“How do I look?” Part 3 of 7
To access all posts in this series, click here.
In my last few posts, I introduced the players in the “Appearance Matters in Marriage” Christian Battle Royale, and I took off the gloves myself.
I demonstrated that the main conclusion by Rachel Held Evans in her post entitled “Thou Shalt Not Let Thyself Go” was just a sexist straw man argument. I also demonstrated that her 3 supporting citations 1) were irrelevant, 2) directly contradicted her conclusion, or 3) was unreliable at best, or worse just plain false.
In this post, I will reveal the most obvious reason to distrust her conclusion.
The Sin of Omission
In each of her two verifiable citations, Evans cherry picks and chooses not to confront the most glaring truth claim contained in each. Pastor Mark Driscoll said, “A wife who lets herself go and is not sexually available to her husband in the ways that the Song of Songs is so frank about is not responsible for her husband’s sin, but she may not be helping him either.”
Break that down:
- A wife who (a and) (b) IS NOT sexually available to her husband
- MAY NOT BE HELPING her husband flee from sexual sin.
Author Martha Peace advises wives to remain always sexually available to their husbands, saying “the husband should be so [sexually] satisfied that … he won’t be tempted.”
Break that down:
- A wife who (a and) (b) IS sexually available to her husband
- IS HELPING her husband flee from sexual temptation.
I am going to reveal a set of profound truths in this series. Here is the first revelation of truth that our ultra-feminist culture would rather wives never digest.
Profound Truth #1: When a wife rejects or belittles her husband’s sexual needs, she very obviously HARMS his ability to avoid improper sexual thoughts and impulses — aka, temptation.
But that isn’t entirely what either of these cited truth claims state. The truth claim in each of the above expands on that accepted fact by stating that when a wife ignores (a) her appearance and (b) her husband’s sexual needs, she is NOT HELPING him to avoid sexual temptation.
It is important to note that neither truth claim says that the wife is RESPONSIBLE for her husband’s sexual sin in any way should the husband ultimately fall into sexual wrongdoing as Evans falsely concludes. In point of fact, Driscoll directly and explicitly dispels any such implication, and in very clear language by saying a wife, “is not responsible for her husband’s sin.”
Rather, and here is the distinction, the truth claim is that the wife is FULLY responsible for FAILING TO HELP her husband flee from sexual temptation in the first place. And that truth claim is overwhelmingly supported in case after case and study after study. It is a simple fact that a wife helps her husband avoid temptation by remaining sexually available to him. A wife simply does not help her husband in his daily battle against sexual temptation by refusing to be sexually available.
Most importantly, a wife who intentionally rejects or disrespectfully belittles her husband’s sexual needs actually damages his ability to flee temptation.
Question: Just what is it that our very secular culture advises wives to do?
Answer: constantly, disrespectfully, intentionally belittle males in general and male sexuality specifically.
Face it. Misandry is the mantra of the North American media. Lorena Bobbit became a folk hero because she permanently maimed her husband in his sleep by slicing off his sexual organs. Can you imagine John Wayne Bobbit achieving hero status had he sliced off Lorena’s breasts in her sleep? Did not a single talking head find this appalling? Instead they paid her a quarter million per appearance for years.
In a single generation, we went from Pa Ingles to Al Bundy. In the next generation, we went from Al Bundy to Peter Griffin. The height of humor is apparently a random guy getting kicked in the crotch. The selfish, beer guzzling, functionally illiterate, sports worshiping, skirt chasing buffoon is the archetype for nearly every commercial advertisement and the template for practically every father currently portrayed on film or television. Elementary school girls wear shirts proclaiming, “Girls rule, boys drool.” And they do. They drool. Because teachers and government school administrators convince parents to medicate their sons with dangerous psychotropic pharmaceuticals until the lads are practically zombies.
The disrespect for males in general, and male sexuality specifically, is both pervasive and insidious. Yet secular talk shows like The View and The Talk and popular magazines like Redbook, Cosmopolitan, Ms, Woman’s Journal, O, Women’s Fitness and the like all advise women to undermine their chance at lasting joy in a marriage relationship. Some of the advice to have a better marriage from those sources? Don’t give it up until you get your way (sex as manipulation / blackmail). Why not pick porn together that you’ll both enjoy? Maybe try a threesome? How about have an affair (commit adultery)? And I am not even kidding.
So, if a wife’s goal is fidelity, she undermines her ability to achieve success by listening to popular culture and intentionally rejecting or disrespectfully belittling her husband’s sexual needs. If you do not accept this reality, you are not living in the real world, I’m afraid, and you are not coping with the real truth of how God designed mankind. But please — by all means — put me to the test.
Can anyone reading this cite even a single case in which a wife HARMED her husband in his efforts to avoid temptation by remaining sexually available to him? Can you show evidence of even one single case where a wife HELPED her husband by refusing to remain sexually available? Can you list a single example of a wife who HELPED her husband remain faithful in his heart by intentionally rejecting or belittling his sexual needs?
Right. Me neither.
Here is some truth that our ultra-secularized culture would rather husbands never grasp.
Profound Truth #2: A husband helps his wife avoid temptation by loving her more than he loves himself (Ephesians 5:25-28), by living with her in an understanding way (1 Peter 3:7), by providing, protecting, and acting as the high priest of the home. A husband simply does not help his wife battle temptation by loving himself more than her, refusing to live with his wife in an understanding way, or abdicating his biblical responsibilities.
Most importantly, a husband who intentionally belittles his wife’s appearance by either comparison or in words damages her ability to flee from temptation. A husband makes his wife feel loved and secure by adoring and desiring her and– only her — with his eyes (Job 31:1). A man is asking for trouble when he puts his lust for other female forms before his ordained desire for his wife (Proverbs 5:18-20).
Question: What do you suppose secular culture advises husbands to do?
Answer: The secular humanist agenda informs men to LOVE THEMSELVES and seek “ME” TIME and their seminars encourage men to tap into the “power within themselves.” It is an agenda of pure selfishness and becoming your own god. Secular culture at large encourages men to consume mass quantities of pornography, crack off-color jokes, and verbally compare the various attributes of the women in their lives to the airbrushed and/or photoshopped and always scantily clad little girls paraded before them from every possible media outlet.
Hmm. Do you suppose there might be an agenda in culturally and constantly encouraging husbands and wives to perform individual acts of marital sabotage?
Though Evans directly cites it twice, she conveniently ignores the entire premise that a wife who remains sexually available to her husband helps her husband avoid sexual temptation. Suffice to say I fully understand why Evans chose not to confront the argument. She didn’t confront it because it is so overwhelmingly — and obviously — true.
In that very significant act of omission, the thrust of her argument stands on the proposition that it “should make no difference” whether a wife maintains stewardship over her appearance — that such stewardship or lack thereof ought to have absolutely zero impact on her husband’s battle against sexual temptation. Clearly, even that dubious cherry picked argument is specious, but that is a matter for tomorrow’s post.