Bosoms, Bottoms and the Stumbling of Men

By Jennifer Hartline Published on July 19, 2017

There are a few topics on social media that are guaranteed to kick the hornet’s nest every time. Good luck trying to have a rational chat about vaccines, for instance. And heaven help you if you dare wade into the waters of mothering and childcare and employment.

Then there’s the battle over women’s clothing and men’s lust. Who’s to blame when a scantily-clad women gets the unwelcome attention of a conscious man? Or what if he just inwardly wrestles with his own thoughts and averts his eyes? Is he wrong for wishing he hadn’t just seen more than he wanted to see? Who’s responsible for the way a man feels when women’s bosoms and bottoms are constantly on display?

On the Issue of Modesty

A Christian blogger named Bailey recently kicked off the summer festivities on her blog, Ezer, with her piece, I Don’t Accommodate Uncontrolled Men.

She’s tired of worrying about whether a man can control himself in the presence of a woman in a bikini. She thinks it’s time to quit making excuses for men, and stop bending over backwards to make sure men are never tempted. She takes aim at something called “purity culture” and the way she feels it has socialized men (and even women) to obsess over a woman’s body. She’s not impressed with any argument about testosterone and its supposed role in all this.

Let’s step away from blame for a moment and consider what charity asks of us as men and women.

I must admit I don’t know much about “purity culture.” I didn’t realize it was a thing, much less a bad thing. I don’t know what it says or requires or discourages, but I am a fan of purity.

Bailey makes some good points, and pays men a compliment when she insists they are capable of controlling themselves and managing their own thoughts. And it’s not fair to make women responsible for men’s behavior. She’s right to say we should not accept as “normal” the idea that a healthy man can’t interact with a woman without focusing only on her body or her clothes.

Still, there are a few other ideas that deserve mention, like charity, modesty, propriety and balance.

We Owe It to Each Other

Let’s step away from blame for a moment and consider what charity asks of us as men and women.

The fact is, men are indeed visual creatures. It’s how God has hard-wired them. It’s not a defect, so it’s not helpful for women to treat it as an annoyance. God has hard-wired women differently, and again, it’s not helpful for men to treat a woman’s nature as an annoyance.

Men are called to employ sensitivity and chivalry with women. Women can likewise employ courtesy and charity.

Charity asks all of us to be considerate of one another’s vulnerabilities, and not to consciously put one another to the test. Charity asks us to accommodate others when we can. It can lead us to exercise a bit of self-denial for the good of the other. One may have every legal right and freedom to do something, but charity will ask, “Would it be kinder to the other person if I didn’t?”

Men are called to be sensitive and chivalrous with women. Women can likewise use courtesy and charity by not dressing in a way that leaves a gentleman no choice but to look away because he’d rather not have to see. That means keeping the bosoms and bottoms covered, please. (It’s not just the gentlemen who don’t want to see it.)

Let’s not  pretend we don’t know the difference between modesty and immodesty. An outfit should make the lady the focus, not her “assets.” So many women’s fashions in recent decades have gone from flattering and feminine to sleazy and inappropriate.

Women can’t have it both ways. They can’t constantly dress in clothes that are designed to draw maximum sexual attention to their chests and rear ends, and then complain that men only see them sexually and don’t interact with them as human beings. I find it absurd that a woman who wouldn’t dream of going out in public in her bra and panties will gladly do so in a bikini.

Purity requires modesty, an integral part of temperance. Modesty protects the intimate center of the person. It means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden. It is ordered to chastity to whose sensitivity it bears witness. It guides how one looks at others and behaves toward them in conformity with the dignity of persons and their solidarity. … Modesty is decency. … It is discreet.

Catechism of the Catholic Church 2521-22

No, It Doesn’t Mean Men are Excused

This doesn’t mean men are off the hook from ungentlemanly behavior. It doesn’t mean men can blame women for their lust. It means men and women owe each other a debt of modesty and charity. We owe our sons and daughters the same.

It used to be that a sense of propriety prevailed in society, and this debt was borne without fuss. But no longer. What used to be kept for the eyes of only one is now forced in front of the eyes of everyone.

