Misandrist Teen Girls Attack Teen Boys for Ranking Them by Looks

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

Below is an excerpt from the Washington Post story:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Misogyny, Misandry and the Battle of Words with the Left

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Alliance Between Leftists and Non-Leftists Over Misogyny

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

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

What Does It Mean to Objectify a Woman?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s not Misogyny, Its Biological Reality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But We Can Change Men!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biblical vs Secular Sexual Conversion Programs

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

And here is the great irony.

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

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

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

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

Romans 1:26-27 (KJV)

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

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

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

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

Hebrews 13:4 (KJV)

“18 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. 19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.”

Proverbs 5:18-19 (KJV)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Genesis 29:17-18 (KJV)

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

In the Song of Solomon we are told:

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

Song of Solomon 7:1 (NASB)

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

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

Ezekiel 16:7-8 (KJV)

Women Are Like Christmas Trees To Men

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ecclesiastes 7:26 (KJV)

Back to the Boys at Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What if my daughter were on this list?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are Mass Shootings A Result of Biblical Masculinity?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The answer is found in these passages of the Bible:

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

I Corinthians 16:13 (NASB)

“Therefore, keep up your courage, men”

Acts 27:25 (NASB)

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

Luke 11:21 (NASB)

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

Psalm 104:23 (NASB)

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

Proverbs 22:29 (NASB)

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

Proverbs 13:22 (NASB)

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

Ephesians 5:25-29 (NASB)

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

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

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

I Corinthians 11:7 (NASB)

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

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

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

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

Violent Crimes Are Mostly Committed By Men and Water Is Wet

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

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

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

Engaging in physical violence to a much greater extent than girls

Dying more frequently from unintentional injuries

Being more prone to substance abuse and suicide

Having a shorter life expectancy than women

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

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

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

Is Violence Always A Bad Thing?

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

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

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

Psalm 144:1 (NASB)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We Will Never Totally Eliminate Evil From The World

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Romans 5:7-8 (NASB)

Should Christian women wear leggings as pants?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current Cultural Views of Lust

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bible says it is sin to lust

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

Romans 7:7 (KJV)

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

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

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

Matthew 5:27-28 (KJV)

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

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

Romans 14:13 (KJV)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exodus 20:17 (KJV)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Instead of asking:

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

Women should ask themselves:

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

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

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

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

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

I Timothy 2:9 (KJV)

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

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

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

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

1 Corinthians 11:34 (KJV)

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

It was all about time and place.

Combating Negative Views of Masculine Sexuality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is like saying this toward women:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The frustrated feminist wife

In two recent posts I wrote – “Is a husband being selfish for having sex with his wife when she is not in the mood” and “8 Steps to confront your wife’s sexual refusal” I have been routinely accused of advocating for domestic abuse because of my advising Christian husbands that they are not powerless to confront willful and chronic sexual denial by their wives in their marriages. The two posts combined have brought in over 400,000 visitors to my site in just a little over a week.

Despite disclaimers to the contrary that I made on these pages (in multiple places) those who reject sex as a right in marriage claim that any belief in such a thing, and especially acting on such a belief by confronting her behavior based on Scriptural principles (Steps 1 to 3), is essentially rape.

They argue further, that steps 4-7 also amount to rape because for a husband to stop taking his wife on dates or trips, for him to stop doing unneeded house hold upgrades, for him to stop doing the little favors for her around the house, and then to stop giving her spending money is not discipline toward sinful behavior, but instead is manipulative “emotional” and “financial” abuse.

From a Christian and even philosophical standpoint there different positions on this issue.  I received many comments from Christians who agreed on steps 1 to 3 but did not agree with steps 4 to 8.  Some Christians and non-Christians commented that they believe a husband in such a scenario should just jump to step 8.

But then we have a certain crowd of people who I would refer to as “Rape Accusers”.  Most of the time these types of people are radical feminists(whether they be men or women), but often times because they or someone they know was raped, they see rape around every corner.  They often times have a visceral hatred of men(Misandry – even some men hold this position at times and have a sort of “self hatred” toward their own gender).

Let me just say that my mom was raped, and I saw its impact on my mother, and she shared her pain with me when I was was an adult and old enough to understand.  I told my mom today about what has been going on with the explosion of rape accusations on Facebook towards what I have said about marriage,  and her words for the Rape accusers were simple – “their accusations are utterly absurd!”.

