When I, about the previous segment’s subject, was speaking to my elderly, female friend, K., she told me, as I have oft heard, that rapes and sexual harassments are all about power. Yes, her comment contains great truth. However—and again, being fairer to men without negating the horror of sexual abuse to women—it is only natural that, as regards sex, men more control.
Consider: if, as described, a woman is meant to have faith in a man, a woman should enough relinquish control because faith is instilled in the leader. (The religious are called the “faithful” because they follow God, the leader of all.)
I [Saint Paul] suffer not a woman . . . to usurp authority over the man.
1 Timothy 2:12
Generally speaking, why should men and not women lead? Being a leader is psychologically hardening in that the leader goes where others have not before gone. Moreover, whoever is in charge, to remain in charge, must battle with contenders to the throne. (Hilary Clinton said that in her field, a woman, to survive, must become thick-skinned.) Both with that in mind and considering that love is largely based on sensitivity (a loving person is softhearted, an unloving, hard), what happens to a woman’s capacity to love when she has become thick-skinned? It is, of course, reduced; and, a woman’s ability to love is her greatest power! (In fact, women who desensitize themselves by stepping into rougher, masculine spheres of existence, forfeit their as-compared-to-men superpowers of sensitivity. I write “superpowers” because, again, biologically, the least sensitive female is often more sensitive than the most sensitive male.)
Further, leadership, in enough of a regard, creates aloofness because leaders, with more responsibilities, must spread themselves thin. And, when so spreading oneself, it is impossible to pay as much attention to the children.
A wife is meant to have faith in her man. However, a man is not meant to have the same level of trust in his wife as she has in him! Rather, a good husband is gentlemanly. That is, with hands-on, he protectively treats his wife so that no one can harm her. Partly, it is for this reason that the Bible has rules specifically about jealous husbands (and not jealous wives) who are concerned about spousal infidelity. As Biblical precepts are from the Creator, such a Biblical inclusion means that men can be naturally prone to jealousy about their wives’ perceptual, potential, or actual unfaithfulness. (Relatedly, in the animal kingdom, it is quite natural for the males, rather than share the females with competitors, to duke it out even to death’s door.)
I’m just a jealous guy.
Men are meant to protect and to provide for their wives. Therefore, men must more keep tabs on their wives since neither can a wife be protected nor can she be provided (or pampered) were eyes and ears not trained on her. So, when a man is keeping tabs on his wife, and something does not match up, jealousy may result. In contrast, because a woman is meant to have faith in her husband, she is not meant to keep him under such wraps as he has on her. Could mothers have enough time for their children if they were so concerned about their husbands?
Moreover, the husband, with the wife and children staying behind, is usually meant to take care of dangerous, oncoming situations. Due to this natural, sexualized division of labor, a woman is instilled with more faith, because she requires faith to manage psychologically while her husband is quelling the hazard. In contrast, however, a good husband does not stay behind while having the faith that his wife will rightly be able to go into danger on her own!
Good men know that women are jewels and that they are meant to be treated as such. That is, they are meant to be kept safe! Because leadership can entail being metaphorically thrown to the sharks; better that the men and not the women are so tossed to see who can swim.
As was earlier mentioned, without a wife instilling her faith into her husband, the children necessarily suffer. Therefore, women must have faith in their husbands for the relationship to work! And, because a woman should not have faith in a bad husband, it is more important for women to be ever so choosy about their mates so not to wind up with one who is rotten! (With that in mind, the dramatic degree to which the mass media might push young women to promiscuity is socially criminal. Moreover, traditionally arranged marriages, that is, parents choosing spouses for the children, seems more sagacious in that older, experienced folk are usually equipped with greater wisdom and stronger foresight.)
Speaking of the sexual act itself, men must control for another reason: to be frank, men have penises; and, a penis, when erect, is a complex and delicate piece of machinery that can be damaged if mishandled. Testicles, too, are very sensitive and can be easily injured. Therefore, men, by nature, should be attracted to women who allow the men more control over the sexual act so that the men have the least fear of injury. By a similar token, a woman’s self-esteem can be, in whatever measure (often a lot), derived from how much passion a man has for her. Therefore, a woman may, for her own interest, desire to relinquish control if her surrender adds to the man’s passion. (Relatedly, because fear overcomes passion, and thereby, an erection, many latent homosexual men hide their true inclinations via hateful homophobia.)
While men and women are, of course, made for one another, nonetheless, Saint Paul writes that a woman is fashioned for a man but not the other way around (1 Cor. 11:9). Why? Biologically, woman is made for man because a woman’s body is designed as a complementary vessel for a man’s sperm. Men’s bodies, however, are not designed for women’s incursions.
In other manner, girls mature before boys. Therefore, when a girl is ready to reproduce, an identically-aged boy is not yet ripe. However, when the boy is ready, a same-aged, reproductively-ready female is at hand. For this reason, in a couple, it is traditional that the man is older since when a female is first ready to procreate, only older males will be available. (The Bible also states that man was created before woman. As men have XY chromosomes and women, XX, men, clearly, reflect an earlier model of existence, where both sexes were contained in one organism. Regarding this understanding, I have joked that Adam’s missing rib is the one, little spoke that alters the Letter-X to the Letter-Y!)
