Christian women and the rationalization of attraction

This was an interesting exchange over at Donal’s post on what women find attractive in men. First, I write as a response to a woman’s response to Donal’s post:

Donal, what I would have discussed is the difference between attraction and desire. Women typically get these confused because they don’t know what they find attractive, and thus they associate what they find desirable with what they find attractive. Yes, we’ve gone over this many times before.

For example, if being a Christian was considered attractive then all women — Christian and non-Christian — would be attracted to all Christian men. This is obviously empiracally false.

What Gabriella describes is such traits that she finds desirable:

“In my experience, after becoming a full out Christian (I was brought up in a Christian home) by brain did suddenly change and I certainly found different things attractive so there goes your “it doesn’t happen” it happens all the time! I grew taste for things like humility, godliness and love for God, the depth of love he exhibits and truthfulness, basically, how much is this guy like Jesus was the question?”

Let’s be clear. Many Christian men have these traits. Except not all of these Christian men are attractive.

I’m not going to say that these traits cannot be attractive. In some instances they are attractive. For example, a man willing to stand up to a woman in order to oppose her if she is off track in terms of a theological point or sinning is going to be attractive to a man because he will display to her that he is dominant and can be respect. Not because he is telling the truth. Discussing the truth is merely a byproduct of a man who has set God before women.

On the other hand, a Christian man who tells a Christian pretty woman she is pretty is telling the truth. But that does not make a Christian man attractive to that Christian woman. Indeed, it may repulse her if the man says it in such a way that he is setting her up on a pedestal or thinks she is too good for him.

Attraction and desire are two separate things. However, attraction and desire can overlap in certain circumstances. However, the majority of the time women talk about what is attractive to them they are telling you what they find desirable. Occasionally, you will get a woman who is knowledgable of what she finds attractive: confidence, knows-what-he-wants, looks, his talents, etc. I find this to be rare though.

To men: the list in Donal’s OP is true. Don’t listen to women about what they find attractive. They’re mostly wrong.

Then the reply:

Okayyy, I was gone DS, but this went to my email and I saw my name in the preview and your post just HAD to be commented on. In case you weren’t aware deepstrength, Christians and non-Christians alike, don’t find arrogance and obstinance attractive in a man unless they have abuse issues, which you often find, and only after time goes by do they realize what is truly being displayed. However, the more worldly or carnal a person is, the more susceptible and inclined they are to be drawn to sinful or ungodly attitudes, mindsets and behaviors.

In all honesty DS, you don’t seem to know what true confidence is. People can foolishly be attracted to or confuse worldly “confidence” with true confidence. I always hated pride that was aired as “confidence” because I could see it for what it was. I think a lot of people don’t understand sometimes the true nature of a quality they think they’re observing or qualities that they seem to be drawn to. But as for confidence, true confidence can only be rooted in truth. It can only be found in Christ and is very different from what most people think confidence is, most people barely ever witness true confidence. What most people think is confidence and what is usually displayed, is extreme pride caused by deep rooted insecurity due to lack of identity. And honestly, no offense, the majority of the male population has serious problems here (not that females don’t too). Ego/pride is completely repulsive and unbearable, the most unattractive trait ever.

True confidence is knowing who you are in Christ, as our identities are hid in Him. A person only comes to true knowledge of themselves and thus security rather than insecurity by first knowing God . Every person has a deep longing to know, “Who am I” and someone who seems to know “the way” or the answers, makes for a good partner. The two major signals of confidence is a lack of fear and insecurity. Fearlessness and self assuredy are attractive for many reasons but fundamentally it is because it makes the person seem to possess the ability to love, as love is the absence of fear, an insecure person is self focused and unstable. Insecurity is driven by fear by not knowing God’s true character and who you are in Him, it’s a lack of identity. So you want someone who is secure and has a sense of self, this person has something to offer or bring to a relationship. They can give of themselves by being themselves. That’s the key. Someone who is insecure is unable to exhibit love and affection to others as they’re always worrying about themselves and are self-focused even when they seem to be doing acts of kindness, as their true underlying motive is self serving. They subconsciously “serve” or do nice things for others so they will like them and not feel rejected and possibly get something in return ect. So a guy who tells a girl she’s pretty can be either repulsive or attractive based on his intent. Usually if it’s a pedestal thing the guy is deathly insecure and thinks very little of himself so that is why pedestals don’t work. But if he just felt like sincerely, without selfish motive kindly and respectfully acknowledged “wow, you’re pretty” the girl would be flattered. You can feel the difference between a creep, an insecure people-pleaser and a truly nice guy.

