Husbands You Are Called to be Your Wife’s Teacher

Christian husbands you need to teach your wife the Word of God.  It may not be a structured course style teaching and could simply be a part of everyday discussions.

You certainly should help to interpret and apply God’s Word as to your wife’s life as you hear sermons from your Pastor each week. And yes, if you have a difference of interpretation or application of the Bible with your Pastor, you should explain that difference to your wife in a way that still shows respect to your Pastor.

You should constantly be looking to apply God’s Word to every day situations your wife faces in her relationships with friends, family, your children and especially your marriage.   You should also be looking to apply God’s Word for your wife to things she reads in books or things she sees on television.

Men Should Exercise Control Over Themselves and Their Women

God said to Cain in Genesis 4:7 “sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him”.  He was telling Cain that his sin nature desired to control his actions and to make him do things which violated God’s will for his life.

In our modern society where humanism and feminism dominate the culture, the word “control” is often seen as swear word while “consent” is seen as a holy and sacred term.  Yet even humanists and feminists must engage in controlling actions when it suits the humanist agenda.  Just take a look at the censorship by all the major tech giants, as well as colleges and universities which are dominated by all the various forms of humanists including feminists, globalists, socialists and environmentalists.  They have no problem exercising control over what opinions may or may not be voiced on their platforms or in their classrooms or on their campuses.

Socialist humanists have no problem with governments controlling wealth distribution by engaging in theft of private property from upper and middle economic classes and redistributing that to lower economic classes.  Environmentalist humanists have no problem controlling what people eat, what cars they may drive or how much energy resources they may use.

The reality is that humanists don’t really have a problem with themselves exercising a great amount of control over all elements of society.   They just don’t want to submit to God’s order or control in their lives.

And this is why humanists utterly hate and consider evil the control which God called men to exercise over the lives of their wives in Genesis 3:16 when “Unto the woman he said… thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee”.

Genesis 3:16 uses the same language structure as God used when talking to Cain in Genesis 4:7 about sin trying to control him.  Sin attempts to control our actions.  The sin nature will attempt to get us to do the very opposite of whatever God commands.  If God says to do something, the sin nature will try and get us not to do that thing.  If God says not to do something, the sin nature will tell us to do that very thing.

And here is a very important truth that every Christian man must take to heart.

In the same way that God has ordained husbands as human instruments of sanctification in the lives of their wives, sin attempts to use wives as human instruments of temptation in the lives of their husbands.  We see this in the very first act of sin committed by Eve when she gave Adam the forbidden fruit.

Man was ordained by God to rule over woman from the very start of creation.  Man exercised his authority over woman when he named her just as he named all the animals God created before her.  And we know, contrary to Christian feminists’ claims, that man’s rulership over woman was part of God’s design to picture the relationship of himself to his people.  To call man’s sacred trust to rule over woman a result of sin is to call Christ’s rulership over the Church to which it is directly compared to in Ephesians 5:23-24 a result of sin as well.

But man’s rulership became that much more important after the fall.  Now his rulership or his control of his wife would be far more difficult.  This is what God was saying when he told Adam his wife’s desire would be to him.  He was not saying she would have some lovely desire just to be by his side as the Christian feminists so wrongly claim.  He was saying that sin would corrupt his design of the feminine nature causing women to act in opposite ways of which God designed them to act.  God designed the feminine nature to be submissive, dependent, cooperative and to seek be under the control and dominance of man.  But sin would corrupt the feminine nature making it rebellious, independent, contentious and it would ultimately drive women to seek to control and dominate their husbands.

Conclusion

Humanists of all stripes have no problem controlling what opinions people may voice as long as they are the ones doing the controlling.  Humanists have no problem controlling what people eat, what people can spend their money on, how much energy people can use, where people can live or how people can defend themselves.  Again, they have no problem with control, as long as they are the ones doing the controlling.

But humanists have a big problem, a colossal problem, with any one trying to exercise any control over the “personal” decisions of women.  Nope don’t go there.  If women want to have all kinds of sex with different men outside of marriage men better just shut their mouths and stop “slut-shaming” women. And if women want to murder their unborn babies in their wombs, often a result of their whoring around, no one can control that.  If wives want to commit adultery with other men there should be no negative consequences or shaming of such women.  If women don’t want to have sex with their husbands, men better not coerce them into having sex in any way otherwise that is “marital rape”.

But God calls men to exercise control over their own sin natures as well as well as the human instrument of temptation that sin often uses, which is a man’s wife.

Is the Red Pill Concept of Game Biblical?

In this concluding post to our series, “Is Red Pill Biblical”, we will discuss the Red Pill concept of Game and summarize what we have learned about Red Pill in comparing it to the Bible.

In the context of an LTR or Marriage what does Red Pill Game look like? For this I will refer to one of  Rollo Tomassi’s articles entitled “Dread Games” where he gives the following practical examples of game:

“Dread, for lack of a better term, is a female condition.

Although I’ve suggested casually returning flirtations with other women as a means to amplifying desire and illustrating social proof, this is hardly the only, or best, means of fostering competition anxiety. Overt flirtations are a blunt means of stoking this anxiety, but often all it takes is a nuanced shift in a predictable routine to trigger that imagination. The idea isn’t to instill terror from fear of loss, but rather to demonstrate higher value; particularly when a woman’s attention is straying into comfortable, routine familiarity and she begins seeking indignation from other sources.

Sometimes all that’s necessary to provoke that imagination is to get to the gym, dress better, get a raise, travel for work, change your routine, adopt a Game mentality, hang out with a new (or old) friend, be cocky & funny with her – risk to offend her sensibilities. Most women believe that their pussies are sufficient to hold their men in thrall for a lifetime, but as a woman’s SMV declines and a Man’s appreciates their confidence in this form of leverage falls off, thus forcing them to adopt new schemas for controlling the fear of loss. When you head off to Las Vegas for that trade show and your wife fucks the ever-lovin’ shit out of you the night before you go, you’re experiencing one of those new schemas. It doesn’t take much, most times the lightest touch will do. Good dread game doesn’t even have to be initiated by you. Often enough, women will do it themselves.”

