President of American College of Pediatricians calls transgenderism “mental illness”

This week Michelle Cretella, M.D., president of the American College of Pediatricians,  called transgenderism “mental illness” and the promotion of transgenderism among children and teens “ institutionalized child abuse”.

In article on the Daily Signal Dr. Cretella writes:

“I have witnessed an upending of the medical consensus on the nature of gender identity. What doctors once treated as a mental illness, the medical community now largely affirms and even promotes as normal…

The transition-affirming view holds that children who “consistently and persistently insist” that they are not the gender associated with their biological sex are innately transgender.

(The fact that in normal life and in psychiatry, anyone who “consistently and persistently insists” on anything else contrary to physical reality is considered either confused or delusional is conveniently ignored.) …

The crux of the matter is that while the transition-affirming movement purports to help children, it is inflicting a grave injustice on them and their nondysphoric peers.

These professionals are using the myth that people are born transgender to justify engaging in massive, uncontrolled, and unconsented experimentation on children who have a psychological condition that would otherwise resolve after puberty in the vast majority of cases.

Today’s institutions that promote transition affirmation are pushing children to impersonate the opposite sex, sending many of them down the path of puberty blockers, sterilization, the removal of healthy body parts, and untold psychological damage.

These harms constitute nothing less than institutionalized child abuse. Sound ethics demand an immediate end to the use of pubertal suppression, cross-sex hormones, and sex reassignment surgeries in children and adolescents, as well as an end to promoting gender ideology via school curricula and legislative policies.

It is time for our nation’s leaders and the silent majority of health professionals to learn exactly what is happening to our children, and unite to take action.”

We know as Christians that transgenderism is a corruption of our God given nature in the same way that physical deformities and mental illness is corruption caused by sin in the world.  The President of the American College of Pediatricians has just made the same case from a scientific perspective.

We need to pray that God will raise up more medical professionals who will stand up against the lies and dilutions of transgenderism and call it what doctors always knew it was until recently – mental illness. She is absolutely right that medical professionals (and I would also argue parents) who encourage transgenderism in their children are committing child abuse.

The scriptures tell us “male and female made he them” (Genesis 1:27), not “male and female and transgender made he them”.  We know as Christians that this is not just a mental illness – but it is sin. When a person rejects the gender of the body God has placed them in they are sinning against God himself who created this world.  We as Christians should stand up and make clear to our politicians that we will no longer tolerate the lie of transgenderism and the abuse that it brings on our children and teens.

 

Advertisements

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.

A Biblical Guide to Seducing Your Husband

For a woman, the difference between “slutty” and “sexy” is one word – Marriage. Proverbs 5:19 tells husbands to be ravished with their wife’s love. For a man to be ravished he must be seduced.

I know a lot of Christian women may be not like the use of the word “seduce”.  This word is often associated with people luring others into illicit sexual relations that violate God’s law.

But here is a key Biblical truth that every Christian wife must grasp.  Sexual seduction outside of marriage is sinful but sexual seduction inside marriage is righteous.

For more on why a wife seducing her husband in marriage is not only not sinful, but required, see my article entitled “Why God wants you to seduce your husband”.

The Scriptures tell us this regarding erotic (sexual love) in marriage:

“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 5:19 (KJV)

But how can you as a Christian wife show erotic love toward your husband? In other words, how do you go about seducing your husband?

While Proverbs 5:19 gives the mandate for wives to seduce their husbands – it does not give you the example of how to do it. Instead we must look to the Song of Solomon to find the examples of how a wife can seduce her husband.

With that being said below are several principles take from the Song of Solomon that will help guide in ways to seduce your husband.

Seduction Principle #1 – Ravish him with your desire for him

“By night on my bed I sought him whom my soul loveth…”

Song of Solomon 3:1 (KJV)

Seduction starts with desire.  You can’t seduce a man to whom you show no desire.  Think about it another way from your perspective as a woman.  If you are like 99 percent of women you want your husband to sit down and talk with you.  If your husband sits down to talk and acts like he really does not want to but he has too is that satisfying for you? Of course, it is not. In the same way as a wife you need to cultivate a sexual desire for your husband.

Seduction Principle #2 – Ravish him with your eyes

“Thou hast ravished my heart, my sister, my spouse; thou hast ravished my heart with one of thine eyes, with one chain of thy neck.”

Song of Solomon 4:9 (KJV)

Are you one of those women that says to your husband when he gives you “the look” – “I know that look and you aren’t getting any today!” Or do you flirt back with your eyes? Would you even consider starting the flirting with your eyes? This is what is called for as part of seducing and ravishing your husband.

You could be at a friend or family members house.  You could be sitting in some boring school meeting for your kids.  You could be in line at the grocery store together. All it takes is a look to stoke the fire and ravish your husband’s heart!

Seduction Principle #3 – Ravish him with your lips and your tongue

“Thy lips, O my spouse, drop as the honeycomb: honey and milk are under thy tongue;”

Song of Solomon 4:11 (KJV)

Do not underestimate the powerful effect that your kisses can have on your husband.  Kissing is a powerful teasing mechanism to seduce your husband and it is also an essential part of the sexual act itself.  I have heard of women who rarely if ever kiss their husbands except to give him a kiss on the cheek. And how unnatural and unloving is it that a couple could have sexual relations and never kiss in this most intimate way the entire time? Yet this happens far too often in many Christian bedrooms.  The Song of Solomon shows us that Christian women are to be letting their husbands get some tongue action! Yep right there we see French kissing in the Bible.

Seduction Principle #4 – Ravish him with your body parts

“My beloved is like a roe or a young hart: behold, he standeth behind our wall, he looketh forth at the windows, shewing himself through the lattice… O my dove, that art in the clefts of the rock, in the secret places of the stairs, let me see thy countenance…”

Song of Solomon 2:9 & 14a(KJV)

The allusion here in Song of Solomon 2:9 is that of her husband looking through windows at her or looking threw a wood screen that had vines on it.  He was basically peeping at his wife.  And guess what? It is perfectly ok for a man to peep at his wife anytime he wishes!