An insecure person also doesn’t make a good life partner because they’re uncapable of facing the challenges of life well. Confidence/faith again is the absence of fear, perfect love casts out fear, so someone who has a revelation of God’s love for them and knows God intimately will walk with this kind of confidence because they trust God and are not afraid. Therefore, they’re not trying too hard to control their life (or the people in them) and that is attractive because people were designed to be loved and therefore, find the qualities of God’s love attractive. Sometimes people who haven’t undergone transformation are attracted to the counterfeit or unsanctified qualities of a good partner. For instance a man who “knows-what-he-wants” can be found attractive because we were created to be creatures of purpose with destinies. Such a person knows who they are clearly which gives them and their partner a sense of direction and purpose and brings a greater sense of security. Someone with vision is hence attractive because everyone is longing for purpose ect.

Also, truth be told, not many Christian men have those traits I listed. You said many non-attractive Christian men have those traits and that’s where you’re wrong. It seems you lack discernment and judgement. Exhibiting a characteristic or trying to practice it every so often doesn’t mean it’s really part of you. So I’d have to say, barely any men truly have such character. And being “Christian”, does not make you godly or Christ-like. It’s truly rare to find a Christian man who walks in a substantial depths of humility, purity and love ect. It’s clear to me that you operate primarily out of a carnal mind and have failed to renew your mind casting down thought patterns and reasonings that are of this world as your logic is based world views. It’s no wonder you’re single DS… I mean I was in utter unbelief when I read “Don’t listen to women about what they find attractive. They’re mostly wrong.” How prideful and foolish and deceived are you???? Please objectively reflect on your words. Like I can believe you could say something like that and not say ‘Hey, this is a ridiculous statement, let me rethink this’. You can never truly love someone that you don’t consider an equal or “as yourself”. One of the main issues of relationships… and one problem you obviously have. You think women want to be dominated and corrected from some pretentious jerk? No, a wise man who can humbly bring my errors to my attention can catch my eye because he is not afraid to be honest and can help me grow in life where a man pleaser isn’t showing me true love but hurting me in the long run. I dont need a butt kiss I need someone who will sharpen me. That’s a true partner. But a man who thinks I can’t be taken seriously and that he know more about me and my sex than I do because I’m an inferior silly woman is completely abhorrent. =you sadly.. Good luck finding a wife…

1. First, let’s get down to the nitty gritty. Quite a bit of shaming tactics in said post above. Sadly, I think she hits most of them, which indicates her egalitarian mindset is ingrained in feminism:

https://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/

Women have a difficult time separating an argument from a personal attack although the vast majority of men have difficulty with this too. Having to resort to shaming tactics shows insecurity in an argument, which is ironic because it is the same thing that I am accused. This is psychological projection which has been pointed out in the ‘sphere for a while.

However, I’m curious why women tend to resort specifically to shaming tactics in particular. Whereas men tend to use many different logical fallacies if they don’t have a firm argument, women tend to resort to shaming tactics which falls under ad hominem.

Is it because women want to put down the other person in order to feel better about themselves? Or is it because they instinctively know there are innate sex differences, even if they tell themselves that there aren’t? Or is it some other reason(s)?

2. Second, the part I find most interesting is the ability of the female mind to rationalize attraction the way they want.

It’s quite obvious that there are many non-Christian men who are attractive. Why else would many Christian women try to missionary date? Or come back to God after they have had their fun? Or get seduced by the big bad jerk? Or say there are no good [attractive] Christian men? Really, there is no shortage of stories of ‘Christian’ women who do this, so reality clearly disagrees with what she is saying.

On the other hand, it is true that a godly Christian women SHOULD be unattracted to these men. However, it’s not because these men are unattractive; they are attractive. Lack of desirable traits should destroy attraction. The lack the desirable traits for marriage such as the fruits of the Spirit — humility, patience, kindness, goodness, etc. as well as fidelity, loyalty, commitment, and the like — kill any latent attraction for ungodly men if a woman is truly following after Christ.

In this respect, this becomes the faulty assumption that because such non-Christian men are “unattractive” that is taken to mean that godliness is attractive. This is clearly shown to be false as if godliness were attractive you would see non-Christian women lining up to date Christian men.

3. Third, she does make some good points on confidence, identity, and insecurity which I have written on before. The vast majority of Christian men are not firmly rooted in Christ. However, these are muddled by the incorrect conclusion.

