Is the Red Pill Concept of the Male Imperative Biblical?

In the first two parts of this series “Is Red Pill Biblical?”, we established the fact that some observations in Red Pill do indeed match with Biblical teachings on gender roles.  We also showed that Red Pill is not just objective intersexual behavioral theory even though its most vocal advocates would like to think it is.  While Red Pill is built on observations of nature, specifically human biology and behavior, it also interweaves these findings with its own philosophy and its own moral judgements as to how we should act based on these observations.

Now that we have looked at Red Pill from a very high level we will dive into more of the specific concepts in Red Pill starting with the Red Pill concept of the Male Imperative.

What is the Red Pill Concept of the Male Imperative?

Rollo Tomassi wrote an article for his Red Pill blog, TheRationalMale.com, entitled “The New Paternity”.  In that article he states that “Men’s biological, masculine, imperative is to spread the seed – unlimited access to unlimited sexuality”.  In “Pseudo-Virginity” he writes that men have “polygynous sexual strategy”.

Tomassi writes in “Women & Sex” , “One of the single most annoying tropes I read / hear from men (more so than women) is the “Women are just as / more sexual than men” canard… Patently false. A healthy male produces between 12 to 17 times the amount of testosterone a woman does. It is a biological impossibility for a woman to want sex as much as, or as often as men. Trust me, when a woman says, “I don’t understand why sex is so important to guys” she’s speaking the literal truth”.

And in “The Truth About Standards”,  Tomassi states “Men are so motivated by sexual experience that it supersedes the need for food. Research shows brain cells specific to men fire up when mates are present and override the need to eat. Take this as you will, but it does reinforce the idea that for men, sex is in fact a biological need”.

So, to summarize what Tomassi has stated, Red Pill teaches that the Male Imperative is for a man to spread his seed to as many women as possible and as a direct result of this men are polygynous in their sexual strategy.  And a man’s sex drive is more than 10 times what a woman’s sex drive is and it is a biological need.

Is the Male Imperative Biblical?

Some people wrongly think a need is only something you will die from if you do not meet it but this is untrue.  There are many human needs that left unmet will not kill us, but they will indeed cause greater    or lesser psychological damage depending on the person.  Some men, if their sexual needs are not met, will lash out and commit rape or other wrong actions.

The Bible agrees with Red Pill that sex is indeed a need unless a man or woman have the gift of celibacy as seen in the Scripture passage below:

“7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. 8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. 9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.”

1 Corinthians 7:7-9 (KJV)

In the follow passage speaking to the needs of women, God compares a woman’s need for sex to that of her need for food and clothing:

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

Exodus 21:10-11 (KJV)

Would a woman physically die from not having food? Certainly.  Would a woman die from not having clothing and being constantly exposed to the elements? Probably.  Would a woman physically die from not having sex with her husband? Not at all.  But yet it is still shown as a need for a woman to have sex with her husband.  Why? Because while she may not physically die from not having sex with him, her intimacy with her husband would certainly die and this could in fact end the marriage as God allowed.

But then God goes even further when speaking of a man’s need for sexual relations with his wife in the following passage:

“15 Drink waters out of thine own cistern, and running waters out of thine own well… 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)

God built a much greater need for sex in the masculine nature than in feminine nature.  Rather than comparing a man’s need for sex to the human need for food like the Bible does for a woman, instead the Bible compares a man’s need to for sex to the human need for water.

With a constant supply of water, a human being can go 60 days to 70 days with no food.  However, the average human being can only go four to seven days without water.  The human body is made up of 60 percent water.  Our cells, our joints and every organ in our body needs water to operate.

Just as water is a fundamental driving force in the human body, so too sex is a fundamental driving force in the masculine human nature.

Tomassi is absolutely correct that while women need sex too, a woman can never truly grasp the substantially greater physical and psychological need for sex in men.

The Bible also agrees with Red Pill that men have a polygynous sexual nature and the drive to “spread the seed” to as many different women as possible.  And this polygynous sexual desire in men is not a corruption of the masculine nature by sin as many Christian teachers and preachers have falsely claimed over the centuries.

The Bible shows that God blessed and rewarded Leah for giving her servant girl to her husband as another wife.  God allows for polygamy and sets rules for its practice in Exodus 21:10-11, Deuteronomy 21:15-17 and Deuteronomy 25:5-7.  God warns kings against multiplying wives or hording wives in Deuteronomy 17:17 but tells King David in II Samuel 12:8 that he gave him the wives of his master (King Saul) and would have given him many more wives.  In Ezekiel 23:1-5 God pictures himself as polygamist husband to two women – the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah.  And in the New Testament in Romans 10:19 God says he is taking on a new bride the form of the New Testament church to make his first wife, the nation of Israel, jealous so that she might return to him one day.

So, as we can see from an abundance of the Scriptures, polygamy is not sinful corruption of the masculine nature but it is in fact by God’s design.

For more on subject of polygamy and answers to objections some Christians may still have to it, see my series “Why Polygamy Is Not Unbiblical” .

What the Bible says About Man’s Sexual Nature that Red Pill Does Not

A fundamental flaw of Red Pill, one which we will continually remind the reader of, is that it takes an evolutionary approach to analyzing human biology and behavior. Red Pill’s natural science approach to analyzing human behavior and biology as it currently exists can reveal interesting facts about human beings.  But once they get into evolutionary science, which is a forensic science, they are just guessing in the wind.

This is where the Bible offers something Red Pill cannot.  Red Pill using scientific analysis of human biology and behavior can often (but not always) tell us the “What” of human behavior and biology but it can never provide us with the “Why”.  Only the Bible can do this.

The Bible reveals to us that the male sexual nature is about much more than reproduction.  In fact, while the Bible commands us to “Be fruitful, and multiply” it never tells us that God made sex primarily for reproduction.

The Bible tells us in 1 Corinthians 11:7 of the male human being that “he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man” and then in verse 9 of that same chapter it says “Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man”.   God created man to image him, to display or live out his attributes with his life.  And this is why God made woman.   Man needed someone upon which to play out the image of God in him.  He needed someone to love, lead, provide for and protect as God exhibits these attributes.

Another attribute of God’s nature is that he longs to be one with his people.  Man’s desire for sexual union with woman helps him to live out this aspect of God’s nature.

But there is still one more aspect of God’s nature that many Christians throughout the centuries have ignored or just plain denied due to their ascetism.  And that aspect of God’s nature is that he actually seeks out and enjoys pleasure.

The 8th century theologian John of Damascus wrote “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.”  What he was saying is that God only created the male and female sex organs knowing that sin would enter the picture and they would need some way to reproduce.  In other words, sex in human beings, and by extension sexual pleasure, was a result of sin in human beings and never God’s perfect intention.

Such a position is of course not supported by the Scriptures.  If sex in human beings was only an allowance by God for reproduction because of sin, then God would never have commanded men to satisfy themselves sexually with their wives’ bodies in Proverbs 5:18-19 nor would he have given us the entire book of the Song of Solomon which is dedicated to sexual love in marriage.

The Bible tells us God’s desire for the beauty of his people when it states in Psalm 45:11 “So shall the king greatly desire thy beauty: for he is thy Lord; and worship thou him”.  And in Psalm 149:4 we read “For the Lord taketh pleasure in his people: he will beautify the meek with salvation”.

So, man’s sexual desire toward woman does not just display God’s desire for oneness with his people, but it also fully displays God’s desire for the beauty of his people and his desire to take pleasure in his people.

The Corruption of Man’s God Given Polygynous Sexual Nature

We have just shown from the Bible how a man’s desire to take pleasure in the beauty of and bodies of women is a reflection of God’s nature within him.  However sin corrupted the masculine nature as God originally designed it.  And one of the ways sin corrupts man’s God given polygynous sexual nature is by tempting men to become whoremongers and adulterers.

And this is why the Bible warns that God will punish men if they act on this corruption of their sexual natures when it states in Hebrews 13:4 “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge“.

God also shows that men can allow their sexual nature to control their lives causing them to make wrong decisions.   In Proverbs 6:26 the Bible states  For by means of a whorish woman a man is brought to a piece of bread: and the adultress will hunt for the precious life”.  A man can literally be led to the slaughter by his sexual nature if he allows it to happen. 

Ecclesiastes 7:26 states And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart is snares and nets, and her hands as bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her”. And this is why men are exhorted to flee from this temptation and escape the corruption of their sexual nature which would enslave them to women.

Conclusion

The Bible would agree with Red Pill that sex is a much stronger need for men than women when it compares a man’s sexual desire to the human desire for water.  The Bible would also agree with Red Pill that man’s sexual nature is polygynous.

But as we can see based upon the teachings of the Bible, man’s imperative is much more than simply reproduction.  Instead the Bible reveals that man’s sexual desire is only a part of his larger true “imperative” which is to image God and live out or display all the attributes of God’s nature in his life.

And while God indeed created man with a polygynous sexual nature, he also intended for man to bond with each of the women he had sex with and be a husband to each of those women and a father to their children.

A Politically Incorrect Yet Biblical View of Sex

Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love. Drink waters out of thine own cistern, and running waters out of thine own well, never leaving the natural use of the woman.