A man demonstrating his higher value, specifically his higher sexual market value (SMV) is central to the Red Pill concept of game.  In the initial attraction phase, it is all about a man showing he has higher SMV than the other guys around him thus attracting the woman to himself.  But then in an LTR or marriage situation, game switches into “dread” mode in order to stoke anxiety in the woman regarding the possible loss of her man.

This is one of those areas where I just have to flat out say that Red Pill contradicts itself.   Tomassi says regarding game that “The idea isn’t to instill terror from fear of loss, but rather to demonstrate higher value”.     But what is a man flirting with other women, changing his routine, hanging out more with friends and thus less with his wife in order to foster “competition anxiety” doing?  The answer is it is in fact instilling terror in her in the form of anxiety over possibly losing her man.

And just for those unfamiliar with this concept, SMV, or sexual market value, is the Red Pill concept that when women are in their late teens to mid-20’s (18-25) they really hold all the cards when it comes to relationships with men in the same age group.  However, as men progress past the mid-20s their SMV goes up and for women their SMV goes down.  This is why you will more often see older men with younger women and it is much rarer to see older women with younger men.

Red Pill Game Was Born Out of a Reaction to Blue Pill Game

Red Pill game was a reaction to Blue Pill game or what it sometimes refers to as “Beta Game”.  In his article “Our Sister’s Keeper”, Tomassi  explains what Beta Game is:

“Just to illustrate, for about 25 years or so, popular culture strongly pointed men towards a sexual strategy that could be defined as Beta Game. Play nice, respect a woman by default, be supportive of her self-image and ambitions to the sacrifice of your own, don’t judge her and do your utmost to identify with the feminine, was the call to action that, deductively, should make a man more attractive to a woman.”

So basically, for several decades’ men have been taught if they are more sensitive (more feminine), put a woman’s ambitions ahead of their own, never correct her or judge her and basically live to make her happy this will evoke the emotional response of her desiring to have sex with them.  Red Pill is correct that this entire paradigm is absolutely flawed.  In most cases this kind of behavior will cause a woman to see a man as more of a friend, than a potential lover.

The vast majority of men today employ Beta Game which leaves women with little choice but to marry one of these men because of their need for emotional security and a man to provide for them and their future children.  They then manipulate the Beta Game for their own purpose to control the relationship with their men, using sex as a reward mechanism to reinforce their control.

So along comes Red Pill game as an alternative to Blue Pill game.  It shows the flaws in Blue Pill game by demonstrating women are not attracted to men that act in more feminine ways, but rather they are attracted to men with the Alpha mindset and Alpha physical qualities.

Why Red Pill Game Is an Unbiblical Concept

Is it wrong for a man to “get to the gym, dress better, get a raise, travel for work…hang out with a new (or old) friend, be cocky & funny”? No.  These things can all be good and healthy for a man to do.  But then we must ask is it wrong for a married man to flirt with women other than his wife?

Unless he is in the courtship process pursing a second wife following the practice of Biblical polygamy then yes, it is absolutely wrong.   Flirtation outside the context and protection of courtship makes “provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof” which Romans 13:14 warns against.

I have read in Red Pill forums and comment areas of men who purposefully push their wife’s emotional buttons to start a fight with her so they can have great make up sex afterwards.  Whether it be flirting with other women in front of their wife or purposefully starting a fight these methods are what the Bible would classify as “craftiness”.  And the Bible says Christians are to have no part in such things:

“But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.”

2 Corinthians 4:2 (KJV)

But the biggest problem with Red Pill game from a Biblical perspective is that it is simply the flip side of a corrupt coin. And that coin is game itself. 

What is game? It is simply the attempt of a man to evoke a desired emotional response from a woman, and that response is for her to want to have sex with him.

The focus of a Christian’s man’s life should not be on evoking emotional responses from women in his life so he can get more sex.  But rather his life focus is to be on his mission, his call to image God with his life as 1 Corinthians 11:7 states “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”.

A man images God in his life’s work outside the home in addition to being the kind of husband and father that God is within his home.  Taking a wife is certainly a big part of a man’s mission. A man’s love for his wife should be pictured in the same way God shows his love his people through his leadership, provision and protection.

And in taking a wife, a man’s primary goal with his wife should not be to evoke the desired emotional responses from her, but rather to sanctify her as the Scriptures below state:

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

Ephesians 5:25-27 (KJV)

In the passage above husbands are called to love their wives “as Christ also loved the church” and in Revelation 3:10 Christ tells us how he loves his churches when he states “As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent”.

God has chosen husbands as human instruments of sanctification in the lives of their wives.  A man is called to sanctify his wife by rebuking his wife and chastening his wife as Christ does his churches.

This entire concept of a man sanctifying his wife by rebuking and chastening her is utterly rejected in the secular philosophy of Red Pill as well as the Beta teachings in both our secular world and sadly in most churches today.

So How Should Christian Husbands Deal with Sexual Denial from Their Wives?

So, if game is off the table for Christian husbands, how do Christian husbands deal with things like sexual denial from their wives?  The answer is that a Christian man should throw out the corrupt coin of game (both blue pill and red pill) and replace that with the coin of sanctification.

When you as a Christian husband realize that your sexual problems with your wife are part of a much larger issue of her sanctification things become much clearer.

The sanctification of your wife requires you to wash her in the Word just as Christ washes his Church.  That washing requires you to clearly instruct her in what God expects from her as a wife.  That instruction then goes further into your specific expectations of your wife as her husband.  Don’t worry about the fact that your expectations of your wife will be different than other men.  That is ok.  As long as you are applying the principles of God’s Word then it is right.

Most women today do not submit to their husband in any area of their marriage or family.   Some women will submit to their husband in specific areas like where they go to church, finances and rules and discipline for the children and often these women will pat themselves on the back for this kind of submission.  But it is the rare woman today who is completely submitted to her husband in the sexual arena.  The overwhelming majority of Christian women, even those who think they are submissive wives, still retain ownership and control over their bodies and their sex lives with their husbands.

And this is why you as a Christian husband cannot leave the area of sexual submission alone and simply be satisfied with these other areas of submission if they are already present.  The sanctification of a wife must start in the sexual arena because this will form the foundation for submission in all other areas of the marriage.  In most cases, a woman who submits to her “in every thing” (Ephesians 5:24) regarding her body will more easily submit to her husband “in everything” in other areas of her marriage as well.

