While not is common as the accusation of manipulation, I have seen a consistent pacing of comments from new guys and objectors on other forums attacking this sub - and really any man who thinks that a woman's looks should be at all important.

"You're objectifying women," they say. "Women aren't just sex toys for you to ogle over all day." You get the gist.

The big bazooka that always gets pulled out and aimed our way is 1 Peter 3:3-4. Fortunately, it's filled with duds. To the unsuspecting man, he may still get hit by the shell and get hurt, but if you're paying attention and step aside, there's no explosion. It just falls flat.

1 PETER 3:3-4

What They Say

Let's look at the text of the passage itself, just to get started.

Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight.

Very cool stuff there! But you can see how easily the blue pill church can misuse this passage, right?

  • "Women shouldn't have to dress up and do their hair to look good. We should love them just as they are."

  • "Men shouldn't evaluate a woman by her looks, but by her character."

  • "Women, your heart is all that should matter. God can see that. If the man you want can't see that, then he doesn't see you the way God does, and you shouldn't want an ungodly man anyway."

  • "If a man won't date a girl because she's not 'hot enough' for him, he's sinning and violating 1 Peter 3. He should only be evaluating her 'inner self.'"

I have heard all of these statements before, some word-for-word. And from a cursory reading of just those verses, this makes sense, right?

What the Bible Says

Remember those 7 basics on the sidebar? Bible study is one of them. Let's loosely follow the structure I laid out in the 302 post.

Background

Let's start by adding some context. Peter opens chapter 1 by praising God and calling all believers to live holy lives. He quotes: "Be holy because I am holy," emphasizing that we are to be a reflection of God's character to the world. He suggests that the evidence of this is that we "love one another deeply, from the heart," akin to Jesus' command in John 13:34-35.

In chapter 2 he explains that sin is a barrier to our holiness. He says that Jesus died for us to give us a purposes - that we would be building something with our lives. That "something" is God's Kingdom, but sin can get in our way from doing what we were designed to do, so we should "abstain from sinful desires, which war against your soul." He says the way we withstand the oppression of that war is to our credit. He uses the example of slaves and says to "submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh" because this is how they will be commended by God.

Chapter 3 then opens with a compulsion for wives to submit to their husbands, even unbelieving ones - just as slaves must submit to their masters, even unbelieving ones. He gives the above quote about inner beauty and says this is how unbelieving husbands can be won over - by adopting the character of the godly women of the past. He also says that husbands should be considerate of their wives and respect the fact that they are the "weaker vessel" and co-heirs with us. He goes on to say that the world can be oppressive toward us, but that we must repay their evil with our good and that if we are going to be persecuted either way, "it is better, if it is God’s will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil."

In Chapter 4 he talks about the ways the church will be persecuted by the world and suffer for Christ. Then in Chapter 5 he commissions the elders of the church to live as models for others to follow - not because they have to, but because they want to. That is, that their ministry should flow from the desire of their heart and not mere external obedience.

Observation

There are countless observations I can draw from the background and the text of the passage itself. Here are a few.

Contextual Observations

  • Peter's big theme throughout the entire book is communicating the value of suffering.

  • He uses three key examples of commendation in the midst of suffering: (1) slaves and masters, (2) husbands and wives, and (3) Christ's suffering under worldly authorities.

  • The suffering is always commended when done from a right heart and not merely out of rote obedience. The suffering has no value if it is deserved because of our disobedience.

Passage Observations on 3:3-4

  • Peter makes no reference to how a man ought to evaluate a woman.

  • His only reference to the inner v. outer beauty is focused on the woman's attitude.

  • The context of the woman having such an attitude is while she endures hardship, such as from an unbelieving husband.

  • The stated goal in a woman's expression of internal beauty over external beauty is to win the spirit of an unbelieving spouse or to find worth in God's sight.

  • There is no statement of whether or not other expressions of beauty might be useful for different end-goals.