If you are like the vast majority of Christians today the statement above will probably be very offensive to you to say the least.  Thoughts like “women were not made for men”, “women are not things”, “women are not sex objects to be used by men” and “men should never use women to satisfy their sexual desires” might be rushing into your mind.

Some one-word reactions to the statement above might be “misogynistic”, “sexist” and “dehumanizing”.

You may recognize the use of “thee” and “thou” in the statement above and you might be frantically looking through the Bible to find the verse.  I will save you the time.  The statement above is a combination of quotations from 1 Corinthians 11:9, Proverbs 18:22, Proverbs 5:19, Proverbs 5:15 and Romans 1:27 (all from the KJV).  I have only added one word and that is “never” (but it is in keeping with the negative use of the phrase following it from Romans 1:27).

Now that you have processed your initial reaction to the statement above let’s see if you feel more comfortable with what would be our typical cultural response to it:

“No human being was created for another human being’s “use” or “satisfaction”.  No human being is another human being’s “well” from which they may satisfy their sexual thirst.   Such treatment of any person by another person is inhumane.”

If you agree with this statement against the statement above then you are at least a partial humanist which the vast majority of Americans and even Christians today are.   The entire idea that one set of human beings was made for another is completely contrary to one of the cardinal commandments of humanism which Mario Cuomo stated at the 1994 Democratic National Convention:

“thou shalt not sin against equality”

And this cardinal commandment of Humanism teaches a false concept of where human life gets its value and what it means to treat a human being justly according to God.

Being Created for God’s Glory Gives Us Value Not Social Equality

The Bible tell us where we should find our value as both men and women:

“6 I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth; 7 Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him.”

Isaiah 43:6-7 (KJV)

God created us, both men and women, for his glory.   But he created his sons to bring him glory in a different way than he created he daughters to bring him glory.  And we see these two paths for glory clearly laid out in the following Scripture passage:

“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.”

1 Corinthians 11:7-9 (KJV)

Did you ever wonder why God’s titles in the Bible are all masculine like husband, father, son, king and prophet?  The answer is found in the passage above.  God created man and gave him his masculine human nature for the express purpose of imaging God and thereby bringing him glory.  In other words, God created man to display or live out his attributes.

But in order for man to fully live out God’s attributes he needed someone who would depend on him for his leadership, provision strength and protection.  So, God created woman for man. Woman and by extension the feminine human nature was not created like man for the purpose of imaging God.  Woman was created with her feminine human nature to be a man’s wife and the mother of his children.

God uses this imagery of the relationship between a husband and his wife throughout the Scriptures to symbolize his relationship to his people.  In the Old Testament this is represented as God being a husband to Israel and in the New Testament this is represented as Christ being a husband to his church.

God even created a man’s sexual desire to image his desire for the beauty of his people (Psalm 45:10-11), his desire for oneness with his people (Ezekiel 16:7-8) and his desire to take pleasure in his people (Psalm 149:4).

But Doesn’t the Bible Say God Made Sex for Both Men and Women?

Some will point to the following passage to say that God made sex for men and women:

“2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 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.”

1 Corinthians 7:2-5 (KJV)

First and foremost, God’s Word never contradicts.  1 Corinthians 11:9 clearly states that “Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man”.  So, if God made woman for man, that means he made sex for man.  It really is that simple.  Everything about woman’s nature and body was meant to serve man, bring him glory and thereby bring God glory.

With that foundational understanding now let’s look at the passage above.   The phrase in verse 1 Corinthians 7:2 “let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband” does not mean equal ownership of a husband and wife toward one another.  There are different Greek words for the English word “own”.

When referring to a man having his “own wife” the original Greek word that is translated as ‘own’ is ‘heautou’. This word speaks of owning someone or something as your personal possession and this is consistent with the Hebrew phrase for marriage ‘baal’ which referred to a man coming to own his wife.    For the wife having her “own husband” the original Greek word that is translated as ‘own’ is ‘idios’ which may or may not refer to ownership over someone or something.  It depends on the context it is used in.  When this word is used with a subordinate it can actually refer to the person being owned.  See this passage below which illustrates this concept:

“9 Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own [idios] masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again”

Titus 2:9 (KJV)

The word ‘servant’ refers to slaves in the original Greek.  So, in the context of a slave and his Master who has possession of who? The answer is the master.  And this is the same for wives.  Wives do not own their husbands, but rather husbands own their wives.   And why do husbands own their wives? Because God made a man’s wife for him, not him for his wife.

So, what is the rest of 1 Corinthians 7:2-5 talking about then? The answer is that God is telling men and women that they have a right to sexual access to one another’s bodies and they should not deprive one another except if they mutually agree for a short time of prayer and fasting.  But unlike what the world and specifically humanism teaches today, the mutual consent is not to have sex, but to stop having sex for a brief period.  In other words, if either person needs sex, the other should render their body.

And then we have the final question to answer on this passage.  If God made sex for men then why does the Bible tell men not to deny their wives’ sexually which would indicate that women want sex too? For the answer we go back to the 1 Corinthians 7:9 principle.  Why did God create woman? He created her for man.  Therefore, everything about her, including her own sexual desire was created for man’s benefit.  In other words, her desire for sex enhances his sexual pleasure.  So, God is saying to men “Don’t deny your wife when she wants sex – I made her to want sex for you!”

Conclusion

The Bible tells us in passages like Isaiah 43:6-7 that all of us, both men and women, were created to bring glory to God.  But 1 Corinthians 11:7-9 tells us that men and women were made to bring God glory in different ways.  Man was created to bring God glory by imaging him, by living out God’s attributes with his life.  And it is very clear that man was not created for woman, but woman for man.

And because woman was created for man, so too, sex was created for man.

It is absolutely true, according to Hebrews 13:4 ,that the only sexual relations God considers honorable and pure are those which occur between a husband and wife within the covenant of marriage.  And it is equally true that God’s first command to mankind in Genesis 1:28 was for them to “Be fruitful, and multiply“.

However, there is more to the Biblical view of sex than just restrictions on when sex may occur and the call to having children. Unfortunately, some churches today fail to see to this.

On the other hand, a lot of churches today do teach that sex is about more than just the restrictions on it or for having children.  But unfortunately these same churches usually give advice on sex which follows the humanist, feminist and egalitarian view of sex and not the Biblical view of sex.

Churches today often associate the the male sex drive with selfishness.   Husbands are taught that they should not seek  sex for their own satisfaction but only to please their wives.  And if the whole point of sex is about a husband seeking to please his wife, then it would follow that a man should never seek sex with his wife when she is not in the mood or not enthusiastically desiring it.  Most importantly, he should never coerce her into sex in any way as this would go against the entire point of sex in their view.  And this view of sex perfectly aligns with the humanist, feminist and egalitarian views of sex.

But God’s Word says just the opposite.  The Bible calls sex “the natural use of the woman” (Romans 1:27) and warns men against leaving this natural use.  It calls on men to quench their God given sexual thirst  by drinking from the well of sexual pleasure that is their wife’s body (Proverbs 5:15).  Not only are they to quench their sexual thirst with their wife’s body, but they are to drink their fill of her, satisfying themselves “at all times” so much so that they are intoxicated by their wife’s body (Proverbs 5:18-19).

Some will contend that these Biblical truths makes women no more than sex slaves for men.  And such a contention could not be further from the truth.  To uphold the Biblical teaching that God created woman for man and by extension sex for man does not mean women are sex slaves.  God created women for man’s companionship (Genesis 2:18, Malachi 2:14), to be the mother of his children (1 Timothy 5:14)  and the keeper of his home (Titus 2:4-5) in addition to creating woman for man’s sexual use (Romans 1:27) and satisfaction (Proverbs 5:19).

We can affirm that God created woman for more than just the sexual pleasure of man without denying that one of the purposes for which he created woman was indeed the sexual pleasure of man.    This is one of the oldest arguments in the feminist arsenal and many feminists have even referred to marriage in general as slavery for women.   See my article “8 Biblical Differences Between Wives and Slaves” for a larger discussion of this important topic.

To proclaim these truths right of the Bible does not equal misogyny or hatred for women.   This is what our world and sadly many churches today teach.  The idea that such sacred teachings of the Bible are misogynistic is based on the false notion that equality is what gives human beings value.  The Bible tells us our value comes not from our equality, but rather from our being created for God’s glory.

I know this is a lot to take in.  It may go against everything you as a Christian have been brought up to believe because humanism has so infested most Christian churches today.    It may violate your entire concept of “social justice”.  But then you must answer God’s question to Job in Job 40:8 when he says “Wilt thou also disannul my judgment? wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous?”

If your answer is no, that you will not condemn God, his Word or his design of gender roles and sex as unjust, then you only have one choice as a believer and that choice is to follow God’s command below:

“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)

It is only by being transformed by the renewing of your mind that you will be able to bring glory to God in the way he designed you to do.

Is Red Pill a Theory or a Religion?