I could have titled this section “Ravish him with your beauty” but that would not have driven home the point that needs to be made to women. Women tend to see a man’s physical attraction in holistic terms where men see women as a collection of parts.  It is routine for men to say “she has nice breasts, but her rear end is not as great” or “she has great legs but she is flat chested”.  Women have a harder time breaking down men in this way and this is probably one of the hardest things for women to understand about the male nature.  In fact this idea of men breaking women down by their various body parts infuriates many women.

So if I would have said “Ravish him with your beauty” and you are a typical woman you are thinking wear nice dresses, slacks, blouses, do your makeup and and wear your hair nice and to you as a woman that makes sense.  While your husband appreciates all those things you do – those are not things that will cause him to be ravished by you.

You want to ravish your husband with your beauty? When you are wearing that pretty blouse and slacks – randomly pull up your shirt and show him your breasts. Sometimes instead of wearing that dainty blouse and pants you should find a nice tight pair of jeans or shorts(if it is warm) and a tight fitting V-neck T-shirt that will accentuate your breasts and reveal a little cleavage and make sure you tease him with your cleavage.  Tease him by “accidentally” dropping something in front of him and bend over in front of him in those tight jeans or shorts.

Want to transform that long tee shirt you wear to bed and around the house? It is easy – don’t wear underwear.  Who will know but him and you? And surprise him by pulling it up to reveal what you have hidden from him.

The husband of the Song of Solomon like all men asks his wife to “let me see thy countenance”. Your husband wants to see your form! Just the sight of you brings him great pleasure.

Let him see you getting dressed and undressed in your room.  Let him see you in that towel as you get out of the shower – invite him to talk about something and then “accidentally” drop your towel in front of him.

And let’s not forget lingerie.  Men love nudity but they also love variety.  Lingerie gives the man variety.  Really lingerie is like putting a lattice over your body – it lets him catch glimpses without seeing the full view until it is time. Men love this!

I want to come back to what I talked about earlier about wearing sexy clothes.  A lot of Christian women dress like old ladies the moment they dress go outside the bedroom because they have had a false ideology concerning modesty drilled into their head. Modesty in the Bible does not mean what many think today as “non-sexual” and “non-arousing”. It means “appropriate to the occasion”. See these articles “What does modesty mean in I Timothy 2:9?” and “Does God want a wife’s beauty hidden from the World?” for more on this subject.  It will really change your perspective if you look at what the Scriptures really have to say on the subject.

And hopefully after reading that you as a wife will feel more confident in dressing sexy for your husband inside the bedroom as well as outside the bedroom so that you can be doing everything you can on a regular basis to visually ravish(romance) your husband.

Seduction Principle #5 – Ravish him by tasting of his apple tree

“As the apple tree among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons. I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste.”

Song of Solomon 2:3 (KJV)

In ancient middle eastern poetry, the apple tree was a euphemism for a man’s genitals. The image that the woman “sitting under his shadow” portrays is that of a man standing over top of his wife with his shadow over her and her down below him performing Fellatio (oral sex on a man).  The Scriptures tell us she did this “with great delight” or in other words with enthusiasm and desire.  What is the fruit of his tree? It is his semen. The woman says of her husband’s semen that it was “sweet to my taste”.

A lot of women are reluctant about performing fellatio on their husbands but the fact is that it is very difficult to seduce and ravish your husband without doing this.  Most men do not even understand their own feelings about their desire for fellatio from their wives but they are there even if buried deeply for some. When a woman kneels before her husband and performs fellatio on him and completes the act this is a show of submission, acceptance and sacrifice toward him.

A wife shows her submission to her husband when she kneels before him and takes his “apple tree” in her mouth.

A wife shows her full acceptance of her husband when she does this act with “great delight” showing her husband that she craves the “sweet” taste of his fruit.

A wife shows her sacrificial spirit when after performing fellatio on her husband to its natural completion she asks for nothing in return.

In this way, the act of fellatio is a powerful and spiritual act that a wife performs toward her husband. There are few things in this world that will ravish a man’s heart for his wife like the sacrificial act of fellatio we have just described.

But this does not mean fellatio must always be a one-way transaction.  Fellatio can be and should be a regular part of sexual relations between a man and his wife both as foreplay or as way to climax after regular intercourse.

Seduction Principle #6 – Ravish him by inviting him to taste of your pomegranate

“I would lead thee, and bring thee into my mother’s house, who would instruct me: I would cause thee to drink of spiced wine of the juice of my pomegranate.

Song of Solomon 8:2 (KJV)

In the same way that the apple tree was a euphemism for a man’s genitals in ancient middle eastern erotic poems so too the pomegranate was one of the euphemisms for a woman’s genitals.

Many women think of Cunnilingus (oral sex on a woman) as something that is simply for their own pleasure.  In other words, their husband is only doing it to please them and he gets little to nothing out of the act. But this could not be further from the truth in most cases. Because men are such physical beings they are often drawn to perform cunnilingus on their wives and this gives a man great pleasure to experience his wife’s body in this way. In the following passage the husband of the Song of Solomon expresses his desire to perform cunnilingus on his wife:

“Until the day break, and the shadows flee away, I will get me to the mountain of myrrh, and to the hill of frankincense.”

Song of Solomon 4:6 (KJV)

The “mountain” and the “hill” represent the woman’s pubic mound and this is speaking of her genitals.  Literally he is saying he wants to perform oral sex on his wife all night long – he loves the scent of her vagina and compares it to very expensive good smelling things.

It is unfortunate that there are some women that actually have phobias about their husbands performing cunnilingus on them.  They see their vulva and vagina as “unclean” and not just at “that time of the month”. Others have been taught that God only allows vaginal intercourse and nothing else and in doing this they are denying themselves and their husbands a great tool that can be used to ravish his heart for her.

Seduction Principle #7 – Ravish him by opening yourself to him

I rose up to open to my beloved; and my hands dropped with myrrh, and my fingers with sweet smelling myrrh, upon the handles of the lock.”

Song of Solomon 5:5 (KJV)

If you have not figured out by now, the Song of Solomon is a very erotic book. It speaks of sexuality between a husband and wife in very free terms as God meant it to be.  It has constant allusions to the bodily fluids that are exchanged between a man and woman.  Again, here as in other passages throughout the Song of Solomon it compares a woman’s vaginal secretions to myrrh.  Why are the woman’s hands literally dripping with her own vaginal secretions? It is because she was touching her own vagina moving the fluids in and out around her vulva.

