Is the Red Pill Concept of the Male Imperative Biblical?

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

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

What is the Red Pill Concept of the Male Imperative?

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

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

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

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

Is the Male Imperative Biblical?

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

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

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

1 Corinthians 7:7-9 (KJV)

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

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

Exodus 21:10-11 (KJV)

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

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

“15 Drink waters out of thine own cistern, and running waters out of thine own well… 18 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. 19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.”

Proverbs 5:15 & 18-19 (KJV)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 8th century theologian John of Damascus wrote “But God, Who knoweth all things before they have existence, knowing in His foreknowledge that they would fall into transgression in the future and be condemned to death, anticipated this and made “male and female,” and bade them “be fruitful and multiply.”  What he was saying is that God only created the male and female sex organs knowing that sin would enter the picture and they would need some way to reproduce.  In other words, sex in human beings, and by extension sexual pleasure, was a result of sin in human beings and never God’s perfect intention.

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

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

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

The Corruption of Man’s God Given Polygynous Sexual Nature

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

The next topic we will cover in this series is “Is the Red Pill Concept of the Female Imperative Biblical?

Sometimes Love Does Have a Label

The “love has no labels” campaign was launched back in 2015.  The purpose of this campaign was to conflate race, age and people with disabilities with homosexuality to further attempt to normalize homosexuality. So, in the commercials they will show older people kissing, interracial couples kissing and disabled people kissing and then compare that with gay and lesbian couples kissing as if it was the same thing.

According to lovehasnolabels.com our natural aversion to two men kissing or two women kissing at a football game or other public events is just an “implicit bias” that we may not even know we have and we can work to change this “bias”.

But according to God’s Word some types of love DO in fact have a label.

“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

God labels what those two guys or two gals are doing as “vile affections” and “against nature”.  Those are some pretty strong labels.

This is the first part of a new Instagram and Facebook campaign I am launching.  I have had a presence on Facebook for many years but I am just expanding on to Instagram over the last six months.  Because Instagram only allows 15 second clips, I am having to do something I am not good at – be very concise.  But that is a good thing since most of our youth today have very short attention spans.  If you can’t catch their attention in 15 seconds you may not catch them at all.  But most of the teens and young people are on Instagram so while I will still be on Facebook, I am going to really try harder to target the Instagram audience with the message of God’s Word regarding Biblical gender roles.

But don’t worry, for those of my audience who want more meat (longer more detailed teaching) I will be doing longer videos this year as well.

6 Ways a Wife Can Understand Her Husband’s Sexual Needs

It is all too common today for women to see their desires as deep and meaningful “needs” while their husband’s desires are selfish “wants”.   The truth is that God designed men and women to come together as “one flesh” and in it’s most literal sense “one flesh” refers to sex.

“For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.”

Ephesians 5:31 (KJV)

While both men and women have a desire for physical and emotional intimacy men typically have the strongest desire for physical intimacy and women typically have the strongest desire for emotional intimacy.

A woman must respect her husband’s stronger desire for sexual intimacy as much as she wants her husband to respect her stronger desire for emotional intimacy.

All of us as men and women better understand one another when we can relate our different needs to one another.  For instance one thing I mentioned in the list above is that a man desires to know his wife’s body in the same way a woman desires to know her husband’s heart.

If wives were to really think about that they might better relate to their husband’s desire in this way.  Ladies your husband wants to explore(and re-explore) every part of  your body in the same way that you want to explore(and re-explore) every part of his heart.  Often times when women hold back parts of their body or refuse to let their husbands see them naked they will find that he will in turn hold back parts of his heart from them.

In the list above I have tried to tastefully, yet symbolically show several distinct areas of sexuality that are important to most men.  If you need a translation for each one then let me know – but I think you all should get the point.

The main point to take away from this is, if you as a wife want to have a successful marriage you must view your husband’s sexual needs as outlined above as just as important, deep and meaningful as your desires which I compared them too.

Also don’t fall into the trap of – “well he does not do all those things(or any of those things), so when he does all those things then I might do some of those things”.  This should not be the attitude of a godly Christian wife. I encourage you to view these things as not only an act of love, but also as an act of submission to your husband.

Wives- God commands that your husband be ravished(intoxicated) by your body and your sexual love toward him.  But he cannot be intoxicated by that which is held back or not freely given to him.

“Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.”