Rollo Tomassi has been an ardent defender of Red Pill as a theory, not an ideology, political movement or religion.   In his article “The Political is Personal”, Tomassi wrote the following:

“This is the degree to which the Feminine Imperative has been saturated into our western social fabric. Catholic women in the Vatican may have very little in common with Mormon women in Utah, but let a Mormon woman insist the church alter its fundamental foundational articles of faith with regard to women in favor of a doctrine substituted by the Feminine Imperative and those disparate women have a common purpose.

That is the depth of the Feminine Imperative – that female primacy should rewrite articles of faith to prioritize women’s interests…

It’s my opinion that red pill awareness needs to remain fundamentally apolitical, non-racial and non-religious because the moment the Red Pill is associated with any social or religious movement, you co-brand it with an ideology, and the validity of it will be written off along with any preconceptions associated with that specific ideology.”

In “The Believers” vs. The Empiricists”, Tomassi writes:

“Red Pill people… believe that whether something is “good” or “bad” is a matter of opinion, and that all systems of morality are things societies invented to get a result, and it is therefore pointless to argue about whether something is “evil” or not, instead of about what effect it has. They are moral relativists They believe that the goal of a debate is to establish what the facts are, and how this knowledge can be used to control outcomes. They argue about what is true.

They believe that debates are a cooperative process between two or more people who have the shared goal of achieving a more accurate picture of absolute reality, and that, while people may stick vehemently to their positions, they can also reverse them on a dime if new information comes to light, because the only real attachment is to the truth. They believe debates occur between theories, not people. Thus questioning someone’s character is off-limits, because it is irrelevant.”

So, as we can see from the quotes above, Rollo reflects the feeling of many Red Pill people that Red Pill is and must remain theory (or a collection of theories) about intersexual dynamics.  And it must stay out of political, racial and other arenas and strictly stick to intersexual dynamics.

We Can’t Avoid the Necessity of Religious and Political Reforms

I totally agree with Tomassi that that both men and women across political and religious spectrums will close ranks and join together when Red Pill theories are presented.

The feminine imperative was kept bound and in check by patriarchal societies which existed throughout the world for six millennia.  It was only during the mid-19th century that Secular Humanism based on the combination of individualism, naturalism and blank slate released the feminine imperative from the control of patriarchy.

And once it did that, the feminine imperative brought us the feminine reality.

But again, what was it that released the feminine imperative to do all the damage it has done to Western civilization? It was Humanism.

In “Unmarriageable”, Tomassi gives the following lamentation:

“The way we do marriage today has the potential to be the most damaging decision a man can make in his life. It may even end his life. But despite all that I still believe men and women are better together than we are apart. We still evolved to be complements to the other.

It’s the coming together and living together, and all the downside risks to men today that I have no solution for at the moment. Maybe it’s going to take a war or a meteor striking the earth to set gender parity back in balance, but at the moment there’s only a future of sexual segregation to look forward to.”

If Tomassi and other Red Pill folks want to keep Red Pill non-political and non-religious then more power to them.  But I would argue based on Tomassi’s own comments they can’t really solve the underlying problem and all Red Pill is then is a band aid to help men have sex in a feminine primary world with no answers for getting out of it.

But as Bible believing Christians, we must delve into the political and religious side of this.  Humanism unleashed the feminine imperative upon Western civilization and the only way to put the feminine imperative back under control is to return to patriarchal and religious societies once again. A return to Christian patriarchy would solve the problem of the feminine imperative.

Now I know right now that seems like a fantasy.  And Red Pill folks, Humanists and many Christians reading this are all laughing.  But let me tell you about a man who laughed about gender equality almost 250 years ago.

In 1776, John Adams wrote the follow response to his wife Abigail who asked him to push the founders for women’s equality with men in the new America nation and this was his famous response:

“As to your extraordinary code of laws, I cannot but laugh…Depend upon it, we know better than to repeal our masculine systems… and rather than give up this, which would completely subject us to the despotism of the petticoat, I hope General Washington and all our brave heroes would fight”.

The “despotism of the petticoat” meant the “despotism of women”.  John Adams predicted that if the Patriarchal order which had served human civilization for six millennia was given up, that it would be replaced by a new Matriarchal order. In other words, John Adams predicted what Red Pill calls “the feminine reality”.

It took almost 200 years for what John Adams laughed at the possibility of to be fully realized.

So, is it so outlandish to believe that Patriarchy, and specifically Christian Patriarchy could return over the next two centuries? I think not.

The feminine imperative was released because of religious (humanism) changes that lead to political changes in this nation.  And the only way the feminine imperative will finally be placed back under control is through the same means – through bringing the teachings of the Bible regarding gender back to our families and churches which will then lead to changes in our societies and governments.

It must begin as a grass roots movement.  It must start with men teaching men. Then men teaching their women.  We need to be reaching our teens when they are young and more easily able to change.  And then when larger groups of families in churches band together, they can demand changes in their church leadership and a return to teaching the whole Bible, including the Biblical doctrines concerning gender roles.

Red Pill People Are Not Completely Moral Relativists

Tomassi says Red Pill is completely about scientific theory concerning the behavior of the sexes.  That is just about “the facts”. That its not about what is “good” or “bad” or “evil”.  But the quote below, from Tomassi’s article “The Desire Dynamic” , shows that Red Pill does actually take moral positions:

“You cannot negotiate Desire…

Negotiated desire only ever leads to obligated compliance.

This is why her post-negotiation sexual response is often so lackluster and the source of even further frustration on his part. She may be more sexually available to him, but the half-hearted experience is never the same as when they first met when there was no negotiation, just spontaneous desire for each other…

Genuine desire is something a person must come to – or be led to – on their own volition. You can force a woman by threat to comply with behaving in a desired manner, but you cannot make her want to behave that way. A prostitute will fuck you for an exchange, it doesn’t mean she wants to.

Whether LTR or a one night stand (ONS) strive for genuine desire in your relationships. Half of the battle is knowing you want to be with a woman who wants to please you, not one who feels obligated to. You will never draw this genuine desire from her by overt means, but you can covertly lead her to this genuine desire. The trick in provoking real desire is in keeping her ignorant of your intent to provoke it. Real desire is created by her thinking it’s something she wants, not something she has to do.”

Throughout his writings Tomassi denigrates what he calls “transactional”, or “obligated” or “duty” sex in favor of men only receiving “validational” (genuinely desired) sex from women.

This is taking a moral position.

This violates the male imperative for men to sow their seed as often as they can.

The male imperative is not to have perfect sex with the perfect woman, it is to have sex as many times as possible.

This is actually a glaring contradiction in Red Pill which perfectly aligns with feminist ideology that no woman should ever have to have sex with a man if she does not genuinely desire it.

Conclusion

Red Pill in a sense is only a band aid for the problem of the feminine reality and it has no answers for overturning the feminine reality.  The solution to these problems isn’t learning how to game women into having sex, it is about a return to the Biblically based world view that this nation and Western civilization once had.  It is about a return to Christian Patriarchy.

Only a society based in Christian Patriarchy can take on the feminine imperative and bring under control as it once was.

And as to the question that is the title of this article “Is Red Pill A Religion?” I would have to say the answer is yes.  Any system which offers answers to moral questions, even if it is a naturalistic system like Humanism, is a religion.  And Red Pill does in fact take moral positions.

Red Pill is hybrid of scientific research and moral beliefs.   So, if we separate the moral beliefs from the scientific research and simply look at the research into human nature this can give us valuable insights.

I look at Red Pill the same as I would a biology or psychology class in college.  I know there will be humanist or naturalist teachings in these classes that I will need to weed out.  But I can still glean truths about human physiology and psychology in these classes.  The Bible tells us that God reveals himself and his truths not only through the Bible, but also secondarily through nature:

“18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse”

Romans 1:18-20 (KJV)

Is it possible that Tomassi and other Red Pill people have discovered some truths about God’s design in human nature? Absolutely it is possible.

But as Christians we must always remember that our only infallible source for truth is the Word of God.

Is Red Pill Biblical?

In 2015, a popular Red Pill Blogger named Rollo Tomassi agreed with some traditionalist Christians that “Christianity was already Red Pill before there was a Red Pill”.  “Red Pill” refers to a  collection of theories of how human intersexual dynamics work.   The Red Pill theory has been spreading across the internet for almost two decades.  The phrase “The Red Pill”, as it is used in the Manosphere, is based upon the 1999 sci-fi movie “The Matrix” starring Keanu Reeves. In this film’s dystopian future, all of humanity has been enslaved by machines in a simulated reality known as “The Matrix” by an artificial intelligence that mankind had created long ago.

In the movie a character named Morpheus offers Neo, the movie’s main protagonist, a choice between a blue pill and a red pill in the famous quote below:

“This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill—the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill—you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.”

This Red Pill/Blue Pill paradigm was adopted by the manosphere over the past two decades to compare and contrast two different collections of theories of how human civilization should be conducted.

Even though I will be quoting from Tomassi’s blog during this series to compare and contrast Red Pill with the Bible, I want to make clear from Tomassi’s own words that he is not the inventor of Red Pill theory.