Conclusion

Rollo Tomassi, in his article “Christian Dread” stated “I know a common refrain of more traditionalist Christians is that Christianity was already Red Pill before there was a Red Pill…” which led to the question that we asked at the beginning of this series.

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

And the answer we have proven in this 7-part series on Red Pill is yes!

There are indeed some Red Pill teachings regarding the nature of men and women that are also found in Bible. But there are also some Red Pill teachings that conflict with the teachings of the Bible.  And even when Red Pill correctly identifies HOW the masculine and feminine human natures are different, it can never truly answer the reason of WHY they are different.  Only the Bible can do that.

Red Pill is right that Male authority over woman is indeed the birthright of every man (Genesis 3:16, Ephesians 5:23-24, 1 Corinthians 11:1-16).

Red Pill is right that sex is a greater need for men than for women. The Bible compares a man’s need for sex to that of his need for water (Proverbs 5:15). But Red Pill is wrong in seeing man’s life imperative as simply to sow his seed with as many women as possible.  A man’s strong sexual nature is only a part of his larger God given nature.  His imperative is so much more than to have sex, it is to image God with his life (1 Corinthians 11:7).

Red Pill is right that men naturally have a polygynous nature and the Bible reveals this nature is blessed and allowed by God (Genesis 30:18, Exodus 21:10-11, Deuteronomy 21:15-17, Deuteronomy 25:5-7, II Samuel 12:8).   But God meant for man’s polygynous nature only to be exercised within the covenant and protection of marriage and not in the way that Red Pill Pick Up Artists exercise it as whoremongers.

Red Pill is right that women do indeed have a hypergamous nature always seeking the next best man to be with.  But Red Pill is wrong in seeing this as an amoral trait in women and simply a product of evolution for women to get the strongest and best seed from men.  God directly condemns feminine hypergamy in the 7th commandment when he said in Exodus 20:14 “Thou shalt not commit adultery”. Feminine hypergamy was seen as so dangerous to society that God prescribed the death penalty for it in Deuteronomy 22:22.

Red Pill is right that a woman should never be a man’s mental point of origin.  But Red Pill is wrong in saying that a man should make himself and his desires the focal point of his life. The Bible tells men that Christ and the life mission God has given them to image him should be the focal point of their life and not a woman (Genesis 3:17, Ecclesiastes 7:26, 1 Corinthians 11:7, 2 Corinthians 10:5).

Red Pill is right that men need to establish frame, or their worldview, in a relationship with a woman from the very beginning.  And they need to hold that frame.  In any courtship it is crucial that a man establish his frame with a potential wife and if he cannot establish that frame with her during their courtship, he most certainly should not marry her.

However Red Pill’s objection to overt methods of men holding frame opting only for covert and subtle influence does not match the Biblical call of men to rebuke and discipline their wives as Christ does his Church (Revelation 3:19).  A man should set the frame not through subtle or crafty means, but rather through direct and plain instruction to his wife based upon the Word of God and when she seeks to control the frame he rebukes and disciplines her until she returns to his frame.

The Red Pill concept of Game has no place in Biblical Christianity.   As we said earlier, it is not wrong for a man to do things like “get to the gym, dress better, get a raise, travel for work…hang out with a new (or old) friend, be cocky & funny”.   But it is wrong to state that he must earn sex with his wife by doing these things to increase his SMV status with her.

The  only “status” that matters in God’s perspective is that he is her husband and she has a duty to lovingly have sex with him whenever he so desires it.

Game is wrong because it is completely based on an appeal to a woman’s emotions in order to get her to have sex.  In this way game, whether it is Red Pill or Blue Pill, makes a woman’s feelings the central focus of sex between a man and woman.  The Biblical view of sex is that it is not based on feelings, but rather on duty (1 Corinthians 7:3-5).  Sex is referred to as something that is rendered, that is due and a right in marriage.

The Red Pill concept that husbands should only seek sex when their wives genuinely desire it goes against the Scriptural command for husbands to drink from the well that is their wife’s body whenever they are thirsty and to satisfy themselves at all times with it (Proverbs 5:15-19).

And finally, I want to leave with a note about the Christian version of Red Pill. I was aware of the existence of the Christian variation of Red Pill before I started this series.  And I will admit I learned some new things about them while writing this series like the fact that some of them teach the need for husbands to take overt action by rebuking and correcting their wives.

But even among Christian Red Pill folks there is still much acceptance of game and appeal to a woman’s emotions and natural desire as the basis of sex in marriage.  A woman having sex with her husband when she does not genuinely desire it and just because it is her duty is still seen as wrong by some Christian Red Pill folks who still hold to this part of the secular Red Pill philosophy.

But the truth is that Red Pill started off as a secular philosophy and MGTOW and Christian Red Pill were later off-shoots of the original secular Red Pill.  This is why I have based this series on the secular version of Red Pill.

The Christian version of Red Pill may be much closer to the Bible and I don’t deny that there may be some additional truths in it.  But I simply maintain like other “traditionalist Christians” where Red Pill is right “that Christianity was already Red Pill before there was a Red Pill”.  And I prefer to use the Bible as a basis and framework from which I discuss intersexual dynamics rather than Red Pill.  I see knowledge of Red Pill being good in the sense of being able to help non-Christians by showing them Red Pill truths that are found in the Bible.  But we as Christians must also be cognizant of many unbiblical teachings in Red Pill as we have shown in this series.

Is the Red Pill Concept of Frame Biblical?

In the first part of this series, “Is Red Pill Biblical”, we have covered the Red Pill concepts of the male and female imperatives as well as the alpha/beta paradigm and the alpha mindset. In this 6th part of our series we will now discuss the Red Pill concept of frame.

