Are Mass Shootings A Result of Biblical Masculinity?

With the mass shooting at a Florida High School by Nikolas Cruz we are not only seeing the call to restrict gun rights but we are also seeing the misandrists coming out again. Never missing an opportunity to express their misandry, these haters of all things masculine are now saying the traits of masculinity which the Bible commands are actually the cause of mass shootings.

Alia E. Dastagir in her article entitled “Are boys ‘broken’? Another mass shooting renews debate on toxic masculinity” for USAToday.com writes:

“The problem Black identifies is one feminists have been talking about for decades. It’s called toxic masculinity, the stereotypical sense of masculinity that embodies behaviors, such as denying help or emotions, which psychologists and sociologists say are harmful to men and to society. It’s the things in our culture — from toys given to movies watched to messages parents consciously and unconsciously send — that tells boys and men “being a real man” means repressing feelings and consistently demonstrating strength and dominance.

“We often talk about gender in terms of women … getting the short end of the stick. … Well, masculinity isn’t easy either,” Jennifer Carlson, a sociology professor at the University of Arizona who studies gun politics and gender, told USA TODAY after the mass shooting in Las Vegas last October. “That’s not your ticket to the good life. It isn’t easy to be a man in the United States. Demands put on men — whether it’s to be the protector, to be the provider, to respond to situations in certain ways, to prove yourself as a man — end up being not just outwardly destructive but also inwardly destructive.

Who is it that places these “demands” on men?

Is it American culture, Western culture or just remnants of Bronze Age cultures that places the demand on men to demonstrate “strength and dominance” and to “be the protector” and “be the provider”?

The answer is found in these passages of the Bible:

“Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.”

I Corinthians 16:13 (NASB)

“Therefore, keep up your courage, men”

Acts 27:25 (NASB)

 “When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.”

Luke 11:21 (NASB)

“Man goes forth to his work and to his labor until evening.”

Psalm 104:23 (NASB)

“Do you see a man skilled in his work? He will stand before kings; He will not stand before obscure men.”

Proverbs 22:29 (NASB)

“A good man leaves an inheritance to his children’s children, and the wealth of the sinner is stored up for the righteous.”

Proverbs 13:22 (NASB)

“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her,  so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,  that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless.  So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of His body.”

Ephesians 5:25-29 (NASB)

The answer from the Scriptures is it is God who places the demand on men to be strong, to dominate and to be providers and protectors. A man who lacks courage, displays weakness, fails to have a commanding influence over others and fails to provide and protect is not living up to God’s standard for men.

Why does God have these standards for men? Because God created man to be his image bearer:

“For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.”

I Corinthians 11:7 (NASB)

Why does God want men to be strong? Because he is strong.

Why does God want men to be dominant? Because he is dominant.

Why does God want men to be providers? Because he is our provider.

Why does God want men to be protectors? Because he is our protector.

Violent Crimes Are Mostly Committed By Men and Water Is Wet

Alia E. Dastagir in her article entitled “Are boys ‘broken’? Another mass shooting renews debate on toxic masculinity” makes an astounding statement about men and violent crime:

“A 2017 study in the Journal of Adolescent Health found many norms around gender, what’s expected of boys and girls, become entrenched in adolescence and have negative impacts that carry into adulthood.

Among consequences the study noted when boys conform to gender stereotypes:

Engaging in physical violence to a much greater extent than girls

Dying more frequently from unintentional injuries

Being more prone to substance abuse and suicide

Having a shorter life expectancy than women

Data shows gun violence is disproportionately a male problem. Of the 97 mass shootings in which three or more victims died since 1982, only three were committed by women (one of those being the San Bernardino attack in which a man also participated), according to a database from the liberal-leaning news outlet Mother Jones. Men also accounted for 86% of gun deaths in the United States, according to an analysis by the non-partisan non-profit Kaiser Family Foundation.”

Men commit vastly more violent crimes than women and men make up the vast majority of mass shooters and water is wet.

I love it when writers show they have a firm grasp of the obvious.  Men by their very nature to a greater or lesser degree are capable of great violence much more so than most women.  Every person since the beginning of humanity could tell us that.

Is Violence Always A Bad Thing?

In most cases the word “violence” is used to denote the unlawful or wrongful use of force.  But we all know there are violent acts that are justified and that we would even welcome.  We would all agree that what Nikolas Cruz did at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida was an unlawful and wrongful act of violence.   But imagine if that school had armed security guards and they acted “violently” against Nikolas Cruz by filling him full of bullets when he started shooting? Both would be acts of violence.  But one would have been a just act of violence and the other was unjust.

The Bible tells us that God actually puts in man his aggressive tendencies and his ability to perform violent acts:

“Blessed be the Lord, my rock, who trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle

Psalm 144:1 (NASB)

My point is this.  Men being capable of violence is not a bad thing.  It is by the design of God.  It becomes a bad thing when men use their ability to act in violence in sinful and wrong ways.

It irks me when I hear people all the time say that boys watching violent war movies, super hero shows or cop shows makes them violent. It is like saying women watching shows that are more drama based and less action and violence based makes them more emotional and relational.

The truth is that most boys like to watch violent war movies, super hero shows, cop shows and other action shows because they ARE action oriented and violent by nature in the same way that women more often watch drama shows because they ARE more emotionally and relationally oriented.

I actually encouraged and played war games like Medal of Honor, Call of Duty and Battlefield and many other “violent” video games with my boys growing up.  But at the same time I taught them about the responsible use of force and gun safety.

Speaking of gun safety.  When my boys were little and had toy guns if the gun looked anywhere near a real gun it would have to have a bright red tip on the end.  I would never let my boys have a toy gun like the one in the picture at the top of this article that was totally black.  There have been many sad stories where a police officer thought a toy gun was real and tragedy happened and I did not want that happening with my kids.

I own a hand gun which I have taught my boys how to use when we have gone on men’s camping retreats with our church.  My second oldest son who is 18 is an avid hunter (which I am not) and he owns a couple of shot guns, several bows and he recently purchased an AR-15 assault rifle (the same style of gun used by Cruz) about a month ago.  We plan on going to a state run outdoor shooting range where we can use his new gun with some of his other guns.  Of course you know who has to buy the ammo for these excursions? Yep you guessed it – dear old Dad.

I am a firm believer in boys being able to exercise their aggressive tendencies in healthy and controlled ways like going to shooting ranges, playing sports and playing violent video games. As long as we do these things in balance and they do not over power us in our lives or become addictions (and yes sports and hunting and shooting can become an addiction just like video games) then they can be used for our benefit.

My boys know the answer I always give when women come around(whether it is step moms, aunts, cousins) and say things like “why do you boys always have to play those violent video games or watch violent movies” I tell them “Because we are men”.

Most men want to use their aggressive and violent tendencies to defend others – not to commit wrong acts

I just took my boys and my daughter to watch the Black Panther movie this weekend as I have most of the Marvel Movies.  Who do you think they were rooting for? The hero or the villain? The one trying to protect people or the one trying to hurt people? The God given masculine desire to be a protector goes hand in hand with the God given masculine ability to fight and be aggressive.  It is a defining attribute of who men are.

When our culture says that violence and aggressiveness are a “male problem” they are in essence saying men need to be more like women.  The problem is not violence and aggressiveness in and of themselves – it is the wrongful use of violence and aggressiveness that is the issue. That is part of the sin nature.

And all these pansies that are trying to neuter the aggressive and violent side of the masculine nature would be BEGGING for it if their home, cities or nation were ever invaded.  We would be praising this side of masculinity – not trying to erase it.

We Will Never Totally Eliminate Evil From The World

And let me give another news flash to my liberal friends who think we can use social engineering to get rid of the sinful inclinations of mankind.  Only God change the sinful heart of man. Only God can completely rid this world of sin and evil and one day he will. No social program, no rehabilitation program will do this.  I am all for encouraging things like strong families and especially strong fathers in the homes teaching their wives and children the ways of God.  This would go a long way to reducing violent crime and a lot of problems that our society is seeing.

But long before the corruption of feminism upon society in the last 150 years – violent acts happened.  Massacres happened over the entire history of mankind.  This is nothing new. Man has certainly used his violent and aggressive tendencies to prey on the weak and act in the some of the most evil and heinous ways.  But man has also used his aggressive tendencies toward violence to defend the weak and powerless and to destroy evil aggressors.

So while we certainly should support mental health reforms and increased funding for mental hospitals where we can lock up those who are a danger to themselves or society we must also approach this from a defensive posture.  It is our duty as men to defend our homes, our towns, our schools and our nation.   We need to push for trained and armed security personnel whether they are security guards or retired police officers or retired military personnel to be stationed at our schools.  We need to allow teachers who are properly trained in the use of weapons to carry hand guns.  We need to stop having schools be gun-free zones which basically just paints a big bullseye on them for crazy and evil folks who want to hurt others.

Conclusion

It is not men following Biblical gender roles or the expectation that men should be strong protectors and providers that is a “destructive” influence that is causing these mass shootings.  Rather the root of these heinous and evil acts is the same root of sexual sins like adultery and homosexuality.  These evils that mankind does are caused by the corruption of sin upon our God given male and female human natures.

We all are “broken” – both boys and girls, men and women by sin and this is nothing new. It has been with mankind since Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden thousands of years ago.  And only Jesus Christ can mend us.

“7 For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”

Romans 5:7-8 (NASB)

Why the Bible Allows Forced Sex in Marriage

Is forced sex in marriage wrong? If you are like most American Christians your gut answer would be YES! Of course, the Bible says it is wrong! Up until very recently I used to think the answer was YES as well. But as God began to peel back my American cultural presuppositions I realized the answer might be something other than what I was comfortable with.

In my last article entitled “It is Not a Woman’s Consent That Matters, It is God’s”, I proved from the Scriptures that God does not allow a woman to say YES to sexual relations to a man she is not married to and he does not allow her to say NO to sexual relations to her husband whom she is married to.

But this raises another question for those Christians who accept that the Bible calls it sin for a woman to sexually refuse her husband. What if a woman does refuse her husband? Can the husband under God’s law physically force himself upon his wife who sinfully resists him?

Here are some answers I have given on this blog in the past. In one of the most popular articles on this blog entitled “8 steps to confront your wife’s sexual refusal” I wrote this:

“I have not, nor would I EVER advocate for a husband to force himself physically upon his wife or to physically abuse her in any fashion. The issue being discussed is how a husband can confront a wife who chronically or willfully denies his sexual rights in marriage without just cause (be it legitimate health or mental conditions). He has the right, both under Biblical law, as well as under American law, to reason with his with his wife and try to convince her to willingly(even if grudgingly) yield herself to him, and thereby fulfilling one her most important duties in Christian marriage.”

And in my article entitled “The Rape Straw Man” I stated:

“Biblically speaking, there is no such thing as “marital rape” – HOWEVER, there is such a thing as physical abuse. While the Bible does not speak specifically to this case of a man forcing himself on his wife, I believe it is a case of physical abuse.

So what others call rape, I call abuse. In the same way that when someone is wrongfully killed it might be first degree murder, second degree murder or man slaughter what we call “physical abuse” and what we call “rape” is dependent on the relationship between the man and woman in question. There is no doubt a wrong has been committed. But what we call it, and how it is punished or dealt with is very different depending on the circumstances.”

My Change in Position on Forced Sex in Marriage

The emergence of the MeToo movement lead me to restudy and reconsider my understanding of what the Bible says about sexual consent. I have been pouring over the Scriptures for the last couple of months really asking God to reveal to me any presuppositions or cultural biases I might have on this subject and I have written many articles related to sexual conduct from a Biblical perspective recently. My last article “It is Not a Woman’s Consent That Matters, It is God’s”, not only traced the wicked origins of modern American sexual consent ideology but more importantly it laid the foundation for a Biblical view of when God consents to a man and woman entering into sexual relations.

Because of what God revealed to me through his Word in that study as of today I am officially changing my position on the issue of forced sex within marriage. My new position is as follows:

Forced sex within marriage by a husband toward his wife is not in and of itself a sin but it can be a sin under certain circumstances. The “Markland Letter” case which I addressed in my article “It is Not a Woman’s Consent That Matters, It is God’s” where the man forced sex on his wife after surgery would be an example of a husband sinfully forcing himself on his wife.

Now a lot of Christians at this point are shutting me down. But I want to encourage you and challenge the view you have been raised with in our culture with what God’s Word actually says on this very controversial subject.

Is All Forced Sex in Marriage Domestic Abuse and Sexual Abuse?

In their article entitled “What does the Bible say about spousal/marital rape?” GotQuestions.org states:

“Spousal or marital rape is a form of domestic violence and sexual abuse. In spousal rape, sex is forced on one spouse by the other. While the Bible does not specifically deal with spousal rape, it has plenty to say about the husband-wife relationship and its representation of Christ and the church (Ephesians 5:32)…

and God never condones rape.”

I want to quickly address the terminology I am using here. I am using the phrase “forced sex” and gotquestions.org is using “marital rape” or just “rape”. The reason I am using the term “forced sex” instead of “rape” is because the term rape in our language and culture not only denotes an action taken, but it also implies a moral condemnation of that action. Calling “forced sex” rape in our language and culture would be like referring to every instance of killing as murder. I am going to speak more to the term “rape” later on in this article.

Biblically speaking all instances of forced sex are not considered rape any more than all instances of killing are considered murder. It is the context which determines if a particular instance of forced sex is rape just as it is the context which determines if a particular killing is murder. The only forced sex the Bible ever condemns is forced sex OUTSIDE of marriage. The Bible actually addresses forced marriage and as a result of marriage forced sex in the book of Deuteronomy.

God Condoned Forced Sex in Marriage

God granted the right of men to take women as one of the many spoils of war as long as they were not one of seven forbidden nations in which everyone was to be killed:

“But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee.”

Deuteronomy 20:14 (KJV)

In the next chapter God details the process by which men could take women as spoils of war:

“10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, 11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;

12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;

13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.

14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.”

Deuteronomy 21:10-14 (KJV)

So in summary God allowed men to take by force women as captives of war. However, unlike the nations around them – they were not allowed to have forced sex right there on the battlefield with their captive women. Instead God had a higher standard. God made the Israelite men wait one month to allow the woman to mourn the death of her loved ones.

Even after the month – the man had to take her as his wife, not simply his sex slave as other nations also did. God commands them “thou shalt go in unto her” which is a euphemism for sex in the Bible. Now some might say “Well that does not say forced sex, it just says sex” and that is absolutely true. A man “going in unto a woman” does not denote whether it was forced or not. However there is a key phrase at the end of this passage that DOES indicate forced sex: “because thou hast humbled her”.

God’s Definition of Rape

There are many euphemisms for sex in the Bible. Men “knew” their wives, they “lay” with their wives and as we can see here they “went in unto” their wives. However there is another euphemism for sex in the Bible that specifically denotes “forced sex” and that is the “humbling” of a woman by a man.

This same phrase is used when speaking of actions the Bible actually considers to be rape (as opposed to our modern understanding that all forced sex is rape):

“23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; 24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you. 25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.

26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:

27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her. 28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.”

Deuteronomy 22:23-29 (KJV)

In the above passage from Deuteronomy chapter 22 we find God’s definition of rape as opposed to our modern definition of rape. What does God call rape? Does he say it is simply when a man humbles (has forced sex) with a woman? The answer is NO. Instead we find that rape in God’s eyes is when a man has forced sex with a woman who is he not married to. The Bible covers both a betrothed (or married) woman and also virgin woman. In a follow-up article to this one I will be specifically addressing God’s command that a rapist had to marry the woman he raped.

My point in showing Deuteronomy 22:23-29 is twofold. First it gives God’s definition of rape which is the when a man has forced sex with a woman who is not his wife. Secondly in the context of the rape discussion God uses the term “humbled” to denote forced sex.

This English word “humbled” in these passages is a translation of the Hebrew word “anah” which means to “afflict”, “humble” or “force” in most instances.

