Should Christians think James Bond is sexy?

10 Nov

In a recent Boundless article, Matt Kaufman opined that in his boyhood he found James Bond greatly disappointing as a hero because Bond beds women.  While he could respect some of the things that Bond did (like fighting villains), he could never like or respect Bond because of Bond’s promiscuity.  He goes on to add that he can’t root for immoral good guys whose vices are not presented as vices.  Basically, it’s boilerplate Christian media-sighz.  (Hate is too strong a word, so Christians typically sigh and shake their heads sadly.)

Most of the comments agreed with Kaufman, with male commenters proclaiming that Captain America is a better hero than Bond because, I guess, Captain America didn’t bang chicks, and with female commenters proclaiming that James Bond is in no way attractive to them because he objectifies women.  (Never mind that in all of these movies the women come willingly to Bond without demanding marriage first.  No, that these women are willing to fornicate with Bond must be All Bond’s Fault and but for his objectifying ways, they would remain pure as snow.  Or:  if the man sins, it’s the man’s fault.  If the woman sins, it’s the man’s fault.)

What entertained me most in the thread was the spiritual one-upsmanship going on.  After a while, it wasn’t enough just to disapprove of Bond and approve of Captain America:  you had to disavow movies in general as bad, or prefer movies where a married man turns away another woman by sticking his ring finger in her face or something, or accuse James Bond of being riddled with STDs, or prefer Dietrich Bonhoeffer to Captain America (yes, one woman actually wrote this).

One brave soul tried to red pill bomb the place by pointing out that Bond treats women the way they would like to be treated (Jacob M, if you’re out there, swing by!).

“How to treat a woman.” Did it ever occur to you that James Bond knows exactly how to treat a woman? How to give her what she wants? James Bond isn’t exactly depicted as raping these girls. They go willingly with him. Man, the church is several generations behind the world in understanding what drives female mating behavior. The adage “chicks dig bad boys” is decades old by now, and yet Matt Kaufman and several of the commenters here keep talking about “respecting” women or treating them “uprightly.” Do you have any indication that that’s what women actually want or like? Other than Glenn Stanton’s pronouncements from on high that women are more “naturally good” than men and automatically desire traditional family life? Look, just like men are attracted to traits in women that aren’t necessarily the “right” ones, women are attracted to traits in men that aren’t necessarily “right”–i.e., quick, cheap, flashy displays of dominance and power, rather than reliability, trustworthiness, or any characteristics that would make him a good husband and father after 20 years of marriage. Women like and are attracted to men like James Bond, and therefore enjoy sleeping with them because it feels good.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not defending any of this. It’s hugely problematic. But until the church comes to grips with the depraved nature of femalesexuality as well as male, it will just continue sliding further and further into cultural irrelevance.

For his pains, he ruffled the feathers of some very healthy hamsters.

Kim:

Whoa, Jacob #18, I had to re-read your post to make sure you weren’t being sarcastic. While I’m glad that you don’t defend the behavior described, I am concerned that you believe women want to be treated that way. At least you could have modified it to “some women”

Without placing the blame on one gender since we are all sinners, my experience has been women complaining about being treated with such disrespect, myself included. A man like James Bond is not at all what I am attracted to. A man who respects and protects me? Definitely a winner.

Mrs. Ashley:

Oh Jacob M. :P That’s a pretty broad accusation you’re throwing around there. You’ve got a thread full of women here that seem more interested in character than suave here and instead of being interested in knowing what shapes their character and where to find them you instead throw them under the proverbial “All Women Want Bad Men” bus.

In my experience, women don’t prefer men who throw them under said bus.

;) Just a little dating tip.

Guys want to talk about how all women want bad men and then they keep chasing the women who want them. Now, there are women out there like that, but if you’ve been attracted to so many of them that you’re jaded about it then the odds are pretty good that 1) your picker is busted or 2) they aren’t actually all after “bad” guys, they’re just not after *you*. I know lots of decent Christian women who have married decent Christian men, and probably you do, too. I don’t think all men are smooth-talking womanizers who are skulking around trying to take advantage of whoever they can — assuming that all women are just waiting around for the right jerk to talk them into bed is just stupid.

The cries of NAWALT will echo into the past and future of a thousand generations.  Also, note the shaming language – “I had to re-read your post to make sure you weren’t being sarcastic” – “I am concerned that you believe” – “That’s a pretty broad accusation.”  And let’s not leave out Mrs. Ashley’s parting shot that if men believe women like bad men, then it’s the man’s fault for seeking out bad women.

