Visual Men and Touchy Feely Women

Blogger Greg Hahn from, "That's It On a Cracker," (http://onacracker.wordpress.com/author/greghahn4/) wrote the following comment as a response to my article, "Female Obedience and Sexual Abuse":

I've heard it explained that men respond to visual stimuli while women respond to touch. So women protect men by covering up, and men protect women by being very careful how they touch them- if at all.

I thought it was an interesting concept, so I decided to dig around a little to see if there was any support for such a concept.
 
I did find some. Medscape has an article on the subject and this is what they had to say:

In other words, men are more sexually aroused by visual stimuli, but women are more sexually aroused by concrete, auditory, olfactory, touch and emotionally relevant sexual stimulation.

 (Read the whole article at http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/808430_2)
But I found also this view on the subject:

Now I don’t know how other people interpret the idea that women aren’t visual, but interpreting it in that way is certainly not true. And not only can we replay scenes we’ve watched or pull up pictures we’ve seen (both erotic and otherwise), we’ve also got a fantastic imagination. Just because I’ve never seen it, doesn’t mean I can’t watch it happen in my head.

(Read the whole article at, http://simplysexuality.wordpress.com/2012/10/30/myth-debunked-men-are-more-visual-than-women/)

Regardless of which way one leans, the belief that men are more visual, and women are more touch oriented, has consequences that are felt beyond the safety of the bedroom.

If a touch is enough to arouse a woman, rape wouldn't exist.
The assumption behind "men are visual and woman are touch oriented" is that a man would never attempt to touch a woman who is covered from head to toe, because such a woman would never arouse him. Hence, a lightly clad woman can only blame herself is she causes a man to become aroused, wherefore rape is always a woman's fault.

But it gets worse. If seeing a lightly clad woman is enough to arouse a man until he loses all control, and if being touched is enough for a woman to be aroused, a woman should lose all control when touched by a man. In other words, rape doesn't exist.

I know you want it.

Just relax. 

Words from men to their victims; a mentality learned not from science but from pornography, where women (even the most reluctant ones) lose all control when touched. But that's not what happens to women in the real world. In our very real world, a man can touch a woman and get either a negative or positive response. A man who receives a negative response has a choice: he can either leave the woman alone, or use violence, wherefore rape is very much a reality.
 
Without question the greatest flaw with the concept of visual men and touchy feely women is that although pornography portrays women as coy and secretly willing, science points to mood and romance as important factors alongside touch for women; touch isn't enough. But why spend all that time creating the perfect mood, if you can just get your dessert without cooking dinner?  

Human sexuality is a complex subject and cannot be reduced to simple slogans - especially ones that excuse the abusers, and shame the victims. It is regrettable that Christians so often traffic in stereotypes, and end up telling the victims they are at fault. Science isn't that scary.

The Patriarchy Connection: When Purity Balls Replaced the Debutante Balls

The purity ball is considered a new ceremony, in which daughters promise their virginity to their fathers, eat cake and dance. It may seem odd, but the purity ball has a long and illustrious past in the form of the debutante ball.

The debutante ball was created to ensure that marriages were contracted in an era in which the upper class confined itself to the parlor. At the ball, eligible bachelors, and parents looking for suitable partners for their sons, were able to find which young women were of a marriageable age, and what family they came from. It made things simple and neat. The young women wore white dresses as they were presented, there was cake and lots of dancing. In those days there was no need for the girls to sign agreements with their fathers as their virginity was taken for granted by everyone; a scandal effectively ended a young woman's hopes of a marriage - at least a good one. 

It is worth noting that the working class didn't need debutante balls, for less privilege meant more freedom of movement. Not that the girls didn't feel equal pressure to remain pure; the pressure just came in different forms.

It is also worth noting that the debutante ball was one of the few occasions in life in which privileged young women were the center of attention. In a society in which women are largely ignored, the young women must have been eager participants - just as their modern counterparts, who eagerly flock to the purity balls in their white dresses, not really thinking what the ball is really about; the ball is all about making a distinction between the desirable young women and the undesirable ones. It makes women into commodities one either wishes to purchase, or decides to reject. It removes the person from the young woman; it is not who she is that matters, but whether her purity, the commodity, is intact.

The purity ball is an attempt to turn back the clock to a time in which young girls were more or less commodities in the marriage market. By presenting young women as eligible, and by giving them a purity ring as a sign of their virginity, the old custom is revived and the old-fashioned courtship has a chance to survive in a world that has become far too informal for patriarchal comfort. But is it really going to produce what it promises? Are marriages going to be happier when parents make the decisions, and young men and women are forced to comply? Or is this just another misguided attempt to save the institution of marriage by prescribing a remedy that didn't work then, and won't now?