Proverbs 5:19 (KJV)

 

Chris Matthews and all men with a pulse get castigated for checking out Melania Trump

Men need to stop apologizing for noticing female beauty. Any man that has a pulse would find Melania Trump attractive.  I have commented to my wife and other people many times that if Donald Trump wins the Presidency(which I hope he does) Melania will be the most attractive first lady we have ever had as a nation.

Rarely would I find myself in a position to defend Chris Matthews as I disagree with him on a host of political and social issues. But when it comes to being a man we as men must stand up and defend our fellow men when masculinity is attacked.

This is what happened according to Variety.com writer Katie Van-Syckle:

“During the network’s coverage of Donald Trump’s Indiana primary victory speech, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews was caught on a live microphone commenting on the appearance of Melania Trump, the Republican nominee’s wife.

“Did you see her walk? Runway walk. My God is that good,” Matthews said.

It appeared that the 70-year-old “Hardball” host wasn’t aware his comments were being broadcast. “I could watch that runway show,” he added.

Brian Williams, who was co-anchoring the coverage of Trump’s victory, quickly cut to a commercial break. MNSBC declined to comment to Variety about the incident.”

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews Caught on Hot Mic Ogling Melania Trump

So Chris Matthews talked about how beautiful Melania Trump’s walk was (and yes she was a former model) not knowing he was being picked up by an open microphone.

Then Katie Van-Syckle starts into the typical feminist misandrist rant against Christ Matthews for being a man:

“In a statement to Variety, a spokesperson for Melania Trump said: “Melania Trump is an accomplished businesswoman and entrepreneur in her own right, achieving tremendous success in a variety of industries, including an illustrious modeling career, as well as being a dedicated wife and mother. It is unfortunate to see the continuous inaccuracies and misrepresentations made by the media of Mrs. Trump as anything less than the independently successful woman that she is.”

The pundit has been accused of sounding sexist on live television many times before. Here’s a look at some of his sexually regressive greatest hits…

In the summer of 2011, during Alaska Governor Sarah Palin’s meteoric rise in the Republican party Matthews convened an all male panel to discuss why Sarah Palin “could not be hotter as a candidate.” In explaining her popularity, the anchor seemed to attribute her success to her looks. “By the way, there’s something about her. It’s primordial, “Matthews said. “When she walks and moves, there’s something electric about it. That she doesn’t do on television with Roger Ailes sitting in that booth in Wasilla.  Look at, there‘s something. Other candidates don’t do this.  She’s constantly in motion.  She looks, obviously, very attractive.  She’s doing something that works. If Mitt Romney was doing the same exact thing. This is what‘s going on here.”

So here is Katie Van-Syckle’s beef with Chris Matthews and how God has designed us as men.  If a man looks at a beautiful business woman or politician and says how beautiful or hot she is he is reducing her to only a sex object. He is saying everything she has accomplished has not been because of her intelligence or her hard work ethic but simply because she is beautiful.

With the Melania Trump comment he was not connecting her business success with her beauty at all.  But in his previous comment about former Alaska Governor and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin he was connecting her beauty with her success.

SO WHAT!!!!!

It is a fact backed up by multiple surveys and just plain common sense that beautiful people do get more breaks and are more successful.

In an article on Business Insider Melissa Stanger writes:

“Studies have shown that attractive people are usually hired sooner, get promotions more quickly, and are paid more than their less-attractive coworkers….

Researchers have studied the concept of beauty as a factor in a person’s success over and over again, and in multiple ways. Beautiful people tend to bring in more money for their companies, and are therefore seen as more valuable employees and harder workers, according to an article in Psychology Today by Dario Maestripieri, a professor of comparative human development, evolutionary biology, and neurobiology at the University of Chicago.”

http://www.businessinsider.com/attractive-people-are-more-successful-2012-9

Men are wired for visual beauty

I have talked before in several articles about men checking out beautiful women that we ought not to do so in an inappropriate manner such as gawking or making the woman feel uncomfortable.  But this man is getting scolded for something he thought he was saying in private! Give him a BREAK!

God desired men to receive pleasure from seeing beautiful women whether they are married to them or not – there is no off switch.

We as men are fully capable of seeing a woman as an object of sexual beauty and also a person.  In fact we can totally dislike a woman’s personality, her political or social stances or many other things about her but still take pleasure in her beauty.

Even if Chris Matthews had made these comments directly to Melania Trump or her husband in an interview I am not sure they would have been inappropriate.  He did not say something like “man I would so do her” but rather “I could watch that runway show”.  If he phrased it just slightly differently I think he could have said this to Melania or her husband in an interview as a compliment toward her and there would have been nothing wrong with it.