In the Bible, a woman under threat of rape is obligated to scream if she is in a location to be heard. If she does not, she bears equal culpability to the rapist (Deut. 22:23-27). As this pertains to sexual harassment in the workplace, such means that a woman is under obligation both to say “NO!” and to mean it to the degree that the man recognizes that such a woman is NOT playing hard to get. Why must a woman really mean NO!? Because, otherwise, the man may be led to believe that she is playing hard to get so that she can determine the quality of his lasting dedication.
A woman’s playing-hard-to-get no may even express itself via simple manners. For instance, a gentleman, despite an at-first protest from a woman that he not do for her some task—e.g., carrying her groceries or holding the door—after his resolute, I’m-not-taking-a-no-for-an-answer response, the woman, resigned, will likely light up her face and deeply smile, recognizing how much he cares for her. (Sadly, I have noticed that so few males understand this principle! Countless times I have seen a man offer a lady help; and, after her first decline, he turned and left. Then, after I stepped in and gently insisted, I got to do the other man’s job after such a lady even became suddenly teary-eyed with appreciation.)
Although, and of course, a woman, even one once appreciative of help, may, at some point, definitely not want it! At such a time, by the woman’s increasing vehemence (as opposed to her decreasing protestations that denote a time when she will accept the help eventually), a gentleman determines the line of when to persist and when to back off. (For this reason, and to reiterate, a woman is obliged to express her true “NO!” If she does not, she herself cannot ascertain which man is the true gentleman who would not dare go against her genuine, revealed will.)
Recently, I was conversing with a 31-year-old, leftist, Western man who, with rage, insisted that a woman’s “no” is always a “no.” I was actually shocked by his lack of understanding and told him that if a man does not discover the difference between a woman’s true “no” and her playing-hard-to-get “no,” he could never love her since love is based on knowing. (Relatedly, while sexual, verbal-consent rules can certainly prevent abuse, in naïve hands, such guidelines can prevent love.)
In fact, I believe that the Western loss of this understanding about a woman’s psyche (which means that, in such a culture, women cannot really be loved because their true selves remain undiscovered), is one factor underlying the recent phenomenon of Western-raised women packing themselves up and heading to war-ravaged Muslim lands under the control of barbarous men.
In response to the outpouring of sexual harassment accusations against myriad male celebrities and politicians, female stars such as Mayim Bialik and Angela Lansbury were quoted as having said that women in the workplace, by their sexualized dressing and behaving, are partly responsible for sexual abuses against them. While their comments were castigated by many who felt that no excuse exists for sexual harassment, their remarks do contain a truth.
Besides leading men on to whatever degree, the workplace environment is competitive; and, surely, enough women recognize their capacity to control their sexual drives better than men can control theirs (which, to again mention, stems from women’s obligations to control their sexual drives more). So, men—with higher sex drives and more influenced by their sexual passions—cannot be as calculating about sex as can women. Moreover, men cannot perform when not literally aroused; although the same cannot be said about women (consider the concept of the “world’s oldest profession”).
For a serious and frank review, a draft version of the previous segment (“Why Women Have More Faith”), as well as this and the next couple of segments on the same theme, were given to my female friend, who wants to be, here, called “Marina.” In Marina’s comments about the preceding paragraph, she wrote the following: “Disagree. All humans are obligated to manage their impulses. Women do NOT have an easier time; we are just more thoroughly trained from an earlier age to suppress our desires and aggressions.”
However, in response to Marina’s refutation, I offer the Biblical perspective that women do have an easier time overriding their natural impulses, which is why sin, which is being removed from God, the Creator of Nature, starts with woman. (Please, see the segment titled, “Sin, the Tree of Knowledge, and the Tree of Life.”) Actually, this first-recorded sin—the perverse, mental desire to do something innately recognized as death producing—can be, as earlier mentioned, defined as masochism.
Does masochism beget sadism? If men are to love women, and women are more prone to masochism (e.g., women, more than men, willingly suffer for style, become anorexic, bulimic, etc.), would this, paradoxically, trigger sadism in men?
Marina continued (slight, grammatical edits only): “Men just seem to have a cruel streak when it comes to punishing women for their (men’s) own urges!! If she is slutty, he feels attracted; then, he punishes her by using/rejecting/disrespecting her. If she is sexy but looking for love, he woos her only as long as he has to in order to have sex; then, he seems to take perverse pleasure in watching the power shift to his control. . . . Ultimately, he, then, dislikes her if she shows signs of insecurity/weakness and needing to be cared for. The only way a woman can win is by doing this twisted, complex, phony dance of being sexy but not slutty, hard-to-get but not bitchy, nice but not needy. . . . Sigh, it’s exhausting!!!”
Yes, I, the author, agree. In many regards, it seems more difficult to be a woman, since women juggle more. However, as compensation, women, who have far more nerve endings on their genital organs, can derive greater pleasure from sex than can a man (at the least, for those women who understand their bodies and have caring partners). Moreover, what love can compare to the love between a mother and her child? Would any caring mother forever trade away such a feeling to be, instead, a more distant father?