Some of these “Rape Accusers” have even gone as far as trying to intimidate me into silence by quoting legal definitions of domestic abuse.  Rather than get into a lengthy and boring debate about the real world applications of these laws – I thought it would be more interesting to put their applications of domestic violence regarding marriage to the test using a fictional scenario to illustrate what my mother would call the “absurdity” of their position.

I am under no allusion that a typical Police Officer of the law is going to hold to my Biblical views of marriage, but instead whether he agrees with me or not, he has to follow the law. So keep this in mind as we see our fictional police officer’s responses to a frustrated feminist wife.

The frustrated feminist wife

A woman comes into a police station and tells the officer at the front desk that she wants to report that her husband is committing domestic violence against her, including committing marital rape against her.

An officer takes her into a room to begin interviewing her.

Officer: “Mam please describe to me incidents of marital rape and other types of domestic abuse that you husband has committed against you.”

Wife: “Well officer it all started 5 years ago after we got married. I turned him down when he asked for sex and he started telling me that because we had a Christian marriage, the he and I both had a right to have sex with one another, and except for short mutually agreed upon times for when were sick or otherwise unable to we ought not to turn down one another.”

Officer: “Did he force himself on you that night?”

Wife: “No – he just walked away, but I felt intimidated by the fact that he believed it was a sin for couples to deny each other, I felt pressure for the next time he wanted to have sex.”

Officer: “Ok – so tell me more.”

Wife: “I decided I needed to set my husband straight about sex. I believe every person’s body is their own and no one has a right to coerce or convince someone to have sex when they are not in the mood, not even in marriage. I shared this truth that all of us as enlightened people should accept now in modern society. I told him it is NEVER selfish for me not to want to have sex for any reason, but it is ALWAYS selfish for him to try and convince me to have sex when I am not in the mood.

I told him that I would no longer feel pressured to have sex with him, and that really sex is just a small part of marriage. I told him I believed sex in marriage was not a “right”, but a privilege and that it should only happen when BOTH he and I were in the mood because of how happy and in love we were with each other. In fact, I even told him that just because I don’t want to have sex that often, that does not mean I don’t love him, I just don’t need it that often. I said we ought to be able to enjoy our marriage with one another, without having to need sex all the time – it should happen on special occasions when we are both in the mood.”

Officer: “So how did he respond to that?”

Wife: “He asked me if he was doing something wrong in the bedroom. He asked me if he could help to put me in the mood more often. I told him it had nothing to do with anything wrong he was doing, it was just the fact that I don’t need sex that often, and he ought to respect that and accept that. He was not happy with my view on sex and said my belief was a sin according to our mutually held belief in the Bible as God’s Word. I thought overtime he would overcome his beliefs, and realize that he could take care of himself if he needed it and just be grateful for the times when I was in the mood and wanted to have sex.”

Officer: “Mam but when he did he commit marital rape against you?”

Wife: “Well there were many times, that I was not in the mood, and I said No.”

Officer: “So are these the times that he forced himself on you?”

Wife: “No he did not force himself on me, but he coerced me into having sex with him.”

Officer: “How did he coerce you?”

Wife: “Well he told me that I was being selfish, and that I was sinning against God and him by denying his sexual needs. He told me if I continued denying him that we would need to go to a Christian counselor – so I gave in many times and let him have sex with me when I was not in the mood”.

Officer: “So you gave consent? Or did her force you?”

Wife: “Well he did not physically force himself, but I felt pressured because he was going to have us go to a counselor, so I just gave in and let him. But that was still rape right?”

Officer: “Uh, no mam that was not rape. Your allowing him to have sex with you when you were not in the mood because you did not want to go to a counselor was not rape. You made a decision, you decided you would rather have sex with him than go to a counselor, you gave consent.”

Wife: “Ok but later he did even more things to coerce me…”

Officer: “What things did he do?”

Wife: “He eventually got me to go to a Christian counselor, and I felt really pressured by that counselor that I had to have sex with my husband more, and that I needed to let him try to put me in the mood even when I was not – I could not believe it –who did this counselor think he was? I told that counselor he was full of garbage.”

Officer: “Then what happened?”