Anah is used in reference to two famous rape stories in the Bible. The first is regarding the rape of Dinah, the daughter of Leah and wife of Jacob:

“1 And Dinah the daughter of Leah, which she bare unto Jacob, went out to see the daughters of the land. 2 And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled [anah] her.”

Genesis 34:1-2(KJV)

The second is the rape of Tamar by her half-brother Amnon:

“Howbeit he would not hearken unto her voice: but, being stronger than she, forced [anah] her, and lay with her.”

2 Samuel 13:14 (KJV)

And again why was the ‘anah’ or humbling and forced sex of these women considered to be true rape and thus immoral? Because they broke God’s law in Deuteronomy 22:23-29 that condemned a man having forced sex with a woman that was not his wife.

The Humbling of a Woman in Marriage

And a final note on Deuteronomy 21:10-14 and the humbling of the captive woman who was taken by the divine allowance of God. Some have tried to say this humbling had to do strictly with the woman shaving her head. What these same people do not realize is that it was common in ancient Middle Eastern cultures for both men and women to either pull out their hair or shave their heads when horrible tragedies struck. I believe the loss of one’s entire family would qualify in this case.

Also saying that the humbling of the woman by the man does not refer to forced sex takes a very naïve approach to the situation. Can anyone with a straight face say they think most captive women after only one month would want to willingly and consensually have sex with the man who may have killed their family or at least was part of the army that did? The reality is we all know in this situation that in the vast majority of cases even after one month the man would be having forced sex with his new bride. That is just reality.

So we can as Bible believing Christians rightly say based on Deuteronomy 22:23-29 that God never condones rape which HE defines as a man having forced sex with a woman he is not married to. But we can equally say that God does in fact condone forced sex in marriage based on Deuteronomy 21:10-14.

Biblical Sex is Not Just about Giving, But Also about Taking

In their article entitled “What does the Bible say about spousal/marital rape?” GotQuestions.org states:

“Some people believe that a wife must be agreeable to sexual relations with her husband at any time and that she has no say in the matter. They often misuse 1 Corinthians 7:3–5 to support the erroneous view that a wife can never tell her husband that she would like to defer having sex for a time. Some men believe that the husband has a God-given right to just “take it,” in spite of his wife’s objections…

It is clear from the Bible that mutuality reigns in the bedroom. According to 1 Corinthians 7:1–5, a husband should provide sexual satisfaction to his wife, and a wife should provide sexual satisfaction to her husband. A wife does not have authority over her own body, and a husband does not have authority over his own body. They belong to each other. Does this mean that a husband can force himself on his wife anytime he so desires? Definitely not. What the passage teaches is that each spouse is to willingly, freely, lovingly submit to the other. The passage is about giving satisfaction, not demanding it. The focus is on pleasing one’s spouse. There is no selfishness involved. Forcibly taking what has not been offered is wrong and plainly against the Bible’s commands on love and marriage.”

I would not call GotQuestions.org a raging feminist site as they do speak on submission in marriage, even if at times they water it down quite a bit. However the term “mutuality” they use in this article is a favorite of Christian feminists. In fact some Christian feminists use this passage in 1 Corinthians 7:1–5 to try to cancel out all the Bible’s teachings on male headship in marriage and they say marriage is a “mutual partnership”.

I am not denying that there is not any mutuality taught in this passage as there clearly is. But it is a limited mutuality, not an all-inclusive mutuality.

The first part of this passage from I Corinthians shows that a husband and wife have a right to sexual access to one another’s bodies:

“3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.”

I Corinthians 7:3-5 (KJV)

The English word “power” here is a translation of the Greek word Exousiazo and can refer to authority or the right to do something. If we try and say here that God is saying a wife has literal authority over her husband’s body then this contradicts with the Scriptural teaching that the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church and the wife is to submit to her husband in everything as the Church is to submit to Christ in everything (Ephesians 5:23-24).

In the programming world in which I work we would call this an infinite loop. If a husband can command compel his wife to give her body to him yet she can command him not to give his body to her we can see where this ends up.

So when we take the whole of the Scriptures and especially Ephesians 5:23-24 into account we understand that the “power” of I Corinthians 7:3-5 actually refers to “the right”. A husband has the right to sexual access to this wife’s body and the wife has the right to sexual access to her husband’s body.

Are Christian Husbands Wrong for “demanding” Sex From their Wives?

GotQuestions.org claims The passage is about giving satisfaction, not demanding it. The focus is on pleasing one’s spouse and I don’t deny that this passage does reference giving one’s self to one’s spouse. When it uses the word “render” that is our duty as spouses to GIVE our bodies to our spouses for their sexual satisfaction. However it also talks about the “power” or “right” of the spouse toward their spouse’s body – this is clearly the power to TAKE or seek sexual satisfaction in one’s spouse’s body. GotQuestions.org does not like “take” to be anywhere in the conversation of sex but in this passage the giving AND taking aspects of sex as God designed it are clearly on display.

Finally as far as “demanding” sex is it is true that the wife can no more demand anything of her husband than the Church can demand something of Christ. Can she request sex from her husband as the Church can request various things of Christ? Yes. But she cannot demand anything of her husband. However, can and does Christ demand obedience from his Church in “everything” as Ephesians 5:23-24 shows? The answer is yes. Therefore since a husband is the head of his wife as Christ is the head of his Church he can demand obedience from his wife (including in the sexual arena) just as Christ demands obedience from his Church.

Do Wives Have to be “agreeable” to Sex at “at any time”?

GotQuestions.org claims that some Christians have an “erroneous view” that “that a wife must be agreeable to sexual relations with her husband at any time and that she has no say in the matter”. I would agree that I Corinthians 7:2-5 never specifically mentions sex on demand “at any time” from a wife. But there is another passage of Scripture dealing with sex in marriage that DOES:

15 Drink waters out of thine own cistern, and running waters out of thine own well. 16 Let thy fountains be dispersed abroad, and rivers of waters in the streets. 17 Let them be only thine own, and not strangers’ with thee. 18 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth.19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee AT ALL TIMES; and be thou ravished always with her love.”

Proverbs 5:15-19 (KJV)

The Scriptures command husbands to “drink” or take pleasure from the sexual well that is their wife’s body. They are command let her breasts (symbolic of her whole body) satisfy them AT ALL TIMES or in the words of GotQuestions.org “at any time”.

Besides Proverbs 5:15-19 there is any even more powerful principle of Scripture that dictates what a wife’s response is to be to her husband in all matters:

“Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.”

Ephesians 5:24 (KJV)

So as we can see, the Bible commands that a wife should be “agreeable…at any time” to anything her husband asks her to do whether it is cleaning, cooking, paying the bills, putting children to bed and yes having sex with him. The only Biblical caveat to this would be if he asked her to do something sinful against God and then she has to obey God rather than her husband (Acts 5:29). It really is that simple.

But God never forces himself on his wife!

Some will take the relationship of Christ and his Church and claim “we never see Christ forcing his Church and therefore husbands may not force their wives”. Others will conflate salvation with marriage and say “God does not force us to come to him salvation, therefore a husband cannot force his wife to have sex with him.”

Let me address the latter claim first and then I will address the former. Two of the primary ways that God pictures our relationship to him is as a father and then as husband. Our relationship as individuals to God is pictured as that of a child to their father. Our relationship to God as a group, as the people of God, is pictured as that of a wife to her husband.

When God invites us to become his children this is presented as a choice:

“While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light. These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide himself from them.”

John 12:36 (KJV)

Now of course we understand there is a consequence of that choice. If we do not choose to obey the Gospel of Christ this is what awaits those who disobey his Gospel:

“7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, 8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power”

2 Thessalonians 1:7-9 (KJV)

But in the context of God’s relationship to his people as a whole he sometimes compels obedience by force. In the Old Testament the relationship of God to the nation of Israel was pictured as a marriage with God as the husband and Israel as his wife. When Israel rebelled against God just after making their marriage covenant with him the Bible tells us he humbled Israel:

“2 And thou shalt remember all the way which the LORD thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble[anah] thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep his commandments, or no. 3 And he humbled[anah] thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.”

Deuteronomy 8:2-3 (KJV)

Remember that in the context of the relationship of a man and woman when he humbles her this is the man forcing himself upon the woman. God forced Israel to yield to him and to learn that concept that “that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live”.

But Christ Never Forces His Church!

Some will say – “Well God’s relationship with Israel was different than his Church and Christ never forces his Church to do anything”.

Earlier I said the reason I don’t use the term rape in the context of marriage is because it is like using murder to refer to all killing. Only unlawful killing (unlawful by God’s law) is considered murder. Killing in self-defense or to save others is not wrong. Even in the case of wrongful forced sex in marriage like the Markland Letter case, such action is not rape but rather physical abuse.

But now I want us to look at the definition of rape. Here is the Webster’s 1828 dictionary definition of rape:

“In a general sense, a seizing by violence; also, a seizing and carrying away by force, as females.

In law, the carnal knowledge of a woman forcibly and against her will.

Privation; the act of seizing or taking away.”

http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/rape

Now someone reading this might say “See right there even in the old definition of rape it talks about a man taking a woman against her will!”. And that is very true. However as I explained earlier it is God who defines what rape is – not us. But I want you to zero in on the first definition where it says “a seizing and carrying away by force”.

Now let us turn to the New Testament. Before I give the next Scripture I want to set the stage a bit. In the Old Testament the marriage of God to Israel is pictured as a full consummated marriage after which Israel commits adultery with false gods and God divorces her for this.

In the New Testament the Church is pictured as a betrothed bride to Christ whose marriage has not yet been consummated:

“For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.”

2 Corinthians 11:2 (KJV)

The “consummation” of the Church and Christ’s marriage is described in the passage below:

“16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.”

1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 (KJV)

The event described in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 is what is known as the “rapture” of the Church.

Bible.org gives a brief background of the word “rapture”:

“Regarding the term rapture and its use in theology the following should answer your questions. It is taken from Ryrie’s Basic Theology, Electronic Media from Parsons Technology.

Our modern understanding of rapture appears to have little or no connection with the eschatological event. However, the word is properly used of that event. Rapture is a state or experience of being carried away. The English word comes from a Latin word, rapio, which means to seize or snatch in relation to an ecstasy of spirit or the actual removal from one place to another. In other words, it means to be carried away in spirit or in body. The Rapture of the church means the carrying away of the church from earth to heaven.

The Greek word from this term “rapture” is derived appears in 1 Thessalonians 4:17, translated “caught up.” The Latin translation of this verse used the word rapturo. The Greek word it translates is harpazo, which means to snatch or take away. Elsewhere it is used to describe how the Spirit caught up Philip near Gaza and brought him to Caesarea (Acts 8:39) and to describe Paul’s experience of being caught up into the third heaven (2 Cor. 12:2-4). Thus there can be no doubt that the word is used in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 to indicate the actual removal of people from earth to heaven.”

https://bible.org/question/where-did-term-8216rapture%E2%80%99-come

Ryrie’s definition of harpazo actually leaves out a very important part of the definition. It is not simply to snatch, seize or take away – it is do these things “by force”

Strong’s #726: harpazo (pronounced har-pad’-zo)

from a derivative of 138; to seize (in various applications):–catch (away, up), pluck, pull, take (by force).

https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Lexicon.show/ID/G726/harpazo.htm

And if we look at the word origin of our English word “rape” we read:

“early 14c., “booty, prey;” mid-14c., “forceful seizure; plundering, robbery, extortion,” from Anglo-French rap, rape, and directly from Latin rapere “seize” (see rape (v.)). Meaning “act of abducting a woman or sexually violating her or both” is from early 15c., but perhaps late 13c. in Anglo-Latin.”

https://www.etymonline.com/word/rape

So now I will pull this all together for you. The Greek word which describes how Jesus Christ will take his church is harpazo which means to seize or take something or someone by force. When the Bible was translated into Latin (which Jerome finished in 405 AD) the word rapturo which was derived from the Latin word rapio (meaning to seize or snatch) was used to translate the Greek harpazo. Then in the 14th century the English word “rape” was created from the Latin to describe a man forcing a woman to have sex with him.

While English common law as well as previous laws held it was not wrong for a man to force his wife to have sex, over time the word rape came to be a derogatory term used not just of men forcing women they were not married to into sex, but also of husbands forcing their wives to have sex.

So the irony is that same word we rejoice of over – the “rapture” or seizure by force of the bride of Christ which his Church is the same word we use to condemn a husband for forcing his wife to have sex with him. Think about that. Let that settle in your brain a bit.

Is “Forced Sex” in Marriage an Oxymoron?

Now that I have proven from the Old Testament that God “humbled” or “forced” Israel to bend to his will and that Christ will actually rapture (take by force) his Bride which is the Church I want to come back to the address the following assertion from GotQuestions.org on this subject of forced sex in marriage:

“The truth is that sexual expression was designed by God to be an act of love within a marriage, and violence or coercion should never be a part of it. Forced sex is not love

When God humbled Israel would we call this anything less than an act of love on his part? The answer is we would indeed call it an act of love. Did God use violence on Israel when they disobeyed him in the dessert? You better believe he did. Did he use coercion to compel his wife to yield to his demands? You better believe he did. It is right there in the story of the marriage of God to Israel all throughout the Old Testament.

Even Christ when rebuking his Churches states:

“As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.”

Revelation 3:19 (KJV)

Therefore we can conclude based on the example of God himself as a husband that forced sex in marriage is NOT an Oxymoron.

Forced Sex Scenarios

Now I want to give some scenarios with force to try and help you understand this concept better.

Forced Sex Scenario #1

Let’ say a husband comes home from a long trip, his wife has no idea when he will arrive. He comes in through the door as she is working in the kitchen, he picks her up in his arms and takes her to their bedroom. He tears through her clothes as fast as possible and has sex with her.

Now this was definitely a matter of force – he did not ask her permission or even say a word to her. But if she complies willing with his forceful gesture most people would say there was nothing wrong in that scenario. In fact some women would even find it romantic. In fact the picture I have just painted would be similar to what the Scriptures paint as the rapture of the Church by Christ who is her husband.

However, if during his attempt at forced sex his wife resisted in anyway now our modern society is up in arms. “He has violated her consent!” we are told. But from a Biblical perspective as we have shown in this article – if the wife resists her husband in the above scenario and he continues to force her to his will who has sinned? The husband, the wife or both? Biblically speaking it is the wife who has sinned and the husband is not sinning by forcing her to yield to his lawful demand.

Now if the wife resisted the husband in this scenario – if he loves her – is that what he wanted from her? Of course not. He wanted to be able to pick up his wife in his arms and for her to willingly give herself to him no questions asked. Just as Christ wants his Church to willing embrace him at the rapture. But make no mistake – Christ is not going to take “I am not in the mood today” from his Church when he comes. He is taking his Bride by force!

Forced Sex Scenario #2

Let’s say a man takes a woman as his wife who clearly did not want to be his wife. In the Bible this could be a scenario where a father gives his daughter to a man she does not want marry or it could be a man captures a woman as a captive during war. So on their wedding day he goes to have sex with her and she resists him. So he holds her down and forces her. In Biblical terms he has justly “humbled” his wife.

Again who is the one sinning in this scenario? Is the wife who sinning by resisting or is the husband sinning by forcing himself on his wife? Or is it both? We know the Biblical answer is that it is the wife who is sin and the husband is right and just in forcing his wife to have sex with him.

And once again – do men who truly love and have affection for their wives want it to be this way? No. We as men want what God wants from his wife – willing obedience, but if obedience is not given willfully we follow God’s example with Israel and humble our wives and take it by force.

Forced Sex Scenario #3

I was asked in a recent comment on my blog what I thought of the scenario of a “husband shoving his member down his wife’s throat”. In other words a husband forcing his wife to perform oral sex on him – is that a sin?

So a husband and wife are having sex and he decides to take his member up to his wife’s head for her to perform oral sex on him. She resists and turns her head away so he takes her head and forces her to perform oral sex on him.

We have given several principles in this article that answer this question.

The I Corinthians 7:2-4 principle teaches that a wife has a duty to render her body to her husband and it also gives him the right of sexual access to her body.

