Chick-Flick Lies

By way of Carolyn McCulley I came across an article from a Christian perspective by Beth Spraul about what has been referred to as "chick porn", titled Chick Flicks and the World's Approach to Men and Marriage. While I would guess that some men (and probably women too)would disagree with some of Mrs. Spraul's points in places (feel free to point them out if you wish), I think, on the whole, the article makes some excellent points.

Mrs. Spraul asks,

"Does watching such movies actually affect our understanding of romance or shape how we go about looking for this ideal husband?

I think the answer is yes.

We may think we are savvy enough to detect the subtle lies present in this genre of films. You might be reading this saying, “What’s wrong with a little escapist entertainment every once in a while? It’s just a Hollywood story, and I know it’s just fantasy.” If that’s the case, then why is there still that sigh or even a tear(s) after the 20th viewing of your favorite romantic movie? Something in us is stirred."

This is a point well taken. When something like a book or movie plays on what deeply affects you, such as a woman's emotions, it is undeniable that will have influence over you. Mrs. Spraul compares so-called "chick-flicks" and "chick-lit" to pornography in their ability to create unrealistic expectations.

"In this article, I’d like to discuss briefly what I think are three powerful lies communicated to and believed by women through this genre of “chick-flicks” as well as “chick-lit” (literature). The lies told to women are introduced at the level of women’s emotions (less harmful, right?), in how they dream about men, and in what they long for relationally. Like pornography, chick-flicks take a good gift from God (romance, relational intimacy) that women are created to desire, and distort it by presenting as “normal” an unbiblical and unrealistic picture of men, love and marriage. And just like men who buy into the lies of pornography, women who believe that their husbands and marriages should always be like what they see on the screen will be sinfully dissatisfied with God’s good gift to them of a “normal” husband and marriage."

She then outlines the lies that these sorts of books and movies tell to women.

Lie #1: Men think of romance and relational intimacy exactly like women do!

This one was shocking to me. I mean, who knew that men and women think differently!?!? I would say "duh!" to this one except that often I think both men and women expect the opposite sex to think about things the same way they do. We think they should know what we mean and know what we need from them without telling them and that the other should "understand" without having to explain it.

Lie #2: If I marry the right man, all will be right in my life.

Mrs. Spraul makes some excellent points about the fact that even a great marriage will not, and in fact can not, make all things right.

"If we as women approach our husbands with expectations that he will be the primary source that takes away all our loneliness, insecurities, fears and longings for love, we hold him to a standard no human being is able to meet in this life. We set ourselves up for great disappointment through these unreasonable expectations. When our husband doesn’t deliver such total sweeping happiness to our lives, we can be tempted to blame him when it is our own worldly and idolatrous expectations that are to blame! Such expectations can even lead us to be discontented wives who are unsatisfied with the day to day realities of life and responsibility in marriage. We can become unsatisfied with our husband’s love and service and care because marrying him didn’t cure our deepest emotional struggles."

I wonder how much of the current epidemic of divorce is the result of such thinking?

Lie #3: I will know that a man is right for me by feelings I get when I’m with him.

In a recent post, commenter SA related a story about a woman who rejected a man out of hand without getting to know anything about him. Perhaps this is an example of what Mrs. Spraul was referring to here:

"The dangers of putting all of your stock in emotion are serious. First, you can easily convince yourself that you are experiencing “true love” while having little regard for a man’s faith, character, service or ability to sacrifice himself for others. Second, for women considering a man who initiates a relationship with them, this over-emphasis on the emotional experience and level of attraction/chemistry can influence such women to dismiss possible suitors based on her “intuition.” I’ve seen it happen—a woman doesn’t immediately “feel” that a man is her “type” or the “ideal” that she’s had in her mind for her husband—so the man is simply dismissed without ever having a chance to demonstrate his possible worthiness."

Good points, I think, both for single and for married women.

Does attractiveness influence justice under the law?