I’ve pointed out many times on this blog that women miss that women don’t want to be treated in Bond-ian fashion by just any man.  They want to be treated in Bond-ian fashion by a man with the sexual allure of Bond.  Maybe not Bond himself, but someone who has the confidence and swagger of Bond.  (The nice suits, sophisticated gadgets, and hot cars don’t hurt, either.)  A boring man with a mediocre salary who promises he will NEVER LEAVE HIS WOMAN EVER?  Of course they don’t want him to walk up to them and whisper seductive nothings in their ears.  Until men and women get this, they will continue to be losers at love.

I also think that there’s a certain amount of projection going on.  A woman who finds a man of Bond’s basic sexiness caliber unattractive probably has never experienced attention from a man that attractive or been in the orbit of one; therefore, it’s easier for her to dismiss the idea of such a man as attractive to herself, partially because she knows she could never attract, much less receive commitment from, such a man.  And for women with this kind of sexual insecurity, the promise of commitment can be very powerful because it is not easy for them to obtain.  I think there is also some conflation going on between raw sexual attractiveness and commitment attractiveness.  The other explanation:  her hamster is lying to her.

As for Bond himself, the whole point of Bond is to be an idealized fantasy character and to be sexually attractive.  Bond movies are not character studies; they are meditations on a fantasy of mid-century masculinity wrapped up in an upper-crusty package.  He’s like a Brit mid-century Indiana Jones (another fantasy character).  What both characters offer is escapist adventure, where reality and consequences don’t intrude.  Maybe this is a bad thing, I don’t know.  But stories like this resonate with us because on some level, we want to believe that we have adventure, ingenuity, and resolve inside of us, and that these things make us more attractive people.  Most people will never live lives anything similar to Bond’s.  Is it bad to step into his shoes for a couple of hours?

Regarding Bond’s womanizing:  all I have to say in addition to what I’ve already said on the matter is that Bond would seem gay if he refused every attractive woman who came on to him or if he didn’t pursue any attractive women in his orbit.  If Cherry McPoppin (whatever the female du jour’s name is) came on to Bond and he said (AND ACTUALLY MEANT IT), “Actually, I’m saving myself for my future wife, and I respect you far too much to try to talk you into having premarital sex with me,” audiences would outright reject the character as completely unrealistic (in a movie where fantasy is the name of the game!) and as, well, in complete denial of his homosexuality.  If a woman accepted without disappointment such a claim, audiences would also reject that as completely unrealistic.  A woman pursuing Bond who received such a rejection would only be more motivated to have him.

 

About these ads

59 Responses to “Should Christians think James Bond is sexy?”

  1. The Man Who Was . . . November 10, 2012 at 2:00 pm #

    The Bond character is highly problematic for Christians in a way that Indiana Jones is not. Womanizing is presented in a highly positive light in the Bond series. Fantasizing may not be bad in general, but fantasizing about banging a lot of chicks is. (Not that I will claim to be perfectly pure on that score.)

  2. The Man Who Was . . . November 10, 2012 at 2:03 pm #

    That said lots of women would like to sleep with James Bond types.

  3. Simon Grey November 10, 2012 at 2:10 pm #

    Really, though, you’re asking the wrong question. Attraction isn’t a moral issue; either you’re attracted to someone or you’re not, and you can’t help it either way. A better question is this: how should Christians handle their feelings of attraction?

    Pretending your feelings don’t exist is wrong, since doing so would be dishonest. Jumping straight into bed with whomever you’re attracted would also be wrong, unless you were married to that person. Basically, the best answer is to acknowledge your feelings of attraction and figure out if you can act on them or if you should suppress them and avoid things that trigger them.

  4. Rico November 10, 2012 at 2:49 pm #

    Cherry McPoppin

    I LOLed.

  5. 39joshua November 10, 2012 at 3:04 pm #

    Another good essay, Haley (Actually, I rather admire Bond, especially the Bond in the Flemming books where he is portrrayed as not only having charm but also real bravery, honor, patriotism, and chivalry in the manly sense). I wanted to briefly comment though on the “mediocre salary” remark. We’re in for some rough economic times in the near future, and although I think it is reasonable to expect manliness in other areas, I wonder if it is too much to expect every man to have a great – or even a comfortable – salary (Of course, if the low salary is the result of laziness or lack of ambition, that is a different thing).