This literally has the picture of a woman who is completely comfortable with her own body and she is opening herself to her beloved – spreading her legs and then using her fingers to open her vagina bringing its fluids out for her husband to see.

I realize what I have just said sounds disgusting to some women. If you have been raised in a prudish home where sex was never spoken of this may sound shocking. For others, it simply does not compute and the reason again is that most women approach sex primarily from the relational aspect with the physical aspect being a pleasant by-product.  They are thinking to themselves – “I would not find it attractive if I walked in my bedroom and saw my husband spread eagle playing with himself so how in the world he finds me spread eagle touching myself attractive?”

And that ladies, is one of the many ways we can prove that men and women approach sex very differently.  But the fact remains that men LOVE it when their wives “open” themselves to their husbands as their fingers drip with “sweet smelling myrrh”.

Both this principle as well as the previous principle dealing with not only allowing, but inviting your husband to  drink “the juice” of your “pomegranate” will require you to truly have not just overall body confidence but confidence in your vulva and vagina. You have to truly let go of any insecurities you have in this area and fully present yourself to your husband in this regard.

Seduction Principle #8 – Ravish him with your voice

“…let me hear thy voice; for sweet is thy voice…”

Song of Solomon 2:14b (KJV)

Do you know how to whisper sweet nothings in your husband’s ear? While a husband might like to hear a soft whispered “I love you” that is not what will ravish him.  No – the sweet nothings that will ravish your husband is “I can’t wait to get home and do [fill in the blank] to you” or “I can’t wait to get home and you do [fill in the blank] to me”.

Look at the speech here from the woman of Song of Solomon toward her husband.  She has literally told him that she loves to sit in the shade of his “apple tree” (his penis) and she take thought his fruit(semen) was sweet to her taste.

As we previously showed the woman of Song of Solomon literally invites her husband to “to drink of spiced wine of the juice of my pomegranate” (Song of Solomon 8:2). In addition to this she invites her husband to “blow upon my garden, that the spices thereof may flow out. Let my beloved come into his garden, and eat his pleasant fruits.” (Song of Solomon 4:16)

Guess what ladies – God wants you to follow the example of the woman of the Song of Solomon by talking sexy to your husband! Text him sexy messages.  Call him at lunch and tell him what you want to do later that evening.  Notice I said “sexy” and not “dirty” – and that is because in marriage sexual talk between a husband and wife is just that – sexy and it in no way is dirty.

Conclusion

As I said at the beginning of this article – For a woman, the difference between “slutty” and “sexy” is one word – Marriage.

The Bible compares a man’s sexual desire for his wife to the purity of desiring water from one’s own well (Proverbs 5:15).  We see the purity of sex in marriage attested to again in the New Testament:

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

Hebrew 13:4 (KJV)

We have shown examples from the Song of Solomon of a wife using all her God given feminine charms to seduce or “ravish” her husband as Proverbs 5:19 commands.

We see a woman using her attitude, her eyes, her lips, her body and her words to seduce her husband.  We even see her speaking in very explicit sexual terms to her husband. She seduces him with glimpses of her body throughout the day and the week knowing that each glimpse brings pleasure and joy to her husband. We see her taking great pleasure in giving her husband oral sex and she cultivates a desire for his semen. We see her inviting him into his garden and for him to drink of her pomegranate.  She freely opens herself to him and is not shy to touch herself in his presence knowing how much pleasure this brings him.

So as a Christian woman reading this you have to ask yourself what is holding you back from following the example of the woman of the Song of Solomon in seducing your husband? Was it how you were raised? Were you taught that sex was dirty? Were you taught that women were not supposed to desire sex?

Maybe you see sex in more romantic and relational terms and you see this very physical, visual, sweaty and fluid filled view of sex as “base” or “nasty”.  But is that how God frames it in his Word?

The Bible compares the Christian life to a race.  Men and women have different races to run based on our God given gender roles .  For you as a Christian woman, part of your race involves you following God’s command in Proverbs 5:19 to ravish your husband.  So, you need to ask yourself – what is hindering you in this part of your race?

“Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us”

Hebrews 12:1 (KJV)

The truth is that for most women reading this one of two things will be holding you back from following this guide based on the Song of Solomon.  Those two things are Fear and Pride.  You might be afraid to open yourself sexually to your husband in the ways I have described. You might have too much pride getting in the way and you may be telling yourself that the things I mentioned here are degrading to women.

But the Bible tells us this regarding fear and pride:

“There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.”

1 John 4:18 (KJV)

“But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.

James 4:6 (KJV)

Perfect your love for your husband by throwing off the spiritual weight of fear in this sexual arena. If you let go of your pride God will give you the grace and ability to bless your husband in the ways we have mentioned here.

And let me mention one last word ladies. You should ravish and seduce your husband because God commands it of you and because you recognize that God made you for your husband.  But do you know that often times when we do what God commands we will sometimes reap direct benefits as a result of that obedience?

“Delight thyself also in the Lord: and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart.”

Psalm 37:4 (KJV)

When you delight yourself in God by following his command to ravish your husband do you know what just might happen? You may see a passion come from your husband that you have not seen in years or maybe you never saw because you never truly acted on all these principles I have outlined here.

All over the world there are women laying in their beds at night wondering why there is no passion from their husband. “Where is his affection and his feelings toward me?” they may ask themselves night after night but most of these same women rarely asks themselves another very important question which is “What have I been doing to evoke affection and feelings in my husband toward me?”

What if the modern world has it all backwards? What if the world’s formula that “men must romance women first and earn sex from their women” is wrong? What if they are getting the cart before the horse?  What if it is the woman that must ravish her husband’s heart first to cause him to have affection and passion towards her?

Throw off the world’s way. Throw off pride and fear and go home and ravish your husband today and follow the example of the woman of the Song of Solomon.

Why God Wants You to Seduce Your Husband

Most Christian wives today are taught that their husbands must earn sex with them by romancing them. What if the Bible taught the opposite? What if wives were required to seduce their husbands?

I know it sounds crazy. The Bible couldn’t possibly tell women they need to seduce their husbands, right?

Well if you give me a few minutes of your time the answer might surprise you.