In his article entitled “The Purple Pill” , Tomassi, wrote this about the origins of the Red Pill:

“While I am humbled to be accounted as one of the Red Pill’s prominent writers I will never lay claim to having created it. The Red Pill in its truest sense belongs to the collective that has contributed to it as a whole. It belongs to the men who’ve fostered it, who’ve risked their livelihoods and families apart from it to make other men aware; it belongs to those who understand that its objectivity is what’s kept it open and honest, discussable and debatable.”

Rollo Tomassi began studying psychology and behaviorism in 2001.  His emphasis was on behaviorism and specifically behaviorism as it relates to how the human genders think and act.

He began by taking his gender centered behaviorism theories to an online forum called https://www.sosuave.com/ where he debated and discussed them with others to refine his theories.

10 years after starting his journey, in 2011, he started TheRationalMale.com blog.  His blog was an instant success becoming one of the most popular blogs in the Manosphere.  In 2013, he published his book “The Rational Male” which was essentially an edited version of his first year’s blog posts along with many questions he had from commenters and his answers to them.

This then leads us to the most important question Christians must answer about Red Pill.

Do the doctrines of the Bible, upon which Christianity was founded, agree with any part of Red Pill theory?

The answer to this question can be found in the following two statements by Tomassi.

In his article “Male Authority Provisioning vs Duty” :

“I’ve been watching Outlaw King on Netflix recently. There’s a part where the wife of Robert the Bruce says ‘Power is making decisions, and whatever course you are charting, I choose you, my husband’ It struck me that my own wife had said almost these same words to me in 2005. When I’d decided to take a job in Orlando that would uproot us from family and friends. There was no “,…but what about my friends, career, etc.?” from her and I had no hesitation to consider anything but taking the position. She said, “You are my husband, I go where you go.

How many men hold a default Frame in their marriage? Many women are reluctant to even accept their husband’s last name today. There’s a lot of bullshit reasons for this, but the core truth is that women have no confidence in their man in the long term. They don’t trust his ‘course’. There’s holding Frame, and then there’s establishing a long term Frame, a paradigm, a reality of his own, that defines a man’s authority in his marriage and family relationships. Women today still want marriage, but few want to defer to their husband’s ‘course’. They don’t trust him with her life.

And then there is this second quote from Tomassi from his article “Male Authority Be a Man” :

“There are numerous ways a feminine-primary social order removes the teeth from male authority today. First and foremost is the social pretense of blank-slate equalism. A default presumption that men and women are coequal agents in every aspect – physical, emotional, psychological, intellectual – is the cover story necessary to remove an authority that was based on the conventional differences between the sexes. To the blank-slate equalist gender is a social construct, but gender is only the starting point for a social constructionist belief set. Social constructionism is a necessary foundation upon which blank-slate equalism is built, but ultimately it’s a means of control. By denying each sex its innate differences social constructionism denies men their innate advantages and strengths. Once this became the normalized social convention it was a simple step to remove male authority…

The authority men used to claim innate legitimacy of in the past is now only legitimate when a woman wields it. Men need to retake this authority and own it as is their birthright once again.”

The sentiment that Tomassi has just stated, that a man’s authority over his wife and his children is his “birthright” and that a wife should trust her husband with the course he has plotted for them and with her very life is 100% Biblical.

The Bible agrees with Red Pill that male authority over woman is indeed the birth right of every man.  In 1 Corinthians 11:3 we read “the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man” and in 1 Timothy 2:12 the Bible states that women are forbidden to “to usurp authority over the man”.   In Ephesians 5:23 we read “For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church”.

I also want to return to Tomassi’s first comment about women in our modern era having no trust or confidence in their husbands. The Bible speaks to this trust women are called to:

For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.”

I Peter 3:5-6 (KJV)

The Bible calls on women to obey and be in subjection to their husbands because they trust God and his design of male headship over women.   In other words, women should trust their husbands ‘course’, to use Tomassi’s language, because they trust that God has given their husbands the ‘course’ he wishes them to follow.

So, the answer to the question of “Do the doctrines of the Bible, upon which Christianity was founded, agree with any part of Red Pill theory?” is a resounding YES!

But just because the Bible would be Red Pill in some areas does not mean it is Red Pill in all areas.

And this is what I will be exploring in this new series “Is Red Pill Biblical?”  There are a lot of different aspects of Red Pill to cover and I want to break them down into bite sized pieces so that Christians can fully understand the Red Pill Theory and where Red Pill is in agreement with a Biblical world view and where Red Pill is in conflict with a Biblical world view.

Oral Sex – A sin, An Option or a Requirement in Christian Marriage?

Is oral sex in Christian marriage a sin? If it is not a sin is it optional or is it a requirement for Christian husbands and wives in marriage?

Recently on another article I wrote, totally unrelated to the topic of oral sex, I had a commenter named Trey make the following statement about how a man should require that his wife demonstrate her submission and respect toward him after she has denied him sex simply because she was “not in the mood”.  He said she should be required to do this before she would be allowed back in the marriage bed:

“Denial of sex by a wife is the ultimate form of disrespect and control of her husband. If she has denied you sex (for no good reason), sex should be required before she is allowed back into your marriage bed. Oral sex while on her knees before you seems very appropriate and swallowing is a must. Spitting you out is also a form of disrespect.”

I then had these comments come in.

Lost&Found wrote in response to Trey:

“You say, “Oral sex while on her knees before you seems very appropriate and swallowing is a must. Spitting you out is also a form of disrespect.”

Why would swallowing be a “must,” and spitting be “disrespect”? How is it you have come to that conclusion? And how is a husband going to force his wife not to spit?

To me, the fact that sperm are a man’s seed and when combined with a woman’s egg will create a baby, makes the thought of a woman swallowing it absolutely repugnant.”

Bruce went even further than Lost&Found in his response to Trey:

“Don’t know about 1,2, &4 but 3 is totally wrong. Lisa should not allow her husband to put his penis in her mouth (or anus for that matter). This is sodomy or, at best, sodomitic mimicry. Her husband’s penis and semen belongs in her vagina not her digestive tract. If Lisa is reading this: you are NOT to obey your husband in this – obey God first.”

So, we can definitely see some strong views on the matter of a woman giving her husband oral sex in the three comments I have just mentioned.

With Trey we see the view that a woman a should not only give her husband oral sex, but that she should swallow and not spit out his semen when he finishes.

With Lost&Found we see the view that perhaps oral sex is ok for a woman to do for her husband, but that swallowing should not be required.

With Bruce we see a complete rejection of oral sex and his lumping it in with anal sex and categorizing oral sex and anal sex as Sodomy.  He maintains that both a husband’s penis and his semen belong in his wife’s vagina and not “in her digestive tract”.  Bruce even went as far as to tell the woman who I was responding to that she should not obey her husband regarding oral sex, but rather obey God first.

So, which of these commenters is right? As always, to find the answer to all moral questions we must first look to the Scriptures.

Do the Scriptures teach that the Penis and Semen May Only Go in the Vagina?

I am willing to bet that Bruce is most likely Catholic as his view of oral sex is more common among Catholics than any other Christian denomination.  The teaching of the Catholic Church is that all sex must be “procreative” or “open to life” or the orgasm must be “genital to genital”.  In other words, all sexual relations between a man and his wife must end with his penis ejaculating in her vagina.

Now Catholics differ on whether a woman can orally pleasure her husband and the rule is only that he must finish in her vagina.

The problem is that the Bible never teaches this doctrine. It is a completely man-made doctrine.

Some have wrongly attempted to teach that the story of Onan in the Bible confirms that God only allows sex that is penile-vaginal intercourse and that the man must finish in his wife’s vagina each and every time:

“8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother’s wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.  9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother’s wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. 10 And the thing which he did displeased the Lord: wherefore he slew him also.”

Genesis 38:8-10 (KJV)

Onan was not killed simply for spilling his semen on the ground – i.e. “pulling out”. He was killed by God because of WHY he pulled out.  He pulled out to avoid impregnating his dead brother’s wife which was his duty before God.  So, Genesis 38:8-10 proves nothing in regard to God requiring men to always have penile-vaginal intercourse that ends with an ejaculation in the woman’s vagina.

Are oral sex and anal sex for that matter called out as “Sodomy” in the Bible? The answer is no. If you look at the story of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis chapter 19 you will find no mention of oral or anal sex.  What you will find mentioned is men wanting to have sex with men – homosexuality.

Later in the Old Testament you will find the term “sodomite” used like in the following passage:

“There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.”

Deuteronomy 23:17(KJV)

The English word “sodomite” is a translation of the Hebrew word “Qadesh” which literally means “male prostitute”.  So, when we take together the story of Sodom and Gomorrah along with the use of Qadesh what can we say that Sodomy is from a Biblical perspective? It is when men engage in homosexual behavior or prostitute themselves out.

Oral sex is not wrong because Sodomites engage in it anymore than penile-vaginal sex is wrong because unmarried men and women engage in it.  It is the context which makes sexual acts, including oral sex, right or wrong.

I will briefly address anal sex near the end of this article after I have fully covered oral sex from a Biblical perspective.