But again we must remember the place and time – he thought what he was saying was off air. Now should he have been more careful – sure.

But now we will hear days of how men are horrible for saying noticing that successful women are beautiful.

Now I do find it a little ironic that a super liberal feminist like Chris Matthew’s finds himself in this position.  But even if he is being inconsistent with his own beliefs (which I believe are very wrong by the way) I think we should cut the man some slack on this.

Give him a break and give all us men a break.

Men like beautiful women – feminist everywhere whether they be male or female just need to DEAL WITH IT.

For more on this subject of men looking at women see my series:

How should women deal with their men looking at other women Part 1

How should women deal with their men looking at other women Part 2

How should women deal with their men looking at other women Part 3

Is it wrong for a man to be a gynecologist?

A gynecological examination.Shooting a real doctor's office

Are all men that go into gynecology secretly perverted? Should gynecology be left only to women? Do male gynecologists get turned on when they do gynecological exams? Do men have an “on and off” switches for their sexual arousal?

Previously I wrote a post reviewing an essay by Pastor Anderson of Faithful Word Baptist Church in Temple, Arizona. The full post can be found at http://www.faithfulwordbaptist.org/lust.html.

In part of this post, Pastor Anderson states this about male gynecologists:

“And, you know, here is an area that is not popular. It has never stopped me before. It is not going to stop me now. But here is another area that is not popular. But, you know what? Women who go to a male doctor and just disrobe in front of a male doctor. Why? Because they don’t believe that nakedness is a sin. Because he is not lusting, supposedly.

Because we all know what is going on inside his mind. He takes a polygraph detector test right before and after every visit.

“I had…my mind is as clean and pure as the driven snow.”

Yeah, right. Good night. He is a man. He is a red blooded man like anybody else. Do you know what every male gynecologist ought to do? He ought to take a scalpel and a lancet and cut out his own eye and throw it in the trash. That is what the Bible says. He ought to just remove his own eye. I am not kidding. He has got all the tools to do it. He ought to do it.”

The Facts about male gynecologists

Before I tackle the issue the morality of a man(Christian or otherwise) being a gynecologist let’s look at the facts about male gynecologists.

FACT #1

Even with half of all gynecologists now being women, most women don’t care if their gynecologist is male or female

“There has been a significant gender shift in OB-GYN over the past two decades. In 1990, 22.4 percent of all OB-GYNs were women. In 2010, nearly 49 percent were women,” Jeanne Conry, president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said in an email. She pointed to figures showing bigger changes to come: “In 1990, 49 percent of all first-year OB-GYN residents were women. In 2012, 83 percent were women.”

But that still leaves plenty of men pursuing gynecology as a profession…

70 percent of women said they had no preference when asked if they preferred a male or female gynecologist. Of the nearly 30 percent who did, the majority preferred a female gynecologist…”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/witw/articles/2013/12/09/are-male-gynecologists-creepy.html

FACT #2

Male Gynecologists admit they are sometimes sexually aroused by their patients

“Of all the specialties in med school, I was sure gynecology was the one I wouldn’t want. As a straight male, I didn’t want to ruin my love of the vagina. Years into it now, I’m never more professional than I am with a patient. The vagina is so desensitized to me, I hardly notice anything about it. But if a woman is attractive, I do have to fight that part of my brain. I’d be lying if I said otherwise. I’ve had patients legitimately hit on me — one immediately after her abortion, and another right after a pelvic exam.”

http://nymag.com/thecut/2014/09/10-men-explain-why-they-became-gynecologists.html

FACT #3

Some Male Gynecologists have sexually abused their patients

“Of 10,000 physicians surveyed, 1,891 responded and the result was that fully 9% admitted to some sexual contact with one or more patients. (Sample included 344 gynecologists.)”

http://patientmodesty.org/sexualmisconduct.aspx

ARGUMENT #1 Sexual Misconduct by Doctors

One of the most common attacks against the idea of male gynecologists is the possibility of sexual abuse. In the survey I cited above, 9% of physicians admitted to sexual conduct with patients. But we have to be careful to separate out what would be “unethical” sexual conduct, verses “criminal sexual misconduct” by a doctor. The reality is that the vast majority of sexual conduct between physicians and patients is actually consensual, even if it does violate medical ethical rules.

But from a Christian perspective, it would be wrong for man to engage in sexual conduct with any woman outside of marriage, so from our perspective we would say that 9% of physicians admitted to sexually immoral behavior with their patients(regardless of whether it was consensual or not).