The Proverbs 5:18-19 Principle says a husband is to satisfy himself (literally drink his fill) of his wife’s body AT ALL TIMES.

The Ephesians 5:24 Principle says that a wife is to submit to her husband in EVERYTHING.

The Deuteronomy 8:2-3 Principle shows us that God humbled his wife Israel and forced her learn obedience to his will.

Therefore we can conclude based on the witness of the Scriptures that it is NOT a sin for a man to force his wife to perform oral sex on him as she has a duty to render her entire body to him to fulfill God’s command to him to satisfy himself with her body at all times. She is to submit to him in everything, not just the things she feels like doing or is comfortable with.

Ladies – I know for some of you this is a hard one to swallow (pun intended) but scripturally speaking the Bible does not condemn such actions by a husband toward his wife.

But Forced Sex is Selfishness!

The selfishness card is often used to dismiss not only a man forcing himself on his wife but also a man allowing his wife to consent to sex when she really is not in the mood. The reasoning goes – “if you see your wife is not in the mood for any reason, then if you were being selfless you would give up your desire or need.” Others have even tried to argue that if sex is ever desired in anyway other than to give pleasure to the other person it is by definition selfishness.

However the Biblical definition of selfishness is not simply doing things for one’s own benefit or desire. But instead it is when a person ONLY does things for their benefit or desire and never considers the needs of others.

“Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.”

Philippians 2:4 (KJV)

The key phrase there in that verse which is also in the Greek is the word “also”. This verse is not saying it is wrong to look to our own needs or desire, but that we must ALSO look to the needs and desires of others well.

And I would remind anyone who says it is selfish for a man to have sex with his wife when she is not in the mood or to force her to have sex that this is selfishness to look to Proverbs 5:15-19 which commands a man to satisfy himself with his wife’s body “at all times”.

But Doesn’t Forced Sex Violate the Husband’s Duty to Care for his Wife’s Body?

It is absolutely true that Ephesians 5:28-29 teaches men as husbands that they are to care for their needs if their wife’s body. That is why what the husband did in the Markland Letter case was wrong because he violated this principle in causing severe damage to his wife’s body after surgery by forcing himself on her.

But outside of extreme conditions where a wife has not just had surgery we have to ask ourselves does forced sex in marriage by the husband toward his wife violate the Ephesians 5:28-29 principle? The answer I think in most cases is NO.

In most cases forced sex in marriage will hurt the woman’s pride, or in Biblical terms “humble her” more than anything else.

Some might ask “What about the risk of tissue tearing, bruising or rashes and other discomforts caused by forced sex?” Is there a risk of these things occurring? Yes. But who is it that is causing this risk? Is it the husband by exercising his lawful right to compel his wife to have sex or is it the woman who is causing this risk to herself by resisting her husband’s lawful demand?

Let me give some examples to illustrate what I am saying.

If a police officer pulls you over and asks you to produce your license and registration and you refuse and you refuse to get out of the car – can he use force to make you obey his lawful order? You better believe he can. And if you resist the officer in the course of his lawful actions and in the process you smack your head on the ground or get scrapes and cuts who was it that put you at risk? Was it him or was it you by your resisting his lawful actions?

If a parent goes to spank their child and in the process of resisting the child gets bumps, bruises and tears who was it that put themselves at risk and brought these injuries on themselves?

If a police officer has a warrant to enter your home and you resist and as he enters the home by force you or your home are damaged whose fault was that?

Am I Telling Husbands to Go Home and Force Themselves on Their Wives?

The answer is No. But you might be thinking – Wait you just said spent this entire article telling us it was not a sin for a man to force himself on his wife!

As you catch your breath let me explain a simple principle regarding Biblical rights. Just because we have the right to do something, does not mean it is always wise to do something.

Paul said that he had the right to take a wife yet he chose not to exercise that right:

“5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?…15 But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void.”

1 Corinthians 9:5 & 15 (KJV)

He goes into more detail as to why he did not exercise his right to take a wife in the passage below:

“I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.”
1 Corinthians 7:26 (KJV)

So, Paul was saying because of “the present distress”, the horrible persecution of the church, he felt it was better for a man not to exercise his God given right to take a wife.

In the same way because of the present distress of feminism and the utter hostility toward Biblical marriage I personally do not think it is always wise for a husband to force himself on his wife even though it is his right as her husband, her head and her master to force her compliance to God’s commands in this area of sexuality.

Christ admonished us to be “wise” in a world which hates the God of the Bible:

“16 Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. 17 But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues; 18 And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles.”

Matthew 10:16-19 (KJV)

Gentlemen there is more than one way to skin a cat. If you use force against your wife, it may be right and just before God – but because of the wicked society we live in you run a very high risk of going to jail for violations of domestic abuse laws or the remove of the marital rape exemption in all 50 states. All your wife has to do is make a phone call.

Instead you need to be wise as serpents as Christ admonished us to be and use other means to discipline your wife. See my article “8 steps to confront your wife’s sexual refusal” for ideas on non-physical ways in which you can discipline your wife. These are all non-physical methods of discipline that you can never be prosecuted for (despite feminist fantasies to the contrary).

For instance, no police officer anywhere is going to arrest a husband for spending less time with his wife because she refuses to submit to him sexually. No prosecutor is going to prosecute a case where a husband refused to pay for kitchen upgrades because his wife refused to sexually submit. No jury will convict a husband of marital rape because he refused to buy his wife some jewelry she wanted because she would not sexually submit to him.

If a woman complains about these non-physical things her husband is doing to a law enforcement officer they are going to tell her “If you don’t like it get a divorce”. I have had multiple police officers and others write me since I wrote that article (“8 steps to confront your wife’s sexual refusal”) confirming this for me.

Using non-physical methods of discipline are ways that you can communicate your displeasure with your wife’s sinful attitudes but at the same time you can shield yourself from a world that is hostile to Biblical male headship.

A Final Exhortation to Christian Wives

Christian wife this all goes back to how you view yourself in God’s design of marriage.

“13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

14 Do all things without murmurings and disputings”

Philippians 2:13-14 (KJV)

Imagine if you actually followed Ephesians 5:22-24’s admonition to submit to your husband “as unto the Lord… in everything”. Imagine if you submitted to your husband working in your body both to will and do of his good pleasure without grumbling or resisting him?

If you were to follow this pattern with your husband then the issue of forced sex in marriage would really be a non-issue.

Are Gender Roles a Distraction From the Gospel?

Should we stop teaching Biblical commandments regarding gender roles? Is the teaching of Biblical gender roles a distraction to spreading the Gospel and bringing people to Christ?

This is what a lot of Christians today believe.  In fact I personally know many preachers today who say they stand on the Word of God yet they take this approach that “teaching what the Bible says on gender roles distracts from reaching people for Christ”.

Some of these men are firm believers in Biblical inerrancy.  They would even be considered “conservative” in many aspects of their life and ministry.  They will preach on many subjects including the church, giving and general holy living topics. They don’t believe that preaching “thou shalt not bear false witness” or “thou shalt not covet” are distractions to the Gospel. But to them teaching women that God says Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing is a distraction from the Gospel.

Recently I received an email from a man calling himself Mike.  I believe his email is a very good representation of what I have actually heard from Christian ministers today even if he is not a minister. This issue needs to be addressed as we challenge our culture (sadly even our Christian culture) with the truth of God’s Word.

With that said below is Mike’s email.

“We have so many people that we Christians need to help simply cross the line into believing in God first and foremost that this is where our number one priority should be. Your site and others like it simply muddies the waters.

If you can’t even understand “Judge not lest ye be judged”, how in the world do you come to the conclusion that your interpretations are correct and everyone who doesn’t believe as you do is wrong?

Are you not seeing just how flawed as a human you are when you make statements concerning interpretations? I certainly know the sinner I am and would never presume to make the statements you do about scripture. Knowing the mind of God is beyond all our capabilities. When we get people to believe, HE will take care of the rest. People must make up their own minds WITH the gifts God gives them. That is between HIM and them. No one on this planet has the right to judge them on those beliefs except God.

I’m actually curious if you really believe that those who don’t share your interpretations are not going to be saved?

My above statement about helping people to make that commitment to believe becomes so much more important when I see these types of arguments on your site being batted back and forth. They become terrible distractions to the main mission! “Faith alone”, not works or anything else for that matter. We MUST focus on that. I have a brother I can’t even help understand Gods existence. Believe me when I say I understand my flaws. You should be helping your readers to understand yours.

Gender roles are simply not an important subject as long as men and women treat each other with respect. We can’t even get that done right! It just becomes another pointless distraction in the bigger picture of faith. Time passing alone changes things as they become more fully understood. I certainly don’t follow food instructions from the Bible, do you? This is precisely why we must get people believing FIRST, then LET God do his work within them. Remember that the “Judge not” statement literally covers all of scripture. I’m curious as to how or even if you will respond. I won’t hold my breath, but MY belief in God told me this needed to be said.

Respectfully Yours. Mike”

 

What follows is my response to several key statements Mike makes on this issue.  I think this will truly help to clarify these assertions that are so commonly made today by many Christians in our culture regarding the teaching of Biblical gender roles.

Shouldn’t the Gospel Be Our Number One Priority?

Mike’s Statement:

“We have so many people that we Christians need to help simply cross the line into believing in God first and foremost that this is where our number one priority should be.”

I very much believe that as believers in Christ our first priority should be reaching people with the Gospel of Christ.

Christ said this before his ascension:

“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” – Matthew 28:19 (KJV)

If I teach someone about Biblical gender roles and they implement that in their marriage but they have not placed their faith and trust in Christ as their Lord and Savior their following of Biblical gender roles won’t benefit them in the eternal sense.  They will die and go to hell as all those who do not take Christ as their savior will do.

It is only when they place their faith and trust in Christ that their following of Biblical gender roles will have value not only in this world, but also in the world to come when they receive their reward for the race they have run in this life.

Do you have to believe in Biblical gender roles to be saved?

Mike’s Statement:

“I’m actually curious if you really believe that those who don’t share your interpretations are not going to be saved?”

Being baptized does not save us. Being part of a particular Christian denomination like Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran or Methodist does not save us and believing in and practicing Biblical gender roles does not save us.

This is what the Bible says saves us:

“But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name” – John 1:11 (KJV)

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” – John 3:16 (KJV)

“9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” – Romans 10:9-10 (KJV)

“1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures” – 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 (KJV)

It is believing in our heart that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior, that he died for our sins, was buried and rose again the third day for our redemption that saves us.  If we receive Christ as our Lord and Savior we become children of God and have passed from death to life.

Isn’t it wrong to judge others for not following Biblical gender roles?

Mike’s Statement:

“If you can’t even understand “Judge not lest ye be judged“, how in the world do you come to the conclusion that your interpretations are correct and everyone who doesn’t believe as you do is wrong?”

Mike is displaying the common misinterpretation of the principle of not judging people.  Let’s see what Christ actually said about judging.

“1 Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.” – Matthew 7:1-5 (KJV)

When Christ made his famous statement of “Judge not, that ye be not judged” he explained in the verses that follow the type of judging he was talking about.  He was talking about hypocritical judging.  That means if you are doing the same thing or worse you have no business telling someone they are wrong.  Fix your own house before your try to fix other’s houses.

Christ later actually COMMANDS us to judge in the passage below.

“Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” – John 7:24 (KJV)

Paul later tells us not judge one another on disputable matters:

“1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. 2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. 3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. 4 Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.” – Romans 14:1-4 (KJV)

The Apostle Paul says we as Christians should not judge one another when it comes to disputable matters.  This has to do with personal applications of the Scriptures to our daily lives. For instance one person may feel they have the freedom to drink alcohol and another person may not because they were raised by alcoholics or have a fear they may succumb to alcoholism.  The one who drinks should not judge the one who does not believe they can drink and the one who does not drink should not judge the person who takes advantage of his freedom to drink.

There may even be some differences with how one husband applies the Biblical principles of male headship with his wife and how another applies it with his.  For instance one man may allow his wife to writing out the checks for the bills and another man may never allow his wife to see the bank account or check book. This is an example of a personal application the principle of male headship in marriage.

The point is on the subject of judging – we are actually commanded to judge by Jesus Christ himself.  We are simply commanded to do it in a righteous way.  It is not hypocritical judging or even judging on disputable matters to preach what God clearly says in his word about the distinct roles for which he made men and women and what he says about marriage.  If we compare God’s Word to what Christians and non-Christians alike say that directly contradicts with clear statements of the Scriptures that is not wrong judging, that is in fact righteous judging.

How can we as flawed humans presume to interpret the Bible for others?

Mike’s Statement:

Are you not seeing just how flawed as a human you are when you make statements concerning interpretations? I certainly know the sinner I am and would never presume to make the statements you do about scripture. Knowing the mind of God is beyond all our capabilities.”

I am well aware of my own person flaws and my sin nature. I encourage people here regularly to follow the psalmist’s words:

“23 Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts: 24 And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.” – Psalm 139:23-24 (KJV)

And yes we as human beings can never fully understand the mind of God as the Scriptures say:

“15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.” – I Corinthians 2:15-16 (KJV)

We can never fully understand God’s mind or his thoughts.  However we can understand through Christ and the Holy Spirit what God has revealed about himself through his Word.  And we are not responsible for what God has not revealed but only what he has shown us in his Word.

Christ called on us as flawed human beings to “judge righteous judgment” (John 7:24) as I pointed out to you earlier. God calls on us to submit to flawed human beings in government (I Peter 2:13-14). And God even calls on women to submit to flawed husbands (Ephesians 5:22-24, I Peter 3:1-6).

The men who gave us God’s word were flawed as well as the men who preached it after them. The difference was that Paul and the other Apostles and Prophets who gave us the Scriptures while being flawed sinners received perfect revelation from God.  He was one of the few men in the history of the world that God chose for this great privilege.   This is why the Apostle Paul wrote:

“For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.” – 1 Thessalonians 2:13 (KJV)

But  God actually has given the gifts and offices of Pastor and Teacher to help people interpret the Word of God:

“11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:”- Ephesians 4:11-13 (KJV)

What we see here is God talking about gifts he has given for the edifying of the body of Christ. God has personally given me the gift of being a teacher and I have tried in my own imperfect way as he has given me grace to exercise that gift over the years. Whether it was when I taught Sunday school classes or other groups I was exercising my spiritual gift “for the edifying of the body of Christ”.

In fact Paul warns the young Pastor Timothy not to neglect his spiritual gift:

“14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.” – 1 Timothy 4:14 (KJV)

God does not want me to stop preaching his Word or teaching the interpretation of the Scriptures.  He placed this gift in me for the edification of the body of Christ as he has done with many imperfect and sinful men for thousands of years.  Do I claim that all my interpretations and applications of the Scriptures are infallible? Of course not.  Only Christ and his Prophets and Apostles were infallible as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

But God wants me in my own imperfect way to exercise the gift he has given me and other men with similar gifts to do the same until we all reach heaven where we will be perfectly unified in our understanding as we are in the presence of God himself.

Does Anyone Have the Right to Correct or Rebuke Other’s Bible Interpretations?

Mike’s Statement:

“When we get people to believe, HE will take care of the rest. People must make up their own minds WITH the gifts God gives them. That is between HIM and them. No one on this planet has the right to judge them on those beliefs except God.”

Did Paul say this to a young Pastor named Timothy – “Timothy you are a flawed and sinful man and unlike me you have not received the authority and inspiration from God to write his Scriptures. Therefore, you cannot preach any interpretation of the Bible or correct or rebuke anyone else’s interpretations of the Bible.  Let everyone decide for themselves what God’s Word teaches.”

The answer is NO.  The Apostle Paul told this young Pastor just the opposite!

Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.” – 2 Timothy 4:2-5 (KJV)

Does “Faith Alone” Mean We Must Only Preach the Gospel and Nothing Else?

Mike’s Statement:

“My above statement about helping people to make that commitment to believe becomes so much more important when I see these types of arguments on your site being batted back and forth. They become terrible distractions to the main mission! “Faith alone”, not works or anything else for that matter.”