Bailey’s frustration is that it seems it’s only the women who are asked to accommodate, or modify their appearance for the sake of men. It seems unfair. But life isn’t always fair. (Life extracts an unequal share of accommodation from men in different ways.) Women have more to show, more to reveal, and, therefore, more that deserves protection and privacy. Men are still required to have self-control.

Balance, People. Balance.

There’s no need for ridiculous extremes. The choice is not either a bikini or a burqa. Women are not required to be covered from nose to toes lest a man see their form and be inflamed with lust. There’s a balance, people.

Each of us is called to modesty, chastity and yes, purity. It would be nice if we could all just return to an honorable sense of propriety, and keep some things to ourselves.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Karen

    So, care to tell us those ways men are expected to accommodate women? Because I don’t know of any places where any man has ever ‘accommodated’ me, and if they have done something nice it has ALWAYS AND IN EVERY SINGLE OCCASION come with the expectation that I gush like an idiot over their basic human decency. Men have it damned easy and I for one am tired of pretending they don’t.

    • Hannah

      Karen, your anger won’t get you anywhere except deeper into the pit of self-loathing and hatred. If you want answers, you’ve got to let that go, as terrifying as that sounds. Assuming all are guilty before they even have the chance to act isn’t the sign of one who wants answers but one who seeks to dole out skewed judgment based on past abuse. If you’re not careful, you’ll end up the very thing you despise, as it is with those who seek to punish the offenders by swallowing the poison of bitterness.

      You’re worth more than that. Don’t let those who harmed you hold any more sway than they already do.

    • Paul

      Karen, speaking for myself, if I ever have the opportunity to hold a door open for you, a simple ‘thanks’ would suffice. If a woman gushed like an idiot over such basic decency I’d be slightly alarmed.

      We don’t know each other or our life experiences, but I can assure you there’s a lot of men with really hard lives and I recognize the same is true of many women. Gross generalizations aren’t going to help matters.

    • Dean Bruckner

      Damnation is always easy. As Richard John Neuhaus used to say, “The road to hell is paved.”

      I’m not sure that is your wish for men, or at least I hope not!

  • tz1

    The larger wonder is most of these places are public, so you have every age from toddlers to grannies having to deal with the imagery, and it sets a standard. Can we not return to G rated public spaces?

  • Wayne Cook

    Interestingly..every single woman I’ve made friends with likes to be told she’s pretty, has what she feels are God’s endowments and cared about. And all of them are Christians. Maybe I learned how to make a woman feel respected, maybe they just trust me. Whatever it is…I give the compliment and move on. Feels good to make a woman smile.

    I really don’t care how anyone else percieves or judges it.

    • Jennifer Hartline

      Every lady delights in being told she’s pretty. We delight in catching our man’s eye and seeing him smile “that smile.” Keep it up, Wayne. Ladies love gentlemen.

      • mj

        Sorry, but I disagree. We should be complimenting each other on godly character qualities we see in the other. Pretty is a gift from God and I cannot take credit for that. Pretty implies the potential for an attraction surfacing or forming. Of course, I love for my husband to tell me I’m pretty, but that’s it. His eye is the ONLY one I am trying to catch. A true gentleman will encourage a woman as a father, brother or discipler, not as an admirer, judge or predator.

        • Andrew Mason

          Making a woman smile, or laugh, is a positive thing, but telling her she’s pretty isn’t the only way to get that response – insults work too. The trick is to know what’s acceptable, and what’s not i.e. what’s genuinely offensive and what’s merely pseudo-offensive. In one case a girl I knew described me as being like the annoying older brother she never wanted, but she was grinning (laughing?) as she said it. 😀 I agree a true gentleman will act as an unclebrothernephew rather than an admirerjudgepredator, but family dynamics differ family to family.

        • Jennifer Hartline

          mj, I don’t see the harm in a gentleman complimenting a lady.

          But you see, this is how I see it and frame it and express it: a gentleman and a lady. Perhaps the first step is for people to start thinking in those terms again. I don’t think it’s old-fashioned or oppressive in the least. It is totally freeing. It brings out the best in both men and women. It’s delightful, and it’s safe. I long to see our culture return to that understanding.