Note that the premise is initially good and then it goes off the rails in the conclusion. God created men and women to be firmly rooted in Him: to have full confidence and no insecurity in their dreams and passions. However, this segues incorrectly to God created godliness to be attractive.

In reality, God created these “facets” of human nature — personality/power, status, athleticism, looks, money — to be attractive to women. And it was good. The fact that both non-Christian men and Christian men can exhibit those facets is not a knock against God. After all, what He created is good. It is a knock against humans that don’t choose to follow Him and instead use their talents and attractiveness for nefarious purposes.

I think Christian women who argue for that attraction is based on godliness forget that God created humans and human nature to be good and pure in the beginning. It is only through the fault of humans that it was derailed. It’s an observational truth if I admit say Jessica Alba or Scarlett Johansson is attractive although she may not be a Christian. Likewise, if a woman says Ryan Gosling or George Clooney or whoever is attractive that’s true. It is not a “sin” against God to admit that godliness is not attractive in itself nor to admit that non-Christians are attractive either.

Attractiveness is neither good or bad. However, when you equate godliness and other desirable [Christian] traits as attractive, you assume that attractiveness is good. When you assume that attractiveness is good, this leads to other heresies. For example, wives divorce their husbands because they feel unloved or unhappy when that is only a symptom of a lack of respect and attractiveness for their husband and for God’s Word. You can see how creating false equivalencies can undermine the Scriptures.

It’s clear to me that you operate primarily out of a carnal mind and have failed to renew your mind casting down thought patterns and reasonings that are of this world as your logic is based world views. It’s no wonder you’re single DS…

Because godliness is equated with attraction when the Scriptures say no such thing, the logic is twisted into shaming tactics for not being “Christian” in my thought processes.

4. Fourth, to drive the absurdity home there is one easy example to make about status and talent that is unequivocably true.

The man who plays guitar for the worship team is more attractive than the man who helps out with parking in the parking lot or helps set up the seats for sunday service.

Why? There is an inherent status and talent (which falls under athleticism) that comes with playing music and leading the congregation in worship as opposed to serving in other capacities. While they are both playing roles in the body of Christ to ensure that a Church functions at full capacity, one is more attractive than another.

This is not an example that most Christian women who falsely believe that godliness is attractive can deny. However, they may rationalize it to be something different than it is.

5. Lastly, talking about attraction seems to flip a trigger in women that it doesn’t in men.

I would say from my discussions with the vast majority of men that we understand that we are sexually attracted to women who dress like sluts and prostitutes, but that it would be unwise not to take these thoughts captive to Christ. Likewise, since men are attracted to physical appearance primarily there are many non-Christian women that are attractive but that we would not consider marriage prospects because of their lack of faith.

For some reason, this goes out the window in a discussion with the vast majority of non-red pill initiated Christian women. They cling to the fact that they believe that godliness, humility, and the like are attractive even when it has been empirically proven false nor does the Scriptures state that this is the case. The Scriptures are indeed Truth to teach us how to live, but they don’t contain all truth. God is simply immeasurably more than even His Word, and His Word is more than enough to teach us how to live. However, the Scriptures don’t really discuss attraction at all from a female’s perspective unless you count phobeo — fear, respect, reverence — from Ephesians 5 and 1 Peter 3 as the attitude that starts to stimulate attraction which may be the case.

I remember a while ago about a discussion, I think at Donal’s place, where women were relating their experiences when being around attractive men. They said it was almost impossible to resist an attractive man, especially if they were alone with him. Perhaps this is why Christian women are so sensitive about attraction because they know how overwhelming it may be if they don’t resist non-Christian men on their walk with God?

Alternatively, the most logical explanation may be that Christian women may want to paint themselves as pious and religiously devoted at all expenses. Ironically, even going so far as to lying to themselves and others about it. This is a performance based mindset which is simply not a correct identity in Christ, but I think it may be evidenced in the post above because of the amount of shaming tactics and psychological projection involved. However, although they may be “lying” to themselves I can’t tell if it’s conscious or unconscious and with or without intent. Know presents an interesting response because it ranges from everything to rebellion against God, to missing the mark, to deception. All of these things are bad, but the degree differs.

Discussion is welcome on this as I haven’t seen this topic explored that heavily from a Christian point of view. I’m curious about any other thoughts about my observations and questions here.