In my article “How the Church Made Sex Dirty” I explain how Church fathers like Clement of Alexandria made sexual desire, even in marriage, to be dirty and sinful. This false doctrine infected the churches like a disease shortly after the Apostles death.  I show in that article that the Bible in fact has a very positive view of sex and in no way, does the Bible support the false teaching that sex is only for procreative purposes.  This false teaching is still alive and well in Christian churches all across the world today.

The negative view of sex was even worse when it came to women than to men. Women were taught to view sex as dirty and women who expressed any pleasurable thoughts about sex were condemned as whorish.

This brings us to how women view sex today in our modern era.

Six Modern Feminine Views of Sex

Below are six views of sexuality that women have today. I know some people hate to be boxed into categories.  But if you are a woman reading this, and you are honest with yourself or asked your husband to be honest with you, you would find that you will come closer to one of these categories than the others.

The Frigid Wife

This Frigid wife views sex as a dirty activity that is a necessary evil for conceiving children.  She has no desire to be touched in a sexual way or to touch her husband in a sexual way. If her husband presses her for sexual relations outside the context of trying to conceive a child she may reluctantly and grudgingly agree to do this “dirty” act with him.  But she will have a nasty look on her face and be lifeless as he has sex with her.

The Submissive Wife

The Submissive wife has regular sexual relations with her husband whenever he desires it because she believes God tells her to and she believes this will help keep him from sexual temptation. But she views sex from the female perspective as more of a “receptive” position.  She does not take any proactive steps to sexually arouse her husband or seduce her husband. She may actually enjoy sex sometimes with her husband but never enough to want to initiate it with him – she always waits for him to initiate sex.

The Romantic Wife

The Romantic wife loves sex but only views sex from a relational, romantic and feelings oriented position. She would reject the view of the Frigid wife that sex is only for procreation and she would also reject the view of the Submissive wife that a woman should just be in a submissive position to have sex with her husband whenever he desires it.

The Romantic wife believes her husband must earn each sexual encounter with her by romancing her.  If for any reason, she does not feel like having sex then sex will not occur. Like the Submissive wife though, she rarely if ever initiates sex with her husband because she believes sex in a marriage should always center on a husband romancing his wife.

The Nympho Wife

The Nympho wife is a woman that has a sexual nature that is more similar to that of a man than a woman in that her sex drive is more physically oriented than relationally oriented. This type of woman could easily be having sex with multiple men in the same period in her unending quest for sexual pleasure.

The Nympho wife’s primary goal in sex is not procreation nor is it to please her husband but rather to meet her own sexual desires. She really has no desire to take the time or energy to seduce her husband or to truly concentrate on giving her body to him for his pleasure.  She just wants the clothes off and to have him pleasure her and fulfill her sexual desires – him getting his sexual needs met is of little to no concern to her.

The Evil Seductress Wife

The Evil Seductress wife uses her body and her sexual charms to get what she wants.  She uses sex to lure her husband into marrying her and then afterwards uses her sexual charms to control him and manipulate him for the remainder of their marriage.  The Evil Seductress wife sees sex primarily as a tool for power and only secondarily as an activity for procreation or pleasure. Her goals in seduction may be just to have control of the man and his money or it may also include her desire for him to be a sperm donor to give her children.

The Good Seductress Wife

The Good Seductress wife is one who views sex primarily through the lenses of pleasing her husband sexually, not just submitting herself to her husband sexually. She goes much further than the Submissive wife in that she takes an active role in trying to please her husband sexually rather than just taking a passive role and waiting for him to initiate sexual relations.

The Good Seductress wife makes herself a student of her husband’s sexual preferences.  She learns what turns her husband on and what turns her husband off sexually. She not only learns all these things about her husband – but she acts on this knowledge. The Good Seductress wife realizes that she cannot fully please her husband sexually unless she finds a way to truly enjoy sex herself so she becomes a student of her own body as well helping herself to work in concert sexually with her husband to bring him the maximum sexual pleasure that she can.

Which of these views of sexuality are most common among women?

I would say based on what I have read and observed through real life interactions and emails that the majority of women in American come closest to the Romantic wife position on sex.  There are also probably a good number of women who come somewhere between the Submissive wife position and the Romantic wife position in that they will sometimes give into their husband’s request for sex even though they feel he has not really earned it.

The Nympho wife’s are a rarity but sadly there are more Frigid wives and Evil Seductress wives than people generally realize.

In the realm of Christianity Romantic wives are extremely common but in more conservative circles there are more Submissive wives.  The Good Seductress wife is the rare jewel alluded to in Proverbs 31:10.

Now that we have presented these common feminine views of sex we now to need to measure these views against the Scriptures as we should all our beliefs about life.

Sex is both a Responsibility and Right in Marriage

First we need to establish the fact that under God’s law sexual access to one’s spouse is both a responsibility and a right within marriage for both the husband and wife.

The Scriptures teach both the responsibility to give sex and right to have sex in marriage:

“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. 5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.”

I Corinthians 7:3-5 (KJV)

I once heard a Pastor say to the young women of the church “If you don’t want to have sex three to four times a week for the better part of your life then don’t get married.”  Unlike many Pastors today – he had a Biblical view of sexuality in marriage. A person who wants to get married and not have much sex is like a person who joins a baseball team but does not really want to play baseball.

It is absolutely amazing to me how many Pastors and Christian teachers today question this very clear Scriptural command. They look for all kinds of ways to give spouses (primarily women) excuses for denying their spouse sex in marriage.

Sex is not just a right a responsibility in marriage – it is like water for men

I think it is very telling that God chose to use water to describe a man’s desire for sex.  God could have chosen to compare a man desiring to have sex with his desiring meat but humans can survive on just fruits and vegetables.  God chose something that is necessary for all life on earth and something that we cannot live without to describe a man’s sex drive.  In this one verse God makes it clear to both men and women – sex is a need for men, not just a want.

From a larger societal point of view while men on an individual level will not die from not having sex, the human race would die out if men don’t have sex with women. Even on a relational level, if a couple stops having sex the relationship often dies.

But here in Proverbs 5 we see that God is showing us that sex is a need on a very personal level for a man in comparing it to water.

But there is another principle God is teaching us about the masculine sex drive.  Water is not just necessary for life but it is also beautiful in its natural state.  Just imagine a beautiful lake, a mountain stream or an ocean view – water is one of God’s most beautiful creations. A man’s sex drive which is often thought of as “dirty” is actually said by God to be a pure as water.

