whose prospects are too remote. But in choosing whether or not to pursue a man/woman it's reasonable to take as one factor in consideration how much he would like the prospect of sharing his/her bed for the rest of his/her life. And if he/she likes that prospect very much, it's reasonable that that attraction should be one factor that impels him/her to seek her hand.

With respect to the third category, where one is not currently in a position to take any steps toward pursuing but who, given a particular set of future circumstances, could conceivably become the lawful object of pursuit at a future time, the man/woman is NOT a lawful object of pursuit. However, to the extent that there is reason to think about possible future contingencies in which he/she might become a lawful object of pursuit, it might be permissible to give very limited consideration to that possibility, though not to think about it for the sheer pleasure of doing so.

For example, to offer an even more remote if less macabre version of these penultimate scenarios, consider the case of a perfectly healthy one-income family with a homemaker mom caring for a number of young children. Both spouses are concerned for the welfare of their children should anything happen to either or both of them, and they have made provision, in the event that both parents should be killed, that the children should go to the care of responsible, believing families.

But it's also reasonable to give some practical thought to questions such as, what if only the wife were to be killed? Neither spouse wants the children to go to daycare, and so the wife would want the children to have a new mother in due season (people do this all the time).

Within the context of giving practical consideration to that contingency, a husband might reasonably give limited thought to what his prospects in such a scenario might be, what he might be likely to do if his wife were to be killed, including whom among the women he knows he might consider as a hypothetial prospective brides. And such practical considerations once again could include whom he does or doesn't find attractive.

Because he may not regard any other woman as a lawful object of his pursuit, and because he owes fidelity of heart and mind as well as body to his wife, the husband must very sharply limit his consideration of this subject, and absolutely refrain from indulging in consideration of women in his vicinity as hypothetical future brides for the pleasure of doing so (in contrast to the groom-to-be who is free to contemplate his betrothed as his future bride for the pleasure of doing so).

Whatever conclusions the married man may arrive at regarding who might or might not make a reasonable hypothetical future candidate in the event that he should be widowed, having arrived at those conclusions he must put the subject aside, and not return to it simply to enjoy the thought. To do so would be to foster an attachment that one has no business fostering, not to mention giving undue consideration to a macabre hypothetical scenario.

In the case of the husband with the terminally ill wife who is dying, I would say that he might reasonably give more serious practical attention to the subject than the man with the healthy wife, but he too owes his wife fidelity of heart and mind as long as she lives, especially in view of her dire straits which require the greatest level of commitment and support he can offer. He should not begin to think like a single man by allowing himself to begin to foster hopeful attachments to other women until this is a practical possibility for him.

In Roman Catholicism there is the case of a couple whose marriage is undergoing tribunal to determine its validity. Unfortunately, this effectively means the couple is already civilly divorced, but there is in Church law a legal principle that marriage has the benefit of law, which essentially means that one is presumed married until proved otherwise. Therefore, until the tribunal rules, the parties must consider themselves bound to one another, and are no more free to foster attachments to third parties than are any other married couples. In Evangelicalism, one simply should not “jump ships” or is free to enter into another relationship by “fostering attachments” until sometime after their divorce.

How's that?