In one his earliest blog posts on his blog “The Rational Male”, Rollo Tomassi writes the following in his article entitled “Frame”:

“In psych terms, frame is an often subconscious, mutually acknowledged personal narrative under which auspices people will be influenced. One’s capacity for personal decisions, choices for well-being, emotional investments, religious beliefs and political persuasions (amongst many others) are all influenced and biased by the psychological narrative ‘framework’ under which we are most apt to accept as normalcy…

One important fact to consider, before I launch into too much detail, is to understand that frame is NOT power. The act of controlling the frame may be an exercise in power for some, but let me be clear from the start that the concept of frame is who’s ‘reality’ in which you choose to operate in relation to a woman. Both gender’s internalized concept of  frame is influenced by our individual acculturation, socialization, psychological conditioning, upbringing, education, etc., but be clear on this, you are either operating in your own frame or you’re operating in hers

As we can see from Tomassi’s quote above, frame in the Red Pill world is the concept that in every relationship either the man is operating in the woman’s world view or she is operating in his.

Later in the same post he states Her genuine (unnegotiated) desire for you hinges upon you covertly establishing this narrative for her.   Basically, he is saying the man should bring the woman into his frame without her knowing he is trying to bring her into his frame.  Essentially Tomassi is calling on men to perform the Red Pill equivalent of Jedi mind tricks on women.   We will get more into this in the next post on the Red Pill concept of game.

According to Red Pill, if a man attempts to bring a woman into his frame (i.e. worldview) by overt or coercive measures he defeats the central focus of Red Pill ideology – to get a woman to have “genuine (unnegotiated)” sexual desire toward him.

Tomassi writes further in this post about the way most modern marriages go when he states the following:

“In most contemporary marriages and LTR arrangements, women tend to be the de facto authority. Men seek their wive’s “permission” to attempt even the most mundane activities they’d do without an afterthought while single. I have married friends tell me how ‘fortunate’ they are to be married to such an understanding wife that she’d “allow” him to watch hockey on their guest bedroom TV,…occasionally

What these men failed to realize is that frame, like power, abhors a vacuum.  In the absence of the frame security a woman naturally seeks from a masculine male, this security need forces her to provide that security for herself.”

And near the end of the post he states:

It is vital to the health of any LTR that a man establish his frame as the basis of their living together before any formal commitment is recognized. As I stated in the beginning, frame will be fluid and conditions will influence the balance, but the overall theme of your relationship needs to be led and molded by you.”

Where Red Pill is Right in its Teachings About Frame

Red Pill is spot on that power hates a vacuum and so does a couple’s worldview.  If the man does not set the worldview in the relationship, then the woman will.  But the couple will either operate in the woman’s worldview or the man’s.  Anything illusions of a melded worldview are just that, illusions.

Red Pill is right that a man must establish his frame from the very beginning of any relationship.

The Bible would absolutely agree with Tomassi’s statement to men that “the overall theme of your relationship needs to be led and molded by you”.  God actually speaks of trying to mold his wife Israel in the Old Testament:

“O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the Lord. Behold, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.”

Jeremiah 18:6 (KJV)

Where Red Pill is Wrong in its Teachings About Frame

Red Pill is absolutely wrong in its insistence on men using covert measures to bring women into their frame.  What Red Pill asks men to do with both frame and game is to engage in what the Bible calls “craftiness”.  I will talk more about the Biblical view of craftiness in my next article on the Red Pill concept of game.

The Bible tells men in Ephesians 5:25 that they are to love their wives “even as Christ also loved the church” and in Revelation 3:19 we see how Christ loved his churches when he states “As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent”.

Red Pill rejects the overt measures of rebuking and disciplining a woman that the Bible calls all husbands to. A Christian man should always speak plainly to any woman he is with about his worldview and what he expects of her before he will consider courting her for marriage.

I have a friend of mine whose son recently married. But before he married his wife, they had kind of a rocky dating relationship.  They actually broke up twice before getting back together a third time and then getting engaged and eventually married.

The reason they broke up is because his son was establishing his frame during the dating relationship, his Christian world view, including his belief in Biblical gender roles and the man being the head of the woman in all things.  If she would rebel against his leadership on any issue, he would send her away and wait for her to come back and repent.  Each time she attempted to take control of the frame or really the worldview under which their relationship would operate, he would remind her that as a couple they would operate in his worldview or they would not be a couple at all.

Red Pill is right that women deep down want men to establish the frame of their relationship. Some women will of course test the man’s resolve but eventually submit to his worldview.  But where Red Pill is wrong is that this is not true for all women. There are some women who will constantly battle to control the frame of their relationship with a man.  And some will not reveal their true intent to control the frame until after marriage.

From a Christian perspective we can explain this behavior in women as greater and lesser degrees of the corruption of their God given feminine natures.  Remember that God’s original design of woman was for her to submit to and serve man. In the context of this discussion of frame, God meant for women to operate within the frame of a man, first her father and then finally her husband.  But sin corrupted a woman’s nature (as it did man’s) and it still does today.

Going back to the young man who recently married.  He established his frame in a very overt way.  He made it plain to her what his expectations were of her.  She tested him several times and each time he sent her away.  Eventually she came back after learning that she could move his resolve on these things and she loved and respected him for standing his ground.  Now there are other women who would have left him and never returned.  Again, it all comes down to the level of corruption of the woman’s nature.

We have already mentioned this previously in this series but we must mention it again here.  Red Pill makes the entire point of a man’s life to covertly cause women to genuinely desire and want sex with him.  But that is not the point of a man’s life from a Biblical perspective.

God created man to image him and thereby bring him glory (1 Corinthians 11:7). A man’s powerful driving sexual desire is certainly a part of his God given nature and man displays certain aspects of God’s nature in his sexual desire for woman.  But man was created to image God in far more ways than just his sexual desire toward woman.

God created the woman for the man (1 Corinthians 11:9) so that man could image God as a husband in marriage and father to his children.  God says in 1 Timothy 3:4 that a man must be “One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity”.

Conclusion

The Red Pill concept of frame, that a man must establish his worldview as the one he and any potential woman he marries will live in is a Biblical concept.  God says that the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church and that women are to be subject to their husbands in everything (Ephesians 5:23-24).  He tells men that they are to love their wives as Christ loves his church and an essential part of Christ’s love for his church is his rebuking and disciplining of his church (Revelation 3:19).   The scriptures tell us of wives in 1 Corinthians 14:35 “if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home”.  The man is to set the worldview for the woman.  That is the plain teaching of the Bible.

