What’s Wrong with the World

Amen to all that!

My husband would be in danger of limb, if not life, if I EVER heard him say such a thing publicly about ANY woman -- and especially ME!

And you can say that, Beth, in public, because you know he would never even consider it, right? Where has all the common sense gone?

To describe one's spouse as "smokin hot" is so wrong. It just further perverts and distorts the gauntlet of bad ideas put out by our culture that men and women need to navigate when deciding what to look for in a mate.

I normally agree with anything that is more traditional, but I we are making a mountain out of a molehill. Clearly when a man calls his wife "hot" he is referring to sexiness -- no debate there. But isn't the word "beautiful" used in the same way much of the time? When a man calls his wife beautiful, it probably doesn't have the same meaning as when he is calling his daughter beautiful. The word "hot" is slang and casual, and I would even agree that I find it a little distasteful when men use that word to describe their wives, but is it really that big a deal? If a man finds his wife sexy and has a trite euphemism he can use to let others know that he finds her sexy... I don't know, I just can't see getting worked up over that. With a demonic left trying to mock God through additional protections for fetal murder, among other things, I think the battle against the word "hot" is something that makes us absurd without any significant payoff.

And as someone under 30, I think it's terrible advice that we should attempt to be "rad" through using old-fashioned language. There is nothing cool about being a reactionary, and I say this as someone who considers himself to be a relatively reactionary person. "Look at me, see how different I am from the norm!" We aren't hippies, we shouldn't take pleasure in being different. People already know we are different. We should be emphasizing our normality. Conservatives have an image problem. People think we are weird extremists and crusading against the word "hot" doesn't do anything to help correct that image.

I get that you want to raise up the standards of our speech toward something more honorable, and I can appreciate that. The world would probably be a better place if men called their wives "beautiful" rather than "hot". And I also believe that as Christians, we are called to be different from the world. But as a matter of practicality I think we need to recognize our relatively weak public standing in America and pick our battles carefully. And we absolutely shouldn't indulge in lefty pleasures, going out of our way to be different just to emphasize our "rad"ness.

Josh, this isn't about political battles, and implying anyone here is turning it into one is simply false. Further, whatever the strength or weakness of our standing, the political calculations of the sort you seem to be recommending is a formula for weakness, not strength. It's the attitude of those without confidence or courage. Losers. If I were to try to follow your advice, I wouldn't even know how since it seems not entirely coherent. I don't see where you get the idea that the objection to "smokin hot" is reactionary, but if it is couldn't any objection be labelled reactionary too? If all you can offer is "it's no big deal" to the reasons given, then doesn't that make you merely an anti-reactionary, which is just another type of reactionary? The point is to be thinking persons, and make our actions, language, and thoughts conform to our beliefs, and these things aren't unrelated.

I'm using the word "reactionary" in a loose sense -- most of us would be considered pretty far to the right and we do tend to object to the vast majority of what people call "progressive". I apologize if this caused any confusion.

If you can't understand how my advice is coherent, let me spell it out for you. Don't freak out when someone uses the word "hot" to describe his wife. If you use the word, maybe stop using it, maybe don't... but don't emphasize that we need to avoid using the word on a somewhat prominent conservative blog. If you see this as self-contradictory then I guess I can't help you.

Because we are conservative Christians, each thing we say or do is a political battle, whether or not that is what it is primarily. What we emphasize shapes how we are viewed, and WWWtW is a website that some leftists read to understand how we think. If you think that how we present ourselves isn't important, you're either exceptionally naive or you are a college sophomore. If you think I'm implying that we hide our differences with the world because I'm afraid I might have to defend my beliefs (I'm not sure what else to make of your apparent charge that my attitude is one that is without "confidence or courage") then you're wrong. We have a lot of differences with the world and we need to be strong in confronting the evils of the world. But we need the make the most of our confrontations with the world, even in our personal lives, on a day to day basis. If we're getting hung up on small issues and thereby marginalizing ourselves, how can we expect our bigger objections to be taken seriously? We are in a culture war (even a spiritual war) and if we don't fight it intelligently, we are going to lose (until the Second Coming, but I would like to do well even before that). To be honest, I resent what I think to be an insulting and uncharitable reading of my objection to Lydia's post.

I think Lydia is an intelligent person and has many good things to say. I enjoy reading her posts. I simply think she is a little off on this issue and I'm trying to be civil in my disagreement. If you could avoid implied accusations of cowardice, I would appreciate it.

It seems very foolish to boast of the desirability of one's wife unless in direct contrast to the wife obtained by another.

It seems that 'lady' and 'gentleman' are obsolescent terms. I seldom hear either used in conversation nowadays, except perhaps to be mocked. The very concepts are becoming dubious.

Women who visited English upmarket shops used to be addressed, without irony, as "Madam". Official letters used to begin, "Dear Sir, or Madam" etc. In Jane Austen's time husbands and wives in polite society might address each other as "Mr" and "Mrs" - even in private. But this curious propriety was before the idea of personal dignity became risible.

Within living memory, no gentleman would use a vulgar word like 'hot' to describe his wife. As a rule, men didn't discuss their wives at all, and they would certainly never reveal any detail of her intimate behaviour. It was thought that the intimate life of a marriage should always remain a mystery to the world.

I'm not sure that my desultory remarks are leading to an assured conclusion - unless to suggest that Lydia's disquiet, which I share, is occasioned by the decay of manners and a coarsening of sensibility in our time.

Josh, I could not disagree with you more strongly. I don't write what I write here for reasons of political strategy. If you thought I did, well, now you'll know.

The term "hot" to refer to one's wife is vulgar. It encourages men to think about one's wife in explicitly sexual ways. The term "beautiful" is not and does not, unless, of course, one says it with a leer or in a vulgar tone of voice, which one certainly need not. Making vulgar references to one's wife's sexual attraction and to, as Alex so nicely puts it, her "intimate behavior," is in my opinion so far from being no big deal as to be a very serious sign of cultural degradation. That it should occur among Christians is something nigh to a disaster. That Christians (including, I'm sorry, yourself) should think it a "molehill" is horrifying.

We cannot do anything for the world if we cannot do anything for ourselves. We have to clean our own house first, and if this sort of horribly vulgar language has come into our own house, it must be routed out. (What would St. Paul say??)

I write about what, in my best judgement, needs to be written about, to as large an audience as I can reach. I very often use my W4 posts to address my fellow Christians or my fellow conservatives. I have no ambitions whatsoever to please liberals by my "moderation" in order to get them to read me and heed me. None whatsoever.

Let's put it this way, Josh: Men shouldn't be "letting others know that they find their wives sexy." Full stop.

See, here's the thing: The sacredness of marital sex is something our culture has lost sight of. So many of the evils of our culture (including abortion, for that matter) spring from that total loss. Christians who think like the culture and, like the culture, have no sense of the sacredness, beauty, and privacy of the marital relationship are not going to be in a good position vis a vis that culture. They're just going to follow sexual rules because they are rules but without a good understanding of the "why" of the rules.

This "smokin' hot" nonsense is just one sign of that loss of a sense of sacredness which must, urgently, be recovered.

Well, I've been thinking about this since last night, and maybe I am downplaying what should be an important issue. It's probably the case that I am as vulgar-minded as those you're criticizing in this post. Being unmarried, and lacking significant interaction with married conservative Christians, I didn't know that it was considered sinful to think about one's wife in "explicitly sexual ways".

I doubt you're going to get me to jump on the anti-"hot" bandwagon, at least for now, but I won't trouble you with objections anymore -- maybe this is a case of me being too worldly.

On the separate issue of "pleasing moderates or liberals", I don't think you're being fair to imply that I suggested such a thing. I don't care about pleasing them. I do care about us going out of the way to pick relatively unimportant issues to emphasize that make us look ridiculous. It makes our work of spreading our worldview a lot harder if we are working to be weird or different for the sake of weirdness or difference. And I think this is definitely something you absolutely should consider when you're writing on a public forum. Maybe you're right to emphasize the importance of language in this case, but I would hope that in general you would agree that sometimes as Christians we should pick our battles?

I bet that you didn’t find any men describing their daughters as “Smokin Hot” on their Facebook page. Why not, because the term is racy, suggestive and degrading.

This is a red herring. There are reasons why a man would brag about his girlfriend, fiance or wife while actively fighting to make most men not view his daughter sexually. Those reasons ought to be obvious enough that I shouldn't have to enumerate them.

The term "hot" to refer to one's wife is vulgar. It encourages men to think about one's wife in explicitly sexual ways. The term "beautiful" is not and does not, unless, of course, one says it with a leer or in a vulgar tone of voice, which one certainly need not.

You underestimate how visually-oriented male sexuality is if you think drawing attention to your wife's appearance for its own sake doesn't have a similar potential to make other men view her sexually.