  6. modernguy November 10, 2012 at 3:34 pm #

    If Cherry McPoppin (whatever the female du jour’s name is) came on to Bond and he said (AND ACTUALLY MEANT IT), “Actually, I’m saving myself for my future wife, and I respect you far too much to try to talk you into having premarital sex with me,” audiences would outright reject the character as completely unrealistic (in a movie where fantasy is the name of the game!) and as, well, in complete denial of his homosexuality.

    That would be unrealistic, but to immediately suppose that a man is homosexual because he refuses a woman’s, even an attractive woman’s, advances is the hamster talking. Men are not totally and utterly driven by the sexual impulse, despite what women seem to want to think.

    As for Bond, they are movies that play to vanity. Would it be ok if it played to some other sin? They are just fantasies, but fantasies can create temptation, so there’s a line to be drawn. Not to mention that omitting any moral messages leaves the movie prone to being misinterpreted (or maybe correctly interpreted) as glorifying the lifestyle it depicts, which is definitely wrong.

  7. Jobe November 10, 2012 at 4:16 pm #

    I agree with Simon and modernguy. Spot on, guys. I know this isn’t a comment that can lend itself to further discussion, but eh.

  8. Vicomte November 10, 2012 at 4:20 pm #

    What always gets me about Bond is not that he is fornicating, but that he is fornicating ON THE JOB.

    Save the world, then get laid.

    That’s my motto.

  9. Brian November 10, 2012 at 5:16 pm #

    Those last comments on the Boundless post are the finest examples of solipsism one could ask for. Jacob points out a fairly obvious truth – that women are attracted to men like the fictional James Bond – and the ladies on the forum immediately fall over themselves explaining that *they* aren’t like that and therefore women in general are not either.

  10. y81 November 10, 2012 at 7:01 pm #

    Jacob is a little off: James Bond doesn’t utilize quick, cheap, flashy displays of dominance and power. (That’s more like Roissy’s style.) James Bond manifests genuine courage, sang-froid, ingenuity, athleticism, and wit. As I have said before, there’s nothing more appealing than a man who is both good at his job and more interested in that job than in you.

    That said, Christians have differed over the centuries about the value of non-Christian adventure stories. But a question which divided Augustine and Dante will probably not be authoritatively answered in Boundless, or even by our estimable hostess.

  11. ar10308 November 10, 2012 at 8:00 pm #

    Having just seen the movie, I can tell you that it is a clinic on Alpha male behavior and body language. He is terse, contained and his body language just screams confidence. If you want to stand and move with confidence, stand and move like him. The Avengers is also a similar clinic.

  12. charterheart November 10, 2012 at 11:07 pm #

    It’s about time someone wrote this post. A couple weeks ago I was set to see the new Bond film with some co-workers when one refused to tag along on the grounds of “James Bond is a misogynist and I don’t like how he treats women”. I was speechless. Would it surprise you to learn that this co-worker (one of our CEOs actually) is in her mid-thirties and unmarried?

  13. Hermit November 10, 2012 at 11:39 pm #

    “The Bond character is highly problematic for Christians in a way that Indiana Jones is not.”

    I like Indiana Jones for its general family friendliness. I remember watching Goldeneye with my 7yo son, for his first time, and I hadn’t seen it since it came out, having to fast-forward through some scenes… However Indiana Jones isn’t “chaste” for lack of trying. Something always comes up to spoil the fun, except in last Crusade where he actually seals the deal, off-screen.

    My wife is honest enough to say “he’s hot”, more about Brosnan than the current one. We both know that even though other people can hit our attraction triggers, we’ve got the moral fortitude to resist temptation. It’s not immoral to be tempted, it’s immoral to act on it.

  14. Franz November 11, 2012 at 5:41 am #

    Some pretty solid points here… Overall, I like it and that’s no mean feat, considering that James Bond has long represented a sore spot for me. There was a time when I hated Bond with a passion and to one extent or another, I still hold him in contempt. Having read up a little on spies since, I have actually concluded that he’s a little more realistic than one might suppose, though in the negative more than the positive. In retrospect, he reminds me somewhat of Soviet operatives such as Kim Philby. Sex was and probably still is frequently used as a means of extracting information, along with alcohol. Where Bond starts to seriously depart from reality is in ignoring the fallout that must result, naturally. As for how that meshes with Christianity, though, it goes without saying that the mix is not a good one. That Bond should be “sexy” is not surprising, given that a successful spy is generally good at assuming false identities and gaining people’s trust. However, it should also be remembered that the same could be said of Satan and that Jesus was rejected when He walked the earth.