However, the Bible and Red Pill part ways when it comes to the method for a man to establish frame in a relationship with a woman and the reason for his establishing frame in the first place.

Red Pill encourages men to use covert and subtle means to bring women into their frame while the Bible discourages craftiness for Christians (2 Corinthians 4:2).  The Bible tells us in Proverbs 27:5 “Open rebuke is better than secret love”.   Men should speak plainly and establish the parameters of their relationship early with potential wives.  And after marriage they should use instruction, rebuke and discipline to keep their wives within their frame (worldview).

Red Pill sees the entire reason for men trying to get women into their frame is to invoke “genuine (unnegotiated)” sexual desire toward them.  But as Christian men the only “LTR” we are authorized to enter into with a woman is marriage.  And our purpose for entering into marriage is more than getting a woman to genuinely desire us sexually.

I am not saying there is anything wrong with a man wanting a woman to genuinely sexually desire him.  God wants his people to genuinely desire him.  But a man who understands his purpose in God’s creation understands that his establishing of frame with a woman is not simply to get laid.

Marriage is about imaging or displaying the relationship between God and his people, between Christ and his Church. It is about a man demonstrating all the attributes of God with his life including his love for his people.  Some of those attributes include teaching, rebuking and disciplining one’s wife and children.  Other attributes include showing them grace, mercy and compassion as well as providing for them, sacrificing for them and protecting them.

So, should you as a man establish frame in a relationship with a woman you are looking at as a potential spouse? Certainly.   Should you continue to keep her in that frame when you are married? Absolutely.  Is it possible your woman will appreciate and even find your more sexually desirable for establishing frame with her? Yes.  But there are some women who will not respect you as a man trying to establish frame with them.  They will resist at every turn.  Others will pretend to be in your frame and only when you are married, they will attempt to take control of the frame of your relationship.

And as you set about to establish frame with a woman, you should do it using God’s methods, not Red Pill’s methods.  And you should never forget the overarching reason you are called by God to establish frame in your woman’s life in the first place.

In the last part of this series we will cover the topic of “Is The Red Pill Concept of Game Biblical?”

Does the Bible Say It is Ok to Murder Women?

“Genesis 9:6 says it is wrong to shed man’s blood because God made man in his image.  But 1 Corinthians 11:7 says only males are the image of God.  Does that mean the Bible is saying it is ok to murder women?”. This was a question I recently received from a reader calling himself Jacob.

Below is Jacobs’s complete email.

“BGR,

I have read what I think are all of your writings on the image of God in man.  I was hoping you could help clarify some things the Bible says about the image of God.

I was always taught growing up in church that Genesis 9:6 teaches us the very foundation for the value of all human life (both men and women) comes from the fact that they are made in the image of God.

Genesis 9:6 says it is wrong to shed man’s blood because God made man in his image.  But 1 Corinthians 11:7 says only males are the image of God.  Does that mean the Bible is saying it is ok to murder women? Please do not misunderstand me.  This is not a trick question.  I do not believe it is ok to kill women but I am very confused by what seems to be a contradiction between Genesis 9:6 and 1 Corinthians 11:7.

James 3:9 has a similar statement to Genesis 9:6 but instead of it talking about murder, it talks about not cursing men because they are made after the “similitude of God”.  So, the same rhetorical question would apply, since only men are made in the image of God is ok to curse women?

What about when it says in 2 Corinthians 4:4 “Christ who is the image of God” and in Hebrews 1:3 that Christ is “the express image of his person”?  What is the difference between Christ being the image of God and the express image of his person and man being the image of God?

Thank you for your time.

Jacob”

I am actually very grateful for Jacob’s email because I have been meaning to write on Genesis 9:6 and how it harmonizes with I Corinthians 11:7 and this pushed me to finally write on this subject.

What is God teaching us in Genesis 9:6?

Genesis 9:6 teaches us that mankind, both male and female, were made in the image of God.  This is where the value of human life begins and why God commanded the death penalty for those who shed man’s blood.

Some of my readers may be confused that I have just stated that men and women were both made in the image of God because I have previously stated in many of my articles that Genesis 1:27 does NOT show that both men and women were made in the image of God.  And I still stand by that interpretation.

“So God created man [Hebrew “adam”] in his own image, in the image of God created he him [Hebrew eth haa-‘adam”]; male and female created he them.”

Genesis 1:27 (KJV)

The Hebrew word “adam” can mean “man”, “mankind”, “men” or it can particularly refer to a certain man and sometimes Adam, the first man.  To understand the correct meaning of adam we must always look to the surrounding context in which it is used.

In the case of Genesis 1:27, when it says “God created adam in his image” this could have meant “mankind” if there were no qualifiers in the verse to indicate otherwise.  But there is a qualifier which is “eth haa-‘adam” which literally means “this same man” and is translated by the KJV as “he him”.  This means God was talking specifically about Adam.

The most literal rendering of Genesis 1:27 is as follows:

“So God created Adam in his own image, in the image of God created he this same man; male and female created he them.”

The phrase that follows “male and female created he them” does not indicate that woman was created in the image of God, it simply states that just as man was created by God, so too woman was created by God.

However, Genesis 9:6 is different than Genesis 1:27.  Genesis 9:6 is speaking of something which applies to all human beings and that subject is murder.  And it uses no qualifiers for handling the murder of women differently than that of men.  So, when Genesis 9:6 tells us the reason murder is wrong is because man was created in the image of God, we can rightly understand that “adam” in the Hebrew in this context is referring to “mankind” which includes both men and women.

And on the subject of killing, Genesis 9:6 is not talking about any killing of man by man, because God actually commands men to kill men at certain times as is seen in this very passage.  It is talking about unjustified killing.

And who determines if the taking of a human being’s life is justified or not? It is God.

The Bible shows us three major categories of justified killing where the person who does the killing is not considered sinning in the sight of God.  Exodus 22:2 shows us the God given right of self-defense.   Psalms 144:1 shows us that God teaches men how to fight and wage war in defense of their nations which is another God given right.  Numbers 35:27 teaches us that those who have the authority to execute the death penalty for various moral crimes God deems worthy of death are not held guilty for the blood they shed.