Wife: “Then my husband asked me after the counseling appointment if I really loved him and cared about our marriage – and I told him “Of course I do! I love our life together – we just disagree about sex”. I told him if he could just accept my views of sex our marriage would be perfect, he was a good man and I enjoyed going places with him and doing things with him. This was now two years into our marriage and we had an infant son, and my husband was such great father to our son. For some reason that was not good enough for him, he thought we needed more sex in our marriage.”

Officer: “Ok did he come to accept your view of sex?”

Wife: “No – he actually setup an appointment with the Pastor of our church and his wife! I went even though I did not want to, and our Pastor actually told me I was sinning against my husband by denying him! The nerve! It’s my body, and no one, not my Pastor, not my husband is going to tell me otherwise.”

Officer: “Mam but how did your husband commit domestic violence against you? Or when did he rape you?”

Wife: “Well after the appointment with the Pastor all of a sudden he canceled with the babysitter and stopped taking me on our weekly dates. I asked him why and he said it was because I was “sinning against him and our marriage by my willful sexual denial” wasn’t that domestic abuse? After all he was using our date night to get me to admit I was wrong about sex in our marriage.”

Officer: “Um mam – he is not required by law to take you on dates.”

Wife: “But wait – there is more. We had a new kitchen remodel that we were ready to sign papers on and he called and canceled the meeting to sign the papers to get the work started. He said the kitchen we had while outdated, was still functional and he was not comfortable with spending the money to do it. We were only cleared to get the work done based on his income, and I don’t make enough to do it on my income alone.”

Officer: “Um mam – he is not required by law to get your kitchen updated.”

Wife: “But wait you need to hear this. He used to go clean out my car every weekend. I would pick a room each weekend for him to dust and clean, and now he stopped doing that. He used to give me back rubs at least once or twice a week.  Now he stopped doing that too – he can’t do that right? This is emotional abuse! This is manipulation right? He says it is “discipline” to bring me to understand God’s view of sex in marriage.

Officer: “Well mam maybe he is manipulating you or maybe he just does not want to do these things for you anymore. Either way, none of this so far that you have told me is illegal, you might not like it, I might not like it, but it is not illegal.”

Wife: “What do you mean not illegal? The law says he can’t make me do anything I don’t want to do?”

Officer: “Mam, from everything you have told me, you have done whatever you did by your own choice. You might have done it because you wanted to avoid stress, or going to a counselor, or you just did not feel like arguing.”

Wife: “But there is still one more horrible thing I have not told you – my husband changed his auto deposit of his paycheck so it no longer goes in our joint checking account, he has his own account now. He goes grocery shopping for us each week now. I used to do the grocery shopping. He gave me the credit cards that were in my name for me to pay out of my own paychecks. I work too, but I don’t make nearly as much money as my husband. I used to be able to go anywhere I wanted and spend what I wanted, but now I have no spending money. That is financial abuse right? He can’t do that right?”

Officer: “Mam is he providing food, shelter and clothing for you and your child? Is he holding you in your home against your will?”

Wife: “Well yes he is providing those things for me and my son, and no he is not holding me against my will. He makes sure my car is fully fuelled every week. He gives me some cash for if I need some things during the day when he is at work. But I used to have full access to all our money in our joint bank account and I was able to do what I wanted with our money, and now he took that from me – he can’t do that”.

Officer: “Mam – why are you still with this man? You clearly don’t see marriage the same way he does and it sounds like he is either trying to teach you something or he is getting ready to divorce you by separating his money into another account. He may have even had an attorney advise him to do that with his paychecks. If you get with a divorce attorney, your attorney can get a “status quo” order, which then requires your husband not to spend any sums of money without clearing it with the court and your attorney. The court can order that he has to provide you with a certain dollar amount each week that you can put in your own account and spend as you want as you go through the divorce process and they can order him to continue paying all the household expenses.”

Wife: “Divorce process! I just want him to stop what he is doing and let us go back to our old life. I love him and the life we have. I don’t want to have joint custody of our son, I don’t want to see my son every other week, I want to see him every day! We would have to sell our home, and even if I could keep it in the divorce I would have no way to make the payments even with child support and alimony from him. I don’t want half my life, I want all my life – the way it was! Can’t you or another police officer tell my husband to stop doing these things and we can still stay married? Can we have a judge order him to take me on dates, upgrade the kitchen, put his money back in our joint account and stop asking me for sex? My girlfriends at work told me what he is doing is domestic abuse and is illegal – that means you can stop him right and force him to stop doing all this right?”