As human beings, we don’t just need to take in water to survive, but we are mostly water – human beings are 60% water! In the same way that human beings are mostly water men are mostly sexual beings.  It is a very important and defining aspect of who men are.

This brings up an important distinction between men and women.  While both men and women desire sex – a core defining attribute of men is their sexual nature.  For women, the core defining attribute of who they are is their relational nature. A man’s sex drive fuels all aspects of his life and gives him energy for him to go out and build, explore and conquer his world.

A man’s desire to touch, taste and experience a woman’s body on a sexual level is as pure and beautiful as water and like water is a defining part of who we are as human beings so too a man’s sexual nature is a defining aspect of his person.

So some women might be reading this and saying “Ok you proved your point that my husband has a right to have sex with me and I need to give myself to him for sex.  But that is a far cry from me having to seduce him! Where is that in the Bible?”

We are almost to that answer, but first we have to talk about a special type of command in the Bible.

Some Biblical commands require a team effort to be fulfilled

There are commands in the Bible that we as individuals can fulfill without help from anyone else.  For instance the Bible tells us not to steal, not to covet and not to murder. It tells us to be kind and caring to others. We each are responsible on our own for fulfilling these commands. A wife is told to submit to her husband and she can do this regardless of his behavior toward her unless he tells her to sin.  A husband is to provide for and protect his wife and he can do this regardless of her lack of submission or other sins she may commit toward him.

However there are certain commands in Scripture which require two or more people to act in concert with one another. God’s very first command to mankind requires that husbands and wives work together.

“27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”

Genesis 1:27-28 (KJV)

So what must happen for men and women to fulfill God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply”?

  1. A man and a woman must agree to a covenant of marriage.
  2. A man and a woman must willingly come together in sexual union to create offspring.

If men and women do not marry and do not have sex this first command of God cannot be fulfilled.  A man cannot fulfill this on his own and neither can a woman but only in working together can man and woman fulfill this command of God.

Sex in marriage is not just for procreation or to avoid sexual temptation

Most Christian married couples do not know is that God gave another command that can only be fulfilled by husbands and wives working together:

“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 & 18-19(KJV)

Proverbs 5 shows the third principle of sex that is often ignored in Christian circles.  Most Christians will agree that God’s command in Genesis 1:28 to” Be fruitful, and multiply” tells us that one of the reasons God wants us to have sex is for procreation.  Most Christians would also agree that I Corinthians 7:2 tells us that we should have sex in marriage “to avoid fornication”.

But what most Christians do not realize is that God wants men to satisfy themselves – to drink their fill of their wives’ body for their pleasure. This principle of God wanting us to seek sex for its pleasure is routinely denied by Christian writers today.  Sue Bohlin, writing for Probe.org, displays the typical attitude of Christian writers who down play pleasure as a major motivating factor in sex:

“If the purpose and goal of sex is primarily pleasure, then other people are just objects to be used for sensual gratification. Since people are infinitely valuable because God made us in His image, that is a slap in the face whether we realize it or not. The Christian perspective is that the purpose of sex is relational, with pleasure as the by-product.

https://www.probe.org/what-god-says-about-sex/

The truth is that men primarily seek sex from the physical (or pleasurable aspect of it) and women primarily seek sex from the emotional (or relational aspect of it).  Christianity and Feminism both falsely teach that the female perspective of sex “that the purpose of sex is relational, with pleasure as the by-product” is the right perspective and that men have it all wrong and need to become more like women in their sexual natures.

These same people who deny that God intended for men to freely seek sexual pleasure in their wife’s body try and reinterpret the command in Proverbs 5:19 for men to be satisfied by their wife’s breasts as it teaching that men should be content with whatever their wives do.

They actually reverse the true meaning of this passage and use this passage to excuse laziness and lack of effort on the part of a wife to please her husband sexually. If she gained excessive amounts of weight, dressed in frumpy clothes and failed to have basic hygiene that husbands were to make themselves satisfied with her and ravished by her.  If she only liked to have sex in one position and only once a week with the lights turned off, again men were required to be satisfied by whatever their wife did or did not do.  Rachel Pietka, writing for relevantmagazine.com, shows a common Christian attitude that God does not care about Christians making a good effort to have great sex:

“Although sex is indeed God’s gift to us, Christians are not directly commanded by God to have great sex. Couples may find themselves incompatible in the bedroom, and they should not be bombarded with pressure from the Christian community to start having good sex and lots of it.”

http://archives.relevantmagazine.com/life/relationships/christians-are-not-called-have-amazing-sex

But I will demonstrate to you that this modern interpretation and application of this passage is false.

 “Let her breasts SATISFY thee at all times”

The English word “satisfy” is a translation of the Hebrew word “Ravah” which literally means “to be satiated or saturated, have or drink one’s fill or to drench, water abundantly, saturate”.

So when we understand that “breasts” are symbolic of her whole body this is what God is saying to men regarding their wives:

“Drink your fill of your wife’s body whenever you are sexually thirsty and drink until you are satisfied”

So as we have shown here – the teaching that men are just to be content with whatever their wives do or don’t do in the sexual arena goes in direct contradiction to what this phrase actually teaches.  Men are to drink their fill and drench themselves sexually in their wife’s body.

This flies in the face of modern teachings about sex in marriage that men should just be content with however much their wives want to have sex.  It also contradicts the idea that husbands should be content with whatever their wives want to do sexually. “You should only have your wife do what she feels comfortable doing sexually” – is that not what we are told today? If a man desires anything more from his wife than what she is comfortable with then he is told that he is going too far and is being selfish.

But this passage tells us husbands are to drink their fill of their wife’s body!  Am I saying there are absolutely no limits? Of course not.  I have written about these limits in my previous articles. In my article “Does a Christian wife have to submit to a sinful request from her husband?” I stated that a wife does not have to submit to her husband wanting her to participate in orgies or sex with other men. In my post “Do Christian wives have to submit to requests for anal sex by their husbands?” I showed why I believe that Christians should not engage in anal sex because the anus is not designed for sexual penetration and wives do not have to submit to these requests from their husbands.