While it is a sad fact of the sinfulness of man, that 9% of physicians engage in unethical and sexually immoral conduct with their patients – this means that 91% percent of physicians do NOT!

So basically we have people attacking the concept of male doctors treating female patients because of the possibility that less than one out ten of those doctors may engage in unethical or immoral behavior with their patients (and even a much smaller percent would engage in abusive behavior).

I can sympathize with women who have suffered sexual abuse at the hands of their male physician. I realize that even if less than 5% of male physicians engage in sexually abusive behavior with their patients, that makes little difference to these women – they would never see a male gynecologist ever again.

But we cannot “throw out the baby, with the bathwater”. I believe if we look at this from an objective standpoint, the sexual misconduct argument against male gynecologists does not warrant the elimination of male gynecologists.

ARGUMENT #2 Female Gynecologists

The truth is by every measure, there are more and more female gynecologists every day. Now half of the OB-GYNs in the United States are women. Even higher numbers of female OB-GYNs will be coming through medical schools over the next decade.

So why shouldn’t women, Christian or otherwise switch over to female OB-GYNs? The truth is there is a doctor shortage in this county, whether it is in the OB-GYN practice, or even just general family practice. If women started going exclusively to female physicians those doctors would be overrun and the waiting lists would be astronomical.

So yes let’s as Christians push more women to enter the medical field and become OB-GYNs so women won’t have to see male gynecologists. This would solve the problem right?

But aren’t we forgetting a very important issue from a Christian perspective?

Being a physician of any kind, whether that is an OB-GYN or some other kind of doctor, is a very demanding job. It takes almost a decade of schooling and residency with long hours and a lot of commitment for anyone to accomplish this feat.

For most female physicians, they are not even able to start a family until they are well past their prime child bearing years and even when they have children their children spend a great deal of their time being cared for and raised by people other than their mother(their father, their nanny, or other child care professionals).

Now if you are an Egalitarian or Christian feminist and therefore reject the Biblical doctrines of Gender Roles, then this is not a problem. But for those of us who believe God created men and woman for distinct and different purposes, then these commands of God’s Word would seem to discourage us from pushing more women to be doctors:

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

Titus 2:4-5(KJV)

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

I Timothy 5:14(KJV)

“She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness.”

Proverbs 31:27(KJV)

While the Bible does not forbid a woman from working outside the home, it does make clear that a woman’s primary place is in the service of her husband in their home caring for their children and household.

A woman cannot be in two places at once, either she will give the majority of her time and energy in service to her husband, her children and her home as God had designed her to do, or she will give the majority of her time and energy to others outside her home as she pursues her career outside the home.

So on the female gynecologist argument, I have shown that for two reasons this argument does not hold up when put under closer examination. There are not enough female physicians to service all the women that need medical care. Also from the perspective of Biblical Gender roles, we must cannot, if we accept God’s Word on the nature and design of woman, encourage more women to be OB-GYNs.

I completely realize that my argument against more female doctors could play right into the “doctor shortage” problem. If we have less women doctors, then we would have less doctors and create a larger problem. I agree that it would under the current system.

But there is an easy way to solve this problem. We need to do a better job of establishing different levels of medical caregivers. We need to encourage the training of more male physician assistants and male nurse practitioners, men who do not have to have all the training of a full a doctor. This would greatly alleviate the pressure on doctors and allow them to handle the cases that truly need a fully trained doctor.

ARGUMENT #3 Sexual Arousal

Finally we will address Pastor Dave Anderson’s argument from the point of lust.

Light switch. 3d illustration isolated on white background

Let me first say where I agree with Pastor Dave – men don’t have an “On and off” switch for sexual arousal. Many male gynecologists will privately admit they are sometimes turned on by their patients, if they find them attractive. But let’s also be honest with the fact that for every patient that is attractive to a male doctor, there will be several that are not attractive.

As I have pointed out in my previous post addressing Pastor’s Dave’s “Lust of the Eyes” essay – Sexual arousal is NOT lust. Please review that post examining the scriptures on this very crucial point. If we error by believing and teaching the false doctrine that mere sexual arousal is lust, then Pastor Dave would be right that no man should ever be a gynecologist from a Christian perspective. But if we follow Pastor Dave’s perspective, men ought to look at the ground everywhere they go, for fear of seeing a beautiful woman and becoming sexually aroused (and therefore lusting).