        • Jennifer Hartline

          And just for the record, I said “catching OUR man’s eye”, not A man’s eye. Still, a simple compliment from a friend, or another man who knows me, is not a bad thing. It’s a sweet gesture.
          It used to be a man could say, “That’s a lovely color on you” or “You look beautiful” or “He’s a lucky man to have you on his arm” or “What a pretty hat” or something along those lines to women they knew, and it was graciously received. Not in a sexual way, but just in a flattering way. I miss those days. We’ve lost something special.

  • Hannah

    When I’ve spoken with others about this, a fellow commentator on Reddit supplied me with a website titled “My Chains Are Gone” (dot org). It is constructed like a massive blog with several pastors who discuss the pitfalls of both pornography and purity and how to see the human body according to Scripture. It changed my life and my husband’s life, who had been addicted to porn for six years and had been struggling with lustful thoughts for closer to ten. Redefining how you see the naked body is key to defeating the thoughts in your mind. Once the root of that is dealt with, all else follows. Truly, it was that simple.

    • Jennifer Hartline

      Pornography is a vile plague from the pit of hell. It destroys men on the inside, and it enslaves and degrades women, to put it mildly.

      • Very true, that’s all the more reason I agree with Hannah and strongly recommend people check out the site she refers to. At the heart of it, it points out the “pornographic view of the body” that is both prevalent and at the root of both licentious culture AND purity culture. In fact, because this view of the body is at the root of both frames of mind, it is one of the reasons men under purity culture just as easily become enslaved to pornography. I know, because pornography was destroying me on the inside too until the site helped me redefine how I see the body and enabled me to begin living a more pure life. (And no, I don’t work for the site nor have I met any of the pastors on it – it is just very profound how it addresses the topic).

  • Well reasoned, and reasonable. Good job.

    • Jennifer Hartline

      Thanks, Mike.

  • “Women can’t have it both ways. They can’t constantly dress in clothes that are designed to draw maximum sexual attention to their chests and rear ends, and then complain that men only see them sexually and don’t interact with them as human beings. I find it absurd that a woman who wouldn’t dream of going out in public in her bra and panties will gladly do so in a bikini.”

    Preach it sister! You don’t use the word, but I will. I’m for one, am sick of the hypocrisy of women who dress for “maximum sexual attention” then act offended when they get it. (Speaking of attention, not attacks.)

    Karen – what ways are men expected to accommodate? We’re expected to pretend we don’t notice that women dressing in that suggestive manner have done so, thus we’re supposed to pretend we don’t see the all the things she’s done to draw attention to her “assets.” I’m not suggesting you dress in that manner, but even so, you’ve likely been “accommodated” more times than you know by men you simply didn’t notice because they were busy successfully controlling their gaze and behavior.

    I make no excuse for men who are weak or fail in their self control, because we’re all called to exercise it – both men and women: but particularly men in their behavior towards women; but also women in the way they dress.

    Bottom line: Self control is a fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:23) and both men and women should strive to grow in it so we can “learn to control his [or her (I believe is warranted)] own body in a way that is holy and honorable” (1 Thess 4.4)

    Here’s a word to the wise for both sexes:
    Men: “I made a covenant with my eyes not to look lustfully at a girl.” (Job 31.1)
    Women: “I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety…” (1 Tim 2.9)