  • He does not say that women shouldn't wear jewelry or do up their hair; nor does he say that these things aren't beautiful; he only says that this should not be the source of their beauty.

  • The "source" of a woman's beauty, or in Peter's terms: where it "comes from" is to be her inner self.

  • A gentle and quiet spirit that submits to even an unbelieving husband is what he suggests is a sign of a woman's beauty and is valuable in God's sight.

Interpretation

To address the issue often raised by those who cite this passage: Peter is not saying that men should only look at a woman's internal beauty. He is saying that women in difficult and potentially oppressive situations can find solace in the way God values their inner beauty in the midst of their hardship.

This is evidenced by the fact that wives are lumped in a trio with slaves having oppressive masters and Jesus being oppressed by worldly authorities. We also see this in the character traits used to define inner beauty. He doesn't list the fruit of the spirit from Galatians or the aspects of love from 1 Cor. 13. He says specifically: "A gentle and quiet spirit." These are the two things that would be most effective at keeping her from being harmed by an oppressive unbelieving husband and also to win his favor. It seems clear enough that Peter has isolated these two aspects of "inner beauty" not because they form an exhaustive list, but because he's addressing a specific issue in a specific context that leads to the greater theme that he is attempting to convey throughout this book.

It would seem grossly inappropriate to extend the context of this passage to say that every woman in every situation should abandon all thoughts of external beauty and only focus on her internal character, just as it would be absurd to argue that a "gentle and quiet spirit" are the only possible signs of "inner beauty." This also wouldn't be consistent with other passages that encourage us to take care of our bodies as God's temples, or to discipline our bodies and not give way to laziness or gluttony - which are also things that affect a woman's internal beauty.

Application

What are we to do with this? As men, relatively nothing. These verses are intended for women, so our best application of these limited verses is to (1) teach them to our daughters and other women who may one day find themselves in a difficult marriage, (2) notice and appreciate women who express these qualities despite the difficulty of their marriages, and (3) as we are to reflect Christ to others, we can communicate to women who embody these traits in this context the value that God has for their inner beauty.

Beyond that, we should not take as an application that men must re-evaluate every God-given impulse to appreciate the external features of a woman's beauty as well. That conclusion simply isn't in the passage.

THE REAL ISSUE: OBJECTIFICATION

A Nebulous Accusation Without Meaning

Now that we know what the Bible really says - within its own given context - let's turn to the real object of the ridicule: alleged objectification.

Let me start by saying that words have meaning. What does it mean to "objectify" a woman? The dictionary has an answer: "Degrade to the status of a mere object." Presumably a "mere object" is a thing without sentient thought or feelings. In short, "objectification of women" could be understood as the practice of treating women as if they don't have thoughts or feelings, and therefore we only view them through the lens of how they may exist to benefit us without regard to their will in the matter.

I want to be clear that this is different from devaluing one's thoughts or feelings. Someone with an antisocial personality disorder doesn't objectify everyone he meets. He recognizes that they are sentient with thoughts and feelings. He just doesn't care. Other's thoughts and feelings don't hold any value to him. His own thoughts and feelings matter so much that there's no room for consideration of anyone else's.

Most people who accuse us of objectifying women don't even know what they mean by objectification. They hear catch-phrases like, "She's just a sex object to you," and see that the word "object" is in there and relate it to objectification. They then develop this misimpression that we all have gender-selective antisocial personality disorders, as if we're too self-centered to recognize that women are real people too.

How We View Women

We love women. In fact, the problem with most guys here isn't that they love women too little, but that they love women too much! Loving anything too much can be destructive to your health and relationships. Our goal is not to devalue women; it's to devalue the dependence that men have on the validation-seeking relationship they have with women.

Simply put, I love my wife. She loves me. Biblically, she is not my highest goal in life. I have higher purposes than her, and I will set her aside for the sake of my mission from God every time, if they ever conflict. This is what attracts her to me. Her feelings in the relationship are honored - not despite the fact that I have higher priorities than her, but because I do.