This is why abortion is considered an unjustified killing from a Biblical perspective but execution of a murderer on death row is considered a justified and righteous act.  The doctor who sheds the blood of the innocent child within the womb is held guilty by God because God does not allow the killing of someone simply because their life presents an inconvenience to their mother. However, the executioner who pulls the switch to kill the murderer is held righteous before God because God ordains this as part of his justice.

Understanding the Image of God in Christ, Man and Woman

Anyone who has read this blog for any amount of time will know that I heavily teach on the forgotten and unpopular Bible doctrine that man was created to be the image bearer of God and woman was not.  But some misunderstand this to mean that I am saying the Bible says women are not human or are less human than men.  And nothing could be further from the truth.  My prayer is that after reading what I show here from the Scriptures that you will understand that the life of a woman has equal value in the sight of God with that of a man.  All human life has equal value to God.

But we must teach another truth at the same.  While all human life, both males and females, has equal value to God this does not mean men and women were made for the same purpose. In this article I will demonstrate that these two truths stand side by side and they do not contradict.

Below is a table which will help to compare and contrast the similarities and differences between what the Bible says about the image of God in Christ, man and woman.

 

Male & Female Human Beings Male Human Beings Christ
Genesis 9:6 (KJV) I Corinthians 11:7 (KJV) Hebrews 1:3 (KJV)
“Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: FOR IN THE IMAGE OF GOD MADE HE MAN.” “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.” “Who being the brightness of his glory, and THE EXPRESS IMAGE OF HIS PERSON, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high”

 

As we mentioned previously, Genesis 9:6 shows us that the value of human life begins with the fact that all human beings, both men and women, were made in the image of God.  But then we read in 1 Corinthians 11:7 that the man (literally “the male” in the original Greek) is the image and glory of God but the woman is the glory of the man.  Finally, we read in Hebrews 1:3 that Jesus Christ in relation to God is “the express image of his person”.

So how do these three passages in the table above harmonize?  To answer this, I want to show you another illustration below:

In the table above are a list of characteristics.  Some align with God, while others align with man and still others align with women.  There is a highlighted characteristic type that intersects God, man and woman.  These characteristics of self-awareness, speech, creativity, morality and emotions are what separate man and woman from the animals and they reflect God’s image in all of us.  These common characteristics that are common to both God, man and woman are rightly called “Human”.

It is in this way that all human beings are equal in their humanity and all human beings bear the image of God.  It is because of these characteristics of God in all of us that all human life has value and it is why murder is wrong.

There are many Christians who would take offense at the table above and they teach and believe that God’s nature is only seen in the combination of masculine and feminine characteristics. Still others will maintain that some women can be aggressive, competitive and strong while some men can be cooperative and weak.

But this is why I very carefully used the word “characteristic” in the illustration above. The word “characteristic” can be used as both a noun and an adjective.   When used as a noun a “characteristic” describes something that is a distinguishing trait or something that is an integral part of something or someone.  When used as adjective it refers to something that is typical of something or someone.

I am using “characteristic” in both senses of the word in the illustration above.  While there are times that God can act in feminine ways this is not typical or characteristic of God’s behavior.  God’s behavior throughout the Scriptures is more typified by the masculine characteristics shown above and it is why God is always referred to in his person in the masculine sense throughout the Scriptures.

But now let’s go back to another question this raises.  How are man and woman both made in the image of God, yet man is the image bearer of God in a way woman is not?

To answer this question let’s look at Christ.  As we showed in the above table, the Scriptures tell us of Christ regarding his relation to God that he is “the express image of his person”.  And in Colossians 2:9 we read of Christ “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily”.  These passages are teaching us that Christ is the image of God in that he has all the characteristics of God because he is God.

Now let’s compare the image of God in Christ to the image of God in man. Does man have the image of God in him to the same degree that Christ does? The answer is no.  Man does not have any of God’s deity characteristics.

And now we can answer the central question of this article.  Does woman have the image of God in her to the same degree that man does? The answer according the Scriptures is no.  And this is why we read in the Scriptures that both men and women are MADE IN the image of God, yet it is only of men and Christ that we read that they are THE image of God.

Why Did God Make Woman Different Than Himself and Man?

As we can see while women share their common human characteristics with both God and men, they also have characteristics that are not typical of God or man.  Why did not God make women with these traits that are uncharacteristic of himself or man?

This all comes down to God’s purpose in creation.  Why did God give us the characteristics of our common humanity? The reason is different for men than for women.  God gave men their human characteristics along with their masculine characteristics for the purpose of imaging God and bringing him glory. God wanted to create a being that would be like him in every way except for his deity characteristics so that he could watch that being demonstrate his characteristics and thereby bring him glory.

But in order for that being, man, to fulfill his created purpose God needed to create another being.  He needed to create a being of a similar nature which could provide companionship.  But this being would also have to be created in a way that they would need the leadership, provision and protection of man.  So, God created woman as “the weaker vessel” (1 Peter 3:7) for man so that he could fulfill his created purpose to image God.

Conclusion

Here is the summary of what the Scriptures teach about the image of God in man and woman and the differences between the two.

While male human beings do not have all the characteristics of God in that they lack God’s deity characteristics there is nothing that is characteristic of male human beings that is not also characteristic of God.  The same cannot be said for female human beings.  There are many traits that are characteristic of female human beings that are not characteristic of God.

And this is why we can rightly say based upon the Scriptures that our value as human beings, both men and woman, comes from the fact that we were both made in the image of God in our shared human characteristics yet men in their masculine characteristics are the image of God in a way that women are not.

Beth Moore Has A Man Bow to the MeToo Movement

This last weekend, Beth Moore, a prominent charismatic and feminist preacher, had her drummer come forward and kneel on the stage “asking their forgiveness for all hurts & harms they’ve ever received at the hands of men”.