We must then ask the question, is there any passage of the Bible which looks negatively upon oral sex? And the answer is no.  But the answer to the next question I will pose may surprise many Christians. Does the Bible ever speak positively of oral sex? And the answer is YES.

The Bible Speaks in a Positive Manner Regarding Oral Sex

After I show you this next passage of the Bible, you will never look at a tree, especially an apple tree, the same again.

“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.  Consider the parts of the tree in the image below and how they correlate to 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 which is oral sex performed on a man and is commonly referred to today as a “blow job“.  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”.

But what about oral sex on a woman? Again, the Bible speaks to this as well.  And just as I warned you with the apple tree, you will no longer look at a cluster of grapes or a pomegranate the same ever again after reading the next few Scripture passages.

“7 This thy stature is like to a palm tree, and thy breasts to clusters of grapes

12 Let us get up early to the vineyards; let us see if the vine flourish, whether the tender grape appear, and the pomegranates bud forth: there will I give thee my loves.”

Song of Solomon 7:7 &12 (KJV)

This picture being presented above is that of a man wanting to see his wife’s breasts and genitals becoming aroused with grapes representing her breasts and pomegranates representing her genitals.

See the image below of a pomegranate and you can definitely see the resemblance to a woman’s genitals:

Now look below at what the wife asks her husband do with her “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)

Drinking of the juice of her pomegranate is a euphemism for Cunnilingus which is oral sex performed on a woman.

Another reference to the wife requesting oral sex from her husband is found below:

“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)

If you ever wondered where “going south” on a woman or “eating out” a woman came from – you can find it right there in there in Song of Solomon 4:16. The imagery of this passage is unmistakably referring to cunnilingus with the “spices” that “may flow out” referring to the natural secretions that come from a woman’s genitals when she is aroused or stimulated.

So yes, we can say beyond a doubt that the Bible speaks positively, not negatively, of oral sex as long as it occurs as all sexual acts should – within the proper context of marriage.  We can now at this point completely dismiss as totally unbiblical Bruce’s position that oral sex is a sin and that women should disobey their husbands if this is requested.

So Oral Sex is an Option for Christian Spouses, But Is It Also Required?

Up to this point we have proven that oral sex is definitely an option for men and women within the covenant of marriage.  The next question we must ask though is this.  Is oral required in marriage in according to the Bible?

None of the references to oral sex in the Song of Solomon are written in the form of a command, but rather they are written in the form of a positive example.  Examples of various behaviors and actions in the Bible when presented in a positive light show us that God allows us to do that particular thing, but examples do not require us to do a certain thing.

In other words, positive Biblical examples allow while Biblical commands compel.

But while Song of Solomon contains no commands about oral sex, there are other passages which do give us commands about sex in general.

“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.”

1 Corinthians 7:3-5 (KJV)

The passage above from 1 Corinthians teaches us several important Biblical principles about sex:

  1. Sex is both a right and duty in marriage of both the husband and the wife.
  2. The husband does not have the power to deny his body to his wife for sex nor does the wife have the power to deny her body to her husband for sex.
  3. The only thing that requires “consent” in the Biblical world view of sex is consent by both of them to stop having sex for a brief period of time.

The Biblical principles above fly in the face of our modern individualist and secular humanist view of human autonomy today.  But we as Christians are commanded to reject whatever values our culture has which conflict with the Word of God:

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)

So now let’s apply the principles of I Corinthians 7:3-5 to the topic of oral sex.

If a man wants his wife to perform oral sex on him – does she have the right to refuse? According to 1 Corinthians 7:4 the answer is no she does not have such a right.  But the same goes for woman.  If a woman wants her husband to perform oral sex on her, does he have the right to refuse? Again, the answer according to I Corinthians 7:4 is no, he does not have such a right.

So, the answer to our question is that oral sex can be both optional and required. 

It is optional in the sense that if neither spouse wants to engage in oral sex than it is not required.  Is required in the sense that if either spouse wants to engage in it, then the other spouse must cooperate and render themselves accordingly.

Now of course we must balance the right to have sex with one’s spouse and the responsibility to have sex with one’s spouse with other Scriptural principles.

For instance, the Bible teaches the following to husbands regarding their wife’s body:

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

Ephesians 5:28-29 (KJV)

A man must care for the needs of his wife’s body as he would his own. In the sexual arena, that means he should never do anything to his wife that would misuse or cause harm to his wife’s body.

Sometimes vaginal sex may be need to cease for a time if the woman is having medical conditions that warrant such a ceasing, a good example of which would be right after she has had a child.  There may also be times when oral sex may need to cease because the man or woman has had some type of dental work or oral surgery.  There may be other times when it would not be conducive for a man to perform oral sex on his wife, for instance when she has her period or when she has some type of infection in her genital area.

Is it Healthy for A Woman to Swallow Her Husband’s Semen?

Under normal circumstances oral sex between a husband and wife within the confines of marriage presents no health risks whatsoever.  What do I mean by normal? If a man and woman follow God’s design for marriage and they both wait for all sexual activity (including oral sex) until marriage there is no chance of them contracting any STDs from one another due to oral sex.

On the subject of a man’s semen.  Many women are grossed out by a man’s semen while others absolutely love it.  So, what is in this mystery fluid that is ejected from a man’s body when he has an orgasm?

On average men ejaculate about a teaspoon of semen.

Sperm makes up only about 2 to 5 percent of a man’s semen.

The overwhelming majority of a man’s semen is fructose(sugar), along with vitamin C, zinc, protein, lactic acid, magnesium, calcium chlorine, citric acid, creatine, potassium, vitamin B12, sodium, nitrogen, and phosphorus.

Basically what that means is your husband’s sperm has about the same ingredients as the breakfast plate pictured below.

So, no it absolutely not unhealthy for a woman to swallow her husband’s semen.  In fact, it is very healthy both for her physically and for him psychologically. And we will tackle the male psychological side of oral sex next.

How Fellatio Affects a Man’s Psyche

There are two ways that a woman can approach oral sex with her husband.  The one is to “well I do this because I know he likes it but this is gross and he better not finish in my mouth!” In other words, the idea of her husband’s penis and especially his semen in her mouth utterly grosses her out.

Even outside of oral sex, some women just find their husband’s semen gross and immediately after sex they are running to the bathroom to do this extensive cleaning process or even taking a bath in some cases.

Other women crave their husband’s semen.  These women perform oral sex to actually be able to taste their husband’s semen.  This is the type of wife that is pictured in Song of Solomon 2:3.

For most men who have not been conditioned to be ashamed of their sexual desires, they want their wife to be like the wife of Song of Solomon 2:3.  They want their wife to crave their semen.  Whether it be wanting it on their face, in their mouth, on their breasts and certainly in their vagina.  Why? Because a man’s semen is an extension of himself.  Semen, unlike other bodily biproducts from a man, represents life.  It represents the man’s life and who he is.

So yes, many men find it disrespectful and unloving when their wife finds their semen to be gross whether inside or outside her body or she refuses to swallow.  But most men have been conditioned by our society (including the churches) to remain silent about this and to tell women what they want to hear that it is “not important” to them.

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.

Why Cunnilingus is Important for Women

Multiple studies have confirmed that many women cannot have orgasms from penile-vaginal intercourse alone.

Consider these numbers from an article on Psychology Today entitled “Why So Many Women Don’t Have Orgasms”:

“For men, rates of orgasm varied only slightly based on how many of these three actions they’d reported:

One (just intercourse): 96 percent of the men had orgasms.

Two (hand massage and intercourse): 95 percent.

Three (hand massage, fellatio, and intercourse): 98 percent.

But for women, rates of orgasm varied considerably based on the number of actions:

One (just intercourse): 50 percent of the women reported orgasms.

Two (hand massage and intercourse): 71 percent.

Three (hand massage, cunnilingus, and intercourse): 86 percent.

In summary, the number above show that 96 percent of men can have an orgasm through penile-vaginal intercourse without any manual stimulation of their genitals or oral sex.

But only 50 percent of women can have an orgasm from penile-vaginal intercourse alone.  For many women they must have their genitals massaged along with receiving oral sex in order to have an orgasm.

So why is cunnilingus important for women? Because there is a large chunk of women that cannot have an orgasm without it.

The Importance of Allowing Oral Sex

It is rare but I do sometimes hear from both men and women that they do not really want to allow their spouse to perform oral sex on them but their spouse really wants to.

What these men and women need to understand is that giving oral sex can be a huge turn on for many men and women and it is a crucial part of foreplay for them even if orgasm is not reached through it.

From the emails I have received, it is more often women that are opposed to their husbands performing oral sex on them then men opposing their wives performing oral sex on them.

Sometimes it is because they just always feel dirty in their genital area, even after they wash.  Some women just don’t want their husband’s mouth on their genitals simply because they think it is gross.  For some women it might be because their husband performed oral sex once and he was too rough.

If it is just a matter of the husband changing his technique, this can be accomplished through communication between the wife and her husband.

But in either case, a man or woman opposed to having oral sex performed on them by their spouse needs to address whatever issues are hindering them in this area.  Because they are holding back a portion of themselves that they ought not to be from their spouse.

