Selfish in Seattle

By Mary Beth Bonacci
Herald Columnist
(From the issue of 9/18/03)

I was in Seattle last week, taping my new chastity series for parents. (More on that in a couple of weeks.) While I was there, I heard a particularly fascinating radio show.

The first time I heard this show, the topic was one of the hosts’ marriage. He told the listeners that before he and his wife were married they (as he so elegantly put it) "kicked the tires." In other words, they had sex. Regularly. He explained that, to him, sex is a very important part of marriage. (He seemed to think this made him unusual.) So he wanted to be sure that they were sexually "compatible" before signing on the dotted line. He even claimed that he was concerned about the possibility of "physical incompatibility." Believe it or not, the guy invited callers to call in and comment.

I was impressed that so many of the callers saw this situation as I did – a man putting this imaginary sexual "compatibility" above his commitment to his future wife, whom he repeatedly professed to love deeply. When asked if he would have cancelled the wedding if she hadn’t performed up to his standards, he waffled, saying only that he would have had some thinking to do.

The guy struck me as extremely selfish.

I’ve never been a big fan of the "sexual compatibility" theory. It seems to me that sexual "compatibility" is a function of all of the other compatibilities in a marriage, and that those who isolate sexual compatibility tend to be people who see sex as isolated from the rest of marriage – just a physical act that feels good. And they tend to see their spouses largely as the means through which they feel good.

But that wasn’t the end of it. The next day, I caught the show again. This same host was talking about his marriage again. Apparently, a friend of his wife had been raped and become pregnant. The friend had decided to have the baby and relinquish it for adoption.

This apparently got our host thinking about what he would do under the same circumstances. He mulled it over for several days, and then went to his wife (and his radio listeners) with his decision.

He decided that if his wife were to be raped and impregnated, he would leave her if she didn’t "terminate the pregnancy." He was quite adamant. Continuing to profess his undying love for the woman, he insisted that the presence of that child (her child) in their marriage, even for a brief nine months in utero, would destroy the marriage. He was sure of it. He couldn’t take it. The baby had to go.

I was appalled. Did this man understand what abortion does to a woman – particularly when she is pressured or coerced into it? Would he really abandon his own wife, whom he "deeply loves," if she refused to destroy her own child? What ever happened to "for better or for worse"?

He kept talking about how he wouldn’t be able to take it, about how the baby would be a constant reminder and he wouldn’t be able to live with that, about how it would eat him up inside. I didn’t hear a whole lot about her suffering, except that he wouldn’t be able to stand seeing it.

It was selfishness in spades, and the callers let him know that. He seemed genuinely baffled, and couldn’t see how he was being selfish.

Remembering the previous day’s show, I was struck by the parallels. I’ve always believed that the idea of "testing" someone sexually before marriage betrays an inherent selfishness – an attitude of using the other for personal pleasure rather giving to the other in self-donating love. But I had never fully thought through the various ways that selfishness could manifest itself within a marriage based on such selfishness.

And now, here it was. One of the most extreme examples I could possibly imagine played itself out before my very eyes (well, ears).

In contrast were several of the callers. Many, many men (including the co-host) said not only that they would stand by their wives through the pregnancy, but that they would also be willing to adopt the baby themselves. During the "kicking the tires" show one man called to report that he never even kissed his wife before their honeymoon, and that the effects of that decision on their marital sex life had been, well, pretty spectacular.

The moral? There are generous, wonderful, loving men (and women) out there. There are also selfish, self-centered idiots. It is highly unlikely that one will suddenly turn into the other. The selfish and self-centered seem to remain such, even as the stakes get higher, just as the generous and loving remain generous and loving.

Marry accordingly.

Copyright ©2003 Arlington Catholic Herald.  All rights reserved.