That vigorously affirmative trumpeting sound you just heard was, um, me. Nice work.

The Elephant

Mike, do you mean to say that you see NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER between "And this is my smokin' hot wife [yuk, yuk]" and "My lovely wife?"

You're thinking about this the wrong way. A husband who's in the habit of calling the wife 'smoking hot' in public is most likely:

1. An idiot.

2. Not having sex with the wife all that much.

3. Getting or about to get cuckolded by his wife.

A husband who loudly lauds his lover's lusciouness is engaging in social status signaling-for the wife. She who deliberately tolerates/encourages this is very publicly keeping her sexual market options open by advertising what normally shouldn't be hers to give unless she were single.

In other words, loudly commenting on the sexiness of one's wife in public is far worse than vulgar. It's beta. And only a society where a large number of men have lost both shame and female options (protip: yes ours has) would see it.

I didn't know that it was considered sinful to think about one's wife in "explicitly sexual ways".

Oh, Josh. C'mon. You can do better than that. We're talking _privacy_ here, man. You savvy privacy? You savvy maybe the idea that sex between husband and wife should be kept private? I never said anything about _thinking_. I'm talking about _how one speaks of one's wife in public_--about the dignity, sacredness, and privacy of the marital act. If you don't see a difference there, I'm afraid I really can't help you. Not speaking of one's wife in explicitly sexual ways in public is part of respecting both her and the marital relationship, which is an inherently private, two-person relationship.

Wow. If this is where Christian young people are, I almost despair.

Y'know, really, Epoetker (however one spells that), I don't agree that such signalling also signals a sexless marriage. I see it too widespread and among men who seem very happy in their marriages. It looks more like something they picked up osmotically and are too close to (and too bound up in the culture around them) to see for what it is. See Josh's comments in this very thread.

It makes our work of spreading our worldview a lot harder if we are working to be weird or different for the sake of weirdness or difference.

Besides taking Lydia's comment about "not speaking publicly in a vulger way" to an absurd place of "not thinking privately in a normal way," you have also chosen to misrepresent her comment about being different here. No one says "be weird for the sake of being weird"; that is not the point by a long shot. But being Christian is, in today's world (as in most places in most of history), counter-cultural, and we should not be afraid of being counter-cultural.

And you know what? Being counter-cultural can get you mocked or even killed, but it can also draw people to the Savior because they see that you are not afraid to embrace Truth in all its manifestations, including the basic decency of treating others with dignity. Most people actually prefer this -- but it helps to see it in action somewhere so you know what it looks like. If all you see if vulgarity, then you don't realize how refreshing dignity is.

that would be if all you see "is" -- computer print too small for effective proofreading!

Mike, do you mean to say that you see NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER between "And this is my smokin' hot wife [yuk, yuk]" and "My lovely wife?"

"NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER?"

Hardly. It's a matter of degree. It's like taking a glutton to get a decadent sundae instead of taking them to Golden Corral.

Lydia, you wrote, "The term "hot" to refer to one's wife is vulgar. It encourages men to think about one's wife in explicitly sexual ways."

Maybe I've misinterpreted you here... I'd originally read this as you being against the word "hot" because it encourages men to think about their own wives in an explicitly sexual manner (obviously among the other reasons you mentioned) and I found this strange. Reading it again, it seems like you might actually be saying that it encourages other other men to think about the husband's wife in a sexually explicit way. (Obviously this would be a problem.) I'm not sure this is what generally happens when a man uses the word "hot" to describe his wife but your concern now seems to make more sense. I apologize for the misread.

Beth Impson, you wrote, "Besides taking Lydia's comment about "not speaking publicly in a vulger way" to an absurd place of "not thinking privately in a normal way," you have also chosen to misrepresent her comment about being different here. No one says "be weird for the sake of being weird"; that is not the point by a long shot. But being Christian is, in today's world (as in most places in most of history), counter-cultural, and we should not be afraid of being counter-cultural."

I think I've clarified the first misunderstanding. As for the charge of avoiding seeking to be different, I'll stand by my original assessment. Lydia's comment about choosing to be "rad" by avoiding the word "hot" is kind of awkward. It's like saying that we should be "rad" in standing against the evils of masturbation among our friends. Of course masturbation is a wicked and sinful act, but we have to know that our opposition to it is going to be considered comic. If we choose to entrench ourselves in a mindset of, "I'm rad because I stand against masturbation publically in our hyper-sexualized culture" then we invite mockery and marginalization. My disagreement isn't that I think we shouldn't be against all forms of sexual impurity, my disagreement is in how we present ourselves. I think a better attitude would be -- "Well, I understand how this issue could be seen as minor, but I think you will see that there is a lot to be said for Christian sexual discipline."

I think we should be avoiding any desire to be "counter-cultural" like the plague. That kind of rhetoric plays into the hands of the left by legitimizing their more original counter-culture actions (protests against the Vietnam war, the sexual revolution, etc.)... We are different, true, but the beauty of our difference isn't in that we are standing against our culture, it's that we are standing for the the cause of Jesus Christ.

Okay, I regret using the phrase "more original" to describe the left's counter-cultural actions this century because you've said you think Christianity has always been counter-cultural. You will presumably say Jesus was the original counter-culture figure. The people I've read who use this kind of rhetoric tend to be associated with the John Howard Yoder/Stanley Hauerwas crowd -- that's reason enough for me to want to avoid the phrase "counter-culture" in describing myself. I just don't think it's the approach we really want to take.

If you are under thirty and are worried that this will make you sound like you belong to a previous generation, just be rad: Sound like you belong to a previous generation. Those previous generations seem to have had some good ideas about being ladies and gentlemen.

Sorry, Josh, but this is not saying "be weird for the sake of being weird." It is saying be conservative in embracing the goods of the past.

And if we refuse to be different from a degraded and defiling culture -- how is that living for Christ? Yes, we are to "stand for the cause of Christ" -- and that means, quite often, standing *against* the culture which surrounds us. (Which is by definition counter-cultural and I refuse to surrender that term to the leftists, thank you.) My daughter, when she returned to the church, said of the first one she attended, "Mom, why would I want to go to church to hear the same music and the same kind of advice that I'm trying to leave behind me?"

Yes, yes, I know it's good to think and act in terms of what one is "for"; it is insufficient and foolish to live a life merely being "against" stuff -- but being for X and Y generally means being against A and B, and it's really okay to point that out and ask that people avoid A and B -- because they don't always make the connection that this is what being for X and Y entails. Jesus seemed to be against a number of things as I recall . . .

And you know what, if people think I'm silly for believing that treating others with dignity is important, that chastity includes the way we talk to and about others, I don't really care. I love my daughters and daughters-in-law and the young women I teach, and they -- being made in the image of the eternal God -- deserve better than being publicly degraded. Why should the liberals get to decide what's silly and what's not, and why should I care what they think when I'm discussing the good, the true, and the beautiful in any forum?

I think we should be avoiding any desire to be "counter-cultural" like the plague

I disagree, Josh. At this point (and the Internet only increases this effect) it is so easy to "be conformed to this world" that it's only if we are self-conscious about _not_ being conformed to this world that we will be able to maintain it. Matters of language are some of the easiest to compromise--the example in this post is just one. God has made man to imitate the language of those around him, but when the language is continually foul and sexualized, that becomes a problem. One just "picks things up," and the things one picks up express a certain view of very basic and important matters like sexuality. This is a _huge_ problem in the church--the failure to understand the privacy and holiness of sex. I hear about many things that shock me in this regard, and if you think this isn't going to be related to things like adultery, fornication, divorce rates, use of pornography, acceptance of homosexuality, and the like in the church, you are just not seeing cause and effect.

This is all quite biblical. There are many passages especially in the Pauline epistles that address being "counterculturally" pure and holy. Paul was addressing a Gentile audience living in a debauched and sexualized society not unlike our own. He is frequently and unabashedly counseling them to separate themselves from those aspects of that culture. Referring to one's wife publically in sexual terms is _undeniably_ one such aspect.

Great post. I'm in total agreement with Lydia.

Sadly, "hot" has replaced "beautiful" as the feminine ideal.

Why would a man want to give the world information about his wife which is sacrosanct within a marriage? Even more puzzling is why a wife would be willing to have public inquiries about the delights of her sexuality answered by her husband - if that, which I can hardly believe, is sometimes the case.

What happened to natural reticence?

I'm sure there are women who are made uncomfortable by it. In the blog post Lydia linked to, the words women were hoping their husbands would use to describe them were very different from "hot." But women can also seem proud of the "title" sometimes.

Mike T,

This is a red herring. There are reasons why a man would brag about his girlfriend, fiance or wife while actively fighting to make most men not view his daughter sexually. Those reasons ought to be obvious enough that I shouldn't have to enumerate them.