  • john appleseed

    Some things simply need to be hidden.
    Allow me to illustrate why:
    No one in the universe is more beautiful than God. He is “clothed with splendor and majesty.” (Psalm 104:1).
    Why doesn’t God reveal his beauty to us in its fullness?
    Because we couldn’t handle it. It would destroy us.
    Very few people in history have been spiritually stronger than Moses, yet when he asked of the Lord, “Show me your glory,” God only partially granted his request. “Then the Lord said, ‘There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by.’” (Exodus 33:21, 22)
    But one day, at “the marriage supper of the Lamb” (Revelation 19:9), God’s people will be “clothed with immortality” (1 Corinthians 15:54) & we will be able to completely see God’s glory. We will see him face to face (1 Corinthians 13:12).
    The Bible says women also have glory (1 Corinthians 11:15). Ever since Adam first laid eyes on Eve, men have been strongly attracted to the beauty of women. But, to rephrase the question I asked earlier, should _women_ reveal their beauty in its fullness? No. For the same reason I gave earlier: We can’t handle it. We men, that is. Now it’s true that just as Moses could handle more than most of us of God’s beauty, so some men can handle more than others the undressed female form. But generally speaking, men will be tempted to think wrong thoughts, & perhaps to do wrong things, based on what they see when encountering an immodestly dressed woman. This is the basis of the Biblical commands that women should dress modestly in public (1 Timothy 2:9, 1 Peter 3:3). But just as there will be a time when God’s people will be ready to see him as he is, so there is an appropriate time for a man to see a woman’s beauty in its fullness: after their “marriage supper.”
    God is not trying to stifle your creativity or your social life, ladies. He has set an example for you. And single ladies, the best men will not be hypnotized by an immodestly dressed women. You should want a man who knows how to bridle his passions, who will honor you for not revealing all of your glory.

    • Betty Lou Schwartz

      Wonderful, eye-opening words! I wish more people understood this this way!

      • john appleseed

        God is good! 🙂

    • Betty Lou Schwartz

      John Appleseed, may I copy and share your post? It really puts things in a very helpful perspective that I dont think many have ever heard.

      • john appleseed

        I would be honored, Betty Lou.

  • childofjehovah

    the Bible is crystal clear on this matter. 1 Corinthians 8:4-13. If what you do causes another believer to stumble you don’t do it. Period. 1 Corinthians 8:9 sums it up ”
    “1Co 8:9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak”
    Rather its eating meat sacrificed to idols, or dressing in a way that causes someone else to stumble. the word is crystal clear on this.

    • Paul

      Taken to the logical extreme that is a completely paralyzing passage which led me to question how it is typically interpreted and applied. Should the church cancel all potlucks because a glutton can’t control themselves? Where does it end?

      • childofjehovah

        John 16:13 The Holy Spirit will lead you and guide you, He will let you know what to do. however to apply that passage, to your question If know a member in your church is battling with their weight, then you would let the Love of God guide you. For instance you could talk to the person, find out what kind of foods they are not supposed to eat, make sure they are not at the potluck. if they absolutely refuse to diet or try to be healthy, then just don’t throw a potluck, and pray that the Lord give them wisdom help them. But to know a member of your church has an issue with eating and their weight, and to turn right around and throw a fried chicken, biscuits and gravy potluck would be wrong (even though there is absolutely nothing wrong with a good fried chicken dinner with taters biscuits from popeyes and some nice spicy graveh!!).

        • Paul

          I have a hard time imagining cancelling a communal meal because of one persons gluttony. In the context of this article that’s like expecting all women to not attend church because some guy can’t overcome his lusts. At some point the one with the problem is the one with the problem.

          • childofjehovah

            Do you have scripture to back that up?

          • Paul

            That’s a good question, it’s important that we examine our thoughts through the lens of scripture.

            I see the counter-balance to this passage in addressing selfishness and self control. Allow me to share a personal account related to food. I’m very carb sensitive, I put on weight very quickly if I eat what most others do. I have friends at church who are thin as a rail who eat pizza, pasta and wash it down with sodas, which if I did like they do I would soon be well over 300 lbs which in my view isn’t treating the temple with the respect it deserves. That’s my problem, not theirs. When there is a spaghetti dinner at church I typically abstain. I didn’t always have that self control hence knowing I have this difficulty. It would be extremely selfish of me to expect them to stop eating all those carbs because I have a problem. I don’t consider myself and my physical needs as somehow superseding theirs, it’s my problem. They are not purposing in their hearts to make me fat, they are trying to be a blessing to the church and community. Now if someone condemns my abstinence and insists I eat the plate
            of spaghetti then they are now laying a stumbling block for me. There’s times people have been gracious to prepare something else like a side salad for folks like me which I appreciate but I don’t demand it nor be offended if that doesn’t happen. Better yet is I now often contribute items to the meal that I can eat and share with others.