It is not sinful for a woman to disrobe for her physician, as Pastor Dave asserts. As long as she is not setting out to purposefully make him lust after her (as some female patients do with their doctors), then she has committed no sin by disrobing in his presence for a medical examination. Contrary to Pastor Anderson’s assertion – Nakedness is not always sinful, see my post “Why Nudity is NOT always shameful?”.

In the same way, it is not wrong for a male gynecologist to have his female patient disrobe for an examination. It is not sin for him to examine her in a medical and professional way. It is also not sin for him to be turned on by her beauty if she is attractive to him.

What is sinful, is if he either thinks of ways to get her to have sex with him outside of marriage (lustful thoughts), or he actually engages in sexual behavior with her. That is the truth of Scripture.

Conclusion

91% of gynecologists never engage in inappropriate sexual behavior with their patients. There are not enough female gynecologists to serve the needs of all the women out there. Christians should not be encouraging more woman to leave the duties of their home to be physicians. There is no sin in a woman disrobing for her male doctor, or being medically examined by him. A male gynecologist is not sinning if he is aroused by an attractive female patient in the course of his duties. The sin comes in what he does with that arousal. Based on these facts, it is not wrong for a Christian woman to see a male gynecologist, and it is not wrong for a man to be a gynecologist.

 

 

How does your husband initiate sex?

HusbandInitiatesSex3

Wives – how does your husband initiate sex with you?  Husbands you are invited to take the survey as well – how do you let your wife know that “you got that loving feeling?” Please feel free to add comments to elaborate(just keep them suitable for public viewing). A lot of men and women struggle in this area of how they communicate that they are needing to have sex with their spouse – your answers could really help a lot of people, and maybe some other answers here could help you as well.

This poll is completely anonymous – I will have no idea who you are – it won’t show your wordpress id or anything else about you.  Please take the survey.

Is it wrong for Christians to pose nude, or paint and photograph nudes?

nice portrait of a young woman with naked shoulder posing inside a frame

Is it wrong for Christians to pose nude for painters or photographers? Is wrong Christians to take nude pictures of models, or paint nude models? Is wrong for Christians to be involved with nudity at all?

The lust argument

Many Christians would say –“Duh – ya! Of course it is wrong for a Christian to pose nude, or take nude photos, or paint nudes or to have any involvement in nudity at all”.

The reasons for this common belief among Christians are:

  1. If a person poses nude, there image will be used to cause others to lust.
  2. If a person takes nude photography, or paints nude – they may lust themselves after the model they are painting or photographing and/or cause others who see the photograph or nude to lust.

I would not argue with the fact that if a person poses nude, they might cause others to be sexually aroused by their beauty. While this could apply to women as well, it would primarily apply to men because men are usually much more visual than women.

But the fact is, the Bible never condemns sexual arousal, it only condemns sexual lust. While sexual arousal and sexual fantasy can lead to sexual lust, they do not have to, any more than our hunger for food has to lead to gluttony.

Our sexuality, our sexual nature, is a part of who we are as human beings, this true for men and women. As men, we are much more sexual in our natures, due to having 10 more times the testosterone in our bodies. Our brains are bathed in testosterone while we are in the womb, and this makes us have highly competitive, aggressive and yes sexual brains.

As believers, God wants us to channel our sexuality in positive ways that do not break God’s law. While all acts of physical sex are reserved for marriage between a man and woman, this does not mean we have to suppress our sexuality until we are married. It also does not mean that after marriage all of our sexual energy, and every sexual thought must be about our spouse.

What it means is we are not to fantasize about trying to get someone to sleep with us outside of marriage, whether we are single or married, that is the very definition of lust. Lust is fantasy to possess something that does not belong to us.

Lust is NOT being sexually aroused by the sight of a beautiful woman.

Lust is NOT being wondering what a woman looks like with her clothes off.

Lust is NOT having a sexual dream or fantasy about a woman you are not married to.

The “no arousal” argument

There may be some Christians (and non-Christians) that think it is OK to paint or photograph nude models as long as there is no arousal. Every time I hear this theory, it makes me want to chuckle. I don’t dispute that in 95% of cases, especially for men, the site of a nude model that is even semi attractive would cause sexual arousal.

Now can men learn to hide their arousal? Certainly. But we as men are hardwired for visual beauty, it’s a fact. To say otherwise is a biological lie. But again as I said above, there is no sin or immorality with being aroused at the site of a beautiful woman. It is what we do with that sexual arousal that will become sinful, or not sinful behavior.