I disagree. It's not a red herring at all. In fact, it's not a red herring for precisely the reasons you gesture towards. In other words, it is natural not to want people to view your daughter sexually, which is why a man wouldn't use racy language about his daughter.

It _used to be_ considered natural and dignified and respectful of one's wife not to try to get people to view one's wife sexually, either.

What we're seeing here is that an impulse to "sexual bragging" to other men is being liberated (thus your "reasons for bragging" are coming to the fore) and treated as legitimate and uncontroversial. When in fact, it ought not to be at all the case among Christian men that they, in essence, brag to other men, "Look how sexy my wife is! Hah, I get to have her and you don't." Very degrading of one's view of the marital relationship and of the social context of the marital relationship.

More, as the post I linked and the comments show, some Christian men are actually "in denial" about the fact that they are doing this! They're covering it up with all kinds of nonsense about how this means, "You complete me in every way," which is nothing other than a euphemism.

And here's another thing: One woman posted in the comments that she asked her husband why he refers to her this way, and he told her that he's telling the world that she "fulfills his wildest dreams." She said she was "thrilled" by this. Now, one would have to be incredibly tone-deaf not to know that this is meant to refer to sex. This woman's modesty has just been overthrown by her vanity!!

Female sexual vanity is actually quite a serious thing, and can be quite a serious problem. The woman who posted that comment said she was thrilled because she isn't what "the world" would think of as "smokin' hot." So what do we have here? We have a woman who has (as, let's face it, most women do have) something of a physical inferiority complex. She is then made to feel sexually secure by the fact that she satisfies her husband in this area. So far, so great. No problem. But then we go the next step: She is further _thrilled_ by the fact that he _boasts_ to the world at large about the fact that she fulfills him sexually. Whoa! At this point, that thrill is not a good thrill. It's not a healthy thrill. Her husband is teaching her to regard it as normal and even as a great thing for him to allude to their sexual enjoyment in public. She accepts this partly because she doesn't want to argue with her husband and it's something he's taken to doing and partly because it makes her feel proud that he does it.

Again I say: My brethren, these things ought not to be.

When someone says, "My wife is hot," the logical reply should be, "I'm sorry. May I get her some water?"

Let's return you to the days of yesteryear. The word "hot", in the reproductive context, is derived from animal husbandry as a shorthand for, "the animal is in heat," meaning, of course, ovulating. When most animals are in estrous, they exhibit heightened attractive power for the male of the species. This concept, which applied to unrational animals, was picked up, by analogy, to apply to human females (and later males), but not in so impolite a fashion as to mean that the woman in question is ovulating (an extremely personal issue), but that she is as attractive to men as if she were in a constant state of ovulation. When a man calls his wife ,"hot," he is, in a sense, setting up an artificial expectation. He is also announcing a state of being that only he has a right to know, since only he and she should know the intimate biological facts. He is also lying, by telling other men that his wife is ovulating, but, nevertheless, implying that she is like this, all of the time, which is clearly nonsense.

Granted, linguistic broadening has occurred to the extent that the word hot has become closer in synonomy to sexually attractive, but the animal roots remain, even there. To refer to one's wife as hot is to reduce her to the merest of animals, a breeding animal, at that. It is a term undignified for a rational creature.

Besides, what the heck do I care about how sexually attractive any woman is except for she who is my wife? To even entertain such thoughts is implicit adultery if carried beyond a point and is also causing scandal to the other men who look on. All of this violates the virtue of modest and it is exactly the sin of these "proud" Christian men, who do not understand that wives and husbands are not cattle.

On the other hand, if my wife were modest, a woman of virtue, who spun and sewed and cared for the spiritual well-being of her husband, then I would have the right to acknowledge that as a virtue to be emulated, especially among the young. Calling a womcan hot is exactly like saying, "my, that is a good side of beef.".

The world, even some Christians, have become so coarsened by the talk of the world that they have lost sight of what makes for a good wife or even a good friend. Outer beauty fades with each new day, but the beauty of virtue shines for all eternity. Poor besotted men and women, more interested in what is dying than in what is living in a relationship. No wonder we have so many people getting divorces - clearly, they have no idea what a wife, a real wife, even looks like. The problem, to be blunt, is that they do not call upon the living God to witness their actions. They do no stand before the God of marriage and ask, "Dear, Lord, could this be the one?". Let them come before the altar of the Lord and dare to say in his presence, "she whom you gave me is hot," and they will instantly discover just why that statement is so insulting. There is no record that Eve was, "hot," but only that she was a mate. "Hotness" is like catsup on streak - a little flavoring, but not really essential.

Modest, modest, modest...didn't St. Paul say [Phil 4:18]

Phl 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.

Nowhere does the word, "hot," used in a fleshly sense, fit in with this. Now, go think on things that really are worthy of thought.

The Chicken

Thank you, MC -- brilliant!

I'm the Masked Elephant, and I approve of the Masked Chicken's message.

The Elephant

"Y'know, really, Epoetker (however one spells that), I don't agree that such signalling also signals a sexless marriage."

Schmucky pedestalizing of their significant others is both undignified and, more importantly, unsexy from a female perspective in men. If his wife was super-duper-sexy, then that much would be obvious from first glance. Deliberately drawing attention to the fact indicates that the man has no social confidence in himself apart from the relative hotness of his wife. This is publicly handing social power over to the woman and her friends, always a bad idea in any relationship.

"I see it too widespread and among men who seem very happy in their marriages."

All beta men, especially the most successful, are fronters by nature. They who will brag on the beauty of their wife at every opportunity will publicly put the bravest face possible on their relationship, since that is what solely defines them. It's their greatest accomplishment. "The worse, the better" is usually a good rule of thumb for those that do this unironically.

But here's a rule of thumb: If a man is bragging about his wife's hotness to other men, he's a boorish idiot. If a man is bragging about his wife's hotness to other women, he's a chump who's doing her status-posturing for her. (Much depends on the objective hotness of the woman in question, of course.)

"It looks more like something they picked up osmotically and are too close to (and too bound up in the culture around them) to see for what it is."

Women are not attracted to actually-needy men. Women fall head over heels in love with powerful, confident, antagonistic, alpha jerks who can contrast away their jerkitude by faux-beta-supplications of goddess-worship. To men, having sex with the beautiful woman is the ultimate prize, to women, snagging the sole attention and devotion of the alpha bad boy (which she can then use as social capital above and against her female friends) is the ultimate prize. Both goals lead to the vilest of behaviors, and the casualty of 'hotness' is merely one of many linguistic corruptions brought about by setting sex free from the bedroom.

I'm the Masked Elephant, and I approve of the Masked Chicken's message.

Whew...At least I won't get stepped on...

The Chicken

I am not too concerned about "hot", but I am concerned that many young men use terms like "slampiece".

But that's part of the point, John H. When we ignore or shrug at "mild" vulgarity, it keeps getting worse and worse. All slippery slope arguments are not fallacies.

Men shouldn't be talking vulgarly about women _at all_. I'm concerned about it when it's happening. Obviously, more vulgar is in some sense "worse" than less vulgar. But when vulgar is acceptable for a man, a Christian man, even a _nice_ Christian man, to use of his _wife_, then it's pretty much guaranteed that men who aren't talking about their wives, or men who aren't particularly nice Christian men, are saying much more vulgar things. That's how culture works. Christians just shouldn't go there at all.

It's really about love. It's part of loving your wife to respect the privacy of that sexual relationship. It's terribly sad that there appear to be men who aren't actually bad men but who do not know this.

Female sexual vanity is actually quite a serious thing, and can be quite a serious problem. The woman who posted that comment said she was thrilled because she isn't what "the world" would think of as "smokin' hot." So what do we have here? We have a woman who has (as, let's face it, most women do have) something of a physical inferiority complex. She is then made to feel sexually secure by the fact that she satisfies her husband in this area. So far, so great. No problem. But then we go the next step: She is further _thrilled_ by the fact that he _boasts_ to the world at large about the fact that she fulfills him sexually. Whoa!

This is an important point I was going to make. But I'd even stop short of "So far, so great." Female vanity is quite a serious thing, and the more serious forms of it often have little to do with men. Just go out anywhere on a social occasion and watch the women and see who they're watching. It's invariably the other women in the area. They aren't worried about the men as much as they're worried about the competition. The fact that the competition has a sexual base of it doesn't matter insofar as it is a competition. The immediate goal is the desires to look better or as good as the other attractive women --to be competitive.