What About Anal Sex?

Earlier we talked about how some Christians like Bruce link oral sex with anal sex and associate both these practices with the Biblical condemnation of Sodomites.  I have a written an entire article on the subject of Anal sex entitled “Do Christian wives have to submit to requests for anal sex by their husbands?”.   I won’t go into all the details here as you can just read that article but I will just summarize my position on it here.

The anus, unlike the vagina and the mouth, is not designed for penetration.  It is designed as an “exit-only” orifice.

WebMD states this about anal sex:

“The anus lacks the natural lubrication the vagina has. Penetration can tear the tissue inside the anus, allowing bacteria and viruses to enter the bloodstream… Using lubricants can help some, but doesn’t completely prevent tearing.

The tissue inside the anus is not as well protected as the skin outside the anus. Our external tissue has layers of dead cells that serve as a protective barrier against infection. The tissue inside the anus does not have this natural protection, which leaves it vulnerable to tearing and the spread of infection

Even if both partners do not have a sexually-transmitted infection or disease, bacteria normally in the anus can potentially infect the giving partner. Practicing vaginal sex after anal sex can also lead to vaginal and urinary tract infections

Now some have argued that “God has designed many parts of the body with a primary function and many secondary as well” and that is absolutely true.  The mouth has the primary purpose of acting as the intake for food and drink for the body but it has a secondary purpose of allowing for kissing and oral sex.  In the same way the vagina has the purpose of being able to give birth to a child, but it has another purpose of being able to receive a man’s penis for penile-vaginal intercourse.

Some have tried to argue that the anus in women, like the vagina is created by God for a dual purpose as well. They argue that a woman’s anus is designed by God for evacuating waste from the body but also receiving a man’s penis for anal intercourse.

The problem with this dual-purpose theory for a woman’s anus is that we know that it is a medical fact that the anus is NOT designed for penetration.  It does not have the thick elastic lining of either the mouth or the vagina.  It has much thinner skin that is very easily torn and can easily become infected.

Another thing which separates oral sex from anal sex is cross contamination.   There are no medical issues with a man receiving oral sex from his wife and then him placing his penis in her vagina.  There are however great risks of spreading harmful bacteria from man having anal sex with his wife and then putting his penis in her vagina afterwards as this can cause infections in the vagina.

It is for all these reasons that I believe anal sex is in fact a misuse of a woman’s body and it stands apart from oral sex.  Oral sex does not have any health risks under normal circumstances while anal sex is considered by health practitioners to be the “riskiest form of sexual activity” that there is.

Again, you can read my full article on anal sex by reading my article “Do Christian wives have to submit to requests for anal sex by their husbands?”.

Conclusion

From a Biblical perspective, oral sex is not equivalent to Sodomy any more that penile-vaginal intercourse is equivalent to fornication.  Just as penile-vaginal intercourse is only fornication if it occurs outside a marriage covenant between a man and woman, so too oral sex is only sodomy if it occurs in the context of two men having sex.

The Bible never restricts sexual relations between husbands and wives to only penile-vaginal intercourse. It actually presents oral sex, both fellatio and cunnilingus in a positive light.

We have also shown that oral sex is more than just an option for Christian husbands and wives.  The 1 Corinthians 7:4 principle that husbands and wives must fully surrender their bodies to one another for sex can make oral sex a requirement and not just an option in marriage if either spouse wants it.

Men should not be repulsed by the thought of performing oral sex on their wives and women should not be repulsed by the thought of performing oral sex on their husbands.

Women should understand that it is not gross or unhealthy in anyway for a them to swallow their husband’s semen.  It is actually very healthy and it is a powerful bonding tool for a wife to use with her husband.

When a woman has wrongfully denied her husband sex the idea of her kneeling before him, performing fellatio and then swallowing his semen is probably the best apology a wife could ever give her husband for such a sin.

But a wife must realize that her performing fellatio as well as her swallowing is not simply something she should do as an apology for sexual denial.  It is something that should be done regularly to show her love, full acceptance and submission to her husband.

Finally, for those who might be concerned that I am promoting oral sex over penile-vaginal sex.  Nothing could be further from the truth.   While I think fellatio and cunnilingus should be utilized by couples on a regular basis for foreplay or with cunnilingus to help a wife have an orgasm, I do believe that the vast majority of sexual encounters between a husband and wife should end in penile-vaginal intercourse with him ejaculating in his wife’s vagina.

You don’t have to be a doctor or a biologist to see that a man’s penis and a woman’s vagina are perfectly designed to come together.  When a man and woman come together in penile-vaginal intercourse this is them becoming “one flesh” in the most literal sense of the Biblical phase.

But what we have known since creation simply by common observation has also been proven scientifically in that penile-vaginal intercourse results in a release of 400% percent more prolactin  in men and women than any other form of sexual activity (like oral sex or masturbation). Prolactin is what give us the sense of satisfaction from having sex.

However, it is one thing to say that penile-vaginal sex is the best form of sexual relations a husband and wife can have and another to say it is the only kind of sexual relations a husband and wife can have.

Sexually Active Gay Man Turns Away from His Homosexuality to Christ

As Bible believing Christians, we can often become disheartened by the LGBTQ political movements and their assault on marriage, the family and our faith.  And we rightly reject the world’s notion that “all love is good” because the Bible tells us there are such things as “vile affections” in Romans 1:26-27.

But it is stories like this one below that should give us hope and they show that Christ can heal us from any sin if we turn to him in faith and repent asking for his strength.

Here are some snippets from the article from LifeSiteNews.com entitled “I lived as a sexually active gay man. By God’s grace I’m now married with 3 daughters”:

“Sixteen years ago, Brian Wheelock was fully immersed in the homosexual lifestyle of pornography, lust, and self-gratification. Despite being convinced that he was “born this way” and that his identity was as a “gay man,” he sensed deep down inside that he was unhappy and that he had been created for something more.

“To me it was empty, and a place of depression for me where I just wasn’t fulfilled,” Wheelock told a crowd of ex-homosexual and ex-transgender men and women at the Second Annual ‘Freedom March’ in Washington D.C. on the weekend.

That’s when he made a promise to God that changed his life forever…

“People sometimes ask me ‘so praying this prayer made you straight?’” said Wheelock. “Great question. No. Praying this prayer allowed me to find Jesus and fully focus on him and what He had planned for me. It would take a few more years of staying close to Jesus that He would finally allow me to meet the girl of my dreams, my soul mate, Pam.”

I encourage you to read the whole article above about the daily process and journaling he went through to keep his focus on Christ and his will for his life.

David said in Psalm 51:10:

“Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.”

And this is what this man asked the Lord to do in his life and he did it.

As believers we must also realize that this principle applies not just to those who must battle against the temptations of homosexuality and transgenderism but it also applies to those of us who consider ourselves “straight”.

We also must battle against sexual temptation and a culture that winks and laughs about sex, even heterosexual sex, outside of marriage. We must also battle against a culture which conditions us to think gender does not matter when it matters very much to God and he designed our two genders for specific and distinct purposes.

So maybe you are a man that is “straight” but you lack the courage to lead, protect and provide for a woman in marriage. Or perhaps you are a woman that that is “straight” but you are full of pride and selfish ambition when you should be humble and seeking to be ambitious for what God wants you to do which is to submit to and serve your husband as the Church submits to and serves Christ.

In either case, God can do for you what he did for this gay man and he can create in you in a clean heart and renew within you a right spirit if you will only repent and ask him to do this for you.

Misandrist Teen Girls Attack Teen Boys for Ranking Them by Looks

Another unchallenged case of misandry recently took place at Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School in Maryland. It was at that high school that a large group of senior girls demanded that their school administrators discipline a group of boys who had made a list ranking several girls according to their looks.

Below is an excerpt from the Washington Post story:

“A group of male students in their program created the list more than a year ago, but it resurfaced earlier this month, through text messages and whispers during class. One male classmate, seeing the name of his good friend Nicky Schmidt on the list, told her about it, and within 24 hours, dozens of girls had heard about the list.

Lists like this one had silently circulated among teen boys for generations, and it has happened in more recent years at Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School, too, the students said. But it was happening now, in the era of the #MeToo movement. Women had been standing up to harassment in workplaces and on college campuses and the high school girls, who had been witnessing this empowerment, decided they weren’t going to let the issue slide.

They felt violated, objectified by classmates they considered their friends. They felt uncomfortable getting up to go to the bathroom, worried that the boys might be scanning them and “editing their decimal points,” said Lee Schwartz, one of the other senior girls on the list

Unsatisfied with the disciplinary action, Schmidt texted about 15 girls she knew, and told them to tell all of their friends to show up at the school’s main office the next day during lunch, “to tell them we feel unsafe in this environment and we are tired of this toxicity,” Schmidt wrote in her text.

About 40 senior girls showed up, packing into an assistant principal’s office as Schmidt read a statement she had written.

“We want to know what the school is doing to ensure our safety and security,” Schmidt said. “We should be able to learn in an environment without the constant presence of objectification and misogyny.””