But let’s be honest – these are extreme cases but some wives try and use these types of extremes to justify any limitations they want to put on their sex lives. For instance I have heard of cases on the other extreme where wives do not feel “comfortable” touching their husband’s penis.  They literally have never placed their hands on their husband’s penis.  These types of “uncomfortableness” have no Biblical backing and women with these types of issues should be challenged by their husbands to change their behavior and thinking.

“and be thou ravished always with her love”

The English word “ravished” is a translation of the Hebrew word ‘Shagah’ which has to do with drunkenness or intoxication.  Literally husbands are called to be intoxicated with their wife’s sexual love.

We associate drunkenness with wrong doing and most of the time it is.  But the Bible tells us certain types of intoxication are not wrong.  Listen to what Paul says about the Holy Spirit:

“And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;”

Ephesians 5:18 (KJV)

Paul is telling us not to be drunk with wine – but be drunk with the Spirit of God!  In the same way men are not to be intoxicated by whores but instead they are to be intoxicated by their wife’s sexual love.

It is critically important to point out that God tells husbands and wives that sex is not just for procreation as so many Christians have been wrongly taught in churches for centuries. Sex was also designed for pleasure and enjoyment. In this passage from Proverbs, God tells a man that he is to be satisfied by his wife’s breasts (symbolic of her entire body) and that he is to be ravished(intoxicated) by her love which is clearly erotic love based on the context of the passage.

Great sex in marriage is a team effort

The modern formula for sexual relations is that a man seduces a woman into having sex by romancing her.

The Biblical formula for sex is a woman makes herself affectionate as the loving hind” and beautiful as the “pleasant roe” and available “at all times” and she ties her affection, her beauty and availability together to make herself sexually intoxicating to her husband.  In other words – in the Biblical model of marriage a woman seduces or sexually entices her husband to come to his well and drink of the waters of her body and by doing this she intoxicates him, or ravishes him with her sexual love.

Now the team effort is that the husband must respond – to her affection, her beauty and availability.  He must choose to “drink his fill” of his wife so that he may be intoxicated by her sexual love.

So as we can see, these commands require a husband and wife to work together in the same way they must work together to follow God’s command to be fruitful and multiply.

Solomon tells us here in Proverbs that the answer to a man not running after strange women (whores) is for him to find satisfaction in his wife’s body and be ravished with her sexual love.

But how can a man be intoxicated with sexual love for his wife if she makes no attempt to be affectionate toward him and she does not make herself beautiful and she does not show him that her body is always available to him?

The answer to that question is the same answer to this question – how can a man be fruitful and multiply if he can’t have sex with his wife? It is impossible.  In the same way, for a man to be sexually ravished by his wife and sexually satisfied by her body she has to give him something to be ravished and satisfied by.

And this is not the only passage in the Bible speaking of erotic love between a man and woman.  The entire book of the Song of Solomon is dedicated to this type of erotic, physical and sexual love that God commands there to be between a husband and wife in Proverbs.

“7 This thy stature is like to a palm tree, and thy breasts to clusters of grapes. 8 I said, I will go up to the palm tree, I will take hold of the boughs thereof: now also thy breasts shall be as clusters of the vine, and the smell of thy nose like apples; 9 And the roof of thy mouth like the best wine for my beloved, that goeth down sweetly, causing the lips of those that are asleep to speak.”

Song of Solomon 7:7-9 (KJV)

I also want to bring up one passage that does not speak specifically of sexual love in marriage but would still apply to how a woman shows her husband sexual love in marriage:

“She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life.”

Proverbs 31:12 (KJV)

This passage above from Proverbs speaks of the virtuous wife.

If a wife denies her husband sexually is she doing him good or evil?

She is doing him evil.

If a wife has sex with her husband, but does so in a grudging manner is she doing him good or evil?

She is doing him evil.

If a wife has sex with her husband but does so in a frigid manner is she doing him good or evil?

She is doing him evil.

If a wife refuses to make a good faith attempt to cause her husband to be satisfied with her body and be ravished with her sexual love by getting to know his sexual preferences and acting on those things is she doing him good or evil?

I would argue that a woman who fails to make a good faith attempt to know her husband’s sexual desires and satisfy them to the best of her ability in order to cause him to be ravished by her sexual love is in clear violation of the Word of God.

But why does God want women to seduce their husbands?

We have shown from Proverbs 5:19 that God wants wives to seduce their husbands to help fulfill the command that their husbands be ravished by them. But why did God setup such a paradigm wherein women must seduce their husbands to cause them to be ravished in their wives?

To answer that question, we have to ask another question first.  Why does the Bible say God created the world?

“Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.”

Revelation 4:11 (KJV)

God created the world and his most precious creation mankind, to bring him glory and honor and for him to exercise his power.  Not only does God have power over our lives – but he is worthy to receive that power by his very position as creator.  But God did not just make his creation to receive glory, honor and power – but he also created it for his own pleasure.

Like an artist or engineer that receives pleasure from their own creations God himself receives pleasure from his creations.

In this same way, God created woman to give man honor and glory and to allow him to exercise his power.

 “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. 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.”

I Corinthians 11:7-10 (KJV)

“A virtuous woman is a crown to her husband: but she that maketh ashamed is as rottenness in his bones.”

Proverbs 12:4 (KJV)

And God has also created woman to be a source of comfort, blessing and pleasure for man:

“And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah’s tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death.”

Genesis 24:67 (KJV)

“25 Even by the God of thy father, who shall help thee; and by the Almighty, who shall bless thee with blessings of heaven above, blessings of the deep that lieth under, blessings of the breasts, and of the womb:”

Genesis 49:25 (KJV)

“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 5:18-19 (KJV)

Conclusion

God has created woman to be a source of comfort, blessing and pleasure for man and this is why he commands that husbands are to find sexual satisfaction in their wife’s bodies and be ravished by their wife’s sexual love.

But a husband cannot fulfill this command on his own any more than he can fulfill God’s command to be fruitful and multiply on his own.  For a husband to find satisfaction in his wife’s body and for him to be ravished by his wife’s sexual love requires active participation rather than just passive participation on his wife’s part to accomplish these goals.

In order to do this a wife must make her husband to believe and feel that her body is available to satisfy his sexual desires whenever he wishes.  She must seduce him with her body and her sexual love for him.