The "smokin hot" language just encourages this sort of competitive thinking. The fact is that not all women are "smokin hot." This is what prompts so many women to get plastic surgery, which is usually a long-term negative on their health for a short-term gain. They almost guarantee future surgery to maintain or correct themselves again. Look at the wave of breast-augmentation surgery unleashed in one of the Latin-America countries (Argentina I think) a few years ago by some buxom supermodel, when previously the ideal had been athletic and trim. I shudder to think of all the pain and misery coming from all this competition. Is this some phenomenon of men driving this at some grass-roots level? I don't think so. Men aren't as demanding as women are of themselves. It is people playing on female vanity. There is a special place in Hell for people that encourage young women to play this game and mutilate themselves.

Don't worry, Chicken. My mask has holes for my eyes, so I can see you. :-P

The Elephant

Sorry, Mark, I was unclear. All that I meant was "so far, so great" was that a woman's physical insecurity should be set to rest by a good physical relationship with her husband and the knowledge that he is pleased. All and only in the privacy of their relationship. In fact, that seems to me to be one very natural and God-given route by which a woman can get over and outgrow her vanity and insecurity.

With respect, I believe that Lydia's message is appropriate in itself, but at best better-suited as an admonition given by a man to a man or men. At worst, it is a matter better left unsaid by a woman, even if there is no man who will say it, which, even as bad as our day is, is still not the case.

Hmm, that's an interesting perspective, Buckyinky. But although most of this thread hasn't been about this side of it, my understanding is that women also have taken to referring to men, including their husbands, as "hot." So the problem is on both sides. Moreover, if some women are as it were "egging their husbands on" to say this about them by saying they feel complimented by it, then they need to be encouraged to stop and think as well.

I personally have never seen a wife refer to her husband as "hot," although I've seen plenty of Christian women do so for other men.

That's rather odd when you think about it.

The Elephant

“Mike, do you mean to say that you see NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER between "And this is my smokin' hot wife [yuk, yuk]" and "My lovely wife?"”

“Hardly. It's a matter of degree. It's like taking a glutton to get a decadent sundae instead of taking them to Golden Corral.”

For some reason, I can't find a permalink for an individual comment.)Right-click on the post's time-stamp and select the "Copy shortcut" menu option.

Y'know, M.E., that _would_ be interesting if it turned out that Christian women do it only regarding men to whom they are not married.

If I may say so, it might reflect this "male status" idea that some commentators have been suggesting. To put it bluntly, it might mean that, although even Christian women are willing to use (perhaps just stupidly and unthinkingly) a lustful-sounding expression for men, they are not motivated to brag about the sexiness of their own husbands as men are motivated to brag about this trait of their wives.

Yes. There's an unspoken idea that she is "his woman," in a different sense from the sense in which he is "her man."

Hmm, that's an interesting perspective, Buckyinky. But although most of this thread hasn't been about this side of it, my understanding is that women also have taken to referring to men, including their husbands, as "hot." So the problem is on both sides. Moreover, if some women are as it were "egging their husbands on" to say this about them by saying they feel complimented by it, then they need to be encouraged to stop and think as well.

The conversation has been primarily directed to how men ought to behave. As such, it is not seemly, to say nothing of effective, for a woman to instruct men. This occurs to me as something that would have been unthinkable to do in saner times. Granted, however, in saner times men would not be publicly referring to their wives as "smokin' hot."

but at best better-suited as an admonition given by a man to a man or men.

What about Chickens?

Really, morality is not male or female, in itself, only in the application and then, about 90% (subjective probability estimate) applies equally well to both sexes. Immodesty in speech, which is what we are talking about, here, is a subcategory of chastity in speech, which is a type of control over the organ of speech. That is precisely what anyone who uses the term, "hot," in a sexually referential way does not have.

The notion that a man can only correct a man was refuted when St. Catherine of Sienna gave a strongly worded letter to St. Gregory XI begging him to return to Rome.

In the passage from 2 Timothy 3:16 - 17:
All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

man of God is meant to include women. Now, a man may not listen to a woman, but that is his problem. Truth is truth and does not have a gender, in a metaphysical sense.

The Chicken

The conversation has been primarily directed to how men ought to behave. As such, it is not seemly, to say nothing of effective, for a woman to instruct men.

I'd be more open to that if you were basing it on the _content_ of the advice--that is, that it's a sexual topic in general and hence is unseemly for me, as a lady, to be talking about _at all_. If that were your position, while I wouldn't entirely agree, I would be somewhat sympathetic. And you'll notice that I'm pretty careful about what I say and allow my commentators to say. I try to screen for appropriateness.

However, if the idea is that it's unseemly for me to give advice on conduct to males _at all_, then I'd practically have to stop blogging altogether. (Even political advice is in some sense advice about conduct.) Remember, being a blogger is more or less just being an editorializer. It's not the same thing as being a pastor or being in charge of someone else's soul or anything of the kind. Nobody has to listen to me or even read me. I don't regard myself as "in a position of authority" over my readers. I'm giving my opinions, advice, and arguments, and people can take them or leave them as they please.

I do oppose female ordination. :-)

I'm giving my opinions, advice, and arguments, and people can take them or leave them as they please.

As in, "look out for that train..."

When you quote morally correct reasoning, you are not giving an opinion. You are expressing a truth and people ignore the truth at their peril.

Blogs can also be about leading people to seriously consider topics of morality and truth, which is not a form of editorializing, but of instructing the ignorant, which is an act of mercy.

The Chicken

I don't regard myself as "in a position of authority" over my readers. I'm giving my opinions, advice, and arguments, and people can take them or leave them as they please.

I do understand that you aren't suggesting I take your arguments on any grounds other than their merits, and a woman giving specific instruction on a man's conduct is not always and everywhere prohibited; I do think it is always unseemly, however, at least in this unsolicited format. St. Catherine, Judith, Esther, St. Teresa, were all heroic, extraordinarily so. That extraordinary quality about them overshadowed the fact that what they were called to do was still unseemly. You seem to want me to forget that you are a woman, and prefer me rather to think of you as an esoteric source of ideas. It's easy to accomplish this on the Web, and in our day, all too easy to accomplish this facade even in person. The content of your instruction is good, but aside from the appropriate time and place for such instruction to be given, there is also an appropriate person to give it. I am questioning whether you are that person.

Well, okay, Buckyinky, you needn't read any of my posts, then. Seriously, I'm not actually getting offended, but I can't help thinking that since you've never said this before, you must be responding not to the _fact_ of my posting but to the content of this particular post. But feel free not to read further, of course. I do (as you might expect) disagree that I'm doing something inappropriate in posting this. If I thought that, I wouldn't have done it.

If we lived in an entirely different world in which all such things were written by men (probably in that case a world without blogs), I wouldn't necessarily call that an unjust world. I would just hope the men would think of all the things I would have thought of that needed to be said. :-)

That extraordinary quality about them overshadowed the fact that what they were called to do was still unseemly. You seem to want me to forget that you are a woman, and prefer me rather to think of you as an esoteric source of ideas.

Misogynist tool, don't ever assume anyone cares about your condescension. I hope that was respectful enough for you.

To prove Lydia's point, conservatives are losing the battle in their own backyard, demonstrated by this NASCAR funny/awkward opening prayer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J74y88YuSJ8

Now, Step2, be nice to your fellow commentators. But maybe you were joking.

On the youtube. Um, wow! That's...dreadful. If lightning had come out of a blue sky and at least scared the bejabbers out of him, I couldn't really be sorry. Besides, the whole prayer is disrespectful, verging on blasphemous. It almost sounds like he was paid to advertise all those products for which he "thanks the Lord." And what was that "pluggety pluggety" stuff after "In Jesus' name"? Wow. So I suppose it isn't surprising that he was also disrespectful of his relationship with his wife. He was disrespectful of everything else, including the name of Jesus.

As such, it is not seemly... for a woman to instruct men.

I almost fell out of my chair. Laughing. If I couldn't take instruction from women, I'd probably be dead by now. As long as she's willing to pretend that I'm still the boss, it works out all right.

She's also smokin' hot, because when menopausal women get angry, smoke comes out of their ears, which usually coincides with a hot flash.

Sorry, Mark, I was unclear. All that I meant was "so far, so great" was that a woman's physical insecurity should be set to rest by a good physical relationship with her husband and the knowledge that he is pleased.

Yes I figured that. I didn't mean to state it as a point of disagreement. Just highlighting another thing.

Bill, I did fall out of my chair reading your comment. Thanks.

Lydia, great post, and spot on.

Josh, it is not that we need to be counter-cultural for the sake of being counter-cultural, or even for the sake of being weird, not at all. We should be Christ-like. That means that often we will END UP being counter-cultural, and that should not worry us when we are forced to be so for Christ, he prophecied just that, after all. But in another sense we should be forming culture in ourselves, our children, and our environment to the extent we can. This includes reacting negatively to bad parts of our existing culture, and especially negatively to newly forming bad customs, when there is a chance that they might be nipped in the bud.