So, there you have it – a classic case of misandry if there ever was one.  And sadly, the teens, both girls and boys were taught to celebrate the misandry that took place as if it was some sort of moral victory.  But the sad truth is, these young girls probably have no idea that what they engaged in was clear act of misandry and the teen boys involved probably don’t know that they are the true victims of hatred in this case.

Misogyny, Misandry and the Battle of Words with the Left

Misogyny is a word that originated in the 17th century and it is the English form of the Latin word Misogynia which came from an ancient Greek word Misogunía.  It is made from two Greek words Miso meaning ‘hatred’ and Gune meaning ‘woman’.  It literally means “woman hater” or “hater of women”.

Misandry is a term of more recent origins than Misogyny but not as recent as many would like to believe.  The term was coined during the early feminist movements of the late 19th century.  One of its first known uses was in reference to Susan B. Anthony, an early feminist champion. The English word misandry was coined from two Greek words Miso for ‘hatred’ and ‘andr’ for man.  So, this word literally means “man hater” or “hater of men”.

Leftists are masters of taking words and changing their meanings.  “Gay” once meant happy, but the leftists perverted it into a reference to homosexuals.  In the classical sense – “Liberal” meant someone who was for freedom.  But now the term liberal has been taken over by the Leftists in their quest for domination and control every thought, word and deed that people do.

Illegal Aliens are now “undocumented immigrants”.   There are many liberals that would even like to strip the terms “husband” and “wife” from all federal and state law and replace it with “spouse” or “partner”.   And they have re-defined the murder of unborn children, abortion, as “Reproductive Rights”.

Another big word the Left has redefined is “dehumanize”.  Previously this word had been used to describe horrific events in human history such as the way African slaves were brought to America on slave ships or the way the Nazi’s stripped the Jews naked and subjected them to medical experiments and gas chambers.

Now we are told you are “dehumanizing” a person if you treat them as the gender they were born as rather than the gender they would like be known as.

And the biggest word Leftists have redefined is “hate”.  If you disagree with any liberal position on any social issue you are a “hater” of some group.

If you oppose homosexuality as a lifestyle or you oppose marriage rights for homosexuals than you are a “hater of gays” or “homophobic”.

If you oppose illegal immigration and want strict limits on immigration and a merit-based system where American citizens choose through their government who can come to America you are a “hater of immigrants” or “xenophobic” or “racist”.

If you think that families and by extension the world operated better when men were in charge of women and women had less rights then the Leftists bring out their favorite term of derision “misogynist”. Also, the term misogynist is applied to the heterosexual male behavior of sexually objectifying of women.

The Alliance Between Leftists and Non-Leftists Over Misogyny

There are many people who would not consider themselves Leftists or even Secular Progressives that would join together with these groups over their opposition to what they agree is “misogynistic behavior” by men.

Specifically, in the area of opposition to the sexual objectification of women there is much agreement between Leftists, Feminists, Conservatives and Christians alike just to name some groups.

What Does It Mean to Objectify a Woman?

Merriam Webster’s online dictionary defines an object as “something material that may be perceived by the senses”. So, by that definition both men and women are objects. But then there are animate and inanimate objects. An animate object is one that is alive while an inanimate object is one that is not.  A pen is an example of inanimate object and a horse is an example of animate object.

So, with this understanding, men and women are not only objects, but they are in fact animate or living objects.

As human beings we use both living and non-living objects all the time.  We use pens to write and in the time before the combustion and steam engines we used horses for transportation and for plowing fields.  Now we mostly use horses for sport(racing) or leisure activities.

We even use people.  When a person goes to a hair salon or a barber, they are using a human being like a tool to work on their hair.  When a person goes to a massage place, they are using that person to massage their body.

The military uses human beings as tools of war and in production assembly plants human beings are used as tools of production.

In professional sports human beings are used as tools of entertainment.  They are ranked by their athletic ability and traded by teams as commodities.  Fantasy football teams are very popular now where people can construct their own teams based on the stats of their favorite players.

This now brings us to the objectification of women.  When people understand the definition of an object no one would argue that women are indeed objects and women are material and can be perceived by the senses.   In fact, those who oppose the sexual objectification of women would not even be opposed to women being seen as objects for use as military tools, production tools or entertainment tools such as athletes, singers or actors.

When people say they oppose the objectification of women what they are saying is that they oppose women being seen as objects to be used for the sexual pleasure of men whether it be visual pleasure or physical pleasure.  So, if a man looks at a woman as an object which brings visual pleasure and could bring potential physical pleasure as well then, he is said to be sexually objectifying her.

Also, they generally oppose advertisers who use women’s body parts to sell products, pornography or any other narrative that communicates that women were created for man’s use.

This objectification of women ideology goes further in attempting to dictate to men how they should value women.  We see it all the time on television where men are castigated for walking up to a beautiful woman and asking for her phone number.  Men are told that it is a woman’s mind, her person that should be what attracts him to her and not her body.  Her body should play no part in her value to a man and in fact all women should be equally beautiful to men and men should never discriminate between or say that one woman’s features are more attractive than another.

So, the question for us as Christians to consider is – should we all jump on this train in condemning men for sexually objectifying women?  Many Christians agree with Leftists and other non-Christians that the answer should be yes! We should work together to wipe out this scourge of men objectifying women.

But before we answer so quickly, we will take a look at what the science of human biology shows us about male sexuality and then what the Bible tells us about God’s design of male sexuality.

It’s not Misogyny, Its Biological Reality

Below are some biological facts about the way men’s brains operate:

““the average man’s brain is sexually stimulated by visual cues and is built for variety…

Using functional MRI scans, researchers examined the brains of young men as they looked at pictures of beautiful women. They found that feminine beauty affects a man’s brain at a very primal level – similar to what a hungry person gets from a good meal or addict gets from a fix. One of the researchers said, “This is hard core circuitry. This is not a conditioned response.” Another concluded, “Men apparently cannot do anything about their pleasurable feelings [in the presence of beauty]”

Dr. Walt Larimore, MD – pg. 99 “His Brain, Her Brain”

“Telling men not to become aroused by signs of beauty, youth and health is like telling them not to experience sugar as sweet”

David M. Buss PhD – pg. 71 “The Evolution of Desire”

So, what does this mean in this conversation about the sexual objectification of women? It means that all men with a normal heterosexual orientation sexually objectify women meaning that their brain draws them to the female body and it automatically gets pleasurable feelings from seeing parts of a woman’s body.

It is interesting to note that homosexual men sexually objectify other men as well.   The only exception to this hardwired behavior is for asexual men.

But We Can Change Men!

One of the girls from Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School stated the following of how her generation was going to change male behavior:

“It was the last straw, for us girls, of this ‘boys will be boys’ culture,” Behbehani said. “We’re the generation that is going to make a change.

And these girls are not alone in their thinking.  We have Christians that are essentially teaching the same thing:

Al Blanton at 78mag.com wrote an article entitled “A Man’s Perspective on Yoga Pants“ where he spoke about how men need to change what he acknowledges is “natural” behavior on their part:

    “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.”

So, there it is – men just to need to suppress that part of their brain, the “barbarian” part, the “Cro-Magnon” part that sees women as sex objects.  Then all will be will be good or so we are told.

But are these proposed programs to change natural heterosexual male sexual behavior, right?

Biblical vs Secular Sexual Conversion Programs

Earlier I mentioned that homosexual men sexually objectify other men in the same way that heterosexual men do women.

And here is the great irony.

Leftists hate gay conversion therapy programs that are run by many Christian organizations and they are seeking to have these programs banned in every state.  So, in their view it is wrong and mentally unhealthy to try and reprogram these men from their homosexual orientation. Yet, Leftists and even many Christians and other non-leftists are engaging in a national conversion program under the guise of “toxic masculinity” to reprogram heterosexual masculine behavior.

I agree that both programs are attempting to change human desire and behavior, but the question is which one is right and which one is wrong?

For those of us who believe the Bible is the Word of God the answer is clear.  One behavior is natural by our creator’s standard and the other is not and Romans chapter one answers this question.

“26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”

Romans 1:26-27 (KJV)

The Scriptures make it clear that by our creator’s standard – sex is “the natural use of the woman” by a man.  It is unnatural and against God’s design for a man to have sexual relations with another man.

Therefore, we can rightly say based upon the clear teaching of the Word of God that when men desire to “use” women for sexual pleasure that this desire is righteous and holy.  In other words, God designed men to see women as sex objects.

However, while God calls sex “the natural use of the woman” he also clearly stipulates the boundary under which men may engage in sexual relations with women:

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

Hebrews 13:4 (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)

Marriage is the only way a man may engage in any type of sexual relations with a woman – that is God’s standard.  That means virtual sex, phone sex, sexting and all other forms of extramarital sexual relations violate God’s prerequisite for man’s sexual use of a woman.

So, what should type of “conversion” programs should we as Bible believing Christians support? The answer is those which conform to God’s design for sex.  That means we should have programs that encourage heterosexual orientation while strongly condemning homosexual orientation.  It means we should have programs that encourage regularly occurring sexual relations within marriage while strongly condemning all extramarital sexual relations.