            If we’re trying to control other peoples behavior with the leverage of our own offense then we are in the wrong. We’re no longer trying to live in peace. My problem isn’t solved by demanding everyone in the church stop eating pasta and drinking sodas, that would be selfish of me and showing I have a lack of self control.

            Some scriptures to ponder along these lines.

            Phil 2:3-4 Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more
            significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own
            interests, but also to the interests of others.

            1 Cor 10:24 Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor.

            1 Cor 13:4-6 Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more
            significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own
            interests, but also to the interests of others.

            James 4:1-2 What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? Is it not this,
            that your passions are at war within you? You desire and do not have, so
            you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel. You
            do not have, because you do not ask.

            Romans 16:17-18 I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions
            and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught;
            avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their
            own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts
            of the naive

            Matthew 16:24 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.

            2 Peter 1:5-7 For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness;
            and to goodness, knowledge; and to knowledge, self-control; and to
            self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; and to
            godliness, mutual affection; and to mutual affection, love.

            Titus 2:11-12 For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people.
            It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to
            live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age.

            2 Timothy 1:7 For the Spirit God gave us does not make us timid, but gives us power, love and self-discipline.

            Galatians 5:22-23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness,
            goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things
            there is no law.

          • Joseph Ducreux

            Phillippians 4:8 “Whatever”.

      • This objection commits what is known as the fallacy of the beard.

        • Paul

          Not true in that I’m not at all rejecting the scripture. Rather I often analyze concepts to the extreme to try and understand what limits if any may arise.

  • Paul

    A practical note along this topic, if you wear a t-shirt with words on the chest, don’t be surprised when people need to look at your chest to read it. And if the letters are small they are not staring.

  • Stephen D

    Personally, I find modestly-dressed women far more attractive than immodestly dressed women. If a woman is dressed in skin-tight clothing, it is pretty much impossible for me to converse with her without impure thoughts intruding themselves. If however she is wearing a nice dress that shows off her figure but in a modest way, my problem is solved.
    Obviously women sometimes want to attract the attention of men, but the way they go about it is the issue here in my view. I think a Christian woman should not be seeking lustful glances. She should be presenting herself as an attractive but chaste person.

  • Jim Walker

    I found out that the closer I cling on to God, the lesser I sin. I also found out that temptation is 24/7. A focused prayer shields me from the noise, not fully but muffled. I acknowledge I will always be Work in Progress so this verse, I cling on dearly :

    2 Cor 12:9
    But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me.

    • Many Sparrows

      Beautiful, @disqus_ELBf9bu9EB:disqus.

  • Alexa

    From a women’s point of view, I agree very little with this article. No disrespect to the author or anybody for that matter, but I feel like most people completely miss the concept of what it is to be a woman in the 21st century.

    You see, if you wear too little clothes you are considered a sleazy sleep-around.

    If you wear too many clothes (for example simply a long skirt and long sleeves) you are labeled a prude.

    I feel like most people assume a girl is one thing or another when in actual fact we are just trying to make it through our day without behind looked down upon (for being too modest) or we’re getting either disdainful looks from people who prefer girls too dress more modest (and hence blatantly disapprove of our outfit choices), or we’re given wanted and/or unwanted attention from other males.

    It is sad how in our society women are typically put at fault for actions of men when talking about list, greed, etc. What is even sadder, though, is when women are also knocked down for defending our positions and rights to still be flexible in what we wear while still abiding by God’s law.

    This being said, however, I do agree with God’s will of maintaining purity, abstinence, etc. before marriage.

    This is why I agree with the last part of the article where the author emphasizes balance.

    A balance between cute yet not too revealing and fashionable yet not to skimpy is important when considering your outfit choices.

    I also personally think, however, that a girl needs to feel sexy and confident every once in a while (even if that means a short cocktail dress).

    • Jennifer Hartline

      Alexa, I sure hope I haven’t missed the concept of being a woman in the 21st century, since I am one.

      And I said very clearly that women are not to blame for a man’s lust. Women are not responsible for the actions of men. Each of us is responsible for our own actions.
      I think we’ve lost a vital and protective sense of propriety, and even decency, in our society. I think it harms women, and I don’t think it does men any favors.