A woman who simply spreads her legs and gives sex in a frigid manner is not cooperating with her husband to fulfill the command of God which requires BOTH their participation to fulfill. Wives must not just submit to sexual relations with their husbands but they must also give their husbands something to be ravished by!

In this article, we simply showed the command of God found in Proverbs 5:19 that women should sexually satisfy their husbands with their bodies and seduce their husbands with their sexual love. But we did not talk about how a woman could act out this command and set about to seduce her husband.

Many times, in the Scriptures God not only give us commands but he also give us examples to help us understand ways in which we can act out those commands.  For instance, in 1 Timothy 5:14 God tells women to “guide the house” and then if we look back to Proverbs 31 he gives a detailed example of how a woman can fulfill her duty to “guide the house”.

In the same way in the area of a wife seducing her husband God has not left women without an example.  In fact, God has given us not only a chapter like Proverbs 31, but an entire book in the Song of Solomon! In our next post, we will assemble a series of examples and principles found in the Song of Solomon that can act as sort of “A Biblical Guide to Seducing Your Husband”.

How the Church Made Sex “Dirty”

For centuries, many Church leaders and scholars have seen sex as dirty and a necessary evil.  When it was encouraged it was encouraged only for its procreative value and not for the purposes of pleasure.  Once a man’s wife was pregnant there would be no procreative value to sex so the couple should not engage in sex simply for pleasure.  Also, once a woman passed her child bearing years there would be no need for sexual relations to continue because again it had no procreative value.

When it came to women the Church and society at large discouraged women’s enjoyment of sex even more so than men until the rise of modern feminism. If a woman enjoyed sex, she would have to keep that to herself otherwise she may be considered whorish – even by her own husband sometimes.

Anyone who reads this site will know I have no love for feminism.  I believe it has done far more harm to society than good. The free sex movement was also born out of feminism and again that movement did far more harm to society than good.

However, in history sometimes good does come out of evil events. The holocaust was one of the most wicked events in human history yet this created the catalyst to finally bring Israel back as a nation.  Like some other wicked events – the wicked feminist and then free sex movements did cause Christians to have to question their generally negative views of sexuality that had been held for so many centuries.

This lead to the rediscovery of the fact that the Bible has an entire book, the Song of Solomon, dedicated to celebration of erotic love in marriage.

“7 This thy stature is like to a palm tree, and thy breasts to clusters of grapes. 8 I said, I will go up to the palm tree, I will take hold of the boughs thereof: now also thy breasts shall be as clusters of the vine, and the smell of thy nose like apples; 9 And the roof of thy mouth like the best wine for my beloved, that goeth down sweetly, causing the lips of those that are asleep to speak.”

Song of Solomon 7:7-9 (KJV)

The previous passage from the Song of Solomon literally alludes to a man wanting to take hold of his wife’s breasts as he mounts her for sex and at the same time french kisses her while they are having sex.

The Song of Solomon even alludes to the desire for and the pleasure from oral sex within marriage:

Here the wife alludes to her desire to perform oral sex(fellatio) on her husband:

“As the apple tree among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons. I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste.

Song of Solomon 2:3 (KJV)

The apple tree was a symbol of a man’s genitals in ancient times and her sitting in his shadow displays the idea of her kneeling before him performing oral sex on him.  It even shows that his fruit (his semen) was sweet to her taste.

In the following passage, the husband describes his desire to perform oral sex(cunnilingus) on his wife:

“Until the day break, and the shadows flee away, I will get me to the mountain of myrrh, and to the hill of frankincense.”

Song of Solomon 4:6 (KJV)

The “the mountain of myrrh, and to the hill of frankincense” is symbolic of a woman’s pubic mound.  So literally the husband was saying to his wife – “I want to go down on you all night long”.

Later in the same chapter the wife expresses her desire for her husband to perform oral sex(cunnilingus) on her:

Awake, O north wind; and come, thou south; blow upon my garden, that the spices thereof may flow out. Let my beloved come into his garden, and eat his pleasant fruits.”

Song of Solomon 4:16 (KJV)

The “north wind” is speaking of the man’s head and specifically him using his mouth.  She implores him to go “south” to her “garden” referring to her genital area. She asks him to “blow upon my garden” – meaning to perform oral sex so that “the spices thereof may flow out” referring to him causing her natural vaginal lubricants to flow. When she encourages him to “eat his pleasant fruits” this is directly equivalent to another phrase we use today to describe when a man performs oral sex on his wife.

There are many other sexual allusions in the Song of Solomon but you get my point.

The rediscovery of the Bible’s positive view of erotic love in marriage helped to spawn many Christian books encouraging Christian couples to no longer look at sex as a necessary evil only for procreation – but rather as gift from God to be enjoyed for its many other benefits.

In the last several decades scientific research has confirmed that regular sexual relations often bond couples together closer on a chemical level. They also found that regular sexual relations had a very positive effect on mental health and chemical balances in the body.

How sex became “dirty”

About 50 years after the last Apostle(John) died, a man who would later be regarded as an early father of the Church known as Clement of Alexandria stated this about sex:

“Our general argument concerning marriage, food, and other matters, may proceed to show that we should do nothing ‘- from desire. Our will is to be directed only towards that which is necessary. For we are children not of desire but of will.  A man who marries for the sake of begetting children must practice continence so that it is not desire he feels for his wife, whom he ought to love, and that he may beget children with a chaste and controlled will. For we have learnt not to “have thought for the flesh to fulfil its desires.” We are to “walk honourably as in the way”, that is in Christ and in the enlightened conduct of the Lord’s way, “not in revelling and drunkenness, not in debauchery and lasciviousness, not in strife and envy.”

Clement of Alexandria, “On Marriage”, Chapter VII

So Clement is saying when a married couple come together as an act of the will for the sake of having a child and not because of their sexual desire for one another their is no sin.  But sex, even in marriage, simply for the sake of pleasure is a fleshly indulgence in Clement’s view.