Let me review some principles from my article “Is Nudity always shameful”:

  1. As a general rule, God wants people to be clothed. In most circumstances, to be naked is to be shamed.
  2. We are not to uncover the nakedness of anyone involuntarily, or for the purposes of having sex with someone we ought not to be having sex with (anyone outside of lawful marriage).
  3. Most instances of nakedness being a shame in the Bible are of involuntary nakedness such as being captured in war and being stripped, a woman being raped, or someone being in poverty and losing one’s clothes. A person having their clothing taken from them against their will is shameful and disgraceful.
  4. In some instances, when clothing is removed voluntarily, and with specific purpose for limited time, it is not a shame or sinful to do so.

So once we understand that lust is not sexual arousal, or even sexual fantasy, but is instead thoughts and fantasies about actually possessing someone that we cannot have, or having someone outside of marriage, then we need to look at principles for nudity.

God wants us as believers to be clothed, generally speaking – see my post Why God meant people to be clothed.

However, when someone disrobes voluntarily, for a specific time, and for a specific duration for the purposes of being painted or photographed – no sin has occurred.

Song Solomon shows the beauty of the human body, along with a wife painting her husband’s body with words (Song of Solomon 5:10-16), and a husband painting his wife’s body with words (Song of Solomon 7).

The husband of Song of Solomon calls his wife’s body, “The work of the hands of an artist” in Song of Solomon chapter 7:

“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.

2 “Your navel is like a round goblet which never lacks mixed wine; your belly is like a heap of wheat Fenced about with lilies.

3 “Your two breasts are like two fawns, Twins of a gazelle.

4 “Your neck is like a tower of ivory, your eyes like the pools in Heshbon by the gate of Bath-rabbim; your nose is like the tower of Lebanon, Which faces toward Damascus.

5 “Your head crowns you like Carmel, and the flowing locks of your head are like purple threads; The king is captivated by your tresses.

6 “How beautiful and how delightful you are, my love, with all your charms!

7 “Your stature is like a palm tree, and your breasts are like its clusters.

8 “I said, ‘I will climb the palm tree, I will take hold of its fruit stalks.’ Oh, may your breasts be like clusters of the vine, And the fragrance of your breath like apples,

9 And your mouth like the best wine!” “It goes down smoothly for my beloved, flowing gently through the lips of those who fall asleep.

Song of Solomon 7:1-9(NASB)

Conclusion

I completely disagree with those who are Christian, or even non-Christian (such as Muslims) who believe that nudity must be covered at ALL times (except for between a man and woman in the privacy of their own home).

Both from a Biblical perspective, as well as practical perspective, how does it make sense that God has made the human body so beautiful, especially that of women (“the work of an artist”), only for it to be hidden away?

I have used this example before, and I think it very applicable to this issue beauty as well as nudity.

Single Orange Tree

Imagine that a man plants a beautiful orange tree in his yard. It grows and blossoms with beautiful fruit. But people walk by and look at its beauty, and this bothers him, because he reasons “that tree belongs to me, and its beauty is only for me”. So he hires a construction company to build a 20 foot wall around it with a door so only he can enter and see its beauty.

Now most of us would find this utterly ridiculous, but this is how some men see their wives, and some wives think they should be treated as wife. They see a woman’s beauty as something to be hidden, and only enjoyed by the husband in private.

Using this same tree, continuing our analogy, what if the man did not build the wall but allowed the beauty of his tree to be enjoyed by all his neighbors, and all who would drive by his home?

If the tree represents his wife, there would be no sin people walking by and enjoying the beauty of his “tree”, then the only sin would be if someone were to come and touch that “tree”, and take from its fruit – for that tree belongs him and him alone.

Although God wants us to be clothed as we go about our daily lives, there is a place and a time for nudity and the display of the art, the beauty and sexual allure of the human body. There is a place in Christianity for artistic as well as erotic nudity. But as Christians we must always exercise our expressions of art and sexuality within the bounds of God’s law.

See these other related posts in this series on Biblical Nudity:

Why did nudity become shameful after the fall?

Why God meant for people to be clothed

Why nudity is not always shameful for a Christian

What is the Lust of the Eyes in I John 2:16?

couple female in pink and male in red

What does the Bible mean by “the lust of the eyes”? Is it wrong for us to look at anything and desire it? Or does this mean something else? Recently I was sent this article – http://www.faithfulwordbaptist.org/lust.html – to review from one of my blog readers, it is an essay by Pastor Steven Anderson, the Pastor of Faithful Word Baptist Church in Temple AZ.