    I can’t say I know enough about Captain America to offer a fully informed opinion, but I will admit that he doesn’t seem to fit my tastes very well. For good or ill, Batman and Wolverine are more my style. xD

  15. Elspeth November 11, 2012 at 10:39 am #

    Like Franz, I much prefer Batman or Wolverine, since the discussion turned to alternative heroes more acceptable to Christians than Bond.

    That said, I don’t admire James Bond, but he is attractive and sexy. Daniel Craig is the hottest Bond since Connery. Why would any woman Christian or not go to such lengths to insist otherwise? Saying that he is attractive doesn’t mean you want to marry him or think he’s righteous.

    When has it ever been assumed that the reality of a person’s sexual attractiveness diminishes because of their unrighteousness? We tend to over spiritualize just about everything, don’t we? Some things just are. You can acknowledge that and still do the right thing.

  16. herbie31 November 11, 2012 at 4:46 pm #

    What always gets me about Bond is not that he is fornicating, but that he is fornicating ON THE JOB.

    Yes, this is grounds for dismissal and/or sexual harassment training. Let’s see how attractive he is when he’s in the unemployment line.

    I liked the Roger Moore movies.

  17. taterearl November 11, 2012 at 7:13 pm #

    Matt Kaufman is just jealous of Bond’s bedding ways.

    Really, he’s having a moral issue over a fictional movie character??? Somebody has too much time on their hands.

  18. 3rd Millenium Men November 11, 2012 at 11:01 pm #

    Errrrr. Indiana Jones sleeps with a lot of women too. Including one in The Last Crusade that his father had slept with two days before.

  19. 3rd Millenium Men November 11, 2012 at 11:03 pm #

    Spot on. The old mantra of “attraction isn’t a choice” holds as true as ever: http://3rdmilleniummen.wordpress.com/2012/07/12/you-need-to-stir-girls-emotions/

  20. Artie November 11, 2012 at 11:12 pm #

    But surely the women who find Bond unchristian are also chastising the new film for promoting the unwed mother-adulteress Adele, right?

  21. The Man Who Was . . . November 12, 2012 at 8:29 am #

    Indiana Jones sleeps with a lot of women too.

    Uh, not so much. In any event, sleeping with lots of women is presented as a big part of what makes Bond so awesome. Jones is primarily known for other things.

  22. FuriousFerret November 12, 2012 at 8:31 pm #

    So where exactly is the article that condemns Lord of The Rings for promoting idolatry and using graven images of demonic spirits and deities?

    They are going after James Bond? C’mon. Is this really necessary? Especially for sexual content.

    Does anybody else think it’s the height of stupidity to not go see a particular media work simply because of bare breasts or sex rather than the glorifying of shooting dudes in the face? You can’t take the sex part but the violence part is just dandy.

    Plus Daniel Craig James Bond is St.Thomas Aquinas compared to Connery. Craig actually cared for some of the women in his films whereas Connery saw them as glorified sex dolls.

    Also what damage do they think will happen by seeing James Bonds’ womanizing ways. If anything, if the average Christian youth is insipired to actually show some masculine charm with women based on Bonds’ example, in my book that’s a Godsend.

  23. Aunt Haley November 13, 2012 at 12:11 am #

    39joshua–

    MOST women want to marry a man who has the capability to support a wife and family. For some women, that means the man must be able to afford a SAHM wife, but not for all. Many women have accepted that they must work if they want to have a middle-class lifestyle, at the very least.

    modernguy–

    Skyfall is the 23rd Bond film. Imagine Bond putting off the women in every single film. Are you going to think he’s virtuous or just secretly gay? Remember, he’s not just any man; he’s an apex alpha.

    Vicomte–

    Save the world, then get laid.

    What if you can do both at once?? Bond appears to be quite a multitasker.

    Hermit–

    Indy beds a new woman in each movie. Well, except for the Last One That Shall Be Scrubbed From Memory. (There, he manned up and married his 50-year-old baby mama. Three cheers for family values!)

    taterearl–

    Really, he’s having a moral issue over a fictional movie character??? Somebody has too much time on their hands.