Why? Because she's my helper. The fact that I have a purpose higher than her gives her something to do - a role to fulfill, a purpose to live out, and a place to belong: at my side. God created her to long for this place in life and it would be grossly inconsiderate of her feelings if I were to ignore her God-given longings and role in life simply to fulfill my own culturally conditioned philosophies of what a relationship should look like, right?

By recognizing the role God has given women and encouraging men to develop their marriages so that their wives can live within God's intended design for them, we are doing a great service for woman-kind. It is a service that ungodly women despise, but from God's perspective they're actually the ones doing the disservice to women by encouraging them to live outside the scope of their intended design.

I love my wife because of the way she helps me - the way she fulfills what god designed her to do. And she loves me not merely because of the way I live in my role, but because of the way I invite her to partake in hers as well. It's one thing for a man to live out his mission and it's an entirely other thing for him to invite his wife along to help him. This sub proclaims the latter, not the former, and that is why we value the role God has given women.

Does this mean I don't want to have sex with her? Of course not. Why wouldn't I want to have sex with my wife? After all, sexual oneness is one of the roles God has assigned to both spouses for each other. Let's live in that role too - and when it is broken, let's figure out how to fix it. This isn't objectification. It's common sense.

The Objector Point of View

But the objectors often reject common sense ...

The secular crowd uses the word "autist" from time to time. I used to think it was an insult. For some, I'm sure it was. But for many, they were trying to draw a parallel to show the incongruity in the way he processed the information that he was reading on an RP forum. He might read a post on employing kino, then before hitting the gym and right after an argument where his wife threatens divorce, he's trying to grab her boobs to "apply what I just learned." There is simply no common sense to this type of approach. You can't read one post at the exclusion of all of the other content, which is why we see the constant refrain: "sidebar and lift." This displays a clear dysfunction in how their brain is processing the information they're reading because they cannot translate it into reality or apply it to interpersonal relationships.

Unfortunately, this is the same way many objectors reach the conclusion that we objectify women. They read an isolated post that discusses sexuality within marriage and assume: "They only care about their wives to get sex out of them!" Right. And if I read an article in the NY Times about a political race, I'd be right to accuse them of only caring about politics and nothing else, right? Of course not. I have to take that one article in the context of everything else they write about - sports, entertainment, economics, science, etc.

More to the point: they assume that because one post talks about women one way, that this is the only way we view women and that all interactions are filtered through that one lens. this is simply absurd. We are all real people. While it may not be true of everyone, I at least know that our mods (and soon to be endorsed contributors) employ common sense. Common sense - especially for the Christian - dictates that when someone genuinely needs help, you help them. Just because we teach men to be comfortable saying "no" to their wives doesn't mean they must always say no to every inclination of need for help she may ever have. Or when someone genuinely mourns, you mourn with them or comfort them. Just because we suggest some strategy like AA or AM in one context doesn't mean you start making jokes when your wife's mother dies.

I'd say, "Give us some credit," but if they did that, our objectors wouldn't be able to build all those straw men the love making out with.

To all objectors: Actually read our sidebar before coming to conclusions, and recognize that we have common sense just like everyone else - and check in the comments how we respond when someone lacks common sense.

APPLICATION

  • Always study your Bible. Don't just take verses out of context and be duped by the one peddling them.

  • Love your wife for the ways she lives out the role God gave her. One such role is sexual. Love having sex with her. Another such role is to join and assist you on your mission. Invite her to do just that. Don't merely live your mission independent of her, or assume that her "help" is by taking care of the other things so you can go off and do it on your own.

  • Have common sense in the way you apply what you learn, and recognize that we all have common sense too. If you're curious how a post jives with common sense, don't start applying it in idiotic ways. Ask for clarification. After all, that's the "common sense" thing to do, right?