P.S. Whatever the case, I still would not recommend listening to women on what they find attractive as it seems they cannot consciously or unconsciously distinguish what is attractive and desirable to them. The obvious analogy being that a fisherman asks other fishermen how to catch fish not the fish.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Masculinity and women and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Christian women and the rationalization of attraction

  1. donalgraeme says:

    One thing to keep in mind is that female attraction towards men is more complicated than male attraction towards women. This complexity has to be translated into a greater difficulty to understand it.

    To answer a few of your questions:

    Is it because women want to put down the other person in order to feel better about themselves?

    I think that is some of it. It is easier to tear another down than it is to build yourself up. Also, women tend to be more fearful and self-conscious than men. Plus they take things personally more, probably because of the above reason. They project this onto others, and tear them down in order to try and break the other person. Because they view it as a battle between people and not ideas, beating the other person means they win.

    The man who plays guitar for the worship team is more attractive than the man who helps out with parking in the parking lot or helps set up the seats for sunday service.

    Why? There is an inherent status and talent (which falls under athleticism) that comes with playing music and leading the congregation in worship as opposed to serving in other capacities.

    Exactly. Status and Athleticism (which includes more than just physical skills like sports) give the worship team leader a huge leg up over other young men in church.

    However, the Scriptures don’t really discuss attraction at all from a female’s perspective unless you count phobeo — fear, respect, reverence — from Ephesians 5 and 1 Peter 3 as the attitude that starts to stimulate attraction which may be the case.

    Song of Songs covers the Appearance side of female-to-male attraction. The man is handsome and athletic. However, the other components are not directly explained. Which is only natural, it was never the purpose of Scripture to do so.

    As for why women have trouble and flip out, I think the biggest reason for many is pride. Pride drives them to believe that they are above the mundane, non-believing women around them. Ignorance, however, plays a large role too. Female attraction factors are complex, and it requires a certain amount of abstract thinking and detached observation to really see the whole picture. Women might be able to get parts of it at times, but seeing the whole picture is likely impossible for them without outside guidance.

  2. donalgraeme says:

    One last thing before I take off for a bit:

    Despite my disagreements with him on a number of matters, I think Rollo is on the right track when he distinguishes been arousal (or sexual attraction) and (non-sexual) attraction. Women want both from a man, for different reasons. However, the complexity of it all, and perhaps some other reasons (War Bride theory?) means that women have trouble recognizing the differences between the two. They can tell that they want both from man, they just cannot understand the role that each plays is different.

  3. @ Donal

    Hmm, yes, it is true that female sociosexual hierarchies are competitive which is may play into the fact that winning is beating the other person rather than debating the merits of ideas.

    Yes, the better than non-believers point. Also stems from the performance based mindset. It’s half amusing when you consider that we were all depraved and the only difference between Christians and non-Christians is that we have accepted the grace of God and want to do His will. It’s not at all an us vs. them mentality. Pride is really at the heart of everything.

    Regarding arousal (sexual attraction) and non-sexual attraction. Are we redefining attraction and desirability here… or are we talking about 3 different concepts — sexual attraction, non-sexual attraction, and desirability? Need to be clear about what I’m discussing before I discuss it.

    Tentatively, I would agree that there can be [non-sexual] attraction without arousal/sexual attraction given that this experience is also true in men. The fact that it’s true in men doesn’t mean it will necessarily be true in women, but most of the mechanics seem to be the same albeit expressed differently.

    Optimized hypergamy where the woman marries up to the best possible man she can is going to be one of the most important factors in determining her maximal sexual arousal/desire for him. In other words, her willingness and enthusiasm towards sex increase with maximized LAMPS facets.

  4. Feminine But Not Feminist says:

    As for why we tend to go up in arms when we’re told that we don’t know what we find attractive in men ~

    Thinking back to when I first started reading and commenting around these parts, I would get SO annoyed with most of the men saying that women (or I) don’t know what we (I) find attractive because it felt like I was being called a liar. It took me a long time to even be able to distinguish between the difference between desirability and attraction (as you all define them), and even now it is still very difficult at times to figure out which category specific things in specific situations would fall into. Like Donal said, it’s very complicated. We tend to think of “attraction” as “a quality I want in a man”, which of course could include both attractive and desirable traits (as defined around here). So if we say we are attracted to something, we really believe it (aka, we’re not lying) because we want that quality, even though we are confusing desirability and attraction by your definition.

  5. @ FBNF

    That would make sense in regard to the qualities, but not in the ability to distinguish between them.

