A controversial article by a lady named Lori Alexander has blown up this week and I thought I would use it as a springboard to discuss some of the issues she interacts with.
Men Prefer Debt Free Virgins Without Tattoos
"Do you know how much more attractive debt-free virgins (without tattoos) are to young men? Unfortunately, there are so few of these types of young women anymore because of the high costs of college (debt) and sexual promiscuity even within those in the church. As believers in Jesus Christ, we need to live in a way that is pleasing to Him because His ways are the best. He calls debt a burden and urges us to live lives of sexual purity."As the title suggests, she is counselling young women against premarital sex, taking on debt, & tattoos. Setting aside the specific issues she brings up for a moment, a lot of the issues people are having with her article seem to stem from an indignation that she would dare suggest that men might have preferences when it comes to women and particularly a woman's history. They consider that a very misogynistic statement. I don't see what's so controversial about the idea, it's not as if these women don't have 30 bullet point lists about what they want in a guy, and no matter how much women attempt to shame men into dating them, men will always prefer a woman who's whole pattern of life indicates she has been preparing for marriage to a woman who has lots of baggage. Now this is not to say that Christ's sacrifice is not sufficient to save any woman out of a sordid past, nor that a woman who has a sluty history cannot be transformed by the gospel and live the rest of her life as a godly wife.
Some people seem to take offense at the idea that any person should think that a woman might have to take into account how her actions will be perceived by men. That goes against the modern feminist teaching to girls to be "true to themselves." However, it seems obvious to me that any woman who is serious about getting married and starting a family should care very much about the impression she makes on men. Just as it would be foolish council to a 16 year old man that because a girl should love him for "who he is" he shouldn't bother spending so much time and effort working through college to get a degree in order to provide for a family. Of course a woman will prefer a man who's spent his life preparing to lead and provide for a family. There is nothing wrong with that, not for a woman and not for a man.
She has been slammed for supposedly telling women not to go to college:
"There are many more reasons why Christian young women should carefully consider whether or not they go to college, especially if they want to be wives and mothers someday. Secular universities teach against the God of the Bible and His ways. It’s far from what God calls women to be and do: it teaches them to be independent, loud, and immodest instead of having meek and quiet spirits."People have reacted hysterically, provoking images of women barefoot and pregnant, uneducated and illiterate, forced to stay at home at all times. These reactions, completely divorced from what she actually said, just goes to show how emotionally charged these issues are. They touch a cultural nerve. If you look at what she actually said, she didn't prohibit Christian women from going to college. Rather, she said women should carefully consider whether that is the wisest decision for them. She brings up the fact that if a woman wants first and foremost to become a wife and mother to a family, a college degree is only going to make that more difficult.
The debt issue she brings up is also valid. Women will have difficulty staying at home raising their children if they have a mountain of debt from college loans hanging over their head. As she quoted from one of her commentors, “If they go to college, they are unlikely to stay home raising their children [because they need] to pay off the debt and use the degree they spent years on.” Many women who were misled by feminist propaganda in their younger years realize they desperately want to stay with their baby once they have one, but are unable to because of the situation they are in as a result of their previous life choices. That is really, really sad, a mother having to leave her home because of a financial situation that was completely avoidable. Christians need to do a better job of warning young women about the dangers and long term effects of the decisions they make at 18, 19, & 20 years old. These decisions will determine the course of the rest of their lives and should not be made without careful consideration.
Furthermore, even if a woman is in a position where she can get a degree without debt, she should consider whether that is really the most advantageous thing she could be doing with her time. It may be, but it may not. It depends on the situation, and that's all the author is saying. If a woman has no realistic marriage prospects in the near future and is not really needed at home with her own family it could very well be that getting a degree is a worthwhile endeavor at that time. If she does decide to go that route care should be taken that pursues her degree without taking herself off the marriage market and she should consider when determining what to major in whether the degree will be beneficial as a wife and mother. A two year degree in something like nursing seems like a very useful way to redeem the time if a woman is not looking at any immediate marriage prospects. Though working for a year or two to build up some capital to help finance her future home might also be an option to consider.
A woman who spends four years pursuing a degree that is not tied to being a mother has clearly put her own career aspirations before the interests of her future family, and I don't think that is how God designed it. God has laid the burden of providing for a family primarily on men, which is why men spend years and years working towards careers where they will be able to support a family. When a woman does that, she steps into the man's role and loses the joy that comes from godly femininity and the biblical pattern for marriage. This is not to say that a woman with a standard 4-year college degree cannot be a godly feminine woman, wife, and mother. But it is to say that a lot of times, "young women learn nothing about biblical womanhood or what it takes to run a home when they go to college" and thus a woman loses four very valuable years she could have spent pursuing those virtues. It's not even to say that a woman with such a degree should abandon it and become a purely stay at home mother, after all, the proverbs 31 woman was industrious and certainly did what could be classified as "work." The issue is that a woman's primary sphere of influence is to be the home. That should always come first. Once the home is taken care of, it is good for her to spend her time on external pursuits that are beneficial to the home like a job. But that should always be a secondary priority to keeping the home so to spend her prime four years focusing on pursuing something external to the home is an inversion of priorities.
As far as her title's reference to non-tatted virgins. I think (and she acknowledged in a follow up post) she should have specified Christian/godly men. Virginity is not quite as prized in the secular culture, especially as a woman enters her mid 20s, secularists might think something is wrong with her for still being celibate, but Christian men continue to prize chaste virgins who have saved themselves for their husband. I can personally attest that I much prefer that my future wife has not sexed up a bunch of other guys. You want her to be all for herself. And once again, many Christian men have married and had happy marriages with women who were saved out of a bad history. But that does not change the fact that in general godly men will prefer godly women who've lived a chaste life.
As to the tattoo issue, I don't think she was trying to say that getting a tattoo is inherently sinful. The verse that people who believe that appeal to, Leviticus 19:28 "You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves," is referring to the specific practice of those times where people would tattoo themselves as part of cultic ceremonies. The underlying principle is not to be involved in or associated with pagan rituals. If that's her issue than I would have to disagree with her, but that's not what I think she's saying.
Mutilating your body also would be inconsistent with biblical ethics but I don't think a tattoo necessarily qualifies (though there are tattoos that could reasonably be classified as mutilation).
Once again, she's offering council to younger women on how what they do impacts the image they project to others. While tattoos are not inherently wrong, they are generally associated with impulsiveness and sexual promiscuity, neither of which are generally considered desirable traits in a wife. People make assumptions about others based on appearances, and it has historically been the case that women with tattoos have been assumed to be more sluty. This may be changing, similarly to nose rings (which also can't be considered inherently wrong based on any consistent biblical standard without also condemning every Christian woman who has pierced their ears), which used to be associated (and still are to some extent in certain circles) with slutiness but are now becoming more normalized in Christian culture. Tattoos may possibly be undergoing the same change.
A woman has every right in her liberty in Christ to get a tattoo, and a tattoo of a bible verse or the like might even be a good thing in some circumstances, but a wise woman who wants to marry is not going to make any permanent (possibly detrimental) changes to her body without knowing how a man she might be interested in down the line would feel about them. Once again, it's not a sin for a woman (or anyone) to get a tattoo, but they should consider what kind of image they are putting out to other people and whether that is consistent with the person they are actually trying to be. It's similar to how many parents (like my own) don't want their sons to grow long shaggy hair because it's not the image they want their sons putting out.
She also mentions other interesting and potentially controversial issues which I don't feel like interacting with at the moment. So I'll end this here.