    So no one should have moral issues over fictional gay characters or unwed mothers or weak, capitulating, stupid men in TV and movies, either, right? Such a person would have too much time on his hands, obvs.

    Furious Ferrett–

    Does anybody else think it’s the height of stupidity to not go see a particular media work simply because of bare breasts or sex rather than the glorifying of shooting dudes in the face? You can’t take the sex part but the violence part is just dandy.

    A bare-breasted woman in a movie is actually bare-breasted. A person getting shot in a movie is not. Furthermore, sexual arousal is a far more powerful instinct than violence (which is admittedly also powerful). Obviously, filling your mind with gore or a constant cacophony of violence is unhealthy, but I don’t see how looking at boobs or simulated sex scenes is somehow an improvement over punching/shooting.

  24. 3rd Millenium Men November 13, 2012 at 1:25 am #

    “Jones is primarily known for other things.”

    That doesn’t stop him from sleeping with women.

    That’s kind of like saying “Petraeus is primarily known for being a 4-star general. So committing adultery is irrelevant”.

  25. an observer November 13, 2012 at 3:03 am #

    Bond the character is an alpha. Yet some of the actors that portray the character are more convincing than others.

    Daniel Craig has never convinced me. Sean Connery had it. Pierce Brosnan pretended he had it. Most of the rest …

  26. The Man Who Was . . . November 13, 2012 at 7:59 am #

    Does anybody else think it’s the height of stupidity to not go see a particular media work simply because of bare breasts or sex rather than the glorifying of shooting dudes in the face?

    I loathe this complaint from liberals. People these days are far more likely to screw up their lives through sex than violence.

  27. FuriousFerret November 13, 2012 at 8:12 am #

    Thought this might be good aide to this post.

    An chart with all the women that Bond has slept with in all of his films.

    http://www.nextmovie.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/james-bond-the-nymphographic_3.jpg

    53 women with 75 implied sexual encounters.

    60s and 70s Bonds were the biggest players by far. In most of his movies he was banging three women per film. One film Rooger Moore shagged three women 8 times. Let’s just take a look at the statistic, while Bond is saving the world he has deliberately makes chasing skirts and closing the deal a priority.

    Craigs by comparision is a saint with only bedding one woman per film. I wonder if this is done on purpose to conform to today’s ideal of shaming players in the media while at the same time promoting and prefering the behavior in actual life as opposed to the 60s and 70s sexual revolution mentality.

  28. The Man Who Was . . . November 13, 2012 at 8:19 am #

    As for Indiana Jones, there’s implied sex with two different women in movies one and three. He attempts and fails to get with the girl during the course of movie two. Nothing is said about what happens after the film. James Bond does that in one movie. Bond wouldn’t be bond without shagging a couple of babes per each film.

  29. Valerie November 13, 2012 at 8:29 am #

    The view expressed was filled with sexism. The script is written by a man. It is a mans version of women. Women can not identify with the female characters. Women want to be loved for who they are, how they think and how they feel not based on their bodies. This is a projection of a sinful male fantasy that a woman’s purpose is for Him. It’s all about ‘me’. Lust says that the object is solely for my purpose. The object has no real value and is disposable. Love as the Bible defines is sacrificial, and based on sacrificing my own needs and desires to please my spouse. My body is no longer my own in marriage- it is intended to please my mate not to force my own greedy needs. There are no moral boundaries in place and sex is used as a self centered one sided event. The movie is full of depravity.

  30. FuriousFerret November 13, 2012 at 10:06 am #

    Valerie, I would have to respectful disagree with some your views on what most women want in terms of romantic relationships.

    ‘Women want to be loved for who they are, how they think and how they feel not based on their bodies. This is a projection of a sinful male fantasy that a woman’s purpose is for Him’

    Women want to be held as someone of note and high status by really any means possible. If they are good looking, they definitely want to appreciated and catered to due their physical bodies. The assertion that women primarily want to be loved based on personality is usually a claim made by women that do not the looks requiste to attract the attention they want from the men they want and so want to redirect focus to areas where they think they have an edge.