    • Charles Burge

      When I look at modern culture, it seems to me that women are expected to somehow navigate a confusing and often self-contradictory maze of social expectations. For that, feel sorry for their plight. But let’s be honest: it’s often other women who are enforcing these expectations. Did you catch the feminists’ ire at Ivanka Trump for merely wearing a pink dress to a diplomatic gathering recently? Modern feminism strikes me as more of a detriment than a help for women and society in general.

    • Betty Lou Schwartz

      Actually, I dont think as many people pay attention to what you or other people wear as much as you seem to want to think. I think the author was pretty spot on. Women cannot have it both ways…..

    • AndRebecca

      Have you seen the Kardashians lately and the rest of the stuff coming out of Hollywood? Do you look at the Walmart pictures on the web? Have you picked up a women’s magazine lately? Have you missed the Yoga pants???

  • F4Jock

    So now I can’t admire a nice body or a pretty face? Even if I keep it to myself? If you choose to show your curves I reserve the right to tastefully admire them. Get real.

    • childofjehovah

      If you can do it without lusting. jesus said in matthew on the sermon on the mount ”
      “Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”

  • davidrev17

    “The fact is, men are indeed visual creatures. It’s how God has HARD-WIRED them. It’s not a defect, so it’s not helpful for women to treat it as an annoyance. God has hard-wired women differently, and again, it’s not helpful for men to treat a woman’s nature as an annoyance.” (My emphasis.)

    Men & women “HARD-WIRED” Jennifer? But this statement purely reflects a “this-worldly” MACROevolutionary assumption re: the behavior of H@#o sapiens’ across-the-board; of which also includes the metaphysical corollary that WE have NO “free will.” So how does one reconcile this with the Word of God?

    I ask this because the “other-worldly” Judeo-Christian worldview presented in the Holy Scriptures, both clearly and fundamentally teach that Almighty God holds His specially-created “spirit creatures” personally accountable for their thoughts, words, and deeds.

    Thus our Creator necessarily assumes that since He created us “in His own image” (i.e., the “imago Dei”) as rational/moral beings possessing a “moral conscience” (Romans 2:14-15), then it logically follows that WE must have the capacity to “choose” between right & wrong; as in WE men existentially displaying the Divinely-instantiaed component of FREE WILL, when we “choose” to NOT look, or wholeheartedly gaze upon women with lustful desires. (As though we have NO control over the direction in which our neck moves-about upon our shoulders, or our eyes!)

    Momentary glance of admiration at the female anatomy? That’s a big, big difference from longingly meditating upon a woman’s physical features, or beauty…especially from God’s uniquely situated, non-physical “heart-reading” perspective.

    ▪ ▪ ▪

    “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

    “And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

    “And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.” (Matthew 5:28-30)

    ▪ ▪ ▪

    Clearly the Lord Yeshua/Jesus doesn’t view ANY of our moral decisions, to have simply been “hard-wired” into our brains, through a this-worldly mindless, purposeless, thus fortuitous (or accidental) naturalistic evolutionary process. So wake-up MEN & stop-making excuses for your personally-cultivated propensity to commit sexual sins…in thought, word, and deed!

    • Bryan

      “Hard-wired” is a well-known euphemism that does not abdicate a person’s free will to choose to sin or not. It simply means that by design men are drawn to certain stimuli, as are women to others. Darwinists generally call these evolutionary biological tendencies. As a Christian, I believe this is a difference God has designed in men and women that is part of our shared image of God. In this case, men are generally predisposed to notice the attractiveness of a woman. This predisposition does not relieve him of the responsibility to not commit adultery with her by lusting for her. It just means he must choose to exercise his self-control as well.

      • davidrev17

        Thanks Bryan, but if you’d do a bit more reading on the term, you’ll quickly realize that its wholly naturalistic concept is exclusively associated with strict (GODless) “evolutionary psychology” (e.g., atheist/evolutionist E.O. Wilson’s former “Sociobiology”); as in the current neuroscientistic mantra of “you are your brain,” or “the mind is, what the brain does.” Translation: we have NO free-will!