Josh is right that this issue is not a huge evil, it is a petty one. But it is a petty one that is totally symptomatic of a much more grave problem, one that is so vast that it, along with a small handful of others, will eventually pull down our culture if not stopped: the damage to the marital (and family) relationship. A man cannot have a proper Christian marriage with a woman if he cannot in chastity put sexuality in its proper place. And failing that proper relationship, he is unable to relate properly to all the other women around him either. And he cannot raise his children in what it means to have chaste love, thereby damaging their capacity to love appropriately. And thus: marriages end in 5 years or so, families are broken up, and so on, almost universally because unchastity damages marital love.

Mike T, your observation about "hot" versus "beautiful" doesn't change what a man ought to be doing, which is not giving other men additional, new reasons to be thinking thoughts about his wife that only he has a right to be thinking. Even if "beautiful" has some problems, it doesn't have the SAME problems. For, to say a woman is beautiful can clearly be said of her as she is publicly known, or as she is known to you in intimacy, (both senses are possible) but it need not automatically lead one to the latter sense. But to refer to her as "hot" does directly lead one's attention toward the bedroom intimacy.

buckyinky, you are probably correct that women ought not to be trying to teach men - on certain issues, and at certain times, at least. For example, a wife ought not to be trying to teach her husband better skills of leadership at the very moment he is upset with her for disobeying a direct command about family order. But this case isn't one of the wrong issues, and it certainly isn't the wrong time. The internet forum actually aids this being the right way - there can be no embarrassment of mentioning chastity in such an impersonal space as a combox. There are indeed matters of chastity that should be unspoken between men and women not married. Lydia has HARDLY overstepped such bounds. Not even remotely. Other than those subjects that relate to chastity, there are few matters where women should not be just as qualified to teach us all as men would be. Of the womanly virtues, nurturing is one of the foremost, and teaching is a nurturing profession. It pertains primarily to children, but since so many men remain children psychologically that should be no barrier. :-)

John H, I don't even know what that term means, and I am (perhaps for the first time ever) rather glad I don't. Please be so kind as to not inform me, my delicate innocent ears might not bear the strain.

If I don't get off this blog MY wife is going to be smokin' too.

Well, the particular matter on discussion -- the now-common habit of so many men to publically refer to their wives a "smokin' hot" ... that is, the phenonenon of men inviting other men to regard their wives as though they were "actresses" in pornography -- is relatively new. I mean, the current widespread nature of it, not that some men have done it. Consider the Persian Emperor in the Book of Ester commanding his wife, Vashti, to display and demean herself before his drunken nobles.

On the other hand, women have been doing this sort of thing forever ... just not in mixed company. I can't tell you how many times, as a young man in my early 20s (and in more than one workplace), I'd need to pass through an area where several women worked together, and I'd interrupt them telling each other things about their intimate relationships that men of that time would never have told anyone.

So, in a way, I view the present male behavior under discussion as one more evidence of the on-going feminization of American culture.

Mike T, your observation about "hot" versus "beautiful" doesn't change what a man ought to be doing, which is not giving other men additional, new reasons to be thinking thoughts about his wife that only he has a right to be thinking

At least we can agree that a man ought to not be making other men inclined to think sexually of his wife.

Even if "beautiful" has some problems, it doesn't have the SAME problems.

Indeed, much like giving a glutton a Big Mac they don't need isn't as bad as taking them to an all you can eat buffet.

For, to say a woman is beautiful can clearly be said of her as she is publicly known, or as she is known to you in intimacy, (both senses are possible) but it need not automatically lead one to the latter sense. But to refer to her as "hot" does directly lead one's attention toward the bedroom intimacy.

My point, which no one here has actually disproved, is that drawing attention to your wife's looks is itself the problem. There is no reason to observe to another man, aside from maybe one of your wife's relatives, that she is beautiful. If it is self-evident that she is beautiful, then leave it to observation.

You, Ilion and the Masked Elephant seem to miss that fundamental point. It profits your brother nothing to specifically point out to him how beautiful your wife may or may not be. There is no reason for him to be exhorted to consider and admire her beauty, especially since male sexual attraction is primarily visual in nature. When you comment to another man that your wife is beautiful, outside of a handful of exceptions, you are asking him specifically to consider something about her that is the basis of male sexual attraction.

I'm not debating that it's vulgar to call your wife smoking hot. I'm saying that most of your dead damn wrong for thinking it is acceptable to draw attention to your wife's looks period in front of other men.

Lydia,

I disagree. It's not a red herring at all. In fact, it's not a red herring for precisely the reasons you gesture towards. In other words, it is natural not to want people to view your daughter sexually, which is why a man wouldn't use racy language about his daughter.

The reason I say it's a red herring is that to some extent, a lot of men do want to hold their mate out as something they can use to make other men feel envy as a way of bolstering their status among other men. It's wrong, but it's part of their nature. However, they don't want just any schmuck to come along and try to get with their daughter for various reasons including the fact that no normal man wants his daughter to be with a loser.

Beth Impson opened up the comments by saying

My husband would be in danger of limb, if not life, if I EVER heard him say such a thing publicly about ANY woman -- and especially ME!

to which Lydia responded

And you can say that, Beth, in public, because you know he would never even consider it, right

What Lydia didn't say, but could have, is that Beth can say that in public also because she is a woman. But what said by her is perceived as a joke, or at worse, somewhat crass, would be perceived as cowardly, or perhaps even psychopathic, if said by a man about his wife, even in an impersonal combox. Do I think this is unjust? Not at all, because men and women are different, and the end result of words spoken by a woman is different than the end result of the same words if spoken by a man. The case I am making against Lydia’s approach is that if her words were said to men by a man, they would be perceived differently, and more favorably, and I think rightly so. That many men would perceive her admonitions as nagging is, I think, only as unjust as our perception of Beth Impson’s words if said by a man, as cowardly or psychopathic.

I am not talking about Lydia’s words elsewhere, only her approach here, and I realize that I have probably unintentionally overstated my case by making it sound like I think she has no place in political commentary or speaking her thoughts about matters of general morality. Those are different matters that didn’t even come to mind when I was reading this post and the ensuing commentary, but I appreciate Lydia’s and others bearing with me somewhat in my overstated delivery, and, I see now, my somewhat detracting thoughts.

buckyinky, maybe it will make you feel as though my approach here is less nagging if you consider that I am probably older than the majority of men who are actually doing this. Think of it in "Jewish mother" or "Italian mother" terms and it may make more sense.

Mike T., I do disagree with you about "beautiful." I've heard many men, very dignified and older men, say (for example, in mentioning their anniversary) that they are thankful for "my lovely wife" or "my beautiful wife." It comes across as dignified, cherishing, and chivalrous. I would also invite you to consider the following facts: A man can introduce a couple, say, at a meeting to the audience, as, "So-and-so and his lovely wife, Lynn," and it does not seem that the introducer is saying something sexual about Lynn to the audience. Second, a woman can say, as a sincere compliment, of another woman, "Wow! She's really beautiful," and this is not tacky and has no overtones of disordered same-sex attraction. I think both of these show that "beautiful" can be used simply as an appropriate and dignified compliment, not as a sexual compliment.

Lydia,

I think both of these show that "beautiful" can be used simply as an appropriate and dignified compliment, not as a sexual compliment.

As I noted, there are a handful of exceptions where it is harmless.

The point I am making is that the serious issue behind "my smoking hot wife" is that you are calling another man to view your wife sexually. The vulgarity is just icing on the cake. If another man pulls me to the side and says "isn't my girlfriend just... beautiful," he is doing the same thing with cleaner language.

The defining line between your counterexample and my point is that the purpose of those statements you used as examples was to pay a very generic compliment. Quite a few men, especially those you reference in the body of your post, aren't doing that. They're doing what I'm arguing against: encouraging a man to consider the attractiveness of a woman who they have no legitimate basis to pursue. Regardless of language, even if it is so flowery it would make a Victorian puke like a drunken sailor on ipecac, it's wrong.

"The reason I say it's a red herring is that to some extent, a lot of men do want to hold their mate out as something they can use to make other men feel envy as a way of bolstering their status among other men. It's wrong, but it's part of their nature. However, they don't want just any schmuck to come along and try to get with their daughter for various reasons including the fact that no normal man wants his daughter to be with a loser."

The vast majority of normal men are going to be spoilt for choice on this 'loser' matter due to the present day lack of non-virtual male social organizations. (The only place you hear the word 'guild' thrown around anymore is in World of Warcraft.) But this is Society's fault, and Society is chiefly made of women. Mostly women who completely misunderstand incentives, which is why we have Mothers Against Drunk Driving rather than Hot Loyal Chicks Who Totally Happen Be At That Party Against Drunk Driving.