Officer: “Um- no sorry no one can do that for you. I don’t mean to get in your personal affairs mam, but it sounds like you have quite the dilemma, there is an old saying “You can’t have your cake and eat it too”. You have to make a choice, either work out the sexual issues with your husband and make your marriage work, or divorce him and try and find a man who believes as you do, that whoever wants sex the least determines how often a married couple has sex.”

Before you send your comments, I suggest you read my comments policy if you want a chance of your comment going through.

Is God more like man, more like woman, or a combination of the two?

IsGodBothMaleFemale

Does Genesis 1:27 tell us that “God created both man and woman equally in his image” as we are so often told by Christian Feminists, Egalitarians and even many conservative Bible teachers? Does this passage or the surrounding passages show that God split his attributes between man and woman – so that only together do they form the true image of God?

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

Genesis 1:27(KJV)

Every Word of the Bible is important, that is one of the tenants of our faith. I don’t want to lose you with technicalities, so we will look at the two most important words in this key passage of Scripture which will help to set the tone for this discussion. The words are “man” and “him”.

A quick Bible history lesson

The Old Testament was originally written in the Hebrew language. One of the words translated as “man” comes from the Hebrew word “adam”. “adam” is both the name of the first man, as well as a word used to reference all of mankind (all humanity, men and women). In Genesis 1:27, the Hebrew word here is “adam”.

Is the “adam” of Genesis 1:27 referring to “mankind” (all human beings) or is it referring particularly to Adam, and the male gender of humanity?

The exact Hebrew phrase here is eth haa-‘adam. “eth” literally means “this same”, and “haa” is similar to our English word “the”. Literally this phrase could be “this same man” or “the same man”. In any case, it refers very particularly to Adam, not mankind in general. This is why it is correct that that translators accurately add the phrase “created he him”. The “him” here, refers to a particular person – to Adam.

But what about “male and female created he them”?

The phrase “male and female created he them”, refers to the fact that God created both man and woman. It does not mean that he created them at the same time or that he created them both in his image. We can clearly see that this is not the case from Genesis chapter 2 when Eve was created from Adam’s rib.

So after a closer examination of the original language of Genesis 1:27 as well as the account of Eve’s creation in Genesis chapter 2, we can see that man and woman were NOT created equally in God’s image. Man was created in God’s image, and woman was created in man’s image.

Even if woman is not created in God’s image, but in man’s image, then is she not created in God’s image as well?

Ok so this would be the next logical question. Let me answer that question by first directing you to Genesis chapter 5:

“And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:”

Genesis 5:3(KJV)

So the Bible says that Seth had a son “in his own likeness, after his image”, this language is practically identical to the language used in Genesis 1:26 & 27. So that leads us to the answer to this question. Seth was made in his father Adam’s image, but that does not mean they were identical. Seth looked different, talked different and I am sure had different strengths and weaknesses from his father Adam.

What image means is, similar nature. In the way that Adam was human and a male, so too his son Seth was human and male.

But just as Seth was not identical to his father, so too when God made woman from man he did not make her the same as man. The image that woman retains, is that of man’s humanity, but not his maleness.

In Genesis chapter 2 we read:

“20 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help [EZER] meet [k’enegdo] for him… And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;”

Genesis 2:20(KJV)

Notice I have added two words in blocks – the phrase ezer kenegdo is what is literally translated as a “help meet” for Adam. I would refer to you to a larger discussion I had about this phrase in my post “What did God mean when he called woman a help meet for man?”. But the simple answer is this – woman was literally created as a human helper for Adam that would have a counter or opposite nature from him.

This is why woman in her humanity, does represent some of the image of God, but her femininity is not an accurate representation of God’s nature.

Further proof that God’s image is more closely resembled in masculine humanity, not a combination of masculine and feminine humanity

The apostle Paul confirms, and builds upon the Biblical concept that God’s image is reflected more in human masculinity and not in human femininity:

“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.”

I Corinthians 11:7(KJV)

I Corinthians chapter 11, confirms that our understanding of the Genesis account is indeed correct. Man is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.

