Sunday, May 20, 2018

The Degrading Nature Of Sexual Stereotypes

The total myths that men are hypervisual, hypersexual beings by nature and that women are asexual/demisexual beings by nature can be immensely destructive and disheartening--but evangelical Christians rarely acknowledge this.  They can truly make people of both genders feel like less than what they actually are.  I will not focus on refuting this myth yet again here, as multiple times before I have proven that visuality has nothing to do with gender and varies subjectively from individual to individual.  What I want to communicate is how dehumanized this myth can make men feel.

Years ago, when told this bullshit by my evangelical parents, it felt very disappointing--degrading even--to be told that I would not be able to help objectifying females.  Of course, this was an untrue prediction.  But that does not change the fact that I certainly felt disgusted at being told this about myself, much less told something that is objectively untrue about myself and about men in general.  Likewise, it felt very degrading to be told that my significant other, should I ever enter a romantic or marital relationship, would at most be sexually attracted to me when a legion of trivial relational factors allowed for it.  The rigid gender-based lack of mutuality here was disturbing to me.  If I was going to be sexually attracted to my significant other, I wanted that to be reciprocated.

Yet I was told repeatedly that just because she is a woman, my girlfriend or wife would not sexually desire me, despite the fact that I would allegedly be mad with sexual feelings for her.  In fact, her own sexual feelings, if she would have them at all, would supposedly be so unpredictable, so contingent on a myriad of random variables, that I would be lucky if she ever actually wanted to have sex with me because she wanted to, and not for some reason related to developing a relational attachment.  Additionally, I was told that I would be, at least for a time, obsessively bent on engaging in any form of sexual activity with her that I could.  Well, neither I nor other men I know are dominated by hopelessly omnipresent sexual desires.  As an asexual and as a rationalist, I now mock the asinine, unintelligent predictions of the evangelical imbeciles I was raised around.  Thanks to them, I had to live surrounded by degrading expectations.

As paradoxical as it may seem to some, even as an asexual I still have the desire to be sexually desired by any significant other I have.  I have described before how, as an asexual, I would greatly prefer that my spouse would rely on her own hands and things like morally legitimate erotic media to deal with her sexual desires [1], but that does not change the fact that I still would prefer for my spouse to find me sexually attractive in some way (and that I would still engage in sexual activity with her).  As for the asinine idea that women don't experience strong sexual urges by nature of being women and that they are not visual, although logic disproves these myths in full, and the Bible contradicts them as well, hearing so many women deny this foolish claim has proven very relieving for me in one regard.  I deeply appreciate the transparency and honesty of the numerous female friends in my life.

The trivialization of female sexuality and the grotesque exaggeration of male sexuality alike are abominable, irrational, contra-Biblical things that the evangelical church encourages.  As usual, as with almost everything else, I look at evangelicalism here with disgust.  These ideas produce a lack of emphasis on female sexuality in marriage, a denial of a basic component of life as a woman, and can severely hurt people of either gender, by assuming that men are helpless slaves to objectifying sexual impulses (and sexual attraction is not itself objectifying, regardless of its potency) and that women are asexual or demisexual beings.  In any future marriage of mine, there will be no denial of female sexuality, and there will be no gender-based inequality in the celebration of sexuality.

Fuck evangelicalism, and may these false ideas, and all other evangelical fallacies and errors, fade away along with the entire power of the evangelical church.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/04/a-marital-benefit-of-erotic-media.html

4 comments:

  1. Just so I understand one part, What's your definition of evangelicalism as used here? From my research, it can be defined as "Good news" or "spreading/teaching the Gospel", but I'm just wondering if you mean a different aspect or meaning of the word.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. By evangelical I don’t mean just a Christian committed to evangelism or the gospel. Those things are entirely Biblical! Instead, when I use the word “evangelical,” I’m referring to the popular conservative, Protestant group which has a strong presence in America and features people like John Piper (and even William Lane Craig). Evangelism is an important part of Christianity; evangelicalism is an utter disgrace to rationality and to legitimate exegesis of the Bible. Unfortunately, evangelicalism is not just a movement that emphasizes evangelism.

      Evangelicals are often inept at utilizing reason, prone to make all sorts of unverifiable claims about the Holy Spirit, and are philosophically naïve at best. They usually have a moral framework that is the inverse of what the Bible teaches, forsaking actual Biblical morality for legalism. They call God immutable and good, but their moral beliefs ultimately reduce down to some sort of cultural relativism. They also often reject egalitarianism, annihilationism, and other things the Bible affirms. One of the most ironic things about the ones I’ve met is an alleged disdain for extra-Biblical traditions, which is highly ironic because the vast majority of what evangelicals believe is nothing more than the product of consensus and tradition. The set of gender-based stereotypes I mentioned here serves as one of many examples of false, destructive, unbiblical ideas that are popular within evangelical circles. Evangelicalism is the result of combining tradition and sophistry.

      I’m so sorry it took me so long to reply! I had a much busier week than I expected.

      Delete
    2. Ohhh ok, I get what you mean and yeah I agree. It is frustrating to deal with some Christians who blindly believe and preach tradition and legalism instead of reason and truth. Some of my family and friends do fall into that conservative-Protestant category, specifically Calvinist. I actually used to consider myself Calvinist, but took a big critical evaluation of it for the past months and I find that the logical implications of the tenants of Calvinism paints a caricatured, unfair and sadistic view of Christianity and God.

      I am aware that there different "types" of Calvinism, so it may not represent all of them who agree with it. But for me there are hints of truth in some parts (total depravity), but other parts contradict scripture, such as that God arbitrarily predestines some people to be saved and others to damnation rather than giving everyone the free will to accept Him, when there passages that say the opposite (2 Peter 3:9, 1 Timothy 2:3-4). That and Limited Atonement were the first ones to go for me. Then it just got to the point to where I felt Calvinism in general had a lot more going against it than for it and eventually abandoned it all together. Just like how I changed my mind on complementarianism and the ECT view of hell.

      You're forgiven for the late reply! You have a life haha. I also think your blog is rubbing off on me as I think about and evaluate/research things for myself a lot and try to spot fallacies and contradictions whenever they pop up. I just need to learn to be confident enough to speak about these things more. Sorry for rambling, sometimes I get excited thinking about this stuff haha

      Delete
    3. A lot of my family members that are Christians are evangelicals, so I definitely can relate to your family situation. Yikes, having Calvinist family members could be very frustrating indeed! Lol

      That’s SUCH an important distinction that you made between some parts of Calvinism being true and the general system being true! Total depravity is a great example of that, since humans can definitely sin with any aspect of their being, but that does not mean anyone has to sin or cannot choose to not sin. It’s so unfortunate that many evangelicals don’t seem to realize what Calvinistic predestination would mean for epistemology and soteriology if it was true. There would be no such thing as actual human knowledge, no reason to evangelize, and no such thing as a genuinely mutual relationship between humans and God, and all of these things are inseparable from Biblical Christianity. And God would become responsible for human sin, since he would be intentionally, actively keeping the unsaved in rebellion against him. That is another thing that the Bible totally contradicts!

      I still wish I had been able to reply sooner. I always love getting comments from you!

      Delete