        As such, this evolutionary assumption of being “hard-wired” has no practical/legitimate biblical conceptual place, or value, with respect to we specially-created H#@o sapiens, seeing as though the “image of God” (or Gilbert Ryle’s infamous “ghost in the machine”) has been fiercely resisted – for so very long now – as even existing within we human beings; of whom are viewed as representing nothing more than an utterly materialistic “fleshy bag of chemicals,” in classic neo-Darwinian macroevolutionary thought. Maybe now you’ll understand brother?

        ▪ ▪ ▪

        “You, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.”

        — The late atheist Nobel laureate, Dr. Francis Crick, “The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul,” (1994).

        • nvc18

          You’ve missed the point entirely.

          • davidrev17

            And just what was “the point” anyway, since you suggest that “I’ve missed it”?? Do tell, please.

        • Stephen M. Zumbo

          Then why did God create sex and make it pleasurable instead of merely functional, and at the same time say that sex outside of marriage is wrong and that we need to restrain ourselves until we are married? Why did God make men and women attractive to each other, instead of merely laying out the steps of a purely mechanical function in an instruction book? why does he speak of his relationship with Israel as a marriage, and with the church as a future bride as a marriage and a passionate one?

          Why did he write an entire book into the Bible that celebrates the excitement of meeting your future spouse, marrying them and having a physical pleasurable relationship with them? What did God mean when he said I made man male and female?

          Just because humanist philosophers use the word the way they do doesn’t mean a word can’t be redeemed by Christians to mean something closer to what God meant by what he has said and done in creating us as physical and spiritual and mental and moral beings, as long as we do it in context with the biblical understanding of human biology and Society. Could the autonomic side of our nervous system be called hardwiring? Are some of our sexual responses outside of our conscious control, even though God expects us to take steps to rein in our sexual responses and flee lust as soon as we become conscious of the temptation?

          • davidrev17

            Mr. Zumbo:

            I’m genuinely sorry it took so long for me to respond, but Saturday morning is pretty much the earliest opportunity I’ve had, as there’s been a whole lot going on; plus this also provided a bit more time for me to contemplate just how to answer one of whom demands answers to those rather curious, though classic ’64-million dollar’ “Then why did God…” questions.

            So I’ll address that issue first, since WE represent the infinitely inscrutable Creator’s presently “fallen,” pea-brained (i.e., anything BUT omniscient) finite creatures – of whom obviously lack the ability to apprehend, comprehend, or just plain “see” much of anything beyond the end of our proverbial noses; particularly when this impinges upon morally-premised matters of which are no doubt “spiritual” [or NON-physical] in nature. (e.g., Matthew 15:1-20; Mark 7:14-23; Deuteronomy 8:3; John 6:63 etc.)

            ☆ ☆ ☆

            “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8-9).

            “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law” (Deuteronomy 29:29/ESV).

            ☆ ☆ ☆

            And as far as your not being able to comprehend the critical “Holy” [or separate] difference between the worldview revealed in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, and that worldview which finds its grounding in the pits-of-hades, or more accurately, the “spirit of antichrist”; aka “high-octane” evolutionary naturalism, to which all of the the West – and tragically, much of the apostate “Church” here in the 21st-century – has since bowed-its-corporate-idolatrous-knee…i.e., 1 Timothy 4:1:

            Only the “Spirit of Truth” Himself, can ultimately reveal the utter futility of thinking that “Christians can redeem,” thus transform a literally hel#ish-term and/or concept like “Hardwired” – simply by the act of incongruently baptizing this all-encompassing naturalistic [i.e., Godless] phrase, into ordinary Godspeak-discourse; which is exactly what this Christian author has erroneously, though probably unwittingly done.

            So I firmly, and unhesitatingly stand by all my comments made under this article; as such, we’ll just have to agree-to-disagree! Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts. And I’ll leave you with one-final passage from the Hebrew Scriptures (circa 3,450-400 years ago); whereby our omniscient Creator speaks matter-of-factly, to this hotly-contested current issue of whether rational/moral H@#o sapiens’ can indeed demonstrate the innate capability of “choosing” between right & wrong – aka exercising our “free-will”:

            “I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing. Therefore CHOOSE life, that you and your offspring may live” (Deuteronomy 30:19, emphasis added).