Beyond the Genesis 1 and I Corinthians 11 accounts, we can also see that no angel of heaven is ever represented in female form, Angels are always male. While some have tried to argue that Holy Spirit of God is sometimes referred to using feminine wording, the vast majority of references to the Holy Spirit are in the masculine sense. We cannot use these few exceptions to try and say that the Holy Spirit has a nature closer to that of a woman than of a man.

Why does this matter?

Some will continue to reject what I have shown here from the Word of God, even though it is plainly in front of them. They will reject 99 percent of references to God in the masculine sense, and cling to those 1% of references to God that seem to be indicating a feminine sense.

But others who may accept this on face value, still might ask – “why does it matter if God’s image is more accurately represented in “masculine humanity” than in “feminine humanity”?

We don’t teach this belief to belittle women, or to say that men have more value to God than women. If any person is reading that into my words here, I have said no such thing. Every human being, whether they are male or female, have equal value to God. In fact in I Peter 3:7, men are commanded to honor their wives as “the weaker vessel” and we are told in Ephesians 6:2 to honor our mothers.

But understanding that God’s image is best reflected in that of masculine humanity, and not as well in feminine humanity is very important.

Today masculinity has come under massive attack because of modern feminism and egalitarianism, men are constantly called to be more like women. But would any Christian leaders today have the courage to say women ought to try and emulate men more?

How should women try to emulate the image of God in men more?

By “emulate men more”, I don’t mean women need to start dressing or acting exactly like men – we already have way too much that today! What I mean is that women ought to try and emulate the sense of duty that many men have, rather than living their lives completely by their feelings.

  1. Do your duty toward God, even when you don’t feel like it, or don’t feel his presence.
  2. Do your duty toward your husband, even when you don’t feel like it, or perhaps don’t feel an emotional connection with him.
  3. Do your duties as mother toward your children, even when you do not feel like doing them, and even when you don’t feel appreciated by your children.
  4. Do your duties toward your home, and keep up your home even when you don’t feel like it.

God’s love is more often seen as a love founded in a commitment of the will, a duty

When the Bible famously says in I John 4:8, that “God is love” it is literally saying God is “Agape”.

Agape love is a love of the will, of duty and commitment, and this is the way that God’s love is most often described, it is not a love based in emotion. It is the strongest kind of love, and an unconditional kind of love. The emotional type of love, Philia love, is used far less to describe the kind of love God has towards us, or that we are to have toward God.

This is another way in which women should try to emulate men more. Women most often love based on feelings, or how others make them feel. Men more often love from a sense of will, duty and commitment, this is the driving force of how God loves us. A woman should try to emulate this Agape love that men usually possess more naturally than women often do.

Please don’t misunderstand me, I am not saying women need to become exactly like men, God created women with the natures they have for a reason. God purposefully made woman both emotionally weaker and physically weaker (“the weaker vessel”) so that he could demonstrate his strength in woman’s weakness.

“And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.”

I Corinthians 12:9(KJV)

Just as God made all of humanity(both men and women), weaker than him, so that he could demonstrate his strength and glory in us, so too woman was made weaker than man, so that man could exercise the image of God within him, by being a strength for her.

Conclusion

I hope as both men and women, we will all seek to emulate God more each day in our lives. The battle with our sin and pride will never end until God takes us out of these sin cursed bodies. As Christians, we ought to honor true and Biblical masculine qualities, and not belittle them or engage in the misandry(hatred of all things male) that we too often see today in our TV shows, books and schools. But in our honoring of true Biblical masculinity, we ought never to dishonor women, but continue to honor them as the “weaker vessel” as the Apostle Peter commanded us to do.

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

Guylooking2

In part 1 of this series, we established that men look and many women get jealous, hurt or angry. In part 2 we established that man has a polygynous nature both from biology and from Biblical example. In this final part of this three part series, we will look at how a Christian woman should alter her responses based on this knowledge of the men in her life (sons, brothers, husbands).

I realize a lot of Christian women – mothers, wives, sisters and daughters are reading this with smoke coming out their ears. Let me try and set your mind at ease, the best that I can.

All whore-mongers look, but most lookers do not engage in whore-mongering.

For most men look they may have found discreet ways to do it over the years so that you won’t notice but make no mistake they still look.