It is absolutely true that faith alone saves as the Scriptures state:

“8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.” – Ephesians 2:8-9 (KJV)

But as Martin Luther famously said “We are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is never alone.”  The Scriptures tell us this regarding the life changing power of true faith:

“Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” – 2 Corinthians 5:17 (KJV)

So as we can see Martin Luther’s statement that the faith that saves is never alone perfectly aligns with the Scriptural view of salvation.

But what you are contending when you said “Faith alone” is that the only doctrine we should teach is that of the Gospel.  This is false.  Let me take you back to the great commission Christ gave and this time I will add his follow up statement:

“19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” – Matthew 28:19-20 (KJV)

Christ told us to preach the Gospel as well as well as  teach people everything he commanded.

And what was one of his commands?

“But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” – Matthew 4:4 (KJV)

Every word of the Bible sir comes from the mouth of God. We are to live by every word – not just those words concerning the Gospel and God gives us preachers and teachers of the Word to help us to understand all of God’s Word, not just the Gospel.

If God Canceled Some of His Laws Does That Mean He Canceled All of Them?

Mike’s Statement:
“Time passing alone changes things as they become more fully understood. I certainly don’t follow food instructions from the Bible, do you?

This is a classic argument that liberal Christians and even non-Christians make to write off parts of or even the entire Bible.  Sadly I have even seen some Christians who claim to believe in Biblical inerrancy write off the entire Old Testament based on this false argument.

No I don’t follow the food instructions that God gave to Israel as a theocracy.  Here are the reasons why:

On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour: 10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, 11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending upon him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:

12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. 15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.” – Acts 10:9-15 (KJV)

“1 Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary… 10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.” – Hebrews 9:1 & 10 (KJV)

The Old Testament contains three types of laws – Moral, Ceremonial and Civil.  The Ceremonial laws were for Israel as theocracy to worship God and make sacrifices – it also included dietary  and other cleanliness laws.  The Civil laws dealt with the punishment or restitution that was to be made for breaking God’s moral law under the theocracy of Israel.

When Christ ushered in the New Covenant with his death, burial and resurrection he did away with the first covenant including the ceremonial and civil laws of Israel. Now only the moral law of the Old Testament and all of the laws in the New Testament are binding on us as Christians.  Therefore as a Christian living under the New Covenant, I do not have to follow the dietary laws anymore.

But Biblical gender roles WERE part of the moral law of God in the Old Testament and they were even strengthen and further explained in the New Testament as I will show in the final section of this article.  So yes it is completely consistent for me to preach and teach that Christians must follow God’s gender rules and design for man and woman yet we no longer have to follow the dietary rules or other ceremonial rules and we are no longer under the civil penalties and restitutions mandated in the Old Testament.

Are Biblical Gender Roles an Unimportant Distraction From Gospel?

Mike’s Statement:
“Gender roles are simply not an important subject as long as men and women treat each other with respect. We can’t even get that done right! It just becomes another pointless distraction in the bigger picture of faith.”

Contrary to your assertion the teaching of Biblical gender roles is even MORE important when men and women are not treating each other as God has commanded them treat one another.  The Biblical doctrines of gender roles are critical to us living the lives God has called us to live.

Christ did not just die to save us from hell but rather he died so that we would live for him:

“And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.”

2 Corinthians 5:15 (KJV)

While we are not saved by works, Christ calls us to live for him.  How can we say we are trying to live for him when refuse to follow the purpose for which he designed each gender?

God says he made man to image him and doing so bring him glory and he made woman for man to help him in his duty to image God:

“7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.”

I Corinthians 11:7-9 (KJV)

God says that he made marriage to be a model of the relationship between God and his people:

“22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church” – Ephesians 5:22-29 (KJV)

Conclusion

To Mike and all those Christian teachers and preachers that refuse to teach the doctrines of Biblical gender roles to your people – you are in direct disobedience to the Word of God. You are not preaching the whole counsel of God when you preach only the Gospel.

I have never said here or elsewhere that if people reject the doctrines of Biblical gender roles that they are unsaved or not going to heaven.  We are saved by faith alone in Christ alone apart from works and not by following Biblical gender roles. But Christ did not save us so we could just live for ourselves anyway we want – he saved us so we could live for him in this life.

While we will not lose our salvation for refusing to follow the doctrines of Biblical gender roles and other doctrines concerning holy living we will in fact lose our reward for doing so.  If we do not run the race of this Christian life lawfully we will lose our reward in heaven as the Scriptures tell us:

“And if a man also strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully.” – 2 Timothy 2:5 (KJV)

“24 Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain.” – 1 Corinthians 9:24 (KJV)

“11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; 13 Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.

14 If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.” – 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 (KJV)

Finally, even besides the consequences in the next life(loss of rewards) we will and are seeing the consequences of not following Biblical gender roles both as individuals and as a society in general in this life.  Since Second Wave Feminism arose in the 1960’s divorce rates have skyrocketed in our country.  While they leveled off at around 50% which is still a horrible number, the only reason they did so was because more couples just decided to live together outside a covenant of marriage.

The point is the idea of a man and woman living together for life in the covenant of marriage is becoming less and less common in our society since we as a culture left the practice of Biblical gender roles.   Marriages today are now “feelings centered” and specifically “woman centered”.  “Happy Wife Happy Life” is just another way of saying “Your wife is the boss just do whatever she says”.  And what has been the result of men allowing their wives to take over for decades – the destruction of the family unit.

Why it is NOT Wrong for Men to See Women as Sex Objects

Feminists and Church leaders have taught a false dichotomy that men must choose between seeing women either as people or as objects of sexual pleasure. We are constantly warned in the media as well as our churches and educational institutions of the supposed need to combat the “sexual objectification of women”.  We are told this is a flaw in the masculine nature that must be rooted out.  But is this behavior a flaw in the masculine nature or could it actually be by the design of God?

Recently I receive a letter from a Christian husband who told me that his wife stopped having sex with him and this has gone on for a long length of time.  One of the reasons she cited for her stopping sex with her husband was that she felt he wrongly treated her as a “sex object”. He agreed to go to a Christian counselor and the counselor agreed with the wife that her husband was treating her as a sex object.  I am writing this article as a prelude to a second article where I will give the full text of his letter and address some other issues he is facing with his wife.

The main objective of this article is to prove both from logic and the Scriptures that men seeing women as objects of sexual pleasure does not mean they are “dehumanizing women” as we are so often told. I am also going to prove from a Biblical perspective that a man’s natural inclination to see women as sex objects is not part of his sin nature, but part of his God given nature.

In the following sections I am going to build a logical and Biblical argument in a step by step fashion proving that it is not morally wrong for men to see women as sex objects and even to use them as sex objects under the right conditions.

What are Objects?

Dictionary.com defines an object as “anything that is visible or tangible and is relatively stable in form.”  Are human beings visible? Are human beings tangible? Do human beings have a relatively stable form? The answer to all those questions are YES.  Therefore, human beings are in fact objects and please take note that I said “human beings” which means BOTH men and women are objects.

But then we have two types of objects – animate objects and inanimate objects.  Animate objects are objects which are alive and inanimate objects are things which do not possess life.  A hammer is an inanimate object.  A dog is an animate object and so is a human being.

Objects made in the Image of God

While dogs and human beings are both animate objects – a human being is so much more than a dog because human beings are directly or indirectly made in the image of God.

The Bible tells us regarding man that “he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man” (1 Corinthians 11:7).  Man is God’s direct image bearer and woman is God’s indirect image bearer because of her shared human nature with man from whom she was made.

Because of their common humanity men and women are so much more important to God than animals:

“Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?

Matthew 6:26 (KJV)

Now that we understand what objects are and that human beings are actually objects this leads us to the next truth we need to discuss.

Human beings use other human beings every day

Whether we realize it or not, every day we use other human beings as objects. When we get in a taxi we are using that taxi cab driver (an animate object) in conjunction with his car (an inanimate object) to take us to the destination we need to go to.

When you go to a sandwich shop and have the worker construct your sandwich just as you like it – you are using that person as an object to make your sandwich.  When you go to get you hair cut – you are using that barber or hair dresser as object to cut and style your hair.

Farmers use human beings as objects all the time.  During the harvest season a farmer may hire many temporary workers to harvest his crops before they go bad.  He may have machines (inanimate objects) to do some harvesting and for other harvesting he may use animate objects (human beings).

These are just a small fraction of the way we use other human beings in our everyday lives.

Now that we have discussed that human beings are indeed objects and that human beings may use other human beings for various purposes we now need to discuss the rules and boundaries for the use of animate or inanimate objects.

We must have the right to use objects

Whenever we use an object, we must have the right to use that object.  If we use an object without having the right to use that object that is a form of theft. For instance, if my lawn mower were to break down and I just went into my neighbors shed without asking my neighbor and used his lawn mower that is a form of theft.  Even if I intended to put it back, I have no right to go on his property or use his lawn mower without first having his permission.

The right to use a certain object may also come with certain limitations.  My neighbor may allow me to use his lawn mower, but he may allow me to use it with certain conditions.  He may insist that I check the fuel and make sure it is filled back to where it is when I am done.  He may insist that I agree to repair any damage to it should that occur during my use.  He may give me a time limit to use it and a time I must return it by.

In the same way, even if we are given the right to use various human beings as objects we may have stipulations on how we may use them.  For instance in my sandwich shop analogy – I can ask the worker to make my sandwich but I cannot ask him to go change the oil in my car.  If I want that done, then I need to go to an oil change place where I can rightly use a human being there as an object to change my oil.

So we have shown up to this point that human beings are objects which may be used by other human beings but that in each use we must have the right to use another human being and we must use them only within the conditions we are allowed to use them.  Next we need to discuss who gives us the right to use objects and who sets the conditions for the use of various objects.

Who gives us the right to use various objects and the terms under which we may use those objects?

The Bible tells us in Psalm 24:1 that “The earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.” which means every object on this planet, whether it is animate or inanimate belongs to God.  As human beings, we are simply stewards of what God has given us – including our own bodies.

But as stewards God has given us certain usage rights over both inanimate and animate objects (including our own bodies). But he commands that we use these various objects within the limits and boundaries of his law.

So going back to my analogy of the lawn mower – why do I have to ask my neighbor’s permission to use his lawn mower? The reason is that God gave him the right to earn a living, to buy and own property (including that lawn mower) and God expects us to respect the private property rights of others. In fact, respect for private property rights are so important to God that he dedicated two of the Ten Commandments he gave to Moses to the subject of private property rights.

“Thou shalt not steal.”

Exodus 20:15 (KJV)

“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.”

Exodus 20:17 (KJV)

Basically God was saying this in the 8th and 10th commandments:

“Do not violate another man’s private property rights by taking what is his private property and don’t even THINK about violating another man’s private property rights.”

Christ affirmed private property rights again in the parable of the land owner who hires men to work his fields when he stated of the land owner:

“Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?”

Matthew 20:15 (KJV)

When Christ speaks as the landowner saying “Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?” he is pointing back to the Law of Moses which protected private property rights.

So let’s now update the tally as to what we have learned about objects. There are living and non-living objects. Human beings are living objects, human beings can use other human beings as long as they have the right to do so for the use they want to use them for and who determines how humans may use all objects (including their own body)? It is God himself. God has given us stewardship over various objects and he determines the boundaries and rights to those objects that we have as stewards of his creation.

Must we account for human feelings before using another human being?

We have shown that God determines what our usage rights are when it comes to all types of objects both animate and inanimate. But just because we have the right to use another human being – does that mean we can do so without regard for their feelings of whether they wish to be used or not?

The answer in most cases is that human feelings are irrelevant when it comes to the use of one human being by another.

Let me illustrate this point by going back to some previous examples and adding in some new examples as well.

When I go to my favorite sandwich place must I take into account the feelings of the sandwich maker when I use him as an object to make my sandwich? The answer is no.

He has agreed to work for a certain wage and both his employer and I as his customer have the right to use him to make sandwiches regardless of his feelings.  He might be having a bad day because of personal issues at his home.  He may just be feeling tired because he did not sleep well the night before. He could have just been insulted in the back room by one of his fellow employees.   There could be a million reasons why at this particular time he does not feel like making my sandwich.  But his feelings are irrelevant.  It is his DUTY to make my sandwich both on account of his employer and to me as his customer.

Do we have to take into account the feelings of our barber or hair stylist before we use them as an object to cut our hair? The answer is no.

Do we have to take into account the feelings of the worker at our local oil change place before we drive in to have him change our oil? The answer is no.

And now some examples for the ladies.

If you hired a photographer to photograph your wedding and on the day of the wedding he just had a fight with his wife or girlfriend and does not feel like working that day is it ok if he does not take your wedding photos? Do you have to take his feelings into account to use him as an object to take photos of your wedding? The answer is no.  In fact you would expect him to have a smile on his face and not trouble you with his personal problems on your wedding day.  He was hired to do a job and he should do his duty regardless of his personal feelings or issues.

What if you and are your girlfriends planned a day to go to your favorite nail salon.  Just before you get there the three ladies who would do your nails got into a big fight and they just want to go home and not do anyone’s nails.  Would that be ok with you? Or would you expect them as their employer would expect them to do their duty with a smile on their face? We know the answer to this. You would expect them to do their duty with a smile on their face and for them to hide any ill-will or bad feelings they had as you used them as object to do your nails.

So here is the truth of the matter as far as humans using other humans is concerned.  If one human has the right to use another human being for a specific purpose then then human being using the other human being has no obligation whatsoever to take into account the feelings of that human being as to whether they want to be used for that function.  And from the perspective of the human being who is to be used for a certain purpose – they must always realize that their duty to perform their function as an object always trumps their feelings.

Earlier I said in most cases human feelings are irrelevant when it comes to one human being who has the right to use another human being for a specific task.  I said that duty in these cases always trumps feelings and in fact the one being used should not trouble the person using them for a certain task with their feelings.

But there are some times when feelings are part of the determination of whether someone can use another person. If I call up my guy friend on the phone to go out to dinner I might say something like “Hey do you feel like going out to dinner with me tonight?”  He has no obligation or duty to go out to dinner with me as his friend.  He may feel like it or he may not feel like it.  What am I doing when I call my friend and ask him to go to dinner? In most cases it is because I want to use him as a companion object to talk with and interface with.  To share my life stories and perhaps hear his as well.  Now in some cases I may not want to use him at all – maybe I know he has been having a rough time and I want to freely offer my services as a sounding board to him.

If my children ask me on a Friday night to take them to a certain movie – do I have an obligation and duty to take them that movie? Basically they want to use me as an object to take them to the show, buy their tickets and spend time with them at the movie. But I have no duty or obligation to let them make use of me in this way and it depends on how I feel at the moment. Now sometimes I might not feel like going to the movies but as an act of love and grace and I take them anyway despite my feelings.

So now let us tally once again what we have learned up to this point.  Objects are both living and non-living. Human beings are living objects.  Human beings may and can use other human beings as objects for various uses as long as they have the right to do so.  God determines how human beings may use various objects (including other human beings as well as our own bodies).  In the vast majority of cases when one human being uses another human within their rights to do so – they do not have to take into account the feelings of the human being that is being used for a particular task.

This brings us to the primary subject of this article.

God created woman as a sexual object for man’s use and much more

“Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.”

I Corinthians 11:9 (KJV)

The Scriptures are clear throughout the Old and New Testaments that woman was created for man, not man for woman. These are the uses for which God created woman for man:

  1. Subordinate Helper (Genesis 2:18, I Peter 3:1-6)
  2. Sex Object (Proverbs 5:15-20, Romans 1:27)
  3. Companion (Malachi 2:14)
  4. Comforter (Genesis 24:67)
  5. Mother and Caretaker of his children (Genesis 49:25, Psalm 128:1-4, 1 Timothy 5:14)
  6. Keeper of the Home (Proverbs 31:10-31, Titus 2:4)
  7. Weaker vessel to need his love, leadership, strength, protection and provision (Ephesians 5:22-33, I Peter 3:7)

The fact that God created woman for man, not man for woman is extremely offensive to our modern feminist and egalitarian society but it the truth of God’s Word.