It is by God’s Design that Men Rank Women By their Bodies

It is not only natural by God’s design for men to want to use women for sexual pleasure, it is also natural and by God’s design for men to rank women by their bodies.

One of the most famous rankings between women found in the Scriptures is that of Rachel and Leah:

“17 Leah was tender eyed; but Rachel was beautiful and well favoured. 18 And Jacob loved Rachel; and said, I will serve thee seven years for Rachel thy younger daughter.

Genesis 29:17-18 (KJV)

The Hebrew phrase that is translated as “beautiful and well favoured” in the KJV is not as literal to Hebrew text.  In the Hebrew it reads yâpheh[beautiful,lovely,fair] tô’ar [form, figure, shape] yâpheh[beautiful,lovely,fair] mar’eh[sight, vision, appearance].  So, when we take this phrase together it said Rachel had “a beautiful figure and was lovely to look at”.  In modern terms we might say “Rachel was built and was easy on the eyes”.

In the Song of Solomon we are told:

“How beautiful are your feet in sandals, O prince’s daughter! The curves of your hips are like jewels, The work of the hands of an artist.”

Song of Solomon 7:1 (NASB)

Even when God pictures himself and his attraction and eventual marriage to Israel, he uses the woman’s body as the initial focus of his attraction:

“7 I have caused thee to multiply as the bud of the field, and thou hast increased and waxen great, and thou art come to excellent ornaments: thy breasts are fashioned, and thine hair is grown, whereas thou wast naked and bare. 8 Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord God, and thou becamest mine.”

Ezekiel 16:7-8 (KJV)

Women Are Like Christmas Trees To Men

In the passage we just mentioned from Ezekiel 16:7-8 we see that God refers to a woman’s breasts and the other changes she experiences in puberty as “excellent ornaments”.  And this passage is really a great passage for illustrating how the male  sexual objectification of women is not wrong, but is in fact by the design of God.

We could compare women to Christmas trees.  There is the tree itself and then the ornaments that are placed on the tree. The tree is like the person of the woman or her mind and her character traits and her body parts like her face, hair, breasts, hips, legs and buttocks are like the ornaments on a Christmas tree.

And remember that a Christmas tree is not a Christmas tree without ornaments, right? So, when we look at various Christmas trees what is the first thing we notice? The beauty of the tree or the beauty of the ornaments? It is the ornaments.  But then as we more closely examine the Christmas tree, we will also rate the tree itself.

And this is the way it is for men when it comes to women.  We notice the ornaments first, and then the tree or in other words we are drawn first to the woman’s body and then to her person.  It does not mean that a woman’s person has no value for most men for indeed it does. And it should.  Many a man has found a woman’s “ornaments” to be attractive only to find her “tree” or her inner person to be sorely lacking.

And when a man finds that the beauty of woman’s ornaments is not also reflected in her inner person then he needs to move on from that woman because such a woman will become a snare to him.  In the book of Ecclesiastes, we read of such a woman:

 “And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart is snares and nets, and her hands as bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her.”

Ecclesiastes 7:26 (KJV)

Back to the Boys at Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School

Now that we have learned about misogyny, misandry and what is natural heterosexual male behavior according to both science and the Bible we will now apply all these truths to the situation which occurred at Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School in Maryland.

The girls said they felt violated by the mere existence of such a list made by the boys.  But where was the true violation in this scenario? The true violation occurred when Nicky Schmidt told his friend who was one of the girls on the list, that her name was there.

Let me put this in terms that teen girls can understand.  Imagine that you were at a girls sleep over and you were making a list of boys that you all agreed you liked and thought were cute and then one of the girls at that sleep over went and told one of the boys that he was on that list.  This would be a violation of a private “girls only” conversation would it not?

So, it was the privacy of the teen boys involved who made that list that was “violated” and there was not violation committed against these girls.

What about misogyny? Was the making of this list by these teen boys an act of misogyny? Remember that misogyny means hatred of women.  Were they displaying hatred toward these girls? The answer is No.  In fact, it was quiet the opposite.  They were displaying the degrees to which they found these girls sexually desirable.  If anything, this was a display of a form of love, Eros love, that God designed men to have toward women.   But we must restate again that according to the Bible men cannot act on their Eros desires toward women until marriage, but none the less they are given to men before marriage to encourage men to seek out marriage.

What about an environment of male “scanning” and “objectification” of these young girls?

I am going to address this answer directly to women both young and old reading this.  You ARE being scanned and objectified by men whether it be in your school, your place of work, where you shop or at home with your husbands. It is a fact of life.

But for a man to objectify you as a woman does not mean he is going to grab you and molest you or rape you or that he is even considering such actions.  The normal male sexual objectification of women does not make you “unsafe” as these girls suggested it does.

As I said all heterosexual men sexually objectify women, but it is what we do with that natural objectification of women that matters.  The overwhelming vast majority of men never molest or rape women despite feminist narratives to the contrary. But the sad reality is there has always has been a certain percentage of the male population that acts wrongly based on their natural sexual objectification of women.

Remember I said God meant for women to be like Christmas trees to men.  We as men are drawn first to the ornaments (the body parts) of a woman but we should also care for the tree (the person) as well.   A rapist or molester completely disregards the person of a woman and only sees her as a sexual object.  A normal man, by God’s design, sees a woman as both a person AND an object of sexual beauty and pleasure.

These young boys were scanning and objectifying these young girls long before this list was created and they will be scanning and objectifying these young girls and other women they meet long after the list has been destroyed. The only difference will be in the suppression and expression of the thoughts and desires of these young men as they try to navigate the misandrist environment that is now America.

And make no mistake this was an act of misandry.  Who hated who in this case? Were the boys hating the girls by making a list of to what degree these girls were sexually desirable? No.  Were the girls displaying hatred toward natural and normal male sexual behavior by seeking to have the school administrators hunt down and humiliate the boys who made the list? The answer is a resounding YES.

And now I am going to address men both young and old reading this.

Masculinity as God designed it is under attack.  Whether in it is in phrases like “Fight the Patriarchy” or “Toxic Masculinity” make no mistake that manhood as God designed it is under siege in America.

The question is will we as men tolerate this attack? How long will we sit idly by and watch our son’s natural masculinity be denigrated by our schools, the media, politicians and even church leaders?

This should be a call to action for men in America.  If care about manhood as it has been defined since the dawn of civilization and most importantly how the Bible defines then you must act in defense of it.

What if my daughter were on this list?

My daughter attends a public high school and could very well be ranked and talked about by boys or even put on ranking list like this.  And it would not bother me one bit.  Not even a little.

Why? Because I have taught my daughter from her pre-teens about the differences between male and female sexuality.  And she has been raised with 4 brothers, two older than her and two younger than her. She fully accepts her part in God’s creation and the way that God has designed men.

Now if boys were coming by her locker and harassing her with the list and putting it in her face telling her where she ranked that would be a different story.  That would be actual and real harassment, as opposed to the imagined harassment of these girls at Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School.

Just think about this for a second.  These girls said they were being violated by these boys who were privately expressing their own thoughts to one another about their views of the bodies of these girls in their school?

What if my son was one of the boys who made the list?

If my son were one that made the list and if he was not involved in using it to harass or shame girls at his school I would have absolutely NO problem with this whatsoever from an ethical or moral perspective.

I would go down to the school and ask to participate in the discussions that were being had with the students about this.  I would ask the girls to be honest and tell us if they had every talked about boys they liked privately.  Just because their criteria or the way they made their lists was different does not matter.

I would love to use that opportunity to educate young women as to how men’s brains actually operate and that it is natural and normal and no it does make them unsafe from all these boys that naturally sexually objectify them.

But at the same time there is a small percentage of men that will act sinfully when it comes to their sexual desires and they may sexually assault young women. And this is why a young woman should never ever be alone with man that is not her blood male relative until she is married to him.

The way to keep women safe is not to neuter the male sexual nature or try to redefine it to make it more palatable to women, but rather we must follow God’s rules for the safety and protection of both men and women alike.

Now I know the reality is that my son’s school would not give me the opportunity to speak if I presented my views up front to them before talking to the teens.  So, there are some other ways I could go about it.  I could attempt to write a letter to several local newspapers to see if any were looking for a different view point.

And then there is another option.  I could use a more covert approach to infiltrate the meeting.   I could tell the school that I wanted to speak to the children about sexual objectification as the father of one of the boys who made the list without giving away my position on sexual objectification.  I would tell my son to do the same and not reveal my position.

Then when the school administrators allowed me to speak thinking I will tell a story of how I showed my son he was wrong for his actions and why it was wrong I could use it to expose why this is actually a case of misandry or hatred of the normal heterosexual male behavior.

I would even start gently with asking the girls if they every talk about boys they like privately? I would even ask them if they ever made a list of a few boys they like and ones they would like to ask them out? And then I would go from there in explaining the differences between men and women.

I could get a lot out before the school administrators would realize what I was doing.

See these other posts on BiblicalGenderRoles.com related to this topic:

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

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

How should Christian women respond to their men looking at other women? Part 1

How should Christian women respond to their men looking at other women? Part 2

How should Christian women respond to their men looking at other women? Part 3