Purity begins in the heart. A dance is not going to put in the heart what is not there, nor is the absence of a dance going to take it away.

I wonder what the original Puritans would say about the purity ball?

The Patriarchy Connection: Purity Doesn't Come in the Shape of a Ring

The purity ring.

It's supposed to keep girls from kissing toads until Prince Charming comes along - or so we are told. It has often been noted that if the purity ring had magical propensities and could preserve one's virginity until marriage, parents would be equally eager to hand them over to their boys as well. But we don't see it, because in the world of patriarchy, the ring symbolizes something entirely different.

"Daddy is your boyfriend."

You belong to dad.

Only girls are given rings because boys don't belong to someone; they are the owners, the heirs, the future generation of men. Instead of wearing a purity ring, a young man looks forward to replacing the purity ring with a promise ring, an engagement ring, and finally a wedding ring, until he can say, "You belong to me."

In patriarchy, the four rings symbolize the transfer of authority from the father to the husband. An engagement ring used to be enough, but because the age of prospective brides is no longer in the teens, and most young women leave the watchful eyes of their fathers before they marry, the uncertainty of the purity of the pride has caused the need for the purity ring. A girl wouldn't wear it if she wasn't a virgin, now would she?

The greatest problem with the purity ring is that marriage is about two people becoming one, and the ring symbolizes that oneness. Young girls do not become one with their fathers, nor do they pledge to remain faithful to their fathers for the rest of their lives, which makes a father giving his daughter a ring a rather strange event.

In addition, even in the world of patriarchy, also the bride can, and will, say, "You belong to me." A wife can demand fidelity from her husband, and adultery is not accepted. But since this is the case, why can't a young woman demand her perspective husband be a virgin as well? Why can't young women demand young men wear purity rings too?

Instead of giving rings, why not teach young women to respect themselves, and young men to respect young women? There is no need for a ring when the heart has already decided to remain faithful to God. That is where true purity begins. 

The Patriarchy Connection: Female Obedience and Sexual Abuse

Cultures that foster and encourage female obedience set women up for sexual abuse while simultaneously denying them the ability to seek justice. 

The problems arise from the patriarchal expectation of unilateral female obedience in all areas of life - except when it comes to sex. Suddenly, patriarchy holds women responsible for the consequences of the missteps of men. The same women, who are expected to obey men without question, are also expected to keep the men who waver in check by actively disobeying them. But how is a woman, who has no right to command a man, supposed to command a man to leave her alone?

We see this in the current rash of acid attacks in India. Indian men are raised from boyhood to consider themselves superior to women. How does such a man respond to a rejection from a woman, who (in his mind) has no right to say no? With an acid attack that leaves the woman disfigured for life. It is a steep price, and one that women must pay in a patriarchal society that insists women must remain pure, while also ensuring the purity of the men who have no interest in remaining pure.

The blatant hypocrisy explains also why dress codes and modesty regulations target women and not men. Because patriarchy insists women must take responsibility for the sexual conduct of men in general, patriarchy portrays the woman's body as something shameful, something that must be covered, hidden away. The assumption is that if men never see a woman's body, they won't waver. But the burka doesn't cover children, who then become the object of male attention - which may explain the prevalence of child brides in countries that cover their adult women.

Finally, unilateral female obedience doesn't protect women from becoming sex slaves, for if men see women as the guardians of their sexuality, why should they feel guilty for soliciting sex from a victim of trafficking? Isn't the fact that she allowed herself to be captured enough to excuse the men who use her?

While many people and many organizations work tirelessly to end sexual assault, trafficking, and to outlaw child brides, they will get nowhere until we change our attitudes.

Feminism is this radical idea that women are human too.

Let's make it global.

The Patriarchy Connection: The Protected Man, the Unprotected Woman

Hierarchical theologians tell us that men have an innate need to protect women. 

But the question is, why don't they? 

For example, why does the church tell women who find themselves in abusive marriages to remain instead of helping them get out?

Why do Christian men talk about their duty to protect, but do so very little to protect the women they know are suffering?
 
Because instead of protecting women, patriarchy protects men from women who have been abused. 

The sugarcoated theology of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood tells us that men have authority over women "for their own good," but what good is there in a theology that allows men abuse women while telling them to endure it patiently. How does it protect women?

We see this clearly in the patriarchal Athens. The Greeks were very fond of the concepts of femininity and masculinity. They considered masculinity to be a respectable quality that was reserved to men; women who exhibited masculine traits were not tolerated. Yet, if men can appear feminine and women can appear masculine, why should men be masculine and women feminine, and who decides what is masculine and feminine? If patriarchy defines masculinity as something reserved for men, and yet women can exhibit masculine traits, the concept of masculinity must be reserved for those who have the ability to choose the traits they would like to possess. In other words, masculine traits ensure that those who possess power will keep their position of power. 