I want to first give thanks to Snapper(one of my regular reader) who sent this my way and I also want to give credit to PulpitAndPen for their powerful rebuke of this wickedness where they stated:

“Moore started her career as a teacher for women, but now preaches to both genders. Evangelical leaders like John Piper have encouraged men to listen to her violations of 1 Timothy 2:12. Not deterred by Scriptural admonitions against women teaching doctrine or preaching to men, Moore has gradually become a chief proponent of evangelical feminism…
Of course, there is nothing in Scripture that suggests any individual can apologize for the sins of someone else, least alone an entire gender. The very notion is Biblically untenable. Neither is it wise to presume that every woman is a victim, but in Critical Race Theory (which is a Marxist political ideology that applies to gender, sexuality and other “identity groups” as well as race) and in the ideology of Marxist Intersectionality (the combining of two “victimized” identity group, in this case Native Americans and women), it is necessary to presume victimhood upon all.”

I say to PulpitAndPen- AMEN and AMEN. What wickedness our generation is now seeing before its very eyes.

Now let me add a few of my own thoughts to what PulpitAndPen said. Much of this error goes back to the roots of Methodism and Pentecostalism.

During the reformation, Protestants rejected both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox position that Church tradition was equally as authoritative as the Bible. Protestants also rejected the Catholic doctrine of Papal authority as well. The Protestants while having diverse opinions on many doctrines were united in the doctrine of “sola fide” meaning “justification by faith alone” against the Catholic Church’s position of faith plus works being necessary for salvation.

One of the main divisions within Protestantism was over the issue of whether the Scriptures alone formed the basis of faith and practice or whether they simply had higher authority than church tradition.

Some Protestants took the position of “prima scriptura” which held that the Scriptures were the “first” or “above all” source of divine revelation BUT not the only guide for faith and practice. The Anglicans believed in following church tradition as long it did not conflict with the Scriptures. The Methodists and the Pentecostal churches that grew out of the Methodists believed visions and other supernatural gifts were also to guide the churches.

And it was this error at the very root of Methodism and Pentecostalism which lead both groups to embrace feminism far before any other evangelical churches did.

Others Protestants like the Lutheran churches, Presbyterian churches and Baptist churches strongly held to the doctrine of “sola scriptura” which meant that the Bible alone was the sole infallible rule of faith and practice.

However, the Baptists were the strongest and loudest of all the Protestants in their preaching of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. The Baptists were heavily persecuted by other Protestants on the basis of another major division between Protestant groups and that is on the issue of infant baptism. Baptists were persecuted by other Protestant groups for rejecting infant baptism as unscriptural and instead preaching believer’s baptism by immersion.

This is why it should come as no surprise that the “Bible Belt” which is overwhelming populated by Baptist churches and located in the Southern United States has the highest concentration of conservative Bible believing Christians in the United States. It is in this place where we find the most Christians in America standing against feminism. That is not to say there are not outliers throughout the rest of the country. I do not live in the south but I can say where I live there are outposts of Christianity that are taking a stand against this apostasy as well.

The Church can never ever base its practices on either the traditions or feelings of men or women for that matter. Our sole source of faith, our rules for church conduct (including offices and those who preach or teach) and our rules for holy living must be founded upon the Word of God and the Word of God alone.

CBNNew reported on the following on this incident:

“Moore said tears began falling and that the Holy Spirit fell on the women. “How much more Christlike could this brother have been?” she asked. “He had committed no such sins against women. But he stood before them representing those who had. It was one of the most powerful things I’ve ever seen.”

The tears flowed like rain. I was told again & again that most of them had never EVER heard these things addressed & had certainly never heard anyone say I’m so sorry. Many hurts also come through other women & I addressed those next but this was when the Holy Spirit fell on us.

— Beth Moore (@BethMooreLPM) October 8, 2018 “

What this drummer did was not Christlike at all. We as Christian men bow before God. Christian men do not bow to the idols of feminism or the MeToo movement. Christian men stand firm in the faith.

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

1 Corinthians 16:13(NASB)

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

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

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

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

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

What are Objects?

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

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

Objects made in the Image of God

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

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

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

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

Matthew 6:26 (KJV)

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

Human beings use other human beings every day

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

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

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

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

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

We must have the right to use objects

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Thou shalt not steal.”

Exodus 20:15 (KJV)

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

Exodus 20:17 (KJV)

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

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

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

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

Matthew 20:15 (KJV)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And now some examples for the ladies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This brings us to the primary subject of this article.

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

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

I Corinthians 11:9 (KJV)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can men go too far in sexually objectifying women?

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

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

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

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

Application for women

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

The Bible tells us this regarding our cultural conditioning:

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

Romans 12:2 (KJV)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Application for Men

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

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

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

Isaiah 5:20 (KJV)

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 Corinthians 16:13 (NASB)

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

Is Donald Trump making America masculine again?

Could Donald Trump have been elected because a large group of Americans believe America has become “too soft and feminine”? Could Donald Trump’s strong masculine persona have been a major driving force in his appeal to millions of Americans? Some surveys suggest this might be the case.

“Right now, a large group of Americans are feeling very hopeful about Donald Trump’s presidency. In polls, they show up in different demographic categories: They’re Republicans; they’re Trump voters; they’re of all different ages and from every geographic region…

America has been experiencing intense gender anxiety in recent years, and this is particularly true in conservative evangelical communities. White evangelicals’ ambient concern that the country is becoming “too soft and feminine” speaks to that anxiety, and to a deeper concern that the foundations of life in the United States are changing.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/trump-white-evangelicals-communities/509084/

“The two motivations—conviction and bigotry—are difficult to tease apart. Particularly in the United States, a country that remains more religious that its Western peers, faith and culture are in a feedback loop, complementing, responding, and reacting to one another. This is especially true when it comes to trans people in public bathrooms. Wisdom from the Bible can be brought to bear on any question, but on this issue, the ideas at stake are foundational. They are part of “the way of reading the Bible, going back to Genesis” said R. Marie Griffith, a professor of religion and politics at Washington University in St. Louis. “There’s this belief that God created man, and out of man, he created woman. And these are really crystal-clear categories. There’s something very deep and fundamental about that for the Christians who have … a way of thinking about the Bible as the word of God…

But more broadly, this is also a question about gender roles. In a recent PRRI / The Atlantic poll, 42 percent of Americans said they believe society is becoming “too soft and feminine.” Thirty-nine percent said they believe society is better off “when men and women stick to the jobs and tasks they are naturally suited for,” including 44 percent of Republicans and 58 percent of white evangelical Protestants. These numbers suggest nervousness about fluid gender identities—and that America isn’t even close to a consensus that men and women should choose the way they act.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/americas-profound-gender-anxiety/484856/

While secularists and liberal Christians may see little to no difference between “conviction and bigotry” we as Bible believing Christians know there is a huge difference between the two.  I can’t tell you how many people write me every week calling me a bigot for teaching the following three truths straight from the Scriptures.