The Christian men that don’t look do so either because they are asexual (not attracted to women or men), have homosexual tendencies (so there not looking at you ladies, but they are looking elsewhere) or they have had it drilled into their head since they were young that it is a sin for them to enjoy the site of beautiful women other than their wife after they are married.

This last group of Christian men have been “brainwashed” of sorts, to be at war continually with their God given nature to appreciate female beauty.

I hear and read all the time from women who have had experience with a whore-mongering husband and they say things like “It was because he was looking at other women, and I never put a stop to it”.

While it breaks the heart of God when any man engages in whore-mongering the truth is that he did not engage in whore-mongering simply because he allowed himself to look at and enjoy the beauty of other women. He engaged in whore-mongering because he allowed the sin of covetousness to grow and take root in his heart and then he acted on it.

Another thing I want to mention here is – I am not giving men a complete free pass, please read the ending section I have speaking to Christian men about this issue of looking at other women.

But before I get to the men, Christian wife – you have a decision to make.

Instead of having these attitudes toward your husband:

whatdoyouthinkyourlooking

WhyDoTheyHaveToLook

menarepigs

Christian wife – Perhaps you would consider having these attitudes instead:

WomanAcceptingGod'sDesign

“My husband was built by God with the capacity to be attracted to, and to love multiple women, but he has chosen to only have one wife and that is me. I have absolutely no right to be jealous of the fact that my husband finds other women attractive in addition to me. I won’t give him a hard time for enjoying the site of beautiful women around him, as long as he doesn’t purposefully make it obvious, or compare me to other women or flirt with them as he has taken a pledge to make me his one and only wife.

I realize that because I am his one and only wife – I need to work that much harder to meet his needs for visual beauty by keeping myself beautiful and dressing in ways that are attractive to him”

The old adage “Men marry women hoping they will never change, and women marry men hoping that they will” is just as true for Christian woman as it is for others. Will you accept your husband as God has made him? Or will you continue to put him in the box you would have him in?

Christian Moms and sisters – don’t shame your son’s for their natural masculine attraction to female beauty. You may never fully understand it, but you need to honor it in the same way that men should honor the feminine nature with which God has designed woman.

Instead allow their fathers to help them experience the beauty of their masculinity, within the bounds of God’s law. In the last section coming up, I will discuss what men (including fathers) need to understand about expressing, experiencing their God-given male sexuality in a proper way, that does not dishonor God or women.

A final note to the Christian men reading this

Young business man enjoying the fresh air on a sunny day

Yes it is completely natural, part of God’s original design for you to look. It is perfectly natural, normal and not sinful for you to be aroused by the site of beautiful women around you, and no that does not stop when you get married! Many men falsely think this to be the case, but not long after they are married(sometimes 5 minutes afterwards), a beautiful woman walks by and their head turns – they immediately turn it back and wonder “why did I just do that? I love my wife and she is so beautiful to me!” The reason brothers in Christ is, you have a polygynous nature.

Many men don’t even realize they have a polygynous nature, or they simply dismiss these instances as part of their sin nature, because they have been conditioned from an early age to do so. They have never looked at Scriptures closely, or questioned anything they have been taught.

So to you man who thought it was wrong to look at beautiful women, other than you wife, I invite you to check out and truly research the evidences I have provide for you here, both from a biological standpoint, as well as Biblical standpoint. If after that God has convinced you that what I am saying is right, that he has freed you from the shackles of feminism and Christian legalism, that the real war is against Covetousness, not your natural male attraction to beautiful women then you truly will have a whole new world opened to you.

Don’t go crazy guys!!!

The Scriptures tell us:

“All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything.”

1 Corinthians 6:12(NASB)

What that means men is that while glancing at beautiful women may be natural for you, and give you pleasure, you have to make sure you are not mastered by this. Eating is something we are naturally driven to do as well, but we can eat too much, and too often, the same principle applies to our God-given male sexuality.

There is a difference between Glancing and Gawking

While I would say that woman are wrong for condemning men for taking discreet glances at other women, I would say men are equally wrong when they gawk at women. The classic seen of construction works whistling and saying obscenities to a random woman as she walks by is an example of unconstrained, uncontrolled male sexuality, and that does not honor God or women.