In a previous post about the elder abuse committed by several young women Ame left this comment:

Learner- do you know if there are any stats on how attractiveness affects one's ability to receive favorable treatment rather than to receive what is due??

I recall reading about studies that reported attractive women tend to be rated higher on work performance evaluations (attractiveness did not matter for men as much in this area), make more money (more so for women than men), and hold more influence over both men and women (but interestingly, less attractive men hold more influence over other men), but I didn't recall reading anything about the effect of attractiveness on treatment under the law. So, I looked to see what I could find.

According to a study from a Dr. Sandie Taylor at Bath Spa University, "attractive suspects" were more likely to be acquitted than "unattractive suspects".

"The researchers at Bath Spa University came to their conclusions after asking 96 volunteers to read a transcript of a fictitious mugging case. Half of the participants were given a picture of an attractive suspect, the others one of a supposedly ugly defendant. The script was the same in either case. The volunteer 'jurors' were then asked to decide whether the suspect was innocent or guilty. In the latter case they also had to decide on a sentence. Analysis of the results revealed that attractive suspects were more likely to be acquitted, despite there being no extra evidence in their favour. "

This article also referred to some previous research done by Dr Taylor that found the gender of the juror can also influence their perceptions of the defendant.

"Women jurors treat female suspects more harshly, especially when they think they might have used their looks to their advantage. Men, on the other hand, tend to give attractive women the benefit of the doubt. The phenomenon, known as the 'halo effect', is thought to extend far beyond the courtroom, with looks affecting an individual's exam marks, job prospects and even ability to make friends."

I also found the following about attractiveness and the justice system via this document about the effect of physical attractiveness in the workplace:

"A physically attractive person charged with the same crime as a less attractive person is more likely to be found not guilty of that crime."

• Efran, M.G. (1974). The effect of physical appearance on the judgment of guilt, interpersonal attraction, and severity of recommended punishment in simulated jury task. Journal of Research in Personality, 8, 45-54.

"In court cases in which the crime is sex-related, physically unattractive defendants are considered to be more dangerous than better-looking offenders. This effect is often independent of the actual grooming or attire of the defendant."

• Esses, V.M., & Webster, C.D. (1988). Physical attractiveness, dangerousness, and the
  Canadian criminal code. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 1017-1031.
• Sigall, H. & Ostrove, N. (1975). Beautiful but dangerous; effects of offender
  attractiveness and nature of crime on juridic judgment. Journal of Personality
  and Social Psychology, 31, 410-414.

"Physically attractive individuals found guilty of a particular crime are more likely to receive more lenient sentences than less attractive defendants."

• DeSantis, A., & Kayson, W.A. (1997). Defendants’ characteristics of attractiveness,
  race, and sex and sentencing decisions. Psychological Reports, 81, 679-683.

So, it would appear that attractiveness does influence "justice".

Bad Boys

Why is it that some women are attracted to "bad boys"? What exactly is a "bad boy" anyway? Do some men look like "bad boys" who are in fact are good men? Are some men who don't look like "bad boys" exactly that?

I don't know the answers to those questions but I recently saw a movie that really made me think about the concept of the "bad boy". When I was in North Carolina last weekend visiting friends one of my dearest girlfriends wanted to go see the movie Twilight. Because I felt bad for making her miss the premiere showing with other friends of hers (I was arriving in town at that time), I offered to go with her to see it later on in the weekend. All I really knew about the movie was: 1. it was based on a series of books extremely popular with women which my friend loved, and 2. there was a male vampire in it (though my friend assured me it wouldn't be a horror movie...I don't like those).