From time to time I peruse other blogs or look for mentions of my blog on other blogs.  I found this comment from a man on what he thinks is the only reason men should get married and why he got married:

“Companionship and sharing were the main reasons I got married…most men marry because they have found someone they enjoy being with, not to have sex.”

I wanted to find a bucket to barf in after reading this statement from this feminized man!

He literally sounds like a woman.  But the truth is that there are millions of men in the western world that will make statements like this man every day.  And while some of these men may just be asexual or have lower levels of testosterone so they are more like women –  some of these men are normal men with normal levels of testosterone and they just have been trained their whole lives to suppress their true God given masculine desires towards women.

The fact is that without societal conditioning that tells men their wants and desires are evil and selfish and women’s desires are noble and righteous we would be hearing some very different things from men.

Men marry women for sex! They marry women for companionship! They marry women to bear their children, care for their children and care for their home while they go to work.  Men want to have a beautiful sexy wife to come home to each day who makes their home warm and inviting and has dinner on the table each evening.   They want to know that whenever they wish they can drink from sexual well that is their wife!

These are desires that God has placed in man and no man should ever be ashamed having these desires towards a woman.  Some Christian sites talk about things like “when you feel more like a maid than a wife” when the reality is part of being a wife IS being a maid.   Other sites talk to women who feel like they are “more of a sex object than a wife”.  Are they kidding themselves? Being a wife and sex object are not mutually exclusive things.  A wife was designed by God to be a sex object to her husband.

The Scriptures are crystal clear that sex is “the natural use of the woman” (Romans 1:27) for the man and that he is to drink from the sexual well that is his wife and satisfy himself sexually with his wife’s body whenever he wants (Proverbs 5:15-20).

Is there a difference between seeing wives as sex objects or women in general as sex objects?

This is a question that is sure to come up in the context of women being seen as sex objects by men.  The fact is that men see ALL women (whether they are married to them or not) to a greater or lesser degree as sex objects excluding their blood relatives like their mothers, daughters or sisters. If the woman is less attractive to the man based on his preferences than he may see her less as a sex object and if she fits his preferences of sexual attraction he will see her much more as a sex object.

Some Christians reading this may not have a problem with men seeing their wives as sex objects but object to men seeing women that are not their wives as sex objects.  But such a distinction is false.  For the most part, every man who asks a woman on a date does so because he is sexually attracted to her and sees her as an object that could bring future sexual pleasure to him.  If he did not – he would never have asked her out in the first place.

Now sexual attraction is not the only reason men choose women as potential mates, but it is often the first reason.  Men also choose women based on what type of mother they think she would be, what kind of homemaker they think she would be and also how submissive she will be.  For many men – a woman could be a very attractive woman but if she appears to be a contentious and high maintenance woman they won’t go near her.  This is why many women who have high power jobs have a hard time finding men and when they do in most cases they have to find men who are softer and more submissive.

Can men go too far in sexually objectifying women?

Any behavior, even a God given behavior in man or woman, can be taken to an extreme so of course it is possible for men to go too far in sexually objectifying women.   For instance, if a construction worker sees a nice-looking woman walking down the side walk in front of him and he is sexually aroused by her form and has sexual thoughts about her this behavior is holy and by the design of God.   In fact, maybe he sees this woman walk by his work site every day for many weeks and then gets the courage to talk to her and ask her out on a date based on his sexual attraction toward her.  Again, this behavior is by the design of God and is holy and just.

However, if this same construction worker instead of asking her out and talking to her in kind way starts whistling at her and saying sexually suggestive phrases about her then he has now gone too far in sexually objectifying this woman.  The same would go for men that try and sexually touch or use inappropriate sexual language with female coworkers or other female acquaintances.

I know of a young man in his early twenties that tried to have vaginal intercourse with his wife only a week after she gave birth to their first child. He caused her a lot of medical problems by doing this.  Most doctors advise that men wait 6 to 8 weeks to allow their wives to properly heal after child birth before trying to resume vaginal intercourse.  Now as I have mentioned elsewhere on this blog – I think a wife can help her husband sexually in other ways during this waiting period for intercourse.  But this young man was wrong knowing the potential damage it could cause his wife and still doing it anyway.  Yes, God made his wife as a sex object for him – but God also says that a husband is to protect and care for his wife’s body as he would his own (Ephesians 5:29) and he failed to do that.

So yes, men can sometimes go too far in sexually objectifying women.

Application for women

If you as a woman are reading this and you are angry or hate that fact that your husband or men in general see you as a sex object this is what you need to do.  You first need to realize that your feelings on this issue are not holy and justified but are based in your own sinful pride.  You may not even have realized how you feel about being a sex object for men is based in the sin of pride because of what our culture tells you every day.

The Bible tells us this regarding our cultural conditioning:

“And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.”

Romans 12:2 (KJV)

God calls you to reject your cultural conditioning that goes in direct opposition to his word.  Once you have resolved to allow God to transform your thinking you need to mediate on these principles:

  1. You as a woman were created for man, man was not created for you. (I Corinthians 11:9)
  2. In keeping with your created purpose for man – you are in fact a sex object to men. God reserves the sexual use of your body for marriage (Hebrews 13:4) but when you are married your husband may fully use you as a sex object (Proverbs 5:15-20).
  3. While you are to guard your virginity as a sacred treasure for marriage – you should never scold men for being sexually attracted to you or for simply glancing at your female form.
  4. When you are married you should never allow yourself to have negative thoughts of being sexually used by your husband. In fact, you need to recondition your mind to WANT to be sexually used by your husband because that is one the purposes for which you were designed by God.

Finally, on the subject of feeling sexually used by your husband.

I always find it fascinating how many Christian women pray that God will use them but they only want to be used in the way they want to be used.  They have these grand visions and really selfish ambitions of how they want God to use them.

But to be used as a maid, a cook, a mother for his children and an object of sexual pleasure for a man – well that is just beneath them and they will have no part in this.

If you are having negative feelings about being “sexually used” by your husband you need to realize that such thoughts and feelings come not from your spirit, but from your sinful nature (your flesh).  Such feelings are not only unbiblical, they are in fact illogical and they fully based in sinful pride.

Why would you feel angry at your husband for using you for one of the purposes for which God made you?  Getting angry at your husband for using you for sex would be like your wedding photographer getting angry at you for using him to take pictures at your wedding.  It is part of your function, your design and your intended use.

I encourage and admonish you as a woman to pray the prayer of Psalm 51:10 “Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.”  Once you give your pride to God, humble yourself before and fully accept his design for your life you will truly find the peace and joy that God intended for your life.

Application for Men

Both the secular world and sadly even the much of the Christian world today tells men that their God given masculine desires are based in pride. If a man desires for his wife to submit to his authority and not argue with him all the time we are told this desire of his is based in his wicked “male pride”. If a man desires to be the primary bread winner or sole provider for his family again we are told this is based in his wicked “male pride”.  Finally, if a man desires to have sex with his wife anytime he wishes as opposed to only when his wife is in the mood and mutually desires sex he is told this is wicked “male pride” and “selfishness” on his part.

Christian men hear me now. The teaching that these God given masculine desires are wicked and sinful on the part of men is a teaching straight from the pit of hell.  The prophet Isaiah speaks of the false teachers we see today:

“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”

Isaiah 5:20 (KJV)

Today they teach that God given masculine desires are evil and feminine sinful desires are good!

I do not deny that some men do deal with sinful pride in other areas – but a man desire the things I have mentioned from a woman is not sinful in the least bit.  It is holy and by the design of God.

The biggest problem for Christian men today is not pride – but cowardice.

We as men are too cowardly to call out those who attack the masculine human nature which makes man the image bearer of God (I Corinthians 11:7). We as men need to realize there is a reason why the world attacks the masculine nature while elevating the feminine nature.  It is symbolic of mankind’s rejection of God himself.   When we take the “weaker vessel” (woman) and elevate her above the image bearer(man) we are spitting in the face of almighty God himself.

So, to all you men out there I give you this advice – ask God to give you the courage to stand firm in the faith and act like a man!

“Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.”

1 Corinthians 16:13 (NASB)

Stop apologizing for your God given masculine nature whether it be your logical thinking, your competitiveness, your desire to lead a woman or you strong physically based sexual desire toward women.

You need to do as I encouraged the women to do and let go of the cultural conditioning you have grown up with that has taught you to hate your God given masculine nature.  You need to mediate on these Scripture principles:

  1. God created you as a man to image him (I Corinthians 11:7). This means that your masculine nature is the direct image of God where the feminine nature only indirectly images God in our shared humanity as men and women.  You image God by living out and acting out your various masculine traits.  When you compete with other men in various forms you image God’s competitive nature. When you exercise your protective masculine nature by desiring to train yourself or buy weapons for protection you image God’s protective nature.  When you find women beautiful and desire sex with women you image God’s desire for beauty and pleasure.
  2. Do not be ashamed of the fact that woman was created for man (I Corinthians 11:9), and specifically that your future or current wife was created by God for your blessing and pleasure. She was created by God for you to help you fully image God as a husband and later a father to your children. Embrace this and rejoice in this Biblical truth!
  3. Have the courage to fully act on your sexual desires toward your wife. There are many men that have great courage whether it be on the battlefield or in their careers or in sporting events but they cower like children when it comes to their sexual desires toward their wives.  Many men cover their sexual cowardice toward their wives under the guise of “being sensitive and unselfish” toward their wives.  But such thinking runs directly contrary to the command of God in Proverbs 5:15-20 toward men to liberally and freely satisfy themselves sexually with their wife’s body.

Conclusion

Women – stop having sinful pride against one of God’s purposes in your design and that is your design as a sex object.  You need to fully embrace the fact that a big part of your design was to bring visual and physical sexual pleasure to men and specifically your husband in marriage.  Stop judging men and scolding men for noticing your female beauty but rather rejoice in how God has made man and your purpose in his creation.

Men – stop having sinful cowardice in regard to your God given masculine nature.  Stop apologizing for how God designed you as men and the God given desires you have toward women. Fully image God by fully embracing your masculine human nature.  Do not feel guilty for wanting a woman to sexually please you, bear your children and care for your home.  All of these are God given desires and are part of your imaging the very nature of God.  Especially if you are married – have the courage to fully and completely act on your sexual desires toward your wife and stop allowing the world to tell you that you are selfish in engaging in the God designed natural use of the woman.

Should Christian women wear leggings as pants?

Since leggings and yoga pants very clearly reveal a woman’s form are they inappropriate to wear? Is a woman tempting the men who see her in leggings to lust after her or is it not her fault if they do?

The whole “leggings and yoga pants debate” was brought back to into the national spot light last week when two girls were not allowed on a plane because they were wearing leggings.  The Washington Post reported on the event as follows:

“A United Airlines gate agent barred two girls from boarding a flight Sunday morning because the girls were wearing leggings.

Another girl who was wearing gray leggings had to change before she was allowed to board the flight from Denver to Minneapolis, a witness said.

“She’s forcing them to change or put dresses on over leggings or they can’t board,” Shannon Watts, who was at a gate at Denver International Airport, said on Twitter. “Since when does @united police women’s clothing?”

United, responding to tweets about the incident tweeted that “United shall have the right to refuse passengers who are not properly clothed via our Contract of Carriage.” And added, “This is left to the discretion of the agents.”

The airline’s passenger contract says for the safety of all passengers and crew members, the airline can refuse to let a passenger board if the passenger is “barefoot or not properly clothed.”

So was it improper for these girls to be wearing leggings on this flight? And a much broader question would be is it improper for Christian women to wear leggings or yoga pants at all in public?

I want to clarify what we are talking about here.  For a long time women have worn leggings under dresses or long blouses and other clothing. But now for several years women have begun wearing leggings by themselves as pants.  That is the subject of this discussion.

Before we get into answering the question of the morality of women wearing leggings or yoga pants in public settings we need to establish a very important fact about men.

God made men with a much higher testosterone level than women. Most men have 10 times the level of testosterone in their system and probably 10 times the sex drive to go along with it.  A man’s sex drive is not only significantly stronger than a woman’s but the entire driving force of it is different.  While normal and healthy women desire sex too – their sex drive is emotionally and relationally driven.  A man’s sex drive is physically and visually driven.

So yes, for us as men when we see a woman in legging pants or yoga pants it is far more sexually arousing to us then if a woman had on baggy pants or a loose-fitting dress that hid the shape of her rear end, pelvic area and legs.

As man we cannot control the fact that the sight of a woman’s figure displayed in this manner brings us pleasure – our brains are wired by the design of God to receive pleasure from the female form.  Let put it this way to you ladies reading this article.

If you were to walk by your coworker’s desk and they had just sat down with hot cheeseburger from your favorite cheeseburger place – would the sight and smell of that cheeseburger not send you pleasure signals through you brain? Would you not be made hungry as a result? Of course you would.  The male physical and visual sex drive works exactly the same way when it comes to seeing women we find attractive.

The debate here is not about how men’s brains work – that is just a biological fact.  The debate is about what is sinful and what is not – what is lust and what is not and ultimately if women are tempting men to lust by wearing leggings and yoga pants in public settings.

Current Cultural Views of Lust

Most people have been taught that causing a man to lust means simply causing him to be sexually aroused by the mere sight of a woman regardless of her actions toward him.  So the thought goes – if a woman is fully covered this will sharply reduce a man’s chances of being sexually aroused by her form which they believe is lust on his part.

Because of this belief about what lust is some conservative Christians have their wives and daughters dress in very baggy dresses with that go to the floor with long sleeves to completely cover their arms.  They may even wear their hair tied up with a head covering of some sort.

This same concept when taken to its logical conclusion is why some Muslims make their wives be covered from head to toe with only a screen to see through on the face.

But true wisdom comes from being able to recognize our presuppositions or preconceived notions of morality.  Only when we are willing to question things that we have believed since before we can remember anything else will we be able to find the truth in many areas of life.

As Christians we believe that the starting point for our all the moral questions of life is the Bible. So if we are to truly understand what the Bible teaches about any subject of life – we must disregard all our presuppositions and let God’s Word to speak to us.  We must do as I have said on this site many times “remove our cultural glasses” and see the truth regardless of our presupposed ideas.

So take off your cultural glasses and put on your seat belt as we show you that the question that is the title of this article gets it all wrong.

What the Bible says about lust and causing your brother to stumble

Let’s first establish some two Biblical truths that are applicable to this discussion.

The Bible says it is sin to lust

“What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

Romans 7:7 (KJV)

As we can see from the passage above, the Apostle Paul makes it clear that to lust is to sin.

We then can see from the Gospel of Matthew that sexual lust is sin:

“27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Matthew 5:27-28 (KJV)

The Bible says we should not do things that tempt other to sin

““Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.

Romans 14:13 (KJV)

The Apostle Paul makes it clear that we as both men and women should never do something to could cause our brother to sin.  We should not put things in front of them that might trip them up spiritually.

So this is an open and closed case right? These Scriptures prove that the question of this article truly is a rhetorical question right? Well not so fast. Keep your seat securely fastened and keep your arms in the vehicle as we continue our quest for the truth in this matter.

Distinguishing the Biblical definition of lust from the cultural definition of lust

This is the huge presupposition that sits right in front of us. We are presupposing what lust is.  In our language when we think of lust we think of sexual arousal.  If a person is turned on sexually by the sight of someone who is not their spouse that is lust according to our culture.

But is that the definition of lust according to the Bible? Let’s find out.

Remember that passage from Romans 7:7 where Paul was saying lust was sin and we were all saying “Amen!”? Well he actually tells us what it is sin – because God said in the 10 commandments “Thou shalt not covet”. So what does that tell us? It tells us that lust is synonymous with covetousness.

So if lust is synonymous with covetousness then what is covetousness?

“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.”

Exodus 20:17 (KJV)

So up to this point we have established with absolute certainty that lust is sin and lust is tied directly to the 10th commandment.

