It’s OK to look, as long as we don’t touch – Right?

lookIn the final analysis, all sin can be traced to one thing: A defect in love. The sum of the Law Jesus teaches us is: “The most important is, ’Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ’You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” The Holy Bible : English Standard Version., Mk 12:29-31 (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001).

When we fail to love God as we ought, we also fail to love our neighbors as we ought. And when we fail to love our neighbors as we ought, we fail to love God as we ought as well. The two are absolutely intertwined.

Today’s DAILY MAIL in the UK ran the following article demonstrating the scientific evidence that in our over-sexualized society, the viewing of scantily clad or nude women has the effect on men, of literally reducing those women to mere objects. Here’s the text of the article, and then I’ll have some closing remarks.

Scientist reveals what men REALLY think of when they look at a girlie calendar

By Fiona Macrae
Last updated at 10:22 AM on 17th February 2009

Sexy calendars and pictures of topless models in tabloid newspapers really do lead men to think of women as objects, research shows.

When men are shown images of women in bikinis, the part of the brain they use when thinking about DIY tools and other objects lights up.

At the same time, the region they use to try to tune into another person’s thoughts and feelings tunes down, brain scans showed.

You don’t say: Sexy calendars in the workplace make it more likely that men look at women as objects

Researcher Susan Fiske said: ‘The only other time we have seen this is when people look at pictures of the homeless or of drug addicts because they really don’t want to think about what is going on in their minds.’

Her experiments also found, perhaps not surprisingly, that men remember the images of scantily-clad women better than those of fully-clothed women.

Overall, the experiments showed that sexy images lead men to think of women as ‘less than human’, the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s annual conference heard.

Professor Fiske, of Princeton University in the U.S., said the effect could spill over into the workplace, with girlie calendars leading men to sexualise their colleagues.

She said: ‘I am not saying there should be censorship but people need to know of the associations people have in their minds.’

Asked if women were likely to view half-dressed men in the same way, she said that women tended to rate age and bank balance over looks.

RAF: At this point, I will not speak to the counter sin of women having a tendency to think of men in terms of age & bank balance – but the clear testimony that Scripture has been right all along can’t be missed. You see, when people are depersonalized – love has ceased to be in the picture. Men have to remember that when we view such images and get pleasure from them, what we absolutely CANNOT be doing at the same time, is showing love toward this fallen creature who is selling her looks or body as though she were some mere – object. When we linger and lust, we are partaking of her sins. We are delighted that she is bound in her sin and shame so that we can get enjoyment from it. It is an act of hatred. It shows no compassion for her condition, that she would demean herself so cheaply – as one made in the image of God. And we then treat her like she is not worth anything – but to be gawked at, used for pleasure, thrown away and forgotten.

The World would say pornography is victimless. This is a lie. It promotes the celebration of the filthiest display of others bound in their sin. And then, we participate in their degradation – and take pleasure in it. How can that not be destructive to our own souls?

To love these people, would be to refuse to look at them in their nakedness. Our need, is to love as Christ has loved. And only such love can free us from the chains of sin that still seek to bind our own hearts and minds.

14 thoughts on “It’s OK to look, as long as we don’t touch – Right?

  1. Thanks again for commenting ophalm. I would imagine the difference here between your thinking and mine, would be located in how we each define love. If it is mere affection and good will – sure. But if it is much more than that (and I believe the Bible does require us to think of it as much more than that) then – no.

    Love cannot merely take the moment. Love, the magnitude of God’s love, and how we are called to love one another is “as Christ has loved us.” It is a love that says we must act in ways that do the ULTIMATE good for this loved one – that considers their highest good. And when helping that person know or experience the One who IS that highest good, God Himself in Christ Jesus – then we fail. We must love them so as to do what is best for their souls, and that for eternity, and not just for now and for the reciprocation we receive. It is not loving to rob them of the exclusivity of our marital affections. It is not loving to fail to give them what is of eternal value.

    Hope that helps some.

    Blessings: Reid

  2. I understand your perspective but you’re walking into the argument with an automatic assumption that “love” as we “should” experience it is based off of christ’s love (in simple).

    but that is not what the article is about. the article is saying that looking at naked woman fires up the “object” areas of the brain, it doesn’t say anything about how it affects man’s opinion and treatment of woman that aren’t porn (or similar)

    “Men have to remember that when we view such images and get pleasure from them, what we absolutely CANNOT be doing at the same time” where did you get this from? why can’t they?

  3. You are quite correct regarding my assumption or presupposition being our requirement to love as Christ does. This is the binding law upon all humanity. Jesus said that on these two things hangs all of the Law and the prophets: To love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength, and your neighbor as yourself. To fire up the “object” areas of our brains, when considering other human beings made in the image of God is to demean them and to fail to love them. And this, ultimately is why it is sin. We can’t be participating in another’s sin, and not be sinning ourselves.

  4. “This is the binding law upon all humanity”
    if you’re asking for proof in your other post about life, then I ask you for proof of this

  5. My simple appeal is to the Scriptures. This is the paradigm given there, and the one I believe is true. Man, created in the image of God, and God as man in Jesus Christ explicating for us the reality of the implications of that relationship.

  6. ok, but what I am saying is that your argument is based upon the scripture, so you must assume the scripture is correct.
    but your argument appears to appeal to a world larger than the scriptures. you’re stating your scriptural opinion as fact

  7. Yep – I start with the Scripture and state its view as fact. No secret there. That is my basic presupposition.

    What’s yours?

  8. You mean like the issue of Scientific American that ran an article (they admit this in their Past & Present column) that the automobile will be men because they cannot stand to go any faster than a horse can carry them? Or the “proof” that global warming is man-made etc.?

  9. Nice lack of understanding of how science works. The fact that it’s open to changing it’s mind based on evidence is it’s strong point, not a weak point.

  10. My thought on science is that the best of science has a rigorous methodology and an awe-struck inquiring mind that is open to persuasion, affirming what is evident, open to what is not yet clear or yet to discovered. Very often, though, fallen man as he is, has equated objectivity and scientific methodology with the cynicism of a closed mind that is has largely taken up the mantra of ‘nothing’s so until I see so’. They don’t subject their objectivity to the same cynicism, and fail to realize their subjectivity in the same. I’m thinking Richard Dawkins. And surely, the attitude actually hinders science, too.

  11. Here’s then problem. It is one thing for science to say: “Here’s the theory, let’s test it and if it proves solid, let’s say it is what it is.” But Science in many cases has left its own methodology behind. Now, Science often says “here’s the FACT, the TRUTH, The WAY IT IS” when it is still but a theory. Once it crosses that line, it fails to be science, and moves over into mere dogma. That’s what I find fault with. When Science humbly and rightly says “this is what we think, but we do not KNOW until we prove it” – I say SCIENCE HEARTY DUDE WAYNE!

    I might add, the same is true with the theological sciences. When the proper rules of the interpretive science of hermeneutics is properly applied – we say “this is it”. When it remains a matter of conjecture, theory or where the Bible has left of its revelation – we are required to humbly step back and say “I THINK”, not, “GOD SAYS.” There’s guilt enough for y own group in my assessment. Neither Science nor theoretical theology get off the hook.

  12. But I believe that for all the intents and purposes science ever requires, that evolution is backed up by more evidence than any theory. That’s why it’s considered such a hard fact.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s