To put it bluntly, the movie was pretty bad. I've seen worse (The Invasion with Nicole Kidman comes to mind), but Twilight came close to the bottom of the list because it was just so ridiculous. What about the movie was so bad? Where do I start? First of all the production reminded me of a bad television movie on the Lifetime Network. The action sequences were extremely fake looking (maybe the extremely well done action sequences in movies like The Matrix and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon have raised my expectations). The story is set in High School (High School!)...and grown women are slobering over the lead male character. I don't get what all the fuss is over. He looked like he had lipstick and eyeliner on! Throughout the movie the women in the theater (there were maybe two men in there...poor souls) oohed and aahed, and laughed on cue and all the while I kept thinking I was missing something....because it wasn't anything worth oohing and aahing over, let alone laughing over.

The lead male character is a vampire by the name of Edward Cullen. Every time I heard that name it reminded me of the character Tom Cullen (M-O-O-N spells Tom Cullen) from Stephen King's The Stand. Edward Cullen is supposed to be "impossibly beautiful" with pale skin that glistens and sparkles like diamonds in the sunlight (I kid you not). In one particularly corny scene he carries the female lead, Bella, up to the top of a mountain where the sun is shining, so she can see what he "really looks like". He steps into the sun, throws his head back, closes his eyes, unbuttons his shirt and pulls it open to expose his chest in some kind of a cheesy underwear model pose. We see his skin glittering and sparkling in the sun, kinda like mine did when I accidently bought some lotion with glitter in it from the clearance rack. Seriously.

Even worse than all the corny-cheesiness was the basic premise underlying the relationship between the male lead, Edward Cullen (M-O-O-N spells vampire) and the female lead Bella. You see, Edward, the vampire, is extremely drawn to Bella...her smell is like "heroin" to him and he longs to suck her blood. But, Edward is a "good" vampire who only feeds on animal blood so he wants to resist this draw he feels for Bella. But, in the end, of course, he just can't stay away from her. You'd think Bella would be afraid of this guy who wants to suck her blood, but no, she trusts him. Even weirder than that, she wants him to suck her blood...she wants to be with him forever...isn't that romantic ? Um, what?!?

More on Attraction

In the comments of my last post, blogger Anakin, of Biblical Manhood, posed the following:

I wonder how much family of origin might play in who we are physically attracted to? Do we tend to be attracted to those that remind us of our relatives of the opposite sex?

I thought this question was interesting so I decided to see if I could find any research about it. In my somewhat superficial search I didn’t find much and what I did find was a little contradictory. Also, the two articles I found were not the original research articles, but rather commentary on the research, so I can’t be sure the person writing the commentary accurately reflected the findings.

Sanjay Gupta of Time Magazine commented on a study by McClintock et al., (2002) where they took t-shirts worn by men for 2 days and placed them in a box. They asked single women to smell them and indicate which one they preferred if they had to smell it all the time. They ended up preferring the smell of men who were similar (genetically speaking) to their fathers (so presumably having genetic similarities to themselves), but not too similar.

Staff writers at New Scientist commented on a study by Garver-Apgar et al. (2007) that indicated that genetic differences may be what promotes attraction, at least for women. The researchers analyzed the genes of the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) of 48 couples who had been together 2 or more years. The MHC manages how your immune system senses an invader. The researchers asked the couples how responsive and faithful they were toward their partner. The women who had MHCs similar to their partners were more likely to be less sexually responsive to their partners and more attracted to other men. There was no significant relationship between MHC similarity and faithfulness or responsiveness of the men. It was suggested this finding could lead to a genetic test that determines how likely it is that a woman will be faithful to a man.

Anecdotally I have heard people mention this as well. One of my best friends says that she is attracted to taller, burlier men because they remind her of her dad. She theorizes that your dad is your first image of masculinity, so it makes sense that men you are attracted to may share characteristics with him. I know another woman who has a fuller, larger figure who told me that when she and her husband were dating he told her both that he thought she was beautiful and that she reminded him of his mom.