If masculinity is about power, femininity must be about a lack of power. And if women must be properly feminine, it must mean that they must be properly powerless. Now the question is, why do women need to be powerless? We know that the Greeks gave men more power to allow them to indulge their flesh without restrain. A Greek man would spend his evenings with courtesans, and nights with a slave, and his legal rights protected him from his wife, who had no choice but to remain in the women's quarters and accept her husband's infidelity.

Christians, however, are instructed to gain control their flesh by the Spirit, wherefore a Christian man does not need more rights to indulge his flesh—or does he? Hierarchical theologians tell us that a husband should command his wife to obey when they disagree, which tells us that it all comes down to preferences. Yet, a man who expects his wife to obey his preferences does not live the life of love, for love is not self-seeking (Ephesians 5:1-2, 1 Corinthians 13:5). In fact, self-seeking is a work of the flesh, wherefore a man who is self-seeking seeks to gratify his flesh instead of gaining control over it by the Spirit (Galatians 5:19-21). 

A man who lives for his own flesh is hardly concerned about protecting those his flesh desires to abuse. If men truly desired to protect women, they would give women equal rights, and the church would excommunicate every man who ever raised his hand against a woman. But we don't see that. Instead we see the church telling women that if they would only submit they would protect themselves.

The dreadful reality of hierarchical theology is that it protects men while it makes every man believe they are protecting women. And people wonder why the church has no ability to help abused women.

Piper and the Grass Eating Lion: Why Male Protection Began After the Fall

John Piper is upset with the idea that women should be included in frontline combat forces, and thinks its shameful for men to even consider sending women to combat:

For thousands of years of military wisdom and noble instincts that reasoning would have been unintelligible. Of course, there are women of valor. But for a male commander-in-chief to say that since they are willing to die in combat, therefore we should arm them for it, is a non-sequitur, and a shame on the president’s manhood.
It’s a non-sequitur because more factors than valor go into fitting a person for combat, and it’s a shame because true manhood inclines a man to fight to protect women; it does not incline him to arm women for the frontline of combat to defend him.
That’s the main issue, not pull-ups. The main issue is: how God has designed manhood and womanhood to honor each other and to create a cultural choreography where men and women flourish.

 (Read the whole article at, http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/the-folly-of-men-arming-women-for-combat)

Piper continues:

The Bible reveals man as a protector. Jesus came into the world to destroy the enemies of his bride (1 John 3:8). He came to rescue her at the cost of his own life (Mark 10:45). This was the ultimate paradigm of how a husband relates to his wife: “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Ephesians 5:25).
The echoes of this ultimate manhood in Christ are found throughout the Bible as men take the initiative to protect their women. And when Barak insists that Deborah go with him to battle, she makes it clear that this will be to his shame: “I will surely go with you. Nevertheless, the road on which you are going will not lead to your glory” (Judges 4:9).

But what did the first man need to protect the first woman from in the garden? 
The grass eating lion?

Before sin, there was no death. How do you protect someone who cannot die?

And why did Jesus come to die? Because of sin.

The idea that men must protect women is based on the hostile world of sin in which violence and death are ever present; it doesn't originate in the garden of innocence. 

Shame on Piper for even suggesting it.

The Patriarchy Connection: David Murrow and the Thrill of Adventure

David Murrow is of the opinion that the church is too safe, and that, he says, is women's fault. If the church wasn't directed by women (although it isn't), it would be full of adventure and risk-taking! Seeking to fix the problem, Murrow created a website called "Church for Men," with the goal of making the church less a women's thing and more a man's thing.

(Visit the website at, http://churchformen.com/)

I understand Murrow's frustration with the nurturing, loving environment of the local church since his heart yearns for adventure. It's the same frustration that has driven countless young people to exchange the safety of their parents' home for the uncertainty and thrill that comes from traveling. 

I was one of them. I found sleepy, safe Scandinavia boring beyond belief; I couldn't wait to get out and explore the world! And so I did. But now, as I have a family of my own, I look for other things. I like the safety of the small community we live in. It's a great place to raise children, to garden, to write.
 
There is a time and place for everything, says Ecclesiastes, and there is a way to find adventure, but you won't find it if you stay in the safety of your local church. An adventure that doesn't include risk is not an adventure; a wave pool isn't scary, a stormy Pacific Ocean is.