    ‘This is a projection of a sinful male fantasy that a woman’s purpose is for Him. It’s all about ‘me’’

    Here’s the kicker. That’s want women want. Even though you say you want a man that would be about equality and mutual respect, that is not the behavior that is rewarded. When men treat women that the women’s purpose is to be in the support role and help her husband achieve, they respond in postive ways. This is because women want a strong leader as their mate, they don’t want a wimpy man that is submissive to her. To act in such a role almost guarantees that you will become angry and frustrated to your man even though you don’t know why. It’s a biological instinct.

  31. ar10308 November 13, 2012 at 10:58 am #

    “This is a projection of a sinful male fantasy that a woman’s purpose is for Him.”

    Oh really? I guess Paul must have been experiencing the same “sinful male fantasy” when he wrote this:
    1 Corinthians 11: 7-9:
    7For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; 9for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. 10Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

    Valerie, you need to drop your fem-powered view of Scripture and submit yourself view to the Lord. Or the man you have been given to if you are married. Because you were made for him, he was not made for you.

  32. Aunt Haley November 13, 2012 at 2:58 pm #

    Valerie–
    Women want to be loved for who they are, how they think and how they feel not based on their bodies. This is a projection of a sinful male fantasy that a woman’s purpose is for Him. It’s all about ‘me’.

    So if your husband came to you one day and said, “I’ve never found you physically attractive, but I knew it was more important to love you for your personality and mind.” – you wouldn’t have a problem with that?

  33. Josh November 13, 2012 at 9:12 pm #

    So, I can assume that this Boundless author rejects the idea of King David as a man after God’s own heart because of his adultery with Bathsheba?

  34. R6T November 14, 2012 at 6:16 am #

    Today’s Dinosaur Comic is related: http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=2319

  35. Simon Grey November 14, 2012 at 1:06 pm #

    “Men are not totally and utterly driven by the sexual impulse, despite what women seem to want to think.”

    I’ve often wondered if women are projecting a bit when they claim that men are only ever driven by sexual impulse.

  36. an observer November 15, 2012 at 3:03 pm #

    Simon,

    Given what happens when female sexuality is unrestrained, i would say yes.

  37. Scott November 16, 2012 at 9:13 am #

    Patrick McGoohan (The Prisoner, Danger Man, etc.) was briefly in the running for James Bond’s first outing in Dr. No, but let it be known that he would not consider the part as he considered Bond to be amoral. Watch McGoohan’s television series and you will see a conscientious attempt to combine action with virtuous conduct, and it’s every bit as suspenseful and entertaining(albeit, on a modest Brit t.v. production budget). Roger Moore’s The Saint, was another instance of a character who exhibited virtue, and championed godliness (I just watched an old episode as was struck by how Simon Templar referred to his adversaries as “the ungodly”). Shame that Moore sullied himself with his outing as Bond that was steady slide into evermore tedious productions heavy on explosions, gadgetry and sex.

    Bond may be a fantasy, and one that I enjoyed in my younger days, but to see his conduct now in the cold light of our post-Christian times, it is distasteful to say the least. I still admire the earliest of the series with Connery (From Russia With Love is ripping good fun), and remind myself of the innocence of the time, the leading edge of the sexual revolution when few knew what was to be wrought. But as an important note, we need to remember that these were films that were not accessible to children, and were pre-cable, pre-VCR/DVD/PVR. The intended audience was decidedly adult. By the time I hit my late teens, you could catch Bond bedding women on the Sunday afternoon movie with some regularity. Raise children on this kind of fare, and it’s no mystery where they get some of their libertine notions from.

  38. nonames November 16, 2012 at 5:12 pm #

    Bravo. A humorous and eloquent post that hits the nail on the head.

  39. Sonya November 16, 2012 at 7:03 pm #

    I’ve been stalking this blog for a couple of months, and I find a lot of your posts entertaining and often insightful Haley, good work! I was a bit taken aback by a r10308′s comment about women’s purpose being for men. Biblically, women have the same purpose as men, to bring glory to God (a womans duty to submit to her husband is part of bringing glory to God, by reflecting his design for marriage– which not surprisingly leads to happier marriages in general) I think Valerie’s intent with ‘the sinful male fantasy’ point perhaps boils down to the problem of lust– believing a woman’s purpose is to please a man objectifies a woman and abstracts her from the fact that she is also made in Gods image, and consequently has a bigger purpose viz pleasing God (pleasing her husband would be part of pleasing God). Occasionally even the christian manosphere swings a bit too far to the male equivalent of feminism, probs a good idea for christians to navigate the edge carefully, without pride and with a healthy scepticism for whatever camp we lean toward. stay Godly folks. xx

  40. Hermes November 17, 2012 at 12:53 pm #

    This Jacob M. guy seems like a very smart fellow. He’s probably also ruggedly handsome to boot. Also, he, uh, told me that he’s been repeatedly trying to red pill bomb that site for several years now, always with the same response.