Justin Martyr writing around 150 AD stated the same belief as Clement:

“But whether we marry, it is only that we may bring up children”

Justin Martyr, The First Apology of Justin (150-160 A.D), CHAPTER XXIX — CONTINENCE OF CHRISTIANS

Augustine of Hippo wrote this in his treatise “On the Good of Marriage” around 400 AD:

“Further, in the very case of the more immoderate requirement of the due of the flesh, which the Apostle enjoins not on them by way of command, but allows to them by way of leave, that they have intercourse also beside the cause of begetting children; although evil habits impel them to such intercourse, yet marriage guards them from adultery or fornication. For neither is that committed because of marriage, but is pardoned because of marriage…

For intercourse of marriage for the sake of begetting has not fault; but for the satisfying of lust, but yet with husband or wife, by reason of the faith of the bed, it has venial fault: but adultery or fornication has deadly fault, and, through this, continence from all intercourse is indeed better even than the intercourse of marriage itself, which takes place for the sake of begetting.”

Augustine of Hippo, Of the Good of Marriage(401 AD), Section 6

Augustine saw the desire for sex outside of “begetting children” as a venial sin that was better than the mortal sins of adultery and fornication. In his other writings he acknowledged that God made them “male and female” and intended on sexual reproduction but like Clement of Alexandria he believed it would have been an act of the will and not an act of passion or pleasure in God’s original design.

The 8th Century theologian John of Damascus wrote:

“Carnal men abuse virginity, and the pleasure-loving bring forward the following verse in proof, cursed be every one that raiseth not up seed in Israel. But we, made confident by God the Word that was made flesh of the Virgin, answer that virginity was implanted in man’s nature from above and in the beginning. For man was formed of virgin soil.  From Adam alone was Eve created. In Paradise virginity held sway. Indeed, Divine Scripture tells that both Adam and Eve were naked and were not ashamed. But after their transgression they knew that they were naked, and in their shame they sewed aprons for themselves. And when, after the transgression, Adam heard, dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return, when death entered into the world by reason of the transgression, then Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bare seed. So that to prevent the wearing out and destruction of the race by death, marriage was devised that the race of men may be preserved through the procreation of children.

But they will perhaps ask, what then is the meaning of “male and female,” and “Be fruitful and multiply?” In answer we shall say that “Be fruitful and multiply” does not altogether refer to the multiplying by the marriage connection. For God had power to multiply the race also in different ways, if they kept the precept unbroken to the end.  But God, Who knoweth all things before they have existence, knowing in His foreknowledge that they would fall into transgression in the future and be condemned to death, anticipated this and made “male and female,” and bade them “be fruitful and multiply.” Let us, then, proceed on our way and see the glories of virginity: and this also includes chastity.”

John of Damascus (8th century) Chapter XXIV.–Concerning Virginity

John of Damascus went further than Augustine believing that God’s design of “male and female” was not his perfect will but instead a concession based on his foreknowledge that Adam and Eve would eventually sin and need to create children through marriage and sex. In other words sex was never part of God’s perfect design but rather a concession he made because he knew sin would occur.

This just demonstrates the crazy lengths that Church theologians would go to in an effort to explain away the fact that God made them “male and female” from the very beginning.

What the Church fathers and their later followers taught regarding the condemnation of all earthly desires for anything that is pleasurable was part of a false ideology we now call Christian Asceticism.

The Apostle Paul confronted asceticism in the Church

The Apostle Paul saw asceticism on the rise within the churches and fought against it as is seen in this passage of the Scriptures:

“20 If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, 21 “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” 22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? 23 These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.

Colossians 2:20-23 (NASB)

But almost immediately after the Apostles died the Apostles war against asceticism was lost and it spread through the church like a disease. While we would agree with the Church fathers that things like homosexuality, bestiality and orgies are “dirty” or fleshly forms of sex the church fathers went further in even calling normal heterosexual desires dirty and saw sex in marriage only as a necessary evil for reproduction.  They also strongly encouraged celibacy even in marriage and called on husbands and wives to suppress their “fleshly” desires for sexual pleasure with one another.

So, in summary – if you condemn yourself as “dirty”, or other men and women as “dirty” for having pleasurable thoughts about sex or for thinking of sex as more that a procreative exercise you can thank many of the early church fathers for that false belief – but not the Apostles who opposed such thinking.

In stark contrast to the negative view of sex of the Church fathers the New Testament book of Hebrews tells us this:

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

Hebrews 13:4 (KJV)

The Apostle tells us that “the bed” is “undefiled”.  Literally sex which happens in marriage is both honorable and pure in God’s eyes.  Neither Christ nor his Apostles ever restricted sex in marriage to be for procreative purposes only.

If we look in the Old Testament we find that a man is actually encouraged to be satisfied by his wife’s body and ravished with her sexual love:

“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 5:18-19 (KJV)

Proverbs chapter five makes it abundantly clear that sex in marriage is not simply for procreation. It was also given to mankind for pleasure.

Clement of Alexandria’s writings on this subject of sex in marriage puts on full display the fatal flaw of the church fathers who falsely attributed the Bible’s warnings against “fulfilling the desires of the flesh” (Ephesians 1:3) as the Bible condemning the enjoyment of any earthly pleasures.  They completely missed the spiritual application of the word “flesh” which applied to the sin nature in man and the fact that neither Christ nor his Apostles ever unilaterally condemned all human desires nor did they want Christians to live lives devoid of any pleasure.

Christ and his Apostles taught two important points. We as Christians should not live for earthly pleasure where the pursuit of earthly pleasure is the center of our life to the neglect of our service to God and our families. We also should not follow the desires of our sinful and corrupted nature (which is spiritually referred to as our “flesh”).  But it is not a “fleshly desire” for one to desire certain foods and take pleasure from eating them.  It is also not a “fleshly desire” for a man or woman to take pleasure from sexual thoughts or fantasies or to desire sexual relations with their spouse.  These human desires are pure and part of our original nature as given to mankind in the Garden of Eden by God himself.

Conclusion

The church fathers were not perfect men. They were not inspired by God in the way the Apostles were who wrote the Bible. They were imperfect men writing imperfect commentaries on the perfect Word of God.  But some of their misinterpretations and theological errors still plague the Church and Christians to this day.

I hope that if you view sex as “dirty” or even sexual desire and sexual fantasy as dirty you will reevaluate those kinds of thoughts.  Our human sexual natures, especially our distinct male and female sexual natures, are a gift from God.  They were given to mankind in the Garden of Eden as part of mankind’s original design.  We as Christians should never feel any shame for these desires or for exercising our sexual nature within the bounds of Gods law.

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.

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.