What if instead of blaming women, Murrow had looked for that adventure outside the local church? What if instead of looking for a way to please himself, he had looked for a way to please others, serve others? 

To find adventure one must be willing to face the unknown. Paul had all the adventure one could ask for, but hear what he has to say about how he found it:

Are they servants of Christ? (I am out of my mind to talk like this.) I am more. I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my own countrymen, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false brothers. I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked. Besides everything else, I face daily the pressure of my concern for all the churches. Who is weak, and I do not feel weak? Who is led into sin, and I do not inwardly burn? (2 Cor 11:23-29, NIV)

Adventure comes with a cost; it demands as its price our comfort. The local church is a safe, nurturing place for a reason: there are a lot of hurting people who need that environment. To the rest of us God extends an invitation to come and follow him wherever that may lead.

That's where the real adventure begins. 


 

The Patriarchy Connection: David Murrow and the Church for Men

“Why do men hate going to church?” asks David Murrow in an article that appears on a website titled “Church for Men.” 

(Read the whole article at, http://churchformen.com/men-and-church/why-do-men-hate-going-to-church/)

The name of the website is a curious one, for is there a church that is for women? According to Murrow that answer is, yes. The church we all call “church” is, according to Murrow, too feminine, too safe, too dull. Men need a church that is exciting, that gives them an opportunity to seek adventure, to live a little.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to live a little; we all should. But why does Murrow think that women don’t want to live a little too? Why does he think that the church has become too safe because of women?

It is unfortunate that Murrow doesn't recognize the real culprit. Patriarchy insists women should be domestic, shun adventure, and seek safety. Why does Murrow act so surprised when they do? The problem seems to be that Murrow thinks there should be more men in the church; more men would mean more adventure, more risk-taking, less of all the fluff and stuff, the stuff women and old people like. But how to get the men to come?  By creating a church for men.

It seems like such a good idea. A church where men can be men, unchained from the female devices that keep them down. In his church men can smoke, talk about sex, and even dance! It’s a great church! It looks just like the Victorian gentlemen’s club!

Is that what it takes to bring men back to the church?

There is nothing inherently wrong with sex or dancing, and although smoking is not exactly healthy, it is just about as evil as eating too much red meat. But why does Murrow think women don’t like sex and dancing? Why does he feel that he must exclude women from the church in order to allow men to engage in such practices? According to Murrow, women don’t like adventure:

How did Christianity, founded by a man and his 12 male disciples, become the province of women? There is a pattern of feminization in Christianity going back at least 700 years, according to Dr. Leon Podles, author of The Church Impotent: the Feminization of Christianity. But the ball really got rolling in the 1800s. With the dawning of the industrial revolution, large numbers of men sought work in mines, mills and factories, far from home and familiar parish. Women stayed behind, and began remaking the church in their image. The Victorian era saw the rise of church nurseries, Sunday schools, lay choirs, quilting circles, ladies’ teas, soup kitchens, girls’ societies, potluck dinners, etc.

Firstly, we must note that women were excluded from leadership 700 years ago when Thomas Aquinas created his twofold subjection, which subjected the woman from creation. The Catholic Church, for example, recognizes that women deacons disappeared from the church in the 13^th century, but doesn’t seem to understand why. How can the church have become more feminine in the past 700 years, when the women have been excluded from leadership the entire time? The medieval witch hunts weren't directed at men; they were directed at women; women who challenged the all-male rule of the church. Secondly, what is wrong with church nurseries, Sunday Schools, choirs, soup kitchens, potluck dinners? Try to take them out and see how many people, men or women, will come to your church.

The early church, of course, met in homes, wherefore there was no need for nurseries and Sunday Schools for the children. But they did have potluck dinners; they called them Agape dinners—the original Communion. They also had soup kitchens; they often fasted in order to provide food for the poor with the money they had saved. These are activities that the early church cherished. How are these the creation of women?

This thought leads us to the next complaint of Murrow’s: he claims that women have made Christianity a religion of the gentle, sensitive, and nurturing, focused on home and family. He calls this the “feminine spirituality.” Men feel out of place; they don’t like to be extra polite. With this I heartily agree! Being polite is a cultural value, not a spiritual value. But why does Murrow think women feel the need to always be polite? Isn’t it what patriarchy has taught them?

“If you have nothing nice to say, don’t say anything all!”

“Don’t be unladylike!”     

Murrow fights against the very construction he has helped create because suddenly he is in the receiving end. He doesn’t like the church because the church forces him to live like a woman. No wonder he is upset! But creating a church for men isn’t the solution; we need to create a church in which both men and women are free to experience the freedom they have in Christ. Let’s hope Murrow will join the egalitarian movement; it’s the only way he will get what he wants.