  41. shadowofashade November 18, 2012 at 7:54 am #

    Sonya:

    According to science, the brain of both women and men views a woman piece-wise as opposed to a single image, so to say that only men objectify woman is erroneous (not to say it’s right…)

    (http://www.livescience.com/21806-brain-male-female-objectification.html)

  42. Aunt Haley November 18, 2012 at 12:38 pm #

    Hermes–
    I have no doubt that if the hens at Boundless could meet Jacob M. in real life and experience how much respect and admiration he had for them, they would immediately leave their inferior boyfriends and spend the rest of their lives Pinteresting their future weddings to Sir Jacob.

  43. ar10308 November 18, 2012 at 6:22 pm #

    @Sonya,
    It is very clear that Woman is the Glory of Man, while Man was created to reflect the Glory of God. It is clear from the beginning when Adam was given authority over all the Earth, and then Eve created afterwards to be Adam’s helpmate. God realized that Adam could be more productive if he had someone who was working on the homestead for him and to give him incentive to work beyond subsitance capacity. Adam was created to bring order to the wild. Eve was made to make the space that Adam ordered a place to raise a family.

    Back when the Earth was still being explored by humanity, it was always the men who left into the wild and unknown, then only after it was tamed did the women follow. Men have done such a fantastic job going out into the wild that a woman can live on any piece of land she chooses.

  44. Hermes November 18, 2012 at 6:23 pm #

    I literally carry a small portable pedestal around with me everywhere I go, so it’s always available for me to place every woman I meet upon it. Also, every morning when I do my daily devotionals, I also meditate upon this passage from an interview with Glenn Stanton:

    women left to themselves will develop into good women, more responsible women, just naturally, for various reasons and we could talk about that. But men have to be taught how to lead.

    On a slightly more serious note, I’m mildly surprised the Taken movies starring Liam Neeson haven’t come up in that thread. There you have an (ex) intelligence agent and one-man army like James Bond, who not only doesn’t sleep with women, his entire mission is rescuing them.

  45. Sonya November 18, 2012 at 7:02 pm #

    @ar10308 I’d appreciate some elaboration on that friend, Its a sentence (women are the glory of man) that I find quite difficult to understand and reconcile with the rest of the Bible, but perhaps thats because I haven’t put as much thought or effort into it as I should. What I find hard to understand is: what is the glory of man?

    @ shadow of shade: Thanks for the link, I looked through the article and I think its an interesting point. I’m not blaming men here, my purpose with the comment was to question the point about women’s purpose being for man. I don’t really have any opinion on the morality of how we perceive each gender, but in my experience (because this is something I fail at pretty much everyday), objectification makes it harder to build a relationship/ love a person in the way that christians are called to love.

  46. ar10308 November 18, 2012 at 7:53 pm #

    @Sonya,
    I first encountered this concept when I did the Biblical gender study “The Five Aspects of Man/Woman”. It takes a very Biblical stance on gender.

    They touch on it briefly in these blogs, but in order to get the whole study, you’d have to buy the study. I will say that it is worth it.
    http://fiveaspects.net/man-the-glory-of-god-means-what-part-one/
    http://fiveaspects.net/man-the-glory-of-god-means-what-part-two/
    http://fiveaspects.net/man-the-glory-of-god-means-what-part-three/
    http://fiveaspects.net/name-that-glory/

    Think of a high value man and the woman he keeps company with. The value of the woman is a reflection of the value of the man. Gisele Bundchen is the glory of Tom Brady.

  47. ballista74 November 18, 2012 at 8:42 pm #

    @Sonya 1 Corinthians 11:7-9

  48. Aunt Haley November 19, 2012 at 12:36 pm #

    Hermes–
    On a slightly more serious note, I’m mildly surprised the Taken movies starring Liam Neeson haven’t come up in that thread. There you have an (ex) intelligence agent and one-man army like James Bond, who not only doesn’t sleep with women, his entire mission is rescuing them.

    True, but he’s also not averse to vengeful murder, so that puts a bit of a damper on the family man aspect. And the character is divorced, which implies he did not appropriately lead and cherish his wife during their marriage, tsk tsk.