The 10 commandment shows us by the context in which covetousness is used what it means. Is covetousness finding your neighbor’s house desirable? No it is not. Is covetousness dreaming about or fantasizing about what it would be like to live in your neighbor’s house? No it is not. Covetousness is the desire to sinfully possess something that does not belong to you.

We have seen this story play out in many movies. A man desires the land or home of another man.  So he offers him money for it but he won’t sell.  He says he will never sell it. Was the first man finding the second man’s land desirable a sin? No it was not. But if he cannot legally acquire this land and begins to think of how he can illegally acquire that other man’s land he has now gone from righteous desire to sinful covetousness.

This exact same principle applies to a man’s wife, his daughter or any other woman.  It is NOT lust (covetousness) when a man simply finds a woman sexually desirable no matter her marital status. It is no more a sin for this man to imagine her naked or even imagine having sex with her than it is for a man to imagine what another man’s house looks like on the inside and what it would be like to live there.

Lust is born when a man’s natural God given sexual desires are turned into sinful sexual covetousness and he desires to unlawfully possess a woman.

I know your head is probably spinning.  Your presuppositions about lust have been completely blown out of the water.

But we are now coming to end our journey so just hold tight just a little longer.

Now let’s take the original question of this article and look at the presupposition right in the middle of the question:

“Is a woman tempting the men who see her in leggings to lust after her or is it not her fault if they do?”

So what is the presupposition? This question presupposes that if a woman dresses in any way which might cause a man to be sexually aroused by her or find her sexually desirable or fantasize about having sex with her that this is her causing him to lust.

But what we know from our journey in the Scriptures is lust does not refer to sexual arousal or sexual imagination.  It refers to covetousness which in the context of sexual lust means that a man has the desire to unlawfully possess a woman in a sexual manner.

I would argue that once we understand what lust actually is then we understand better what enticing someone to lust looks like. I would argue that for 99 percent of cases a woman causes a man to lust after her first by her actions and then secondarily by her appearance.

A woman has to draw a man with actions in the form of words or body motions before true lust develops in most cases. The vast majority of men will not desire to unlawfully possess a woman unless that woman motions in some way either verbally or through body movement toward him that she might be available to him.  In other words she flirts with him in some manner.  This is when the seed of lust in 90 percent of cases with men.

Now are there men who lust after women who have not flirted or motioned or talked in any sexual manner toward them? Yes! But if a man lusts after a woman simply because of her beautiful appearance and not any sexual flirting or actions on her part that would draw him to lust after her then his sin of lust lays 100% at his feet and she is innocent.

So now let’s change our original question to what Christian women should really being asking themselves in regard to causing men to lust after them:

Instead of asking:

“Isn’t it wrong for me to wear this because it might sexually arouse a man or make him have pleasurable thoughts about me?”

Women should ask themselves:

“Did I just flirt with him? Did I lead him on in some manner?”

So are you saying women can just walk around half naked or completely naked wherever they go?

No In am not saying that at all. But as the Scriptures say “To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven” (Ecclesiastes 3:1). That means we should wear clothing that is appropriate to the occasion.  It may not be appropriate for a woman to wear a tight tee shirt and shorts to her job unless she works at Hooters and it may not be appropriate for a woman to wear a bikini unless she is going to beach, swimming pool or sun bathing.

But what about I Timothy 2:9’s admonition for women to dress modestly?

“In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array”

I Timothy 2:9 (KJV)

I am glad you asked that. I have written an entire post on that verse going in-depth into what modesty actually means and the context in which this verse is talking about women’s dress. You can read it here.

The very short answer is that like the word lust, our culture has made up its own definition of modesty.  Modesty in I Timothy 2:9 refers to women dressing in attire that is appropriate to the occasion. It then tell us that for the occasion of gathering in the church assembly for worship women should wear “modest apparel” or literally “be appropriate clothed in full covering garments”.

Paul gave a similar warning about food in worship.  He told the Corinthians not to abuse the communion table by turning worship into a feast when he wrote:

And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.”

1 Corinthians 11:34 (KJV)

Paul was not saying it was wrong for us to think about food or sex or be aroused to hunger for food or sex. He was saying that when we come together as a churches for worship and communion we need to put these natural God given hungers aside and fully focus on God.  He was not condemning sexual thought or women dressing sexually outside the Church in the same way that he was not condemning being aroused to hunger for food outside the Church.

It was all about time and place.

Combating Negative Views of Masculine Sexuality

This debate over women wearing leggings or yoga pants is actually a great opportunity to help both men and women have a better understanding and respect for male sexuality.  As Christians we must measure everything action, everything thought and every desire we have by the Bible.  The Bible has been called the “Canon” which means “measure” or “rule”.  It means the Bible should be the standard or rule by which we measure our lives.

Thousands of years ago back in the Garden of Eden God designed man and woman with distinct masculine and feminine natures. Contrary to many false doctrines promoted over centuries of Christianity – the distinct male and female sexual natures were not a result of sin and the fall.  They were made by the design of God from day one.

That means when Adam saw Eve for the first time he had the same dopamine rush that men get today when they see women they find beautiful and yes he probably got an erection.  This is not something dirty – it is by the design of God.

But as Christians we recognize that the fall corrupted the original masculine and feminine natures God designed.  That means man’s sexual nature and woman’s sexual nature was corrupted in some ways from the fall.  Our task is to discover what parts of our distinct male and female sexual natures are still by the original design of God and which parts are a corruption of that design.

In the context of the male sexual nature, we must measure male sexual behaviors by the Bible.  If a certain male sexual behavior conflicts with God’s moral law than we condemn it but if that behavior is not condemned by God’s moral law or is honored by God’s moral law than we honor it as God’s design.

How much honor does male sexuality get in our day and time? I would argue that most Christians have a very negative view of male sexuality and that is something we need to change.

I have chosen some excerpts from an article entitled A Man’s Perspective on Yoga Pants by Al Blanton at 78mag.com to illustrate how male sexuality is commonly dishonored in Christian circles.

“Do I like yoga pants? Of course I do. I think they may be the greatest thing ever invented. But that’s the barbarian in me. The Cro-Magnon. The man

To say that the leggings “cause” men to stumble might be a stretch (pun intended). Men cause men to stumble, not leggings.

When the gorgeous behinds pass by, we (men) always have a choice. Either a) look away and think nothing else of it, b) appreciate the female form while you sip your half-caf, or c) visualize scenarios that run the prurient gamut.

I believe the first glance is not the problem. It’s the second and third that begin to get us in trouble. But remember, we are always presented with a choice…

I do not write this to bash men; no, indeed I write this to help men, to liberate men…

So the Christian male is faced with a very difficult scenario: pursue purity or feed the beast. We justify the latter by saying it is “natural” or “just the way we were made.”

So in summary, the real problem is not yoga pants. The problem is our mind. The problem is our heart.”

 

I truly believe that Mr. Blanton did not write this article “to bash men” but instead to help “liberate men” from what he believes is sinful behavior. His intentions are noble.

But Mr. Blanton like many Christian men today has a “zeal of God, but not according to knowledge” (Romans 10:2). Specifically his knowledge of what lust actually is according the Scriptures is lacking and because of this he believes when men take that “second and third” look at a woman or when we “visualize scenarios that run the prurient gamut” (undress a woman in our minds and imagine sexual scenarios with her) that this is the very definition of lust and therefore sin.

He shows some feminist tendencies in his words as well. When he talks about why he as a man likes yoga pants and says “But that’s the barbarian in me. The Cro-Magnon. The man…” that is a nod to modern feminism.  The masculine physical and visual sex drive is seen as “uncivilized”, “piggish”, “dirty” and “base”.

Now I am not saying that some men do not act “uncivilized”, “piggish” and “dirty” sometimes.  Picture the construction workers whistling at women walking by yelling out comments about their bodies or men gawking at women and making them feel uncomfortable.  Men grabbing women or slapping women’s behinds.  That we would agree is barbaric behavior on the part of men.

But for Mr. Blanton to say that simply because he likes woman in yoga pants and it gives his brain pleasure that this is somehow barbaric or uncivilized is wrong.  His statement was dishonorable to himself, men in general and the God who designed male sexuality. This statement is textbook misandry.

Later Mr. Blanton compares masculine sexuality to the beast. This is again is a nod to false views of that equate male sexuality to animal sexuality while lifting up female sexuality as a more civilized and human sexuality that men should try to model in their lives.  Again comparing masculine sexuality to a “beast” dishonors men and dishonors the God who made men.

And I yes Mr. Blanton this is in fact “just the way we were made” by God himself. It is as natural for a man to be sexually aroused by women in yoga pants and even to get an erection as it is for a pregnant or nursing mother to lactate when she hears a baby cry, or when she even thinks of her baby. We don’t call women barbaric and uncivilized for their natural reactions to babies and infants yet we condemn men for their natural reactions to women. It is completely and utterly inconsistent.

Let’s take his statement again and translate this to the natural reactions of women to babies:

“To say that the leggings “cause” men to stumble might be a stretch (pun intended). Men cause men to stumble, not leggings.”

This is like saying this toward women:

“To say that crying babies or thoughts of babies “cause” women to lactate might be a stretch. Women cause women to lactate, not babies.”

This just puts the absurdity of the condemnation of the male sexual nature on full display.

I do agree with Mr. Blanton that “the real problem is not yoga pants.”, but I disagree with him that “The problem is our mind” as in the problem is the male sexual nature which he calls barbaric and animalistic.

The problem is not women wearing leggings or yoga pants or men being sexually aroused by or taking pleasure from seeing women in these pants.

The problem is the condemnation of the male sexual nature by both men and women. Men need to be at peace with their nature and as long as they are not being rude and gawking at these women if they take tasteful glances and enjoy the view there is no sin in this.

Women need to stop viewing men as barbaric and sexual beasts and appreciate them for the way God designed them.  If a man is gawking at a woman or making lewd gestures and remarks she has a right to say something because that is rude. If he is only taking passing glances at her she has no more right to shame him or that then she would her girlfriend for lactating because she heard a baby cry.

A final word for women on this subject of what you wear

Whether it is yoga pants, leggings, tight fitting dresses or blouses as a woman you must be aware of the fact that that the sight of your form brings sexual pleasure to men even if they hide it very well.  Normal men see you as God designed you – as a both a person and an object of sexual beauty and pleasure.

So in essence when a man sees you as a woman it is the same as when you see your favorite foods on TV or in restaurants and you imagine what it would be like to taste that food.  But you don’t just go and steal food that you like right? No you legally purchase it before enjoy eating it.

In the same way, because a good man sees a woman as a person as well as object of sexual beauty and pleasure he does not go up and just grab her and take her. He does not call out lewd remarks to her or gawk at her.

In God’s design he marries her.  Then as part of his marriage relationship to her he can “come into his garden, and eat his pleasant fruits” (Song of Solomon 4:16). I hope that this journey through the Scriptures has helped to change your perspective of what lust actually is. If you are woman – you don’t have to be ashamed to dress in beautiful clothing, or even clothing that might be sexually arousing to men provide that you follow these Biblical principles:

  1. If you are married or still under your father’s authority are they are ok with you dressing in this manner? If they are not then you need to submit to male headship that God has placed in your life.
  2. If you are able to wear clothing that some would consider more form fitting or sexually arousing are you doing so at the proper place and time? Maybe it is ok to wear tight fitting leggings for a night out with your girlfriends but it may be inappropriate for school(or on an airplane) It certainly would be for wrong for worship services in your church.
  3. Whether you are wearing more sexually appealing clothing or not – are you flirtatious with men to the point that you make them think they could have sex with you outside of marriage? If that is the case this needs to stop. That is the very definition of a woman causing a man to lust.

On the subject of United Airlines barring these two girls for wearing improper attire.  They have every right to do so.  It is their airline. They can determine what clothing must be worn to fly on their planes.

Real men DO provide and Real women DO appreciate it

“Real men provide Real women appreciate it” was a simple message posted on a billboard in Forysth County, North Carolina.  60 years ago such a sign would have been lauded by our communities.  But now in our post-feminist culture this message is considered “a sexist comment”.

Molly Grace, a woman who organized opposition to the sign, made this statement:

“The very notion that there should be a man to provide and that no matter what a woman should just plain accept it and appreciate it, is a sexist comment,” said Grace, who is an outspoken critic against the billboard.”

http://myfox8.com/2017/02/28/crowdfunding-to-change-controversial-billboard-in-winston-salem/

She wants the anonymous person who paid for it to be posted to come to a local panel and “explain why they think the way that they do and try to shed some light on it for us”.

Some people thought the anonymous person who posted the sign was targeting men, not women.

“Donald Amos says he likes the sign and said he believes it’s directed toward men who are not fulfilling their promises.

“A lot of times, women have to go on their own and do this and take the role of a man and a women and it’s not right, but it happens and I think men ought to step their game up. Really they ought to and become men again instead of shoulda, coulda, wannabes,” Amos said.”

http://myfox8.com/2017/02/22/real-men-provide-billboard-in-forsyth-county-sparks-controversy/

Perhaps it would have been considered less “sexist” to feminists if the sign had simply read “Real men provide”.  But because the sign implied that real women appreciate men that can provide for them – that cannot be allowed to stand.

Why do some people think that real men should provide and real women should appreciate it?

If you are a person that thinks like Molly let me “shed some light” on this issue for you from the source that some Americans still hold dear and that is the Bible.

The man’s providing role is referenced in multiple passages of the Scriptures.

In Genesis after Adam and Eve sinned God said he would make both Adam and Eve’s primary roles more difficult:

“16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.”

Genesis 3:16-19 (KJV)

Woman would experience great pain now in child birth – one of her most important duties in her help meet role to man. It would not so easy for man to provide for his family, but instead he would have to work hard to get what he needed from the earth.

In addition because of woman’s new sinful nature she would make his other very important role, that of leading the home, much more difficult as she would seek to control him and the home instead of submitting to him as God had designed her to do.

But even though God made the man’s duty of providing and the woman’s duty to give birth more difficult he also provide them both with the gift of joy from the pain they had to endure in their labor:

“A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world.”

John 16:21 (KJV)

“There is nothing better for a man, than that he should eat and drink, and that he should make his soul enjoy good in his labour. This also I saw, that it was from the hand of God.”

Ecclesiastes 2:24 (KJV)

In the Law of Moses a man’s provision for his wife was deemed of such critical importance that if he failed to do so his wife could seek a divorce:

“10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. 11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.”

Exodus 21:10-11 (KJV)

The New Testament reaffirms and strengthens the distinct roles of man and woman

The New Testament tells us that a woman’s primary role is to be the bearer of children and the keeper of the home:

 “4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.”

Titus 2:4-5 (KJV)

God reiterates his call for men to be providers and protectors to their wives in the Epistle to the Ephesians:

“28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:”

Ephesians 5:28-19 (KJV)

Husbands are called by God to provide for the physical needs of their wife as they would the needs of their own body.  They are also called to protect their wife as they would their own body.

Was the Proverbs 31 woman a career woman?

Many Christians have tried to point to Proverbs 31 to show a defense of women having careers outside the home.  There is no doubt that Proverbs 31 shows the woman going out to plant a field or sell in the market.  But here is what people miss.

The Proverbs 31 wife did not leave anything undone in her home so as to go outside the home and provide.  It tells us of her husband “The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her…” (vs 11) and that she “She looketh well to the ways of her household…”(vs 27).

Proverbs 31 in no way paints the modern career women we see today.  With the schedules that modern career women keep being gone from their home anywhere from 40 to sometimes 50 hours a week there is little to no chance they are also doing 100% of what they should be doing at home.  Their duties to their home will slide or be neglected.

But can’t a woman and her husband just split the roles of provider and the duties of the home?

Well if we want to throw out the duties God has assigned to man and woman as well as then entire picture of marriage with man symbolizing God as the leader, PROVIDER and protector of the woman and woman submitting to her husband and serving him by bearing his children, caring for them and caring for the home then sure – it does not matter and husband and wives can split these roles.

But what if the man can’t work?

Because we live in sin cursed world husbands get sick, get disabled or lose their jobs. Sometimes because we live in sin cursed world unforeseen financial events occur where a man must ask his wife to work to provide additional income for their family to survive.  These are not the kinds of situations we are talking about in this article.  God understands this type of situation.

