Awhile ago I wrote about modesty, and as I thought more about the subject, I wanted to add an appendage to what I wrote:
The whole the idea that men are primarily visual beings and women aren't? It's a myth, an old-wives (or old-husbands?) tale. Quite frankly, women can be visual too, and the notion that they aren't is a lie, a laughably ridiculous statement probably originating from someone who didn't understand women very well. If a woman sees guys running around shirtless with perfectly sculpted muscles, she might feel butterflies in her stomach.
I'm not saying it's right. But it's true.
And yet, she can stop it.
No one can help their initial feelings--basic biological attraction, but they can help what they do with them. No one has to follow those thoughts down the steamy path they beckon them down, a path that objectifies human beings that are created in the image of God.
You can say no.
You can walk away.
Don't tell me men can't say no. They're made in the image of God too. They have free will. 1 Corinthians 10:13 says that "no temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it." There's a way of escape for me, for other women, and for men. People can feel attraction, and that's not inherently wrong. They have a choice as to whether it turns into sin or not.
Men are not weaker when it comes to resisting sin. To say so is an insult; it's emasculating, even. Nowhere in the Bible does it proclaim that men are innately weaker than women in controlling lust, in surrendering that sin to Jesus. The Bible just doesn't say that.
Patriarchy says that.
I initially titled this post "The Myth of the Visual Being," but I just went back and changed the word "Myth" to "Lie." Because that's what it is: a lie that harms both men and women.
God values each human being, for God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son that whomever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life. That Son invited women like Joanna, Susanna, and Mary Magdalene to be a part of His ministry. That God appeared to a woman first after He conquered death. The God loves women just as much as He loves men and men just as much as He loves women.
I think it's time the Church did too.
There's truth here - women can certainly feel attraction to a guy based on what they see (you mention perfectly sculpted muscles), but I'm sorry, for it to be a lie, I want to see some actual proof that women are wired to respond to visual stimuli with equally intense and frequent arousal as men. And I don't think anyone is saying that women are NOT visual creatures at all, but just that it's a much smaller component for them, just as men aren't purely visual creatures!
ReplyDeleteIt's my experience, and the experience of most of the guys that I have known, that a) men respond with arousal to a much wider spectrum of the female form - not just perfectly sculpted muscles! Rather, cleavage is cleavage and can start us down the road toward lustful thoughts. I guess it seems to me that women typically respond to the very few guys who are in peak physical condition, whereas guys can be aroused by just about any female. b) Guys’ response is much more visceral and varied than "butterflies in the stomach". Maybe I'm off base here, but I daresay that even the butterflies response from women isn't as much about the perfect abs, but about the signals that that sends about the guy in question - that he's motivated, active, hardworking and healthy. So I would classify the female response as more of an appreciation of a perfect or exceptional form, not as lust, although I guess it could turn into lust if it was dwelt upon excessively or turned into a fantasy. c) I think guys and girls both fantasize about the opposite gender, but in different ways. Women tend to fantasize about a romantic encounter or certain words being said, or getting married or having a family with that guy, whereas for guys it's going to be a lot more sexual.
In the end, I see your post as essentially trying to homogenize men and women, which I think is part and parcel the feminist way, but ultimately a futile thing to do if you hew to the truth of the Bible. Men and women were created differently but equally - after all, we are both created in God's image! So it simply doesn’t make sense to me to be so adamant about proving that women are just as visual as men when all the evidence points to the contrary. It certainly doesn’t make you less awesome, nor does it make you less vulnerable to sinning overall, but rather makes women less likely to respond lustfully to a guy running around with his shirt off! Especially if he’s hairy, or a bit overweight or anything less than the perfect physical specimen, whereas guys can easily fall to even the slightest hint of cleavage from just about any girl! And most of the time, guys don’t wear clothing that reveal or emphasize any body parts (and be honest – even if there are exceptions here, how often is your response revulsion rather than attraction?).
Now, I’m not trying to say that guys DO sin every time we see a hint of cleavage or yoga pants; just trying to help you see that men and women truly are different on the issue of visual stimuli and lust.
Just look at the clothing industry if you want some proof of my point here – why do you think yoga pants and skinny jeans and low cut tops are popular items for women but not for men? Because the clothing industry makes money off the fact that women can create attraction in men by wearing those kinds of clothes, and thus there is demand for them! On the other side, women seem to mostly prefer sharply dressed men. A suit or a tux is hardly revealing clothing, yet that seems to be the most appealing to women’s sensibilities. Perhaps you can shed some light on this dynamic from your perspective, because from my view it very much skews towards men being more visually oriented than women.
Hey Sam, thanks for reading! And you do make some good points here. In response to your comment that "the butterflies response from women isn't as much about the perfect abs, but about the signals that that sends about the guy in question - that he's motivated, active, hardworking and healthy"--I would agree that indeed, physical qualities send a subconscious message re: health, motivation, etc. to a woman that arouses a sort of attraction. I would also say that cleavage can actually do the same thing, because it sends a subconscious message of fertility to men.
DeleteAnd while women do oftentimes dream of getting married, having a family, etc. there are plenty of women for whom such thoughts do turn sexual. Again, I will say, I don't think that's right. But it's true. As I'm assuming you are not a woman, I would say that you should be careful in saying that "women are less likely to respond lustfully to a guy running around with his shirt off!" Because if you're not a woman, you can't know for certain. As a woman myself, I will say that I do feel attraction, that, if I choose to dwell on it, easily turns sexual. However, as a Christian, I believe lust is sin and dishonoring to Jesus, because it objectifies a person who's been created in the image of God. Hence, I have a choice: dwell on the biological attraction and let it turn into lust, or stop dwelling on it and honor my Lord.
My point in this post was to emphasize human responsibility. Unfortunately, in a lot of Christian settings I've been in, the woman (or young girl) is blamed and shamed while no one puts any responsibility on the man. I believe this attitude is wrong and unsupported Biblically, and I want to call it out as such.
Also, I just want to state emphatically that I am NOT AT ALL trying to say that men and women should be homogenized. Not even close! I do believe that the Bible makes it clear that there are gender differences, and that such differences are good things to be celebrated. However, I don't think those differences give any particular gender a free pass on sin.
And actually, as a post-script: skinny jeans are quite, quite popular for men of college age (at least where I live). I'd be hard pressed to find a guy on my campus who does not wear skinny jeans. And for women (at least for myself and my friends), yoga pants are super comfortable--I don't wear them to stimulate attraction; I mean, I wear them when I exercise!
Hi Sam!
DeleteI would like to see your evidence that men are more visual than women. There are studies that support such a claim, and there are studies that refute that claim.
Also, because culture unfortunately objectifies women through their clothes, I would venture to say that the problem is not men's tendency towards 'visual stimuli' so much as the culturally acceptable tendency to objectify women as a sexy, arousing object (look at TV commercials, particularly the Superbowl ones). And of course, women objectify men too (Magic Mike?), but culturally, that is not as pervasive.
Here are two links, if you are interested, that both support and argue against your position. The third article makes some good points about the accuracy of such results, given culture.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12554590
http://psychcentral.com/news/2012/09/04/men-see-things-differently-than-women-literally/44103.html
http://aloftyexistence.wordpress.com/2011/11/18/men-more-visual-than-women/