On a side note, I also learned some interesting things about studies of sexual attraction. Psychologists who study attraction distinguish between short-term mating strategies and long-term mating strategies and the studies we commonly hear about (symmetry, waist/hip ratio, etc.) are studies of short-term mating strategies. There is very little research that has been done on long-term mating strategies (DeLamater & Hyde, 2001). One study that examined mate preferences including those related to relationship survival and satisfaction (ie; long-term strategies) among more than 6000 couples (of who 4313 were heterosexual) revealed that most of the participants had strong preferences for partners who are affectionate and compassionate (Howard, Blumenstein, & Schwartz, 1987).

Bodily Stewardship

First I want to say that in no way is this meant to tell anyone what they should find attractive. If you find that you don’t like the way fat makes a woman’s body look rounded or don’t like it’s squishy softness it is totally cool with me. Really, it is. I have mentioned previously that I carry more weight that the average woman, so I also want to make it clear that this isn’t about me either. I, Learner, give everyone reading this permission to find me unattractive (or attractive for that matter… your individual choice) because of my weight (or any other reason for that matter). I think that everyone has preferences, and the “rightness” of those preferences are between them and God. I have preferences and though most of them are not about looks I do have a few appearance related preferences. For example I am not in the least bit attracted to extremely muscled Mr. Universe types that have their muscles so hypertrophic that you can actually see the outline of their rhomboids. But, you know, different strokes for different folks and all that. So, honestly, this is not about any individual’s right to their own opinion about what is attractive. Also I am going to refer to women’s bodies here but really the same thing could also be said if we reverse the sexes.

And even though a post at Amir’s blog really started me thinking about writing this post, and was the origination of the title, it isn’t meant to be about his preferences or thoughts cuz…like I said, he has every right to prefer whatever he wishes. He didn’t say anything you can’t read or hear somewhere else. What this post is about is some common incorrect assumptions in our culture about weight and health. I’m not going to retread the steps I already have taken in this discussion in these two previous posts (part 1, part 2), but I am going to continue from where I left off at that time. So, I suggest you read what I wrote there to get the full picture.

Note: I removed the links to the classical nude paintings from my previous entry about beauty standards because 1. a commenter objected to them, and 2. you would not believe the number of hits I had on them…and the um…searches people used to find them. After a while it kind of creeped me out. If you want to view what I was talking about, an image search of any of the artists I listed will give you the general idea.

Ok, after that extremely long introduction/disclaimer let me get to my two points:

1. Weight does not equal health. I know I covered this in a previous post and said I would not repeat myself but it bears repeating because it is a firmly held though incorrect assumption that you can tell how healthy someone is by what they weigh. Activity level (not just exercise but also just plain old activities like gardening etc) is a far better predictor of overall health than body weight. In fact genetics, gender, race, and socioeconomic status are also much more accurate predictors of health and disease than weight. Ah, you say, but people can’t change their genes, gender, race or socioeconomic status but they can control their weight. But that assumes that everyone is physiologically capable of maintaining a lower weight and that assumption would be false. Which brings me to my second point.

2. You cannot accurately judge the care or degree of stewardship someone takes with their body based on their weight. Much of what determines what someone weighs may not be in their control. Genetics play a large part. A twin study published in 1990 in The New England Journal of Medicine studied 93 pairs of identical twins who were raised in different homes, 154 pairs of identical twins who were raised together, 218 pairs of fraternal twins who were raised in different homes, and 208 pairs of fraternal twins who were raised together. The twins who were identical had almost equal BMIs whether they were raised apart or together. The fraternal twins had more variation in BMI because like most brothers and sisters their genes are not identical. The researchers reported that the results meant that 70 percent of the variation in body weight may be due to genetics.

Conventional wisdom that urges us to “eat less and move more” does not actually result in lasting weight loss for the majority of people. Does it for some? Yes, absolutely it does, but only for a minority. It is well documented that between 80-97% of attempts to loose weight and keep it off for more that 5 years fail. That is because it is not actually all about what you eat. An abundance of studies over the last 50 years have repeatedly demonstrated that fat people normally eat the same as thin people. Regardless of diets people are naturally a wide range of heights and body weights. According to review of 500 studies by Garner and Wooley published in Clinical Psychology Review. "Multiple researchers, using a variety of methodologies, have failed to find any meaningful or replicable differences in the caloric intake or eating patterns of the obese compared to the non-obese to explain obesity".