How we act when our women are present, and how we act when they are not should be different

I realize some Christians believe we ought to act the same at all times, and all places, and I understand where they are coming from. For instance, if I don’t swear on Sunday at Church, then I equally should not swear on Monday at work.

I am a Christian wherever I go, seven days a week, and that should be consistent. But the truth is, we all understand that certain things are appropriate at different times and places. The way a husband might talk to his wife when they are about to have sex, or during sex, and the way he may act in front of his children with her may be very different, and it should be different.

The same goes for men – when you are with a private group of guys and you happen to see a beautiful woman walk by – there is ABSOLUTELY NO SIN in you as men talking about how beautiful she is. But the difference between you and the construction worker example is – you are not whistling at her, or gawking at her and making her feel uncomfortable. You can “watch the game” and go over the instant replay after she is out of hearing distance. As long as you are not talking about trying to track that girl down, and have pre-marital sex with her, you are not lusting and you are NOT sinning.

The Apostle Paul wrote this very similar passage to first one I mentioned, later in the same book of I Corinthians:

“23 All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify. 24 let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbor.

(I Corinthians 10:23-24(NASB)

Guys – if you are gawking at a woman, or making her feel uncomfortable by your staring, are you seeking her good, or your own?

Guys – if you are gawking at a woman, maybe even one that can’t see you gawking at her, but your mom, or your daughter, or your wife can see you do that – are you seeking their good, or your own?

So in conclusion guys, yes its natural for man to look and appreciate the beauty of women, but we must temper this natural desire by doing it in a discreet and appropriate way for the setting that we find ourselves in.

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

chrisPinestaringatlakergirl

In part 1 of this series, we established that men look, and many women get jealous, hurt or angry. In part 2 we will explore biological evidence and Biblical examples to show why men look at other women.

As believers in Christ, we understand that we all have a sin nature. But we also have a God given nature. In the Garden of Eden, before Adam and Eve ever sinned, God gave Adam a distinct and different male nature and he gave Eve a distinct and different female nature. He literally built Eve for Adam, and he made her nature almost completely the opposite of his.

Adam was built to lead, and God gave him dominion over the Garden, and had him name all the animals before Eve was ever made. God made a man’s mind to systemize, he made a woman’s mind to empathize.

So the question is – is man’s natural inclination to look at a variety of attractive women (even when he is in a committed relationship) a corruption of the nature God gave him in the Garden of Eden? All the ladies are saying “of course God never meant for a man to be attracted to more than one woman”.

Biological Evidence of man’s attraction mechanism

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

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

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

MalelBrain

Even some Christian writers who take the “men just need to be trained to look away” approach admit this:

“Men’s sex drives are completely different from women’s sex drives…They really are primarily visual. If a man sees a pretty woman, his body automatically starts to respond, in the same way that if you were to walk in the front door, even if you weren’t hungry, and you smelled chocolate chip cookies just out of the oven, your mouth would start to water, whether you really wanted them or not. Even if you weren’t seeking it out, you respond. There’s nothing wrong with that…

If he’s noticing that a woman is attractive, and then he’s pulling his eyes away, he’s only being tempted. He’s not sinning. He hasn’t decided to do anything; in fact, he’s decided to turn from the temptation, which is exactly what he should be doing…

if your husband looks at other women, or comments on them, that’s hurtful…Tell him how you feel. Tell him you understand the temptation to look, but that he promised to love you and you alone. You’re worth it. And he has no right to look at anyone other than you. None of this “all men do it” garbage. We all are tempted towards sin; but we do not have to give into it.”

-Sheila Wray Gregoire

http://tolovehonorandvacuum.com/2011/03/husband-looks-at-other-women/

But as you can see from the last statement above, while the writer acknowledges man’s biological inclination to look, she sees it as part of his sin nature and a temptation he must be trained to pull “his eyes away” from.

Shelia then goes on to say that “he promised to love you and you alone…and he has no right to look at anyone else other than you.”

I could point to many more sources, and research , both from a biological standpoint, as well as psychological standpoint about man’s physical sexual attraction mechanisms, as well as his being wired for variety, but you get the point.

Biblical Examples of Man’s sexual nature

So at this point all the Christian ladies, and many Christian men are saying –“so what, man is naturally inclined to look at multiple women, but it’s part of his sin nature, and not part of God’s original design. Men just need to be trained to suppress, and flee from their sinful desire for variety – problem solved.”