    The vast majority of women have at least 1 male [orbiter] to whom they talk a lot to as friends but would never consider a relationship with them. Such a Christian man may have all of the fruits of the Spirit — love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control. However, it’s obvious to her that they will be nothing more than friends because there is “nothing there” (e.g. no attraction).

    This is probably my best example so far since it relates directly to a woman’s experience in a way she can understand it rather than discussing abstract concepts. The key is to pull out what traits make a woman want to have a relationship with the man: these are “attractive” traits. Everything else that she would be looking for in a best friend are “desirable” traits.

    Obviously, I don’t think attraction versus desirability is some nebulous concept that women are incapable of understanding. However, it does seem like there is significant hubris in the majority of Christian women thinking they understand it when they clearly do not.

  6. Feminine But Not Feminist says:

    @ DS

    but not in the ability to distinguish between them

    That can be explained by looking at the differences in how our brains are wired. A man’s brain has a strong ability to “compartmentalize” things, whereas a woman’s brain doesn’t even have such a function. You can easily separate things out and think about them in a logical way. We don’t naturally do that (which is why it was so difficult for me to figure out the concept that is so obvious to all of you men, even with a ton of concentrated effort), but we naturally see all the separated parts as one unit, making it a whole lot harder to figure out the difference.

  7. @ FBNF

    You wouldn’t be able to distinguish between them in the male BFF scenario above?

  8. donalgraeme says:

    @ DS

    Are we redefining attraction and desirability here… or are we talking about 3 different concepts — sexual attraction, non-sexual attraction, and desirability? Need to be clear about what I’m discussing before I discuss it.

    I wasn’t referring to 3 things. Rather, just the normal two we talk about. I only used Rollo’s terms for them. What we refer to as desirability he describes as attraction or attractive traits. What we refer to as (sexual) attraction or (sexually) attractive traits he describes as arousing traits.

    I think he is right that women are “attracted” to men who show desirable traits. But that attraction is not sexual unless the man is also sexually desirable (meets her LAMPS/PSALM threshold). Early on that manifests as seeking out or acquiring Beta Orbiters. Later that might translate into a “settled” marriage.

  9. Feminine But Not Feminist says:

    @ DS

    Sorry, I’m not completely sure what you’re asking. Please rephrase the question?

  10. donalgraeme says:

    Thinking back to when I first started reading and commenting around these parts, I would get SO annoyed with most of the men saying that women (or I) don’t know what we (I) find attractive because it felt like I was being called a liar.

    The above comment by FBNF sheds some important light, I think. Women come in with preconceived notions of what they are attracted to. When they are told otherwise, they take it personally because they incorrectly believe they are being called liars. A better question is where women get these preconceived notions from.

  11. @ FBNF

    You wouldn’t be able to pick out specifically what is attractive in a man versus what is desirable in a man by comparing male friends versus someone you were attracted to?

  12. @ Donal

    Ok, I do think that Rollo’s terms are more accurate to say the least in terms of how the female mind perceives them to be.

    Women are indeed “attracted” to male BFFs (aka beta orbiters) because of the attention. commitment, loyalty, and the like. If they weren’t attracted, why would they spend time with them?

    These men also don’t sexually arouse women so they have no intentions on sleeping with, having a relationship with, or marrying them.

    I think it’s interesting that the male mind tends to perceive it as attraction versus desirability whereas the female mind may tend to perceive it arousal versus attraction.

    Thus, when we discuss “attraction” men and women may be talking about two separate things. However, although this may be the case, it seems that women still have difficulty distinguishing what is arousing versus attractive in some circumstances.

  13. donalgraeme says:

    @ Deep Strength

    Part of the reason for the difference is that men don’t have the dualistic considerations/strategy that women have. The exception being those men who suffer from the (true) Madonna/Whore complex. For healthy men, what draws or attracts us is a woman’s beauty. Her “desirable traits” do not affect this initial draw. What they do affect is whether we consider the woman “a keeper” or not.

    Women, however, have two considerations- good genes and good dad/mate. Both are at play in the female mind at once, although it is obvious that they are of different strengths and intensity. The problem for women is that they both get mixed up together and so are difficult to distinguish. This might be exacerbated in part because women don’t feel “good gene” arousal in the same manner that men experience the constant intensity of the male sex drive.