The author of the same article I linked above in Technology, Science, and Commerce Daily goes on to say:

How Can This Be?
How can this be reconciled with the laws of thermodynamics? The findings seem at odds with what conventional wisdom might suggest to us about eating and weight gain. One of the country's foremost obesity researchers, Jeffrey M. Friedman, M.D., head of the Laboratory of Molecular Genetics at Rockefeller University explains that the commonly-held simplistic belief that obesity is just a matter of eating too much and/or not exercising enough is "at odds with substantial scientific evidence illuminating a precise and powerful biologic system." According to his research and that of numerous others, obesity is the result of differences in biology and metabolism, not behavior, diet or the environment. Through their own volition, people can control their weight long-term to a very small degree. Even voluntary physical exercise has minimal effect, according to Friedman and Glenn Gaesser, PhD., exercise physiologist and obesity researcher at the University of Virginia. So, while better access to foods can account for some of the increases seen in the average height and weight of all people in developed countries -- 7 to 10 pounds in the U.S. since 1980s -- it's genetics and not the environment that accounts for the largest proportion of the differences in size among people, Friedman explains.

"The propensity to obesity is, to a significant extent, genetically determined," he says. Someone genetically predisposed to obesity "will become obese independent of their caloric intake" even when it's restricted to that of thin counterparts. "The heritability of obesity is equivalent to that of height and greater than that of almost every other condition that has been studied," Friedman states.

So, do some fat people eat a lot and not move their bodies? Yes, and some thin people eat a lot and don’t move their bodies either. Do some thin people watch every bite they take and regularly hit the gym? Yes, but so do some fat people. Some women fight tooth and nail to keep their weight down to size 2 and some women have to fight tooth and nail to keep their weight down to a size 20. Are some overweight people poor stewards of their bodies? Yes, but so are some thin people. The bottom line is that everyone who cares for their body by eating moderately and being physically active is not thin, so you can’t accurately judge someone’s bodily stewardship by their weight.

In summary:
1. Does this mean you should be attracted to a fat person? No…you are free to not be attracted to a fat person, just don’t judge someone’s health or the care they take of their body based on their weight.

2. Does it mean you should eat nothing but twinkies and sit on your rear all day because there’s no point in not doing that if you’ll never be a size 2 (or a size 20)? Of course not! Activity is very important for your health and you’d probably feel like crap on an all twinkies diet.


Ok, I lied, I actually have another point. If you are someone who worries that you will never find someone to love you because of something about your appearance I hope that you will not worry but instead make the most you can of what you have and be confident in yourself and in what you have to offer. Even if fewer persons of the opposite sex are attracted to you, stop and look around you….people who are fat, skinny, short, tall, bald, hairy, flat chested, boob-tacular, freckled, pale etc. etc. have people fall in love with them and marry them every day. And you know what? Your value is determined by what God thinks of you, not what some man (or woman) thinks. And God thinks you are lovable and of highest value regardless of how you look. Remember that, and trust HIM with who you are.

Beauty: Nature versus Nurture- Part C (because I don’t know how to spell 3 in French)

I have been thinking about this issue more.

When someone says men are made by God to be attracted to women who are beautiful there ends up being more to that line of thinking if we follow the thought logically. It is my understanding that God designs a big part of how any individual woman looks. By this I mean that a large part of her appearance is due to her genes…facial features, body type, hair color and texture, eye color, the shade of her skin etc. (Understanding that some women work with what they were born with better than others).

So if God designs men to be attracted to women who look a certain way (remembering that I am not saying that God has not made men to be visually stimulated, I believe He has done that. But rather that God designed men to be specifically stimulated by and attracted to women who embody the current idea of what beauty is) would that not then mean by extension:

-That God designs some women to be unattractive to men?