But what about so many of the Patriarchs having more than one wife?

Abraham – the man of faith, the father of Jewish people, had multiple “concubines” (Genesis 25:6)

Jacob – The father of the twelve tribes of Israel, had all these sons through a combination of four wives (two free wives, two slave wives). The names of these twelve tribes are inscribed on the City of God for all time.

Gideon – the judge, great warrior and one of only a few men in the Bible to meet God in physical form (as the Angel of God), “had seventy sons of his own, for he had many wives.” (Judges 8:29-30)

David – “the man after God’s own heart”, had 18 wives. God scolded David for stealing a man’s wife (Bathsheba), and told him that he had given David his “master’s wives” and “and if that had been too little, I would have added to you many more things like these” (2 Samuel 12:8)

Notice I left out King Solomon. The reason for that is unlike Abraham, Jacob, Gideon and David, God condemned King Solomon for marrying many foreign wives who lead his heart astray. Also Solomon’s behavior was in fact, the “hording of wives” (having 700 wives and 300 concubines) which was condemned by God in Deuteronomy 17:17.

So in the Bible – we have Abraham, Jacob, Gideon and David, all great men of God, and if they had sinned by having more than one wife, if they had horded wives as Solomon did, then God would have said something, but he did not – as we said previously – God told David he gave him many wives!

Man’s polygynous nature (being drawn to more than one woman) is part of his original design by God

When we put together the fact that men are naturally wired for variety, and biologically conditioned to receive pleasure when seeing a variety of beautiful women – and we put that together with the fact that many great men of God had more than one wife we see a very different picture. Man’s wiring for a variety of women is actually part of the original design (before the fall) that God made man with.

The Adam and Eve argument

The argument that if God wired men for polygyny (to have the capacity for having multiple wives) then he would have gave Adam more than one wife does not hold water. If Adam’s monogamous relationship with Eve was meant to be God’s pattern for marriage, then we have two problems:

  1. Adam and Eve’s children had to marry each other – sibling marriage, something that God later condemned.   So did God mean for brothers and sisters to marry for all time, since brothers and sisters had to marry in the beginning?
  2. The second problem with the “God only gave Adam one wife, therefore that was his pattern for marriage” argument is that God pictures himself as a Polygamist husband in the book of Ezekiel when talking about his relationship with Israel and Judah:

“The word of the Lord came to me again, saying, 2 “Son of man, there were two women, the daughters of one mother; 3 and they played the harlot in Egypt. They played the harlot in their youth; there their breasts were pressed and there their virgin bosom was handled. 4 Their names were Oholah the elder and Oholibah her sister. And they became Mine, and they bore sons and daughters. And as for their names, Samaria is Oholah and Jerusalem is Oholibah… 36 Moreover, the Lord said to me, “Son of man, will you judge Oholah and Oholibah? Then declare to them their abominations. 37 For they have committed adultery, and blood is on their hands.”

Ezekiel 23:1-4 & 36-37(NASB)

MansPolygynousNature

So if men looking is not the problem, then what is?

God made man with the capacity for polygyny – that’s why men whether they are in a committed relationship or not, are drawn to beautiful women. Many men throughout history have chosen not act on their polygynous capacity, while many did choose to act on it. It is interesting to note from a historical standpoint, that Israel was still highly polygamous at the time of Christ, as the Romans had trouble enforcing their monogamy laws in nations like Israel (but eventually their monogamy laws did end polygamy in Israel).

So since God made man with a capacity for polygyny, then it is not sinful for him to be visually drawn to multiple women even after marriage.

And no it’s not lusting for a man (single or married) to be aroused by the site of beautiful women, other than his wife. Lust in Matthew 5:28 is talking about sexual covetousness, meaning a man thinking about trying to get a woman to actually have sex with him outside of marriage.

So the problem is not man’s polygynous nature (his being drawn to many women), but with woman’s jealousy, anger and insecurity.

Many people attack the polygamy of the Patriarchs noting the problems with jealousy between their wives – but they never even consider the fact that the wives jealousy was the sin, not their husband’s polygyny.

In the final part of this series about Christian men looking at other, we will explore how women should handle this issue of men looking at other women.

Click here to go to the final part of this series