But what we are talking about here are young couples that marry and PLAN to have the wife be a career woman. We are talking about a man and woman literally agreeing to the fact that she will purposefully not devote herself entirely to her duties to bear children, care for them and care for the home.

These couples actually PLAN to split the duties of husbands and wives between themselves in direct contradiction to God’s design and his commands. There is no excuse for such plans of men and women which go against the very commands of God.

Real men provide

If you are a young man reading this I hope that it will help to show you that our culture has sinned against God in abandoning the gender roles he designed. I hope that you will purpose in your heart that you will not seek marriage to any woman until you can provide for her so that she can dedicate herself fully to the role God has given her as the bearer and nurturer of your future children and the keeper of your future home.

I am not saying you have to be rich when you get married.  Please don’t misunderstand me.  But you should be able to provide a modest life – with food and shelter. You don’t have to provide brand new cars and a big fancy house.  If you can provide for her the basics of life so she can be the homemaker God wants her to be then you are doing what is right before God.

As a young man you should have a plan to further yourself anticipating that as your family grows so too the expenses will grow.  This means that while you may be able to marry based on a certain wage you make – you need to plan on how you will provide more in the future as your family needs it.

And in the future should you ever lose your job – asking your wife to work outside the home should be your last resort. If you have to work two jobs to provide –then you should do so.

Real women appreciate a man who will provide for them

If you are one of these young women that were raised by your parents to be independent and not have to depend on a man you need to throw that thinking out in the trash. Your parents may have felt they were doing right by you and just looking out for you in case you don’t find a husband or in case your husband were to divorce you or die.

Yes because of sin in this world we are not always able to live up to God’s design for men, women and marriage. But we should not plan for the failure of God’s plan in marriage due to sin on our part or that of our spouse or the sinful circumstances of this world.

Instead we should plan for success.

As a young lady your goal should be this very goal given to you directly by God through the Apostle Paul:

“I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.”

1 Timothy 5:14 (KJV)

Will you follow the world’s pattern or God’s pattern?

To young men and women.  You must decide before you seek out marriage.  Will you follow the world’s pattern of partnership marriage and gender neutrality when it comes to the roles in your family or will you follow the pattern God has established for men and women?

The Bible tells us not to follow our culture when it conflicts with God’s design:

 “And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.”

Romans 12:2 (KJV)

Will you ask God to renew your mind today? To make you the man or woman he has called you to be? To play the role he has called you to? I hope that you will.

And let me tell you something – it will bring peace to your marriage if you follow God’s pattern especially in this area of the man being the provider for the home.

You see God has placed a desire in every man to provide for his woman and his family.  For some men it is buried far beneath years of conditioning by our culture, but make no mistake it is there.  That is why many men cannot marry a woman who makes more than them.  It is not a pride issue, it is a God given man issue.

Its time to blunt about this

Sinful pride and ambition blinds us. When we are ambitious for what God has called us to do as men and women that is a great thing and blessed of God.  So when a young man has career ambitions and ambitions of not only having a family and providing for them but also making his mark on the world that is from God himself and it is good.  When a young woman has ambitions of marrying a godly man that can fully provide for her and her future children and she has ambitions for caring for those children and her home this again is from God and it pleases him.

But what about men that have ambitions to marry a woman who can provide for them as a man so they can care for the home and children? This ambition is a sinful one because it violates God’s design. What about a young man who has ambitions to marry a career woman knowing he will not be able to fully provide and knowing she will not be able to fully dedicate herself to their home as God wills? Again such an ambition is a sinful and selfish ambition.

Let me conclude with this warning to young couples who want to follow the path God has set forth in the Bible.

You have two choices in this life.  You are either called by God to a life of celibacy in his service or you are called to seek out marriage.  There are is no choice in between.  Now notice I said “seek out marriage” because not everyone will find someone to marry. But if we are not given the gift of celibacy, we are called to seek marriage.

To young men:

If you have not been given the call of God to celibacy in his service and you have a desire to seek out marriage then you cannot seek out a career path that will never be able to fully provide for your future family. If your future plans for marriage involve your future wife having to work to help provide then your future plans are WRONG. Perhaps the career path you are thinking about will eventually be able to provide for a family but at first it will not be able to.  Many men pursue apprenticeship jobs in fields that do not make enough to provide for a family but eventually they will. That is ok.  But then you must wait for marriage until your career plans come to fruition and you are able to provide for your wife and future children.

And finally to young men – not only should you be able to provide but you should seek out a Christian woman that wants a man that believes he should be able to provide for her. You want a woman that appreciates this conviction and your desire for yourself and your future wife to follow God’s design for men and women.

In other words – don’t marry a career woman. And you know how to NOT fall in love with and marry a career woman? Don’t date one.

To young women:

If you have not been given the call of God to celibacy in his service and you have a desire to seek out marriage then you must not seek out a career.  It is one thing to work and save money while you are seeking your future husband. In fact this could be a blessing to your future husband. But you must be able to drop whatever work it is you are doing the moment you find the man God has for you so that you can fully dedicate yourself to serving him in the role God has given you as his helper.

There is no sin in you as a young woman going to college while seeking that man that God has for you. But make sure that this will not saddle your husband with great debt.  So that might mean going to a community college where it is more affordable and you can work a part time job and pay off the schooling as you take it. If your parents can pay for a better school while you look than that is fine as well as long as you will not be passing this debt to your future husband.

Your goal whether you go to college or just work a job while looking for him is to come into the marriage with little or no debt or perhaps a small savings from your work that you can bless your husband with as you enter the marriage together.

Seek out a godly man that can also provide for you as God wants every man to do for his wife and children. This is not a matter of “either or” as if you must choose between finding a godly man or a man that can provide for you.  If the man you seek to marry truly understands God’s word and wants to live that out he will not want to marry you until he can provide.

I thank God for whomever anonymously paid for that message board. We will need more of those around our country to stir up this conversation and to help bring people back to the design that God has for men and women.

 

Why Christian men should NOT be ashamed of “locker-room talk”

Both Christian and non-Christian men need to stop apologizing for their masculine nature and specifically their masculine sexuality.  Men need to stop bowing down to Church leaders and feminists who have joined in an un-holy alliance against masculinity as God designed it.

Before I get into what the Scriptures say and don’t say about this subject of “locker-room talk” by men let’s first look at a couple of incidents that made national headlines in the last few months.

Donald Trump’s “locker-room talk”

The phrase “locker-room talk” made national headlines when a tape of Donald Trump was leaked where he engaged in sexual talk about women.  Donald Trump spoke of married women who he had sex with and grabbing women by their genitals. Later he made it clear he was just joking about these things.

Should Christians defend Donald Trump’s locker room talk? No way!

By Biblical standards it would be absolutely wrong for a Christian to engage in adulterous behavior with married women or randomly grab women by their genitals.

“So he that goeth in to his neighbour’s wife; whosoever toucheth her shall not be innocent.”

Proverbs 6:29 (KJV)

Christian men should neither joke nor brag about such things or engage in such behaviors.

Should we as Christians take a stand against and discourage our sons from ever speaking even jokingly of sexually assaulting women? Of course, we should.

Should we as Christians take a stand against and discourage our sons from ever joking about trying to convince a woman to have sex with them outside of marriage (whether she is married or not)?  Of course, we should.

Clearly Donald’s Trump’s “locker-room talk” included joking about adultery and sexual assault.

But as many men could tell you there are plenty of types “locker-room talk” between men that do not include joking about committing fornication, adultery or sexual assault.

Another type of “locker-room talk”

Contrary to the assertions of raving feminists and others who see most men as potential rapists there are a lot of men that engage in types of locker-room talk that never includes talk about getting women to commit adultery against their husbands or groping women.

Below I have put together a sample of how some men might actually talk when they are away from women.

Just an additional warning for those reading this – I am going to be very real here in showing how men actually talk when they are away from parents, women and the general public.

These are examples of “locker-room talk” that do not include statements about fornication, adultery or sexual assault:

Teenage Boy #1 “What do you think about Mary and Jane?”

Teenage Boy #2 “Well I would rate Mary as 8 with 10 being best.  Jane is a probably a 6.”

Teenage Boy #1 “Why do you rate Mary higher than Jane?”

Teenage Boy #2 “I like bigger boobs.  Mary’s boobs are just bigger.”

Teenage Boy #1 “I think Mary’s butt is too big though.  I just can’t get past that. Jane has a smaller, yet still full butt.”

Teenage Boy #2 “So how would rate them Mary and Jane?”

Teenage Boy #1 “I would give Mary a 5.  She is just too big for me. I would give Jane a 7.  She has a really nice butt but her breasts are still a little too small to give her a higher rating.”

Teenage Boy #2 “What about Sarah? She has some sexy legs, doesn’t she? If I were rating her on legs alone I will give her a 10! But unfortunately, she has flat chest and a flat butt so I have to give her a 4”.

Teenage Boy #1 “I agree with your rating of a 4 for Sarah – fantastic legs but not much else going for her.”

Teenage Boy #2 “Now Andrea – you have to admit she has the perfect body.  She has boobs – not too big and not too small.  She has a perfectly sculpted butt and legs to die for. The problem is the face.  Her nose is huge and her eyes just don’t look right. She is the very definition of a “butterface”.  I guess I would have to rate her as a 7 although I could never see marrying her because for me a woman has to have a pretty face”.

Teenage Boy #1 “I would give Andrea a 10! I could overlook the face for that perfect of a body! And you did not even talk about her hair.  Come on from the back she has the most beautiful long hair you would ever see. Speaking of Andrea.  Yesterday she had the perfect blouse on. She came over near me in class to talk to one of her girlfriends and as she bent down on the desk to talk to her I got a glimpse of her cleavage. Holy cow did that make my day!”

Conversations like the one I have just described have occurred in various forms using different language among men both young and old, single and married all over the world since the beginning of creation.

So really, we have two types of locker-room talk that men engage in. One is limited to rating women’s sexual attractiveness by rating their various physical features.  The other goes beyond simply rating women’s sexual attractiveness and goes into joking about getting women to engage in sex outside of marriage or sexual assault.

The Harvard Soccer Team Scouting Report Scandal

“In what appears to have been a yearly team tradition, a member of Harvard’s 2012 men’s soccer team produced a document that, in sexually explicit terms, individually assessed and evaluated freshmen recruits from the 2012 women’s soccer team based on their perceived physical attractiveness and sexual appeal.

The author and his teammates referred to the nine-page document as a “scouting report,” and the author circulated the document over the group’s email list on July 31, 2012.

In lewd terms, the author of the report individually evaluated each female recruit, assigning them numerical scores and writing paragraph-long assessments of the women. The document also included photographs of each woman, most of which, the author wrote, were culled from Facebook or the Internet.

The author of the “report” often included sexually explicit descriptions of the women. He wrote of one woman that “she looks like the kind of girl who both likes to dominate, and likes to be dominated…

The document and the entire email list the team used that season were, until recently, publicly available and searchable through Google Groups, an email list-serv service offered through Google.”

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2016/10/25/harvard-mens-soccer-2012-report/

Harvard’s response was quick and strong:

“The men’s soccer team had performed impressively this season. Harvard was ranked first in the Ivy League, and fifteenth nationwide, within striking distance of both the league tournament and the national N.C.A.A. tournament. There was a strong sense on campus that they had winning left to do. However, after learning that the scouting report was not a unique artifact but part of a tradition that has continued for years, and that members of the team had been less than transparent in their initial interviews, the university decided to cancel the rest of the men’s soccer season.”

This was part of the reaction of the women’s soccer team at Harvard:

“In all, we do not pity ourselves, nor do we ache most because of the personal nature of this attack. More than anything, we are frustrated that this is a reality that all women have faced in the past and will continue to face throughout their lives. We feel hopeless because men who are supposed to be our brothers degrade us like this. We are appalled that female athletes who are told to feel empowered and proud of their abilities are so regularly reduced to a physical appearance. We are distraught that mothers having daughters almost a half century after getting equal rights have to worry about men’s entitlement to bodies that aren’t theirs…”

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2016/10/29/oped-soccer-report/

Here are some more other reactions to the scandal:

“Yet the soccer-team revelations are a sobering reminder that sexist behavior can’t easily be stamped out through rules, regulations, and imposed consequences alone. The problem with “locker-room talk,” whether it takes the form of Trump boasting about groping women or college students ranking the appeal of their peers, is that sexist speech normalizes sexist behavior. In the case of Harvard’s soccer team, what’s extraordinary is that the talk can’t be dismissed as casual or made in passing: it was co-authored, edited, and preserved as an official group record. While we might be resigned to encountering objectifying speech or behavior at a bar or a beer-soaked spring-break party, it’s sobering to see it codified in the form of a shared Google document. In effect, the scouting report became a set of instructions used, year after year, to dehumanize women.”

http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-dehumanizing-sexism-of-the-harvard-mens-soccer-teams-scouting-report

“The nine-page report full of numeric ratings, photos, and evaluations is shocking in its mix of explicitness, thoroughness, and matter-of-factness. But it’s not surprising. The objectification of women combined with a male sense of entitlement is the kind of thinking that, taken a step further, leads to so many sexual assaults on so many college campuses…”

https://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2016/11/15/starts-with-locker-room-talk-and-then-gets-worse/H05PWvytDLaGmrP3kXr8mN/story.html

So, in summary the men’s soccer team at Harvard kept a list of how the men’s team ranked various members of the women’s soccer team. This was a tradition dating back several years.  The women’s bodies were ranked in detail according to their various physical attributes, assigned code names and what would be their best potential sexual positions.

Harvard’s response was quick and merciless. They suspended the entire team and canceled the remainder of their season.

Was the Harvard Scouting Report Scandal an attack on women or an attack on men?

Let me first say that I agree that at the very least the Harvard men’s soccer team acted stupidly by placing such a document on a such a public venue as Google groups.  But even though they acted stupidly in this regard – no evidence has been presented that shows these team members ever meant for the collection of their sexual thoughts about these women to become public.

But let’s say they had not put the document on Google groups where it could easily be found. What if they had kept the document a closely guarded secret of the team? Would that have made any difference? I believe the answer is YES.

I am by no means saying that every word in this document made by the team was right by Biblical standards.

But the concept of young men ranking women by their sexual attractiveness is NOT an immoral practice or a violation of Biblical principles.

It is also not a crime or an immoral act for young men to privately discuss amongst themselves various physical attributes they like about women whether they know them personally or do not know them personally.

Here is the real truth about this situation that happened at Harvard.  Make no mistake the outrage here was not about a soccer team sexually ranking their female counterparts on the women’s soccer team.  This incident was simply used as a vehicle with which to allow women to vent their hatred for male sexuality.

Examining key words from the detractors of Harvard Men’s Soccer Team

“reality”

Both women and men know this is the reality of how male nature operates.  While some men may not vocalize their thoughts and many even condemn themselves for having such thoughts both sides acknowledge this as a reality.

“frustrated”

It is not uncommon for detractors of the male nature to be frustrated by the fact that they cannot change man’s design.

“entitlement”

This word was used in the context of men feeling they were entitled to these women’s bodies. Now as I have shown countless times on the blog from a Biblical perspective a husband is in fact “entitled” to his wife’s body.  But that is not what we are discussing here. We are referring to young men who are not married to these women feeling entitled to these women’s bodies.

The problem with this “entitlement” attack against these young men is that there is no language that has been revealed so far that indicates such a thing. Rather this word would apply more to the detractors of men for ranking women by their sexual attractiveness.  You see there are many in our culture today that feel they have a right to control the thoughts and feelings of others.  The truth is they do not.  And only when men willingly give up power over their own thoughts as so many have for the past century can others take power over the thoughts of men.

“sexist”

Webster’s online dictionary defines “sexism” as:

“1   :  prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially :  discrimination against women

2    :  behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex”

The fact is that it is no more “sexist” for men to privately discuss amongst themselves the physical attributes of women around them and rank their sexual appeal than it is for women to privately talk amongst themselves about their feelings on any given subject.  In other words, telling men not to talk sexually is the equivalent of telling women not to talk emotionally with one another.  Yet our culture fully condemns the former while uplifting the latter.