-That God designs women to be rejected by men?

-That God puts the desire for marriage and children in a woman’s heart and then puts her together in such a way that the desire is unlikely to be met?

There is more to this idea than a person’s right to be attracted to someone else for their own reasons. When we say it is God’s design or plan then I think we are also saying something about the nature of God. In my limited understanding all of this does not seem to go with what I know of His nature.

That being said, I think it an extraordinarily bad idea to argue or insist that a man (or woman, though the men seem to be getting the worst of this kind of admonishment) should or should not be attracted to anything (outside of what God tells us in scripture). Other than that, I believe an individual can prefer what they wish though I do think it is wise to individually examine our preferences in the light of scripture and to submit to God if He directs us on the subject.

Beauty: Nature versus Nurture- Part Deux

Today I want to discuss the science and research that Anakin Niceguy (NG) referred to in his blog references in my last entry. Interpreting research can be difficult for the general public who often rely on media sound bites and the ethics of the authors of the study in honestly explaining the outcomes of the research. Unfortunately the public is often exposed to just plain false conclusions by the media and unethical researchers more interested in proving a point than being objective. As a researcher (not of sociology specifically but in a field that examines human behaviors and health) I can tell you that there is no way to carry out research that excludes the effects of the culture that the research subject is a member of. So it is extremely difficult to say what is biological drive and what is culturally determined. We can look at preferences across cultures and see if there are any similarities among all cultures and that may give us a clue about some general trends. However, we cannot scientifically prove anything based on cross cultural studies because especially in the modern technological age the world is becoming smaller so there are fewer cultures that are not influenced by other cultures. AN states that research has proven that biology determines what we find attractive. I can see how he may come to this conclusion based on the ideas circulated in popular culture, and even written by Harvard psychologists, however it is far from scientifically proven because there is no way to remove culture from the equation. At least no way that any institutional review board that governs human subjects research would ever approve. We can, however, examine what evidence we do have from science and history.

For example let’s examine a specific physical quality mentioned in the essay I quoted as well as in the links provided in AN’s response to my comment: body weight. The few large scale studies that cross cultures and study what people find attractive appear to point to several factors that are in common across cultures such as symmetry of facial features or a .70 waist to hip ratio for a woman. Obviously symmetry is not excluded for women (or men for that matter) who are not of the culturally ideal body weight and neither is the .70 waist to hip ratio as this is the ratio between my waist and hip measurements though I am not within the culturally ideal weight range.

We can get other cues by examining historical depictions of beauty or desirability. The current ideal of beauty has not always been the cultural ideal. Look at depictions of beauty and desirability represented in places such as the primitive art forms of fertility idols of both ancient Europe and ancient Africa, the art of Renoir or Rubens, (or Rembrandt, Giorgione, and Jordaens) descriptions of some desirable women by writers of the 19th and 18th centuries such as Charles Dickens, or the more contemporary (20th century) writings of playwright August Wilson which depict or describe women who would be considered as at least overweight if not obese today as attractive.

The idea that a preference for thinner women is a God established preference because men are looking for healthy women is a commonly mentioned theory as well. The idea that health is evident if a woman has an ideal body weight, however, is not entirely proven by science. Sometimes thin = good health and fat= poor health but this is not always true. Now, I know that this idea goes against current cultural ideas about health perpetuated in the media but hang with me while we examine some research on the subject.

While some research has demonstrated that a woman’s excess body weight is associated with higher risk for things such as heart disease, that increased risk of heart disease is actually less than the risk associated with being a man or being an African American. (It should also be noted that correlations and some expressions of risk cannot “prove” anything scientifically because they are statistics that report on studies that are not experimental in nature. I’ll write more on this at another time but know that there is no way to know how two correlated factors actually influence each other or if they actually influence each other at all). While being overweight increases risk factors for some diseases (though not by as much as is generally believed by the population as a whole) and certainly increases stress on joints (that’s just simple physics) being overweight and even obese also actually lowers the risk for some types of cancer and diseases such as osteoporosis.