  49. y81 November 19, 2012 at 2:27 pm #

    Re I Cor. 11:7-9, when I was a boy, it would have been considered inappropriate for a woman to enter a Catholic church without covering her head, but even then, I don’t think any Protestant churches had that rule. (My mother and my sister wore white gloves, but that didn’t purport to be based on Scripture.) Are there any churches now that require, or even suggest, that women cover their heads?

    I don’t know what it means for Gisele Bundchen to be the glory of Tom Brady. Is he even a Christian?

  50. Sonya November 19, 2012 at 7:32 pm #

    @arq1308 thanks for the links, i’ve had a look through them and i think the post that would answer my question is yet to be posted? appreciate your responses, cant say i agree (yet?), but food for thought anyway

    @ballista74 my question was based on that passage :)

  51. ar10308 November 19, 2012 at 8:08 pm #

    @y81,
    I’m not suggesting that women cover their heads. They do that as long as they have long hair. Or they can cover their heads if they want to.

    Gisele is arguably one of the most beautiful women on the planet. She can literally choose any man she wants. Tom Brady is one of the most prolific athletes of our generation. He can have any woman he wants. When Gisele stands next to Tom, her beauty demonstrates the high Alpha that Tom Brady happens to be. It isn’t outwardly apparent why Tom Brady is a high Alpha male, Gisele’s beauty is a clear indicator that he is, since such a beautiful woman wouldn’t be with a man who wasn’t a high Alpha. Tom is a physically attractive man, however that isn’t enough to keep a model of Gisele’s caliber on his arm.

    http://scm-l3.technorati.com/glosslip/2009/02/gisele-bundchen-tom-brady.jpg

    That is how she is the Glory of Tom, if you will. She outwardly reflects his greatness.

  52. ar10308 November 20, 2012 at 12:31 pm #

    @Sonya,
    Don’t like my explanation? Lemme hear yours.

  53. Sonya November 20, 2012 at 2:02 pm #

    I dont have one, which is why I asked for yours. There are a few reasons i’m not comfortable with your explanation which i’ve briefly outlined. 1) you’ve based your opinion on the website you directed me to, 2) the person on that website who commented on the corinthians passage doesn’t show how his explanation fits in with the rest of scripture 3) i have to question your objectiveness and expression of christian faith after reading your blog. Anyway, thank you for your replies

  54. ar10308 November 20, 2012 at 3:16 pm #

    @Sonya,
    My apologies at not being able to explain this concept more adaquately. However, I have found the actual resource under which I first encountered it. This is a in depth study and contains an audio portion to be listened to prior to the text portion. Each element is addressed as males and females were Created, Fallen and Redeemed. THIS should answer your questions better than I can.

    At this website listen to the Glory Of Man sections, Created, Fallen and Redeemed:
    http://www.5aspects.org/resource/#downloadableAudio

    I didn’t know that they posted these online until I contacted the husband and wife who led me through the study years ago.

  55. y81 November 20, 2012 at 7:09 pm #

    The big problem I have with the links that ar10308 has posted is that they are written by someone who doesn’t know Greek. Close textual analysis of a translation is pretty silly. But it’s obviously easier than the hard work of actually learning Greek.

    “With all your getting, get understanding.”

  56. KT November 25, 2012 at 10:46 pm #

    @y81
    “Are there any churches now that require, or even suggest, that women cover their heads?”
    Yes, there are actually. I am an Orthodox Christian and at the church I attend (an Antiochian Orthodox church) I’d say about 50-60% of the women wear head scarves. If you go to a Greek church in the US you will see fewer covered heads, but if you go to a Russian/Serbian/Romanian church the vast majority of women will be wearing scarves. Thank God, feminism has never managed to take hold in the Orthodox Church.

  57. modernguy December 4, 2012 at 7:06 am #

    Haley-

    Skyfall is the 23rd Bond film. Imagine Bond putting off the women in every single film. Are you going to think he’s virtuous or just secretly gay? Remember, he’s not just any man; he’s an apex alpha.

    Ironically, if Bond wasn’t seducing anyone in these movies, women wouldn’t be the least interested in them.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Sex Not Work | The Neutering of America - March 8, 2013

    [...] Somehow people like many evangelical Christians believe Justin Bieber is sexy. And somehow James Bond isn’t. [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 144 other followers