The phrase “the lust of the eyes” occurs one time in the Bible, and it comes to us in the first epistle of John.

“15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.”

I John 2:15-17(KJV)

I don’t mean to say that just because the phrase occurs only one time that it is not important. There are many great truths in Scriptures that occur in only one or two passages. But the key is to understand what this phrase means.

Let’s be clear from the start, the Bible never defines what “the lust of the eyes” is.

So this brings us to Pastor Anderson and his sermon – “The Lust of the Eyes”. I also want to say that in no way am I questioning Pastor Anderson’s salvation, or his genuine desire to please God. But just as Paul withstood Peter to his face, sometimes we must confront the false teachings of other believers.

Let’s start off with where I agree with Pastor Anderson, before I have to stand against the false teachings that he has mixed with the truth of God’s Word.

Pastor Anderson states his definition of “Lust” as it occurs in the Bible:

“The word “lust” means a very strong, intense desire. It is usually talking about a desire that is out of control, a desire that you can’t control is what lust is or just a very intense, extreme desire.  Covetousness is a word that has to do with lust.  If you study Romans chapter seven Paul teaches that in the Bible.”

Pastor Anderson’s definition of lust, is actually pretty accurate, especially when he recognizes how Paul ties it to covetousness (Romans 7:7).

So if we take his definition and understand what Lust is, we can also understand what is not lust.

Desiring something, whether it is our favorite food, or perhaps a car we want to buy, or a home we want to buy is not lust.

Pastor Anderson then moves from his definition of general lust, to a more specific definition of “the lust of the eyes”:

“But I think most people understand what the lust of the flesh is. That could be an appetite for food that is out of control. That could be an appetite for fornication. That could be an appetite for committing physical sins of pleasure with your body. But I think many people fail to understand that there is a difference between the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes. And just what is the lust of the eyes?

Well, look down at your Bible in Proverbs chapter six as we are reading this in verse 24. It says, “To keep thee from the evil woman, from the flattery of the tongue of a strange woman.” And then look at the next statement. “Lust not after her beauty in thine heart; neither let her take thee with her eyelids.”

Now think about this for a moment. Here God is saying not to lust after the beauty of a strange woman, of a wicked woman, of an evil woman.

Now, beauty is a visual aspect. Ok, we are not talking about the flesh here. We are talking about the eyes. We are talking about a man lusting after the beauty of a woman. That is what it says. Look down at your Bible. “Lust not after her beauty in thine heart; neither let her take thee with her eyelids…

Now, what is this talking about? Lust can be defined, again, as coveting something, desiring something that doesn’t belong to you or, in the case of the lust of the eyes, it is coveting and desiring to look at something that you should not be looking at.

This is where my disagreements with Pastor Anderson begin. He basically says that Proverbs 6:24 says that God says you cannot even look at the beauty of a woman “strange women” (i.e. a whore or prostitute). The verse says we should not “lust after her beauty” in our hearts.

Let me point out a very important truth here:

LustingLooking

Pastor Anderson has just made the jump from “Lust” being in his own words “a very intense, extreme desire. Covetousness“ to desiring to look at something that you should not be looking at.”

Lust in the Scriptures is always a strong and insatiable desire to possess something, or someone that you could not possess, or should not possess.

Proverbs 6:24 is NOT saying men have to walk with their eyes pointed at the ground every time they see a beautiful woman. It is not saying every time that a man sees a beautiful woman on television that he must avert his eyes.

Proverbs 6:24 IS saying we are not to desire to possess the beauty of a wicked and loose woman (whether she be a wayward wife or a prostitute). Can someone possess beauty? Absolutely! Do you realize some men marry women only for their outward beauty, knowing they may never have a close relationship, knowing the woman is a viper on the inside?

But I also think it is highly likely that “beauty” here in Proverbs 6:24, is simply a symbol of the woman herself, to possess her physically, and bodily.

Again the word “look” is nowhere in this passage – remember that fact, the word is “lust” (an insatiable desire to take possession of something or someone we cannot).

Another thing to point out is, “the lust of the eyes” is not simply talking about sexual lust. Other examples of “the lust of the eyes” is when we lust after things that other people have. Whether it is the home they have, or perhaps their car, their furniture or artwork they have in their home. For ladies “the lust of the eyes” might be looking at other women’s clothing with an intense desire to possess the clothing they have.

Are there some things we should not even look at?