I think the "making out of a molehill" comment was dead on. I don't really think there is much difference between smoking hot and lovely either. Although I think both should be saved for your spouse. You know, words DO change whether we embrace it or not. So, we could spend the rest of our lives fretting over it, but I figure there are more noble hills to die on.

And for the record, if a man is using the same language to talk about his daughter as opposed to talking about his wife...it's creepy.

You know, words DO change whether we embrace it or not.

Hmmm, Heather, so "smokin' hot wife" _doesn't_ mean "sexy," because the phrase (which didn't even exist until recently) has somehow changed in meaning until it means something harmless?

That's balderdash.

Honest men recognize that it means "my sexy wife" and indeed that that is why they use it, that is the kind of compliment it is and has been during its entire very short life thus far. It hasn't "changed" in meaning. (Into what? "My virtuous and godly helpmeet"? Please.)

And guess what? A man _can_ tell his daughter and wife both that they are beautiful. What do you know. Maybe that's because "smokin' hot" is a sexual phrase. Ya think?

Mike T., do you think it counts as a "generic compliment" (and an appropriate compliment) if a man posts as a Facebook status on his anniversary, "Two years ago I was married to my beautiful wife"?

To me that sounds like a graceful compliment. I think it's very nice. It certainly isn't at all like pulling aside another man and sort of whispering in his ear, "Isn't my wife gorgeous?"

Has anyone read Wendy Shalit's book, A return to Modesty? It has a long discussion on the use of unchaste language and its influence on women, in particular.

The Chicken

Mike T., do you think it counts as a "generic compliment" (and an appropriate compliment) if a man posts as a Facebook status on his anniversary, "Two years ago I was married to my beautiful wife"?

It depends on what's in the man's heart and who he knows is his audience.

Let's turn this whole issue around, genderwise. Would it be appropriate, knowing that male status is a key factor in how women desire a mate, for a woman who has a very respected, rich and successful husband to praise him in language that included references to his great skill as a provider in front of a bunch of women she have men of very modest means who aren't in particularly respected positions?

I think that's a pretty poor parallel, because "complimenting" a man in passing on being a good provider is a kind of unnatural and awkward thing to say anyway. No one would _ever_ introduce a man on the stage by saying, "Please welcome so-and-so, who is a good provider for his family." It _can't_ be an appropriate or normal "generic compliment." It's just not that kind of thing. But calling a man's wife "lovely" or "beautiful" can be, so these are more natural things for a man to announce as well without in any respect looking like he's making some sort of pointed allusion to the shortcomings of other people's wives! In fact, it's been quite common in the past (and seems to me quite appropriate) even for an elderly man to refer to his "lovely wife" when celebrating his anniversary or in some similar context. Nobody would think of it as a "my wife is more attractive than your wife" kind of thing except under very weird circumstances.

Now, I suppose I can imagine some unusual celebration--maybe a fiftieth wedding anniversary, or some such milestone--in which a wife might recount, as part of a speech or something, hard and difficult years when he "had to work so hard to provide for us." "I remember he had to get up very early in the morning and would come home exhausted, and God sustained us during those years." Etc. She would be telling something about their life story. I don't think that would be inappropriate or any sort of bragging over other women.

MC, Wendy Shalit's book is very good; I've been recommending it for years to my students.

My point with language is that I find very few people who bat an eye at the term "smokin' hot" (which has been much parodied by sites like Stuff Christian Culture Likes etc.,). It's become a sort of quaint phrase that men often use in what seems to me a fairly ironic fashion. Now, if a man said, something along the lines of "My wife is good in bed." I would find it odd and vulgar and kind of strange.

Yes, a man can say his wife and his daughter are beautiful. He can also say his house is beautiful. He can say his dog is beautiful. His land. His table. His loaf of bread, but they don't all really imply the same thing, do they? I'm saying if every term he used for his wife he used for his daughter, it's strange. Beyond strange really. It's just not a really convincing analogy.

My point with language is that I find very few people who bat an eye at the term "smokin' hot"

Yes, that's the problem.

It's become a sort of quaint phrase that men often use in what seems to me a fairly ironic fashion.

#1, You are in denial if you don't admit that it has sexual connotations. These are not "quaint." #2 "Ironic"? I don't think you know what that means. It's bad enough for a man to say that his wife is "smokin' hot." It would be insulting in yet a different way for him to say it ironically! As in, "Ha, ha. My wife isn't _really_ sexy."

All that you're cuing to is the fact that people *do this* and that they *don't think it's bad*. Big deal. That's the problem I'm addressing. If a lot of Christians started dropping F-bombs and didn't "bat an eye," would that suddenly make that okay, too? The fact that people accept something doesn't mean that it is acceptable, in the normative sense.

After all, men _could_ start saying, "My wife is very sexy," and if enough of them did it, maybe even Christians would stop batting an eye at it. And then, by your argument, it would become a "molehill" issue. Unimportant. Except that it wouldn't be.

You are confusing, "A lot of people think this is okay" with "This phrase doens't mean anything objectionable." Those are not the same.

Yeah, and that's actually a kind of important distinction, because it can be tempting to fall into the trap of thinking, "Well, this isn't commonly regarded as embarrassing or crossing a line, so I guess it doesn't matter." But that loses sight of the objective truth of the matter. Words really do have intrinsic meaning.

The Elephant

1. I'm not.
2. I do.

Think of this word "lol." (Yeah, it's not my favorite either haha) It's become it's own word. Yes, it means, "laughing out loud" originally, but no one actually thinks of that meaning. You hear things like "lold" or "loling." Words have meaning, but I'm afraid in common parlance they become other things. They lose strength or they gain strength. Now, "lol" is kind of an unfair word, because it's a neutral word.

It's just such a mild (and honestly quite smarmy...I'm not really a fan myself) phrase, it seems (again) not a noble hill to die upon.

Well, no, it isn't mild, Heather. It _means_, "My wife is very sexy." I suppose it _could_ have meant, "My wife is angry," as in the joking uses Bill and Tony were making above. But it doesn't mean that. It refers directly to her sexual attractiveness. Even you cannot entirely or directly deny that. You just think that by saying, "It's mild," or "It's no big deal," or "People don't bat an eye" or "Words change in strength" you can make it not matter that it means "My wife is very sexy." But it does matter. You can't make it not matter by alluding in this vague way to the fact that you know a lot of people who vaguely feel that it's mild or doesn't matter.

2. Beg pardon. I guess I should have used "sardonically."

But does it not often arise in contexts where guys are generally yukking it up over how sexually appealing a woman is? Or vice versa? "Oooooh, he/she is HOT [snicker]."

The Elephant

Well, I did deny it. I don't think it's a sexual. If that is then any reference to personal attractiveness is as well.

@Masked Elephant: Words sometimes used in a sexual manner, are not inherently sexual. "Gorgeous" "Beautiful" and "Cute" are often used in those contexts as well.

But Heather, you must know that is false. That is why it is possible for other people to introduce without offensiveness, "Please welcome Joe and his lovely wife" but not, "Please welcome Joe and his hot wife." It is not merely a reference to her being beautiful or lovely in some generic way. It ups the ante from that. The commentator in the main post is right. We are not being honest with ourselves if we deny this.

What you are really cueing to, Heather, is just the fact that people have become _hardened_ to this by hearing it over and over again, and that they use it unthinkingly. But that is not the same thing as the phrase's not having a sexual connotation.

I think part of the problem, Heather, is that you know a lot of _nice people_ who use this. So you're reasoning that nice people wouldn't use it if it really has sexual connotations. And you're noticing the fact that the nice people are using it unthinkingly, which makes it seem like it must really mean something inoffensive. But that doesn't follow _at all_.

Your dismissal of the argument about using it for one's daughter is also wrong-headed. Part of the question is _why_ one wouldn't use it about one's daughter. As the commentator I posted said, a man wouldn't use it for his daughter because it is racy and suggestive. As Mike T pointed out (even while wrongly suggesting that this made the daughter argument a "red herring"), a man wouldn't use it for his daughter because he wouldn't want people to think of his daughter sexually. Exactly!!

You say that there is something weird or strange about making this comparison, but not at all. The reason that the phrase would be even more objectionable for the daughter tells us what we need to know about the meaning of the phrase: That it is an allusion to the specifically sexual, intimate relationship between the husband and wife.

The fact that a man can refer both to "my lovely wife" and to "my lovely daughter" directly falsifies your claim that "all references to appearance" must be sexual if "smokin' hot" is sexual. Because obviously "lovely" is, among other things, a reference to appearance. So is "beautiful." But the fact that it can be used for a daughter--for that matter, even a young daughter ("My beautiful six-year-old daughter" or "My daughter's beautiful eyes," which even a mother can say)--shows that it is not (or certainly need not be) sexual, as "smokin' hot" is.