Biblical Truth #1 – While men and women are equally human, they are not equally made in the image of God

“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.”

1 Corinthians 11:7 (KJV)

The Bible is crystal clear – man, not woman is the direct image bearer of God.  This is not say that women do not also bare some attributes of God.  The common attributes of humanity that men and women share like self-awareness, emotions, free-will and creativity are part of the image of God.  But the masculine human nature was designed in the very image and likeness of God and the female human nature was designed to complement and help man to exercise is his duty as an image bearer.

God designed man to need to be the hero, the provider and protector.  So, man needed someone weaker than him, someone who would desire to be lead and desire to be provided for. So, God made woman to desire a leader, a provider and a protector. God knew that man would need someone to bare his children and to care for them.  So, he designed woman to naturally desire children and to naturally desire to care for them and nurture them.  God designed men to desire beauty because he desires beauty. So, he made woman beautiful and he designed her to desire to make herself beautiful for man.

In summary – God made woman, including each and every one of her physical and psychological attributes for man as the Scriptures tell us.

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

1 Corinthians 11:9 (KJV)

Biblical Truth #2 – Because woman was created especially for man, God has determined that man is to be head over woman in all areas of life including the family, the Church and Society

“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.”

I Corinthians 11:3 (KJV)

For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.”

Ephesians 5:23 (KJV)

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (KJV)

“Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve.”

1 Timothy 2:11-13 (KJV)

Biblical Truth #3 – In those limited times when God has allowed women to be over men – it was a shame to men

“As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.”

Isaiah 3:12 (KJV)

Those of us Americans who believe in Biblical gender roles are not bigots but rather we have convictions that are based on the very Word of God.  I and every other man have no more value to God than a woman does.  The Scriptures tell us that from a spiritual perspective our souls have equal value to God and we have equal access as men and women to God’s salvation.

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Galatians 3:28 (KJV)

Both men and women are joint heirs of the grace of God and our heavenly inheritance to come.

But just because we are equal spiritually – does not mean we are equal in our roles or in our image bearing status.  God has made men and women physically and psychologically different by design – not by chance.  I gave the reason earlier that he made us different – he made woman for man.

Conclusion

I agree with a large chunk of Americans who believe America has become “too soft and feminine” and that America was better off “when men and women stick to the jobs and tasks they are naturally suited for” or in other words when men and women performed the roles and functions that God designed them to perform.

The prophet Isaiah’s words could not be more true when speaking of how America has been ruled for several decades when he wrote “…women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths. (Isaiah 3:12)

Whether it was women in various positions, or men acting like women in various positions our country has been ruled from a feminine perspective for too long and we have suffered the consequences.

What a feminine perspective of ruling our nation has looked like

We are told that it is selfish for hardworking Americans to desire to keep most of what they earn and to expect that they will pay taxes only for the basic services of government and not for a welfare state for those who do not work or do not make as much money.  To do so might hurt some poor people’s feelings.

We were told that we cannot protect our borders and force people to go back to their countries because we might separate families and people from other countries who need our help – even though Americans can’t find jobs and many of these immigrants will be a drain on our social welfare system. To do so might hurt some foreigner’s feelings.

We were told we cannot tell countries that they are treating us unfairly in their trading practices.  We were told we can’t protect our companies and workers and put tariffs on other countries. We were told that we could not inform other nations that we have the most powerful economy in the world and we are going to start acting like it by telling them it is a privilege, not a right for them to sell their products to our citizens.  To do so might hurt the feelings of these nations that we trade with.

We were told that we cannot protect our country from terrorism by calling out Radical Islamists for the enemies that they are.  We are told we cannot control what nations immigrants come from as this is “discriminatory and unfair”. To do so might hurt some Muslim’s feelings.

We were told calling for respect for police officers is racist. Our government would not acknowledge the fact that the black community bears the brunt for the reason that they are arrested and incarcerated at a higher percentage than whites because of the breakdown of the family unit in their community.  Our leaders couldn’t talk about the elephant in the room that 70 percent of black of babies are born out of wedlock and maybe, just maybe, this is the biggest contributor to crime and poverty in the black community.  To do so might hurt some black people’s feelings.

We were told that we cannot bring the full force of America’s military might to bare on cities in Iraq and elsewhere that have large terrorist populations for fear of collateral damage.  We might hurt the feelings of our enemies if we accidentally kill their families in during the bombing of cities.

All of these types of decisions are based on feelings, not logic. This is the feminization of American leadership.

This is why it was so refreshing to me and millions of Americans to see a man stand up and not be afraid to tell people the truth.  A man who is not afraid to make tough decisions that may hurt some people’s feelings.

He was far from a perfect candidate and he will be far from a perfect President.  But for all his faults I believe God can not only use Donald Trump to make America Great again, but he can also help America to be masculine again.

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

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

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

Donald Trump’s “locker-room talk”

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

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

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

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

Proverbs 6:29 (KJV)

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

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

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

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

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

Another type of “locker-room talk”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Harvard Soccer Team Scouting Report Scandal

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harvard’s response was quick and strong:

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

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

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

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

Here are some more other reactions to the scandal:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“reality”

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

“frustrated”

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

“entitlement”

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

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

“sexist”

Webster’s online dictionary defines “sexism” as:

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

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

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

 “dehumanize”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“assault”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Christian response to “locker-room talk”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hebrews 13:4 (KJV)

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

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

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

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

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

Philippians 4:8 (KJV)

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

Ephesians 5:3-5 (KJV)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Job 31:1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Genesis 29:17 (KJV)

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

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

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

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

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

Ecclesiastes 3:1 (KJV)

What was the lesson those boys could have learned?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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