I can, but people will only see what they want to see.
When I was in high-school one of the "cool" conversations I found myself in had the guys discussing what they liked best about girls. One would say in a very cool voice, "I'm a legs man." Another would say, "I'm a breasts man." (We were boys, but we didn't admit that.) If I just put down a transcript of the discussion, you would be hard pressed to know whether we were talking about women or a bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken (which was what it was called in those days, not KFC). We had reduced women down to their component parts and decided whether we liked them or not based on how pleasing those parts were to us as men with "discriminating tastes."
Of course, we were boys of the Playboy generation. Hugh Heffner had shown us all how to base the value of women on their body parts. I can't really blame Hugh. All visual media have done that since the photograph was invented. But what has the result been?
Men have two views of women that directly conflict with one another. The first view is that of an equal member of the human race. If you're religious, a woman is a bearer of the image of G-d just like a man is. Men and women have complex emotions, wants, needs, dreams, desires, goals, etc. But the other view is that a woman is a tool to satisfy a man's desire for pleasure. It may be sexual pleasure or more simple pleasures like appreciating beauty, listening when the man talks, keeping the man from being lonely, etc.
The conflict has totally destroyed the way men and women relate. If you've ever seen "Fiddler on the Roof" you will remember the song in which Tevye asked Golde whether she loved him. She danced around the question for a while then finally declared, "For twenty-five years I've lived with him, fought with him, loved with him. Twenty-five years my bed is his. If that's not love what is?" Of course, Tevye and Golde had an arranged marriage. Love wasn't required, but they both learned it. They close the song with, "It doesn't change a thing, but even so, after twenty-five years it's nice to know."
Talk about love that way today and people will look at you funny. You're supposed to love somebody before you marry. If you talk about why you love them, the discussion will turn to what she does for me (or vice versa). "She's so fun to be with. She makes me laugh. She makes me feel important." You won't hear, "I've decided to dedicating my whole life to being there for her whatever she may ask of me." But that's what love is. And it doesn't require an emotional roller-coaster ride of infatuation to do. It's an act of will, not a feeling.
Where did this newer version of love come from? I couldn't pinpoint an exact date. Some blame Shakespeare and "Romeo and Juliet" where the two commit suicide over their undying love when they've known each other for less than 24 hours. Some blame music or T.V. I blame the reduction of women to objects fo pleasure. If that's what women are, then certainly I can't love one who doesn't provide pleasure. Is she starting to look old? How can I love her. Is she getting boring to talk to? How can I lover her. Does she take me for granted? How can I love her.
Of course, this didn't start with my generation (or we wouldn't blame The Bard). But widespread pornography that you could buy at the corner market did. That's when the idea that a woman was an object really took off. In my father's day a man might marry for the wrong reasons, but like Tevye and Golde he would stand by her and learn to love her over time. But my generation?
"Who do you like better, Miss December or Miss November?" We didn't know either one, except that dumb stuff in the "fact sheet." How could we like either one better, except as an object. But one was a "legs man" and Miss December had better legs, so of course he would like her better. Too bad she wasn't available drive-thru.
So-called hard core porn isn't required to degrade our concept of women. Automobile ads, Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issues, Borg women in skin-tight uniforms, they can all do it. All they have to do is constantly reinforce the idea that a woman exists to give the man pleasure. Even those who should know better, those who know G-d, may be heard to exclaim, "I may be married, but I can still window shop."
As if the drive-thru is just around the corner.
JMJ, I hope this was what you were looking for.
Shalom.
The most frightening feature about worship is that a person becomes a slave to the object of his deepest affection, and ultimately, he resembles or even becomes what he idolizes. This makes the act of worship extremely dangerous and helps to explain why it is crucial to reserve one’s worship for God alone. To place anything else in that sacred position of one’s heart is exceedingly sinful—it is idolatry.
How different is the life of one who bows “At the Altar of Sexual Idolatry.” He has made the act of sex his god. He is in complete submission to this master. Paul said, “Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?”
A man cannot be a slave to sin and a servant of God at the same time because no one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will hold to one and despise the other.
I thank you again.