The assumption that thin=healthy also is not reflected in mortality statistics. If one examines epidemiological research that explores the relationship between the body weight of women and mortality (as in the famous longitudinal nurses’ health study) it has been demonstrated that the group with the best mortality (least chance of dying) are those with a BMI of 25-30, also known as “overweight”. Interestingly enough once factors such as smoking, weight loss due to illness, and activity level are accounted for, mortality for “morbidly obese” women (BMI over 35) who are not sedentary is better than the mortality of women with BMIs under 20, otherwise known as your average Sports Illustrated swimsuit model, who are sedentary. Mortality is equal when both groups have the same activity level. Research demonstrates that activity level is actually a much better predictor of health than body weight is and it is not always apparent from looking at someone how active they are. For example at my gym I would estimate that at least half of the women that I see there regularly are overweight or obese yet there they are being physically active 3-4 times a week.

Does this mean men should prefer overweight women to all other women and morbidly obese women to super models when given a choice because they have better mortality stats? Nah, I’m not saying that at all. LOL I am not saying you should or should not be attracted to anyone. I am just pointing out that it would be more intellectually honest for men to stand behind their preferences as simply their preferences (or the current cultural paradigm of beauty) and not as some divine mandate, especially since it is not a Biblical mandate, historical fact or scientific certainty. I think so many of the issues being discussed are so very important and I don’t want women who need to understand this stuff to get hung up on other assertions which are based on weaker assumptions.

Beauty: Nature versus Nurture

I recently commented on the Scripturally Single blog regarding standards of beauty and want to write some on the subject here as well so that I don’t post an excessively long comment there. The author of the blog who has taken the pseudonym of Anakin Niceguy (I’ll use AN for short) has put forth the idea that what men find attractive is innate and has claimed that the basis for this is both scientific and scriptural. I find this idea problematic and more importantly I think it may create unnecessary controversy which I explained in a comment there.

I do want to make clear, however, exactly what I am NOT saying. I in no way believe that any man owes it to any woman (me included) to find her attractive (and vice versa). I also understand that men may feel insulted by church leaders who lecture them regarding these issues. I don’t think anyone should tell you who you should be attracted to. I have always said that people have a right to their preferences regarding who they are attracted to and I still believe that is true. I also think all believers should be open to what God has to say to them as an individual about their preferences, myself included (at some point I am going to write about how I have erred in this area myself ).

Back to the point: While I do agree that we know from research that men tend to be stimulated far more than women by what they see. It isn’t the fact that men are visually stimulated and that God made them that way that I would disagree with. It is the idea that what a man finds visually stimulating is biologically innate and God ordained rather than culturally defined that I disagree with. My contention is that generally speaking standards of beauty differ from culture to culture and over the course of time. So the subject of this blog entry as well as the next one will be to address this question: Are the current beauty ideals and standards biologically driven and God ordained or are they culturally determined?

I recommend you read what AN wrote on the subject both in the post I commented on and in the linked entries (1, 2 and 3) in his response to me to understand his perspective. I don’t disagree with some of what he has said, and I confess as well that I may not have quite understood all of what he said so I am open to having my mind changed in the presence of appropriate evidence. AN gives various reasons for holding the views he has about attractiveness and beauty including scripture and science so in this post I am going to discuss why I believe these reasons are weak, or at least that adequate “proof” has not been provided. First I will discuss some of the scriptures AN refers to.