  14. Feminine But Not Feminist says:

    @ DS

    Like I said, my brain isn’t wired to distinguish between the two, but if I spent a lot of time actively trying to figure it out, I *possibly* could. The thing about “male BFF’s” is that, in my case at least, every really good guy friend that I’ve ever had was someone that I wanted. Either I wanted them pretty early on or I started wanting them later, but I have wanted every single one of them at some point. So the whole “beta orbiter that doesn’t have a chance of getting out of the friendzone” thing you guys talk about doesn’t ring a bell for me (unless you turn it around and make me the orbiter that can’t figure out how to get myself out of a stinkin’ friendzone to save my life). So no, I’m afraid I can’t distinguish between the two in that scenario.

    But in general, I’ll give you an example that hopefully will show what I mean: Most women like men that are funny and can make us laugh. I’m using “funny” as an example because I don’t recall anyone around here ever classifying it under the “desirable” or “attractive” labels. If you were to ask me which label it should technically fall under (based on the definitions that you guys use), I would have to say “I don’t know”. All I know is that it’s a quality that I like (not one that is required, but one that I do like), which in my female brain is always classified as “attractive”, no matter where you guys would classify it. Now, if I spent hours and hours and possibly days thinking about what kind of impact a man’s ability to make me laugh has on me, I might be able to figure out what label it falls under (though I’m sure the answer is already obvious to the men reading this as to whether it’s an attractive or desirable trait without you having to think too hard about it). And that’s with me having spent time trying to understand the whole attraction vs desirability thing over the last year or so. So if it’s still that complicated for my brain after all that I’ve learned about the subject, how much more complicated (and almost impossible) would it be for the masses of women who haven’t found this corner of the web and attempted to learn from it? And quite frankly, I don’t think it’s even important enough for me to figure out which label it falls under, so why bother? I’ll just call it “attractive” and be done with it.

    Back when I wrote my two posts about chaste men being attractive, it took me WEEKS of pondering the details of chastity before I could separate the parts of it that are attractive from those that are desirable. So it is possible with lots of time and effort. But it doesn’t come naturally. Like I said, we lump all of the qualities we like and want into one pile. Separating them is almost like trying to un-scramble an egg.

  15. Pingback: A detailed timeline and how to guide on the process of finding a wife | Reflections on Christianity and the manosphere

  16. Mary Helen says:

    Okay, so I’m not going to lie, when I initially read this post along with the comments, I wanted to argue your point of view. However, I’m not going to do that because in the overall big picture you are correct. Attraction does play a huge part. It is what initially gets someone’s attention whether consciously or unconsciously. As a Christian woman, I will admit this. But also as a Christian woman, I have to make the case of that after the initial attraction towards a man, we have the power of choice as to whether we act upon that attraction or not. I realize I’m getting a little bit out of context on your original post, but in retrospect, there is nowhere in the Bible that God commands us to get married in the first place. And I’m introducing marriage because marriage should be the end result (even if this end result is a LONG way away) if a believer in Christ is serious upon acting upon the attraction he/she feels towards another. In 1 Corinthians chapter 7, Paul urges fellow believers that if they do NOT have enough self control that they need to marry but if they DO have enough self control it is better to stay unmarried just as he was. My point is: a person’s self control dictates his/her actions in any situation. God doesn’t dictate it, but we as humans do. Even though, He created a man and woman to be attracted to another, He doesn’t command us to marry. In the context of attraction, yes I may be physically attracted to someone, but that does not necessarily mean that I will act upon that attraction. The individual that I may or may not be attracted to is my Brother in Christ first and that changes everything. When you talked about attraction in the above post, your argument is mostly biological/natural based. And in those terms you are correct. However, aren’t we called to live in the world but not of the world (Romans 12:2)?

  17. Mary Helen says:

    And I just want to clarify that I did not intentionally seek out your blog. I saw where you had commented on another blog and left a link to one of your posts related. The only reason I even felt like I needed to say something is because it breaks my heart that we as Christians are arguing over a topic such as attraction (not that this topic does not need to be discussed). I really wish Christians would realize that God is going to use us whether or not we have a husband/wife at our side. Our ultimate goal should not be to find a wife or husband (not that this is a bad thing), but instead to love one another just as Christ loves us.

  18. @ Mary Helen

    Sure, anyone can decide not to marry and be unwilling to act on attraction. However, that is generally only very few people. Historically speaking, typically over 90% of women get married with 80% of women having children.

    Additionally, in the world but not of the world is an incorrect analogy for this situation. “Of the world” is giving into lusts and sinful behavior. It is not deciding between two godly options to stay single or be married.

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