Heather, think about how it originated. Heat has always been linked with lust, going all the way back to Dante's _Purgatorio_ (the lustful have to walk through flames). The passion of arousal and desire is often conveyed through terms like "burning," "flaming," "heat," etc. So the term "hot" developed as shorthand for that concept---the kindling of a physical response to physical attraction.

The Elephant

I would also note that while you agreed with Josh, Heather, about saying that this is a "molehill," you didn't seem to have noticed that Josh said there was "no debate" that the phrase is an allusion to sexiness. Apparently he thinks that it _is_ a direct allusion to sexiness but that this is unimportant!

No, see, I really do think that. I mean, I think it's weird introducing a lady as someone's "lovely wife." What happened to "Please welcome Joe and his wife, Margie."

It's a more vulgar word, yes. And by vulgar I mean, it lacks sophistication. So, yes, it sounds different, but other than a formal setting no, I don't think there is a difference.

As to people being hardened to it. That is true too. Although that in no way negates what I stated in the first two paragraphs of this comment. That is merely why I think the issue itself doesn't really matter. I mean, you could try to reverse the paths that the English language barrels down, but I can't help but feel that you'll have a lot in common with Sisyphus.

My point with that is not on the truth value of what you are saying, more questioning the importance. This blog is called "What's Wrong With the World." With such an ambitious title, I would normally expect something bigger. But again, this is the smaller part of my argument (although I have dwelt too long on it so it's easy to think that is what I'm cueing to).

Well there you're taking it into the context of _someone else's_ referring to another man's wife as "lovely" or "beautiful." I don't even see that as a problem anyway, but what's wrong with a man's saying his own wife is beautiful? The original context was a discussion of how a man should refer to his wife.

As for expecting something bigger....if you'll browse around the archives, or keep reading, you'll find many very grave issues indeed being discussed and brought forward. This is only one post among many.

@Lydia, please...patronizing? Come now. "Nice people?"

You have different feelings about your wife than you have about your daughter. Naturally your speech will (and ought!) to reflect this. Also, my mom once said I was hot...in reflection of my looks. If you suggest otherwise...gross! It's a reference to looks.

Also, I agree with some of the things you say some of the time but not everything you say. This also applies to Josh. I agree that it is making a mountain out of a molehill, but I also think it's not sexual.

@Masked Elephant: My use of someone referring to someone else's wife was only an expansion of the scenario Lydia gave me. I don't think anything is wrong with a man saying his own wife is beautiful. I also don't think there is anything wrong with a man saying his wife is hot. I mean, again, I think it sounds smarmy.

You have a good point with the etymology of the word, but I'm not entirely sure I buy into it because I can't see the difference between that and any other reference to someone's physical beauty.

Oh yes, I've seen many bigger issues. And most I agree with. That's why I'm just surprised.

I think she was using the phrase "nice people" as a convenient way to refer to people you like, people who are Christians, people whose opinions you generally respect. The intent wasn't patronizing. If anything, the idea is that because these are people we really like in other respects, the problem is all the more disconcerting.

The Elephant

@Lydia&ME: Thanks for the exchange. Unfortunately I have to sign out. I look forward to many other posts. Those I'll agree and disagree with. :-)

Peace,
Heather

Beauty is, I think, an entirely different category. The phrase "a beautiful woman" can convey many things, including grace, elegance, etc., that aren't remotely carnal or sordid.

I believe it is possible for men to appreciate the beauty of a woman, and vice versa for women to appreciate the handsomeness of a man, in an entirely healthy and un-lustful way. When you use a word like "lovely" or "beautiful," you are directing that kind of respectfully admiring attention as opposed to a lustful attention. Phrases with an explicitly sexual connotation appeal to the stomach, not to any sort of higher appreciation of what is good and pure and beautiful.

The Elephant

You know what? I make my living among college students, and they use this term all the time (yes, I'm sad to say, at my Christian college), and there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that they are referring to appearance -- the appearance of sexiness meant to arouse a sexual response! They don't mean a woman is beautiful when they say it, they don't mean a man is handsome when they say it -- they mean the woman or man is good-looking in a way specifically related to how sexy she or he is. That's it. That's what the slang means. It hasn't yet "changed" in meaning; it's hardly been here overnight as it is. And I doubt it will -- it will more likely just fade away as more vulgar terms come into use instead to create the "zing" of this one.

And it's so, so degrading. And you can think it's a molehill if you like, and you can believe that if a man calls you "hot" he's just saying you're pretty -- but you're wrong. It's not a molehill, it's sexually charged, and it is indeed a telling and important symptom of one thing that's wrong with the world -- the divorce of marriage and sexuality which has led to the loss of decorum and respect, and the objectification of women.

Elephant has a good point. In a situation where adult men have achieved a modicum of REAL chastity, where they have real control over their imaginations and thoughts, where they are well-developed in perceiving realities that lay under the superficial aspects of humans, there they can well be imagined to reflect on the beauty of a woman - in her face, her hair, her gracefulness, her manner - without encroaching on sexually impertinent notions. That is to say, they are capable of more truth because their souls are better ordered.

But for a group of men who have never bothered to even try to reign in their imaginations, and always look at any woman (married or not) as potential mating material, there they convert ALL aspects of her beauty into sexually tinged thoughts and imaginings. So in that context, drawing their attention to your wife's beauty is just fodder for fire.

So Mike T is right that context matters. But it remains true that because beauty is about so much more than what touches directly on sexuality that it inherently has plenty of room for contemplation that is well apart from unchaste thought. There is true beauty seeing in an 80 year old couple walking out of church arm in arm, with an affectionate glance at each other that doesn't exclude their friends, that has nothing that lends itself to sexually charged anything. When that same man calls his wife beautiful, we all know that he is quite right, even though she is wrinkled, gray-haired, etc.

It hasn't yet "changed" in meaning; it's hardly been here overnight as it is.

Exactly, Beth. That's a point I've made. How in the world could this have _changed_ in meaning when it's scarcely appeared on the scene? Crazy. What it makes me think of is my own nominalist youth (if "nominalist" is the right word) in which I sometimes talked as if I could simply _make_ "black" mean "white" by my intention.

I think this leads into a slightly larger linguistic issue, which we've discussed on my "Are there any mere symbols" posts: From the fact that something is a symbol and even that it is a man-made symbol it doesn't follow that its meaning changes on a dime. Nor by fiat. From the fact that something is a man-made symbol it doesn't follow that by saying, "I don't find that offensive" or "I don't mean to be offensive by that" we can simply will it to be the case that the phrase or action isn't offensive--as if we could make some obscene hand gesture mean, "I love all mankind" just by declaring it to be so. Language doesn't work that way.

Just so, Tony. My father thinks his brother's wife is beautiful, and has often said so. Yet he is quite obviously not lusting after her sexually.

The Elephant

Heather, "nice people" certainly just meant something that _I_ would think of, that _I_ would use. It's actually quite a natural thing to imitate what the people around us do--especially those whom we like and admire in other respects. That's natural for all of us. God made mankind with language-learning software, and having esteem for the people you know who use some linguistic expression just intensifies the effect of the software.

In fact, I've been quite shocked to find that what I would call "nice people"--people I really admire, for example, Christian singers--use this phrase for their wives. But I think that especially young people need to be told: Just because someone is admirable (if you prefer that word to "nice") in other respects, it doesn't follow that he's a good role model in language use.

Gosh, Tony, I think you're painting an interesting (where "interesting" here means approximately "yikes!") picture of a bunch of men I wouldn't want to be around--men who are literally incapable of hearing, "Today I've been married ten years to my beautiful wife" without converting it into a low, sexual statement in their minds. Brrrr. But you and Mike T. are no doubt right, now that I come to think about it, that there are such male groups. God preserve me and, especially, my daughters from them, that's all that I can say.

Beth, do you think if you asked your students, "Why do you use that phrase, since it alludes to the person's sexual attractiveness?" that they would try to deny that meaning? Since they are Christians and might feel embarrassed if confronted, I wonder. Apparently, that's one route people do take in Christian circles.

Lydia,

Most men are in between those extremes. That is why I said it "profits your brother nothing" to point out the attractiveness of a woman he isn't legitimately pursuing or has won. You're just inviting trouble in asking them to contemplate her beauty unless you know the man to be highly virtuous.

He very well may not sin in his heart, but then you're not God and thus can't see into his heart.

Some might, Lydia, but I don't think so for the most part. They would deny that it's very important, but these are kids who are wiling to admit that they think the purpose of marriage is God-sanctioned sex . . . Not good. We work at helping them to see the truth . . . but it's an uphill battle in this culture, and I've already lost it with some of my *own* kids.