Even though I disagree with Pastor Anderson’s interpretation of Proverbs 6:24, I don’t disagree with the Biblical concept that there are some evil things we should not set before our eyes. I just don’t see Proverbs 6:24 as teaching that we can’t even look at a beautiful woman, and even appreciate the beauty of a woman, unless she is our wife.

The right verse (which he also mentions in his post) speaking to looking at evil things is from Psalms:

“I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the work of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me.”

Psalm 101:3

So I have just argued that it is not a sin, and it is not lust simply to look at the beauty of a woman, even the beauty of a wicked woman. I would even argue that it is not a sin to look at the beauty of a good woman who is single or another man’s wife.

Sin happens comes when we go from looking to lusting, when we have an insatiable to desire to physically possess the beauty of a woman that we have no right to.

But there are some things we should not even look at. An example would be pornography. We should not be looking at images that depict sexually immoral acts. Another example might be Satanic books and books about sorcery and witchcraft (we see in Acts 19:19 that believers brought these kinds of books and burned them).

What about Job 31:1?

Pastor Anderson talks about nakedness but I am going to leave that for a separate upcoming post. I want to close this post by looking at his reference to Job 31:1:

“Job said it this way. He said, “I made a covenant with mine eyes.” He said, “I made a deal with my eyes.” “I made a covenant with mine eyes; why then should I think upon a maid?”

He said, “I made a covenant with my eyes and said, ‘You are going to look at what I tell you to look at. And you are not going to look at women that are dressed indecent. You are not going to look at another man’s wife. You are not going to look at these images that Hollywood and TV will portray for you.”

Job says nothing about the way a woman is dressed, he says nothing here about looking at another man’s wife. He says nothing about looking at images of women (in his day it would have been paintings or sculptures). He does not state any of these things Pastor Anderson mentions.

In Job 31:1 the word “think”, could also be “to perceive and look at”. So then some might say “ha – he is saying we can’t even look at a young women!” Can anyone say with a straight face they think Job was saying he never looked at any young women, that every time a young woman came by that he averted his eyes? Such an idea would be ridiculous and we find no such example in the Scriptures.

The fact is that nowhere in all of Scripture do we see the Bible condemning a man for simply looking at a woman. We also never see sexual arousal being condemned in Scripture. What is condemned is lust, which is covetousness. It is what we do after we look, even after we may be aroused by the sight of a beautiful woman. Do we begin to contemplate in our heads how we can get that woman to have sex with us outside of marriage?

What Job was NOT saying

Based on the totality of the Scriptures Here is what we know job was not saying.

1. We know Job was NOT saying it was a sin for him to look at a young virgin.

2. We know that Job was NOT saying it was sin for him to be aroused by the beauty of a young woman. In fact it would not even be wrong if he wanted to marry a young woman.

What Job WAS saying in Job 31:1

That leaves us with only one possibility of what Job was actually saying about his thoughts regarding young virgins:

He would not think about how to seduce a young virgin into having sex with him outside of marriage (as so many men around him probably did).

Speaking of virginity, people often wonder why God was so serious about a woman’s virginity in the Bible, and they often look at it as God being harsh toward women. No! God was protecting women from men who would take advantage of them. One of the many reasons God wants men and women to wait for sex in marriage, is so that a woman is protected, and any children that might come from her having sex would be protected and provided for. Our society is paying a heavy financial toll for ignoring God’s commands regarding virginity and premarital sex.

Conclusion

Lusting is not the same as looking – please remember that truth. Men are visual creatures, much more so than women typically are. As men, God has given us our sexuality, and even our visual sexuality, as a gift. No Christian man should be ashamed of the fact that he receives pleasure every time he sees a beautiful woman.

Please here me out Christian man. Examine the Scriptures for yourself. God did not give you your eyes and a male brain that is capable of appreciating and receiving pleasure from the sight of female beauty, only to tell you that you must look away in shame every time you feel pleasure at the site of a beautiful woman.

He did not give your eyes to appreciate only one woman, that being your future wife. Not one passage of Scripture ever states this concept, no matter how many times Pastors repeat it over and over, and many Christian authors repeat this mantra in their marriage books.

As I have said multiple times on this site, God designed men as polygynous beings and that is why we are naturally attracted to a variety of women. I know that conflicts with our modern monogamous-only marriage society, but regardless, it is the truth. Look at the articles on this site, detailing the polygyny of the Biblical patriarchs.

In upcoming articles, I will address some of the other issues he raises such as the topic of nudity, mixed gender swimming, what we watch on TV and male gynecologists.