 “dehumanize”

When people refer to men “dehumanizing women” or “objectifying women” they are saying the same thing. They are implying that when a man finds a woman sexually attractive and speaks of her body and its various parts that he has reduced her to an inanimate object to be used and discarded as we would any other inanimate object.

But what these attackers of masculinity miss is that it does not dehumanize a person to view them for their “function” rather than their “person”. We do this all the time in many areas of life without realizing it.

When both men and women get together to assemble their fantasy football teams they are not looking at these football players for their personhood, but rather for their sports function.  What are each player’s strengths and weaknesses as it pertains to football?  That is all that matters in this scenario.

When a military commander puts together a special operations team he is not looking at the personhood of these men but rather their military function.  Each man has unique abilities and functions that when put together serves their intended overall function.

There are countless other examples where we look at people all the time for the potential functional ability in any given scenario yet we do not look down at these other types of objectification.

So, it is ok to make a fantasy list of real football players and rank them based on their potential football ability yet it is seen as morally repugnant for men to make a list of women at their school and rank their bodies based on their sexual appeal and fantasize about their sexual ability?  Do we not see the inconsistency here?

The fact is it does NOT dehumanize a person to see them for their function – whether it be their potential athletic ability, singing ability, fighting ability (as in military members) or women for their sexual appeal and potential ability to bring sexual pleasure to a man.

Yes men naturally see women as objects to be enjoyed for their sexual pleasure. However it is precisely because the vast majority of men ALSO see women as persons that they do not  just grab women and try to have sex with them. Rapists only see women as objects of sexual pleasure and not also as persons and this is the huge difference.

“assault”

The last word I want to discuss from the detractors of male sexuality is the word “assault”.  The implication is that if men feel free to sexually rank women that this would lead men to sexually assault women.

Nothing could be further from the truth.  The same logic is used by those who attack men for looking at and enjoying pornography.  One of the attacks against porn use by men has been something like this “men who sexually assaulted women all report looking at some type of porn first”.  We are then lead to believe that one lead to the other.

But this is akin to saying “all rapists and molesters ate food.  Therefore, eating food causing people to become rapists”.  The point is this line of logic is utterly ridiculous.

If a man sexually assaults or rapes a woman it was because it was always in his heart to do this . It was only a matter of the right opportunity arising and him getting up the nerve to act on his evil desires.   Watching porn did not cause him to do it and neither did sexually ranking women cause him to do it.  It was there all the time.

The reality is that the vast majority of men who watch porn or sexually rank women never assault a woman and don’t even entertain fantasies of assaulting women.  They entertain fantasies of consensual sex – not rape.

What if the Harvard women’s soccer team had done something like this?

Imagine if the women’s soccer team had assigned each one of its members to research the personalities and various characteristics of each of the male soccer players and they made a similar list from a female perspective?

I am sure it would be have been far less sexual and more personality oriented.  This because of the difference of how women operate from men.  Women for the most part are relational and men are physical. I don’t doubt that on some level even if it was never documented that some of the women’s soccer team members did talk about various men on the men’s soccer team as to which ones they found attractive and why.

But I doubt even if the women had ranked the men’s team even in a more feminine(so more personality and less sexual way) nothing would have happened.  If the list was made public everyone would have had a good laugh and nothing would have happened.

The Christian response to “locker-room talk”

Karen Prior writing for Christianity today wrote the following comment in her article entitled “Call Out Locker Room Talk for the Sin That It Is”:

“Now the current debate over “locker room talk,” I’m happy to report, highlights our decreasing acceptance of the old, broken morality that “boys will be boys.” …

Not long ago, my husband, a public high school teacher and coach, was in a car with two of his students. One spotted a female jogger up ahead and made a couple of lascivious comments. To the boy’s surprise, my husband responded by pulling up alongside the jogger, lowering the passenger side window where the student was sitting, and saying to him, “I’d like you to meet my wife.”

It’s a funny story. But it’s funny only because of how it ended. That “locker room talk” turned into a teachable moment for a man-in-the-making: make that two men-in the making, because after driving away, the second boy, seated wide-eyed in the back seat the entire time, asked my husband if he was going to “beat up” the other boy for what he said. Instead, my husband sternly but lovingly lectured both students, first about respecting women and then about resolving conflicts peacefully. What my husband did in that moment is what all good men must rise up and do when locker room talk enters the conversation.”

http://www.christianitytoday.com/women/2016/october/call-out-locker-room-talk-for-sin-it-is.html

The opinion of this Christian writer would probably be very common amongst most Christians.  “Locker-room talk” in all its forms whether it be comments like Donald Trump’s or even seemingly less comments about a woman’s behind are equally sinful their opinion.

She mentions that the young man made some “lascivious comments” about the jogger (which he did not realize was the coach’s wife). I am going to take a guess at what the young man may have said.

“Look at the body on that woman. Her butt is amazing”.

Now is this a “lascivious comment” by Biblical standards?

Lasciviousness” is the old English word for what we now call “sensuality”.  It was a translation of the Greek word “Aselgeia” which literally means “out of control” or “over indulgence”.  What it was referring to was someone who had an addiction or overindulged in some type of physical pleasure and it was not restricted to sexually related pleasure.  A drunkard would be guilty of engaging in “Aselgeia”. While thinking about sex or even enjoying the view of beautiful women whether in person or in print or on a screen is not sinful it can become sinful if it becomes obsessive and the central focus of our life.  When our pursuit of any earthly pleasure causes us to neglect our relationship with God, our spouse, our children or our other responsibilities then something that was not sinful at first can become sinful.

But make no mistake – a man enjoying the physical pleasure of a plate of food at his favorite restaurant as well as that boy enjoying the sight of that beautiful jogger is not lascivious, lustful or sinful.

There is a common belief amongst Christians that if a man is sexually aroused by, has thoughts about or speaks words reflecting his arousal and thoughts about a woman he is not married to that this is sinful behavior.  Some may not call it lascivious as this writer did.  They may instead call it lustful. But the problem with such thinking is there is absolutely no Scriptural backing for such a position.  It is based on culture, opinion and peer pressure alone.

The fact is that God designed male sexuality and no he did not originally design some magical switch in men that they would only be aroused by a woman once they were married.  Some people actually believe this ridiculous theory because they cannot accept the male visual and physical arousal mechanisms as God given. It is a sin, in their view, for a person to experience or exercise any part of their sexuality before being married. This is why they preach so hard against masturbation and sexual fantasy.

Now lest someone get the wrong idea.  I teach on this blog what the Bible teaches.  The only sexual relations God honors are between a man and woman in the holy covenant of marriage as the book of Hebrews states:

Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.”

Hebrews 13:4 (KJV)

But young people experiencing and exercising their sexuality, rather than sexual relations, before marriage is NOT forbidden.  There is no sin in a young man or young woman experiencing sexual pleasure from a sexual dream or sexual thought about a person of the opposite sex.  It is what we do with those thoughts that become sinful.  It is when we allow our sexual arousal to turn in sexual covetousness which is what lust is. It is when we start thinking about how we can convince someone to have sex outside of marriage.

But aren’t men engaging in impure speech when they talk about sexually related things?

The most common phrase that is assigned by Christian leaders to men talking together about women in a sexual manner is the word “impure”.  These thoughts about women’s body parts or about sexual fantasies about women are said to be “impure”.

There are many articles on Christian websites that exhort men to not engage in any sexual thoughts(fantasies) or sexually explicit speech with other men so that they may remain pure.  Here are some common verses that are used to support this position.

“Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. “

Philippians 4:8 (KJV)

But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.”

Ephesians 5:3-5 (KJV)

So here is what happens in the typical church men’s youth group or young college men’s class.

They are told that sexual talk between men that compare’s women’s bodies or talks about women’s body parts or any talk of sexual fantasies is by definition “impure”, “filthy” or “dirty” talk.  Then the speaker will ask men “Can you honestly say when you are talking about those women’s bodies that are speaking in a pure way? Is that a lovely way to speak about women? Or is it dirty and disrespectful? We all know the answer that is impure speech based on impure thoughts”.

If you have been raised in most Christian churches you will recognize this speech or a variation of it.

If you as a Christian man ever hear this speech about Christian men engaging in impure speech in connection with men talking sexually about women here are some questions you should ask the teacher or speaker when they open the room for questions or discussion.

“How do you know that talking about women’s body parts is impure speech? Where does the Bible call such speech by men impure?”

If the teacher responds with Matthew 5:28 that “Well Jesus said that if a man looks with lust on woman then he is committing adultery in his heart”.  Then you can respond with these questions for your teacher about lust.

“But what is lust? Doesn’t the Bible tell us in Romans 7:7 that lust is covetousness? And isn’t covetousness the desire to unlawfully possess something that does not belong to us? Where does the Bible teach that sexual arousal, sexual fantasy or talking about women’s bodies or body parts is lust?”

At this point your teacher’s head will be spinning because unfortunately most Christian teachers simply parrot what they have been taught in their church, college or seminary.   I understand that many of these preachers and teachers are good men with good intentions.  They only want to please God with their lives. But because of how they been indoctrinated both by their church as well as our culture they cannot see sexual talk between men as anything less than dirty or impure.

They might for good measure throw one more verse at you to try and support their faulty belief that men sexually ranking women’s bodies is dirty and impure.

“I made a covenant with mine eyes; why then should I think upon a maid?”

Job 31:1

There is actually a website called CovenantEyes.com that bases it’s mission on this verse. They and other Christians claim that Job was saying in this verse that he made a covenant with eyes never to think sexually about a woman he was not married to.

The problem is the Scripture don’t say that. We agree that men can have wrong thoughts about women.  But we disagree on what those wrong thoughts are. So here is how you answer you teacher if he brings up Job’s covenant with his eyes not to think upon a maid:

“Sir should we not be careful of adding to God’s Word? We know that Job was saying he would not think about something about a woman.  What does the Bible tell us we should not think about regarding women? It tells us not to think about seducing virgin women to have sex with us outside of marriage right? It tells us not to engage in prostitution right? So we should not think about seeing prostitutes right? It tells us not to think about seducing our neighbor’s wife right? So how can we add something to wrong thoughts that God never adds? Are you not adding a condemnation of men  talking about women’s bodies to God’s Word?”

I have actually had this conversation with several pastors both in email and some of my friends on the phone.  They never have clear answers to these questions because they have never questioned the Christian culture they have been raised in.

But isn’t it wrong to compare women’s beauty or say one woman is not as attractive as another?

There are some people – both Christian and non-Christian who believe it is morally wrong to ever directly compare two women and say one is more attractive than the other.  But the Bible shows us this is not the case:

“Leah was tender eyed; but Rachel was beautiful and well favoured.”

Genesis 29:17 (KJV)

We don’t know exactly what “tender eyed” meant but we know whatever it meant – it is was the opposite of “beautiful and well favoured” which is what Rachel was.

God literally told us in his word that Rachel was hot and Leah was not.

But in this area of rating beauty we as men need to practice discretion. God was not saying we should walk up to two women and say to one “You know she is so much better looking than you!”.  That is not the right time and place for a man to express such a thought.

Now if you were with your guy friends alone and you wanted to express the fact that you thought one sister was hot and the other was not there would be no sin in that. Again, so many things in the Christian life come down to time and place.

“To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven”

Ecclesiastes 3:1 (KJV)

What was the lesson those boys could have learned?

If that coach had understood what the true meaning of lust and lascivious are in the Bible he could have had a very different conversation with those boys.  Instead of scolding that boy for his God given male sexuality he could have helped him to understand it and channel it.

The right way to handle that scenario could have gone as follows.

After the comments the boy made about how sexy the jogger was the coach still could have pulled over and introduced the woman as his wife.  Of course, the boy would blush and feel embarrassed as he did in the actual story.

Then when the other boy asked him if he was going to “beat him up” for what he said he could have said “Why would I beat him up for having the same thoughts about my wife that I did when I first met her?” He could have been honest about his male sexuality instead of hiding and condemning himself and every other man for having the same nature.  Contrary to popular belief today – the masculine sexual nature is not equivalent to the sin nature. Has man’s masculine nature been corrupted by sin just as woman’s feminine nature has been corrupted by sin? Yes.  But in its original design the masculine nature is a beautiful nature.

The coach could have then helped the boy who made the comments about his wife’s body with these words:

“It is normal for you to have these thoughts about women.  God gave you these desires.  God is the one who designed your brain to give you pleasure signals when you see a beautiful woman like my wife.  But you need to channel that God given gift and don’t misuse it. It is one thing for you to privately say to me and other guys what you find attractive in various women’s bodies.  But it would have been very different if you had yelled out the window to that jogger – “He babe you got a nice ass!” as you go barreling by in your car. That would be disrespectful behavior toward women.

Also, I want to address the whole “do I want to beat him up” question you asked. It is one thing If you know that a woman is married or in a relationship with the man you are with then you need to be careful of your words with him about her.  He may be sensitive about men complimenting his wife’s beauty.  Now if he seems to invite you to tell him what you find attractive about his wife then it may be ok but still be careful.

But there is a lesson for you if you are the man whose woman that is. How can you be angry at another man for having the EXACT same thoughts you know you had about your girlfriend or wife? It is extremely hypocritical and illogical for you to do so.  Now if that man is flirting with your girlfriend or wife or acting like he wants to seduce them that is a whole other story.  You have a right to be angry then.  But even then, we don’t settle these kinds of differences with violence.  We use our words – not our fists.

I also want you to realize that while it is ok for you to exercise your God given male sexuality by enjoying the sight of and thoughts about beautiful women and even masturbation – it is not ok to have sex outside of marriage.  You need to guard your thoughts from being just sexually pleasurable to being sexually lustful.  You need to keep yourself from being in sexually tempting positions with girls that you date where you will be tempted to have sex outside of marriage.”

Now what I have just described would have been a healthy and Biblically based conversation about male sexuality.  Instead those two boys walked away feeling condemned for being aroused by that beautiful jogger.

Conclusion

Male sexuality has been assaulted in many ways since shortly after the birth of Christian asceticism during the life of the Apostles. While Christianity today has shook off many parts of Christian asceticism remnants of it remain in our Christian culture.  Not only that but our secular cultural which has been poisoned by feminism attacks male sexuality as well.  So, in way men are getting double teamed by Church leaders as well as secular feminist leaders.

I can’t tell you how encouraging it has been to me to receive emails from Pastors, teachers and Christian men and women from all over the world whose are eyes are finally being opened to false attacks on male sexuality.

Young men are actually joining in small groups to discuss my writings on this subject of male sexuality from a Biblical perspective.

As I said earlier in this article –  I do not agree with Donald Trump’s “locker-room talk” comments.  He was joking about trying to get women to commit adultery and sexual assault and neither of these topics should be joked about by men.

But this does not make all “locker-room talk” by men sinful.  Men certainly need to practice discretion with how they engage in this talk.  The men’s soccer team at Harvard did not practice discretion when the put their “Scouting Report” on a publicly available server where someone might find it.

But if men practice the Biblical principle of “time and place”(Ecclesiastes 3:1) and speak about women’s bodies amongest themselves in way that does not joke about sinful behavior(as Donald Trump did) then there is no sin in this.  No man should ever be ashamed of such speech when it is done in the right place and right time.

And for my Christian friends who will say “whatever you say in private you should be able to say in public” there is no Biblical principle or command that backs up such a statement. In fact it is wise and godly to hold our tongue on a host of issues and speak to people privately about certain things.  And from a marriage front I would bet each and every one of these people would not want their private sexually related speech with their spouses made public.  So this argument that just because you need to reserve certain speech for controlled settings that it is wrong has no Scriptural basis whatsoever.

I do believe though that these events with Donald Trump and the “Scouting Report” incident at Harvard provide us with a great opportunity to call out the misuse of the male sexual nature but at the same time make a strong defense of the male sexual nature as God intended it to be.