AN refers to the Song of Solomon as proof that visual stimuli is important in attraction for many people and I believe that this is true. The Song of Solomon does express attraction based on how the beloved and the lover look, or as AN refers to it: their “body parts”. However, there are no specifics about what kinds of body parts are being found attractive or acceptable. For example the woman’s waist is referred to as “a mound of wheat encircled by lilies”….um, ok, that does not really tell me what body type is preferable though the term “mound” leads me to conjecture that her stomach wasn’t exactly flat and that, however it was, her lover liked it that way. The woman’s skin is also referred to as dark and lovely though it is clear that dark skin is not the cultural standard of beauty at the time as the passage refers to her being scorned because she is dark from working in the vineyard. So does scripture back up the idea that visual stimuli important? Yes, but it does not define what is beautiful in terms of appearance.

AN also argues that attractiveness is referred to in the Bible with certain persons being referred to as attractive or not and this is true. However the passages he refers to give no specifics about what makes a person attractive or not. Leah and Rachel are mentioned and the Bible does tell us that Leah was considered less attractive than her sister Rachel because she had “weak eyes” whatever that may mean. Interestingly Jacob’s marriage to both sisters produced no end of trouble for him and in the end it was Leah, the less attractive sister, who bore the child (Judah) whose descendants included King David and Jesus. What that means, I don’t know, but what I do know from this is that the Bible does not specify what features (blue, green or brown eyes?), shapes of body parts, or other physical features should be viewed as the ideal of beauty. If anyone knows of any please share that information.

I will address some of the science and research issues in my next entry.

Random Thought #7

Regarding random thought #7 (RT7)

"7. I am confused by the fact that non Christian men seem to be far more interested in me as a person, attracted to me, and less critical of my body than my brothers in Christ. I am even more confused by all of the apparent "men vs. women" discussion about and among Christian singles online."

I have been reading a lot about the feminization of the church and of society the last 7 months or so. I have found much of what I have read to be very enlightening and at the same time very depressing because it has caused me to wonder if there is any way out of the mess.

What does this have to do with RT7 you ask? Well I have had a hard time with some of the stuff I was reading and hearing, especially at first, because it was so different from much of what I have been exposed to. I am very thankful, though, for the man who first started me thinking about a lot of this stuff even though I argued with him about some of it because I didn't understand...I'll have to write about that at another time.

My point (and I do have one) is that I am eager for my sisters in Christ to understand about what has happened in our culture, the relationships between men and women, and in the church, to see what feminism has wrought. We need to grasp this ladies! For our own good, for the good of the body of Christ, for the good of society. I am convinced that this. Because I am so eager for this understanding to happen sometimes I get frustrated with some (actually very few) of the points made by those blogging about these issues. Some of the stuff that gets discussed I think is a roadblock to the ability of some women to understand. One of those issues is the concept of beauty or desirability. This seems to get discussed a good bit by those exploring the issues. Some of what is said led me in part to RT7.

Back to RT7. Today I have been thinking that RT7 may in part be a numbers thing...I mean there seem to be lots more men outside the church than in the church. If only a certain percentage of men find me attractive, lets say 10% to make the math simpler, and I have met 100 Christian men and 700 non believing men of course that would mean that there would be more non-believing men who find me attractive to the tune of 10 vs 70 (hmm.......that probably means the actual percentage is lower than 10%....lol).

I suppose I could do as some men who participate in the online discussions I have been reading do and choose to engage in romantic relationships with unbelievers. And in truth I have actually tried that in the past. Didn't work for me. Besides being unable to relate to each other about what is very important to me, faith in Christ (you know the results of the often mentioned unequal yoking), there was always pressure for premarital sex (don't get me wrong....I don't think sex is wrong or dirty at all, just that God means sex to be within marriage.....marital sex, that's the ticket!). Sex appears to be an expected part of most contemporary dating relationships. The few non believing men I was involved with lost patience with my desire to wait for marriage and did so pretty quickly. So for me this is not an option.

I hope that one day I will meet one of the minority of Christian men that are attracted to me and that I will be able to enjoy being some one's wife. I acknowledge that the likelihood that I will marry is not great, but I still have hope ;)