    • Jennifer Hartline

      Yeah, I hardly know where to start. You cannot possibly think I’m saying anyone lacks free will and moral agency because of “hard-wiring.”
      I just think God created male and female with certain, innate differences that are not a bad thing. Then He gave us all the freedom to choose, and gave us grace to choose well.

  • Shirley Sims

    Very , Very good. Men know whatever a woman is willing to show, she is willing to share.” Part of the( when a man finds a wife he finds a good thing, ) means they look. When you go fishing what you use for bait usually determines what you are going to catch. Sooooooooooo! Maybe women should decide what they are trying to catch before they dress and walk out the door? Men also, not every woman is turned on with baggy pants hanging down below you posterior.

  • DLO

    If you don’t want men looking, don’t dress like you do. It’s like
    walking through an AA meeting with a bottle of vodka. You’re welcome to
    wear whatever you want, but you’re not welcome to censor the response.

    • ABMK

      Except we are people, not bottles.

  • kurlgrl1985

    So, for the sake of argument, let’s say that women are “hard wired” to chase money and power in men. Does that mean that if a man drives a flashy car and wears $3,000 suits I’m not at fault for flirting with him in a forward, seductive manner? Because he tapped into my “hard wiring” by showing his assets?
    No, I would be 100% guilty for my actions, and while he may be guilty vanity, he would in no way be responsible for the avarice in my own heart.
    Flipping the script makes it obvious that this modesty-centric view of male/female interaction absolutely places the heavier burden on women and sets them up as a temptress and men as the defenseless victim.

    • Jennifer Hartline

      You are confusing a morally-neutral and natural tendency (which God seems to have made a typical part of man’s nature) with greed and a sinful pursuit of material wealth, which is indeed a conscious choice (and which has absolutely nothing to do with a woman’s nature, as given by God).

      Please go back and read the numerous places where I said that women are not to blame for men’s lust. Men are responsible for their actions. Men are required to have self-control. God requires it of them.

      • kurlgrl1985

        At face value there’s nothing sinful about a woman being attracted to men with power and wealth; these are also morally neutral and desirable traits for the preservation of offspring. The sin arises from taking a natural tendency and not controlling how you respond to it, and men and women have different but equal temptations and responsibilities.

        • Jennifer Hartline

          “men and women have different but equal temptations and responsibilities.”

          Bingo!

          Thus, charity asks us to consider one another’s vulnerabilities, make accommodations when we can, and not deliberately put one another to the test.

          • Stephen Phelan

            You did what you could to explain it, Jennifer. Can’t force reading comprehension. Some just create their own culture of negativity.

    • Joseph Ducreux

      This reminded me of a radio show I was listening to a couple of years ago. A man was on there talking about something he liked to do. He would go to the ATM, and root around in the garbage for receipts with large balances on them, and he’d take them with him to bars to use to write his number on the back when trying to pick up women.

      I thought it was a pretty sleazy thing to do, but then I also began to think that any woman who dated him because of what she thought his bank account was, pretty much deserved what she got.

      If it were me, I would keep the Rolex in the drawer and the Ferrari in the garage until we got to know each other a little better. Then I would know that you weren’t just after me for my money.

  • Nick Stuart

    Don’t show anything you don’t want people to look at.

    • Mensa Member

      Looking is not usually the problem. (unless you are driving)

  • nvc18

    Yesterday. There are thousands of articles about not being blinded by lust for money and material possessions. There’s a strong counter-culture that already exists there. So your point doesn’t stand here.

  • KathleenWagner

    When “Bailey” is a little older and has a bit more sense, she’ll realize that almost every woman has one man who loves her for her mind and personality, who respects and adores her and revels in the joy of her companionship: her father. After that, she just has to deal with men as the good Lord made them, or else leave them alone. If there’s one thing I’m sick and tired of, it’s women thinking they can improve men through focused nagging.

  • Robert Hightower

    Feminist make fun of those who make fences to protect women. Then feminist make a ruckus when men tear down or jump over them.

Inspiration
St. Paul Takes a Knee
Dudley Hall
More from The Stream
Connect with Us