Beth, I think what you say is very significant: That they understand (intellectually) the purpose of marriage, etc. I think this is connected to what I said in an earlier comment--that we have a generation of Christian young people who know the rules but no metaphysics behind the rules. For example, they have no _awe_ of sex, no quiet awe that makes it a holy and private thing. It's just, "Okay, I have to be married to the person." It's just a flat, meaningless rule. In fact, there may even be some idea that once you _are_ married to the person, then talking to all the world about how "smokin' hot" that wife is is just a way of "celebrating" the fact that you're getting to enjoy yourself within the "rules"!

"See for you guys, sex is wrong. But for me and my smokin' hot wife, IT IS SO RIGHT!" -- Ignatius, the Ultimate Youth Pastor

That is a good point, Lydia. We all need to do a better job of teaching our young people from the very start -- not "rules" but beauty and purpose, the story we're a part of, the Love it all grows from . . . I sometimes physically ache with sorrow for all that my young men and women miss out on. Of course, we have some who "get it" -- and it's interesting to see how many of our English majors do, as we take them for four years through literature studies that allow us to address these issues both in and out of class. Still, even the most aware of them just go along with much that shocks me in their use of language, what they will chat about in mixed-sex groups, and so on. It's all too easy for them to see us as just old fuddy-duddies who are out of touch.

I think,too, that probably some people originally used this phrase (and may use other phrases too) as a way of proving that Christians are not prudes, Christians can have fun, etc. (Much like "Ignatius," in fact.)

Yes! I know people who actually encourage this kind of thing! It's horrifying to me.

I hope no one takes my relative indifference to the word "hot" as an indication that I don't see sex as holy and as something worth protecting through strong social norms that conform to God's will. For example, the new requirement that insurance companies must include birth control (to include abortive day-after pills) as "preventive health care" in policies starting next year is terrible in my eyes because it cheapens sex and mocks God's holy law. So it isn't a case of me not having *any* understanding of the sacred nature of sex (though perhaps my understanding is still somehow defective). It's just that I don't think the word "hot" is in the same category of severity as so many other attacks on sex. Perhaps you will say that they are all connected and that if one really values sex the way one is supposed to, one will reject everything, no matter how apparently minor, that contradicts a properly Christian understanding of sex. There is probably a lot of truth to this, and even I feel a little weird when I use the word "hot" (which isn't very often).

There are people who are just shallow idiots like Ignatius. I don't defend Ignatius-ism by any means, but that isn't because he used the word "hot" -- it's because he's a shallow new-agey loser who doesn't seem to care about genuine Christianity. His use of the word "hot" may be one symptom of that, but clearly he has other, bigger problems. I just think that there are other bigger problems, and when we attack the word "hot" we might be trimming the leaves while leaving the roots untouched. Lydia thinks that that us young Christians don't value sex in the right way -- well, I can agree with that! I would simply focus on different evidence to come to that conclusion. But if that's the real problem, let's talk about that, and if we fix that problem and the word "hot" happens to disappear from our vocabulary, great! If not, well, maybe it isn't that big of a deal.

Interesting article. I'm curious about your thoughts on two questions.

1. How does talking about sex in public diminish its sacredness, especially when we talk about plenty of other sacred things?

2. Why does referring to a person's sexuality or sexual attractiveness degrade him or her?

1. How does talking about sex in public diminish its sacredness, especially when we talk about plenty of other sacred things?

2. Why does referring to a person's sexuality or sexual attractiveness degrade him or her?

Sex is a form of privileged physical communication between a husband and wife that they vouchsafe for each other. In the same way you trust you doctor not to discuss your health with anyone else, just so, discussing specific aspects of sex in a concrete fashion is reserved between the married couple. Abstract, non-personal issues are less reserved.

It is not true that we talk about plenty of sacred things with abandon. In fact, in the early Church, and even in Isreal, certain things were discussed only among the initiated. Even today, an observant Jew will not speak or write the Lord's name, but use a circumlocution. If anything, we are losing a sense of the sacred, today, and rampant sex talk plays right into this.

A person is degraded by talking about their sexual attractiveness because it reduces them to an object of sexual gratification rather than elevate them to the privileged position they hold as a Child of God.

The Chicken

Perhaps you will say that they are all connected and that if one really values sex the way one is supposed to, one will reject everything, no matter how apparently minor, that contradicts a properly Christian understanding of sex.

Josh, that would be somewhat too strong of a statement, since people can be confused and made somewhat tone-deaf by the sheer number of people around them, especially people who are in other respects good Christian people, who use some coarse or racy expression.

In this way the tone-deafness spreads, because then someone could (for example) hear _you_ using it, know that he otherwise trusts _your_ opinions on sex, etc., and conclude that it must be "no big deal," and so it goes on. But generally, yes, I think that if a person really values the sacredness and privacy of sex, he will sense that there is something wrong here. He will feel uncomfortable about it. I seek to _increase_ that discomfort and to point out that, because such usages coarsen the atmosphere, they further confuse our understanding of the privacy of sex.

Rats! I screwed up the block quotes. Would an editor fix this, please?

The Chicken

Justin, I fear that the fact that you can ask that question means that any answer will be futile. But, one time, here goes:

As the Masked Chicken says, sex is supposed to be between two people. Telling someone that a woman is "smokin' hot" is not having an abstract and legitimate discussion about sex--such a discussion as, for example, we are having here. It is evaluating her as a sexual object and encouraging men to picture and imagine her sexually. Those kinds of thoughts are inappropriate for anyone but her husband to be having, so no one--and _especially_ not her husband--should be encouraging others to think of and imagine her that way. Those sorts of thoughts should be completely private, and compliments of her distinctively sexual attractiveness (not to mention her sexual abilities, which are also to some extent comprehended in "smokin' hot" from a man with sexual experience with her) should be kept strictly between the husband and wife.

Sex is not for viewers. Therefore, a man shouldn't be talking about his wife in sexual terms to the whole world. It is exhibitionist and violates the privacy of their relationship.

It is degrading in the same way--though not to quite the same extent--as taking a woman's clothes off and displaying her would be degrading. It is a display of sexual feeling toward her and a fairly direct incitement of others (though some people are so foolish and innocent as merely to pick up the expression and not to realize this) to agree in such feelings. That is inherently degrading of the person to whom other people's attention is thus drawn.

Perhaps a good analogue would be saying, "Hey, everyone, I want you to join in giving my wife a wolf whistle! Isn't she sexy?" (In fact, the whole crowd in the middle of that blasphemous "prayer" that Step2 linked did something rather like that--burst out in "Whoo-hoo's" when he prayed about his "smokin' hot wife, Lisa.")

It should be fairly obvious that this is not simply "talking about" sex in some abstract sense and also that it is degrading.

Justin talked about referring to sacred things in public. Bad analogy. This is not like having a conversation about the nature of God. The proper equivalent would be more like blaspheming God's name."My smokin' hot wife." "Jesus Christ!" Like that.

The Elephant

I think that's a pretty poor parallel, because "complimenting" a man in passing on being a good provider is a kind of unnatural and awkward thing to say anyway. No one would _ever_ introduce a man on the stage by saying, "Please welcome so-and-so, who is a good provider for his family." It _can't_ be an appropriate or normal "generic compliment." It's just not that kind of thing.

Ok, suppose she says "My bob just made partner at a major law firm" to that same group of women. "It's just information." It's also no different from a man pointing out something beautiful and attractive-to-men about his wife because it says "my husband is a real muckety muck in society" when they go home to men who are just normal joes. Even if she doesn't mean it like that, she has to be cognizant of the effect it might have.

As I said, there are context where complimenting your wife's appearance like in an offhand way may be neutral like saying "my lovely wife" as in "I couldn't have done this without my lovely wife's undying support." Meeting someone at an office party and saying "this my lovely wife so-and-so" would be vulgar, just to a lesser degree than "my smoking hot wife."

I suppose I can imagine contexts in which "my lovely wife" would look somehow like a wrong kind of boasting. But I can think of a lot of others where it wouldn't, and those really have nothing in common even with the more neutral, informational comment, "My husband Bob just got made a partner." Not that the latter is necessarily wrong. There are plenty of contexts in which you and your friends are close to each other and are going to talk about what's going on in your lives and it could be natural and legitimate.

A man is definitely directly complimenting his wife when he says "my lovely wife." It's just that in the contexts I'm thinking of it's a nice compliment, a chivalrous compliment, a sweet compliment, and it's really dragging it down in a weird way to think that it isn't.

Meeting someone at an office party and saying "this [is] my lovely wife so-and-so" would be vulgar, just to a lesser degree than "my smoking hot wife."

No, it isn't. There is something in aesthetics call, "psychical distancing.". It is a measure of how abstractly (high or far distance) or concretely (close or low distance) one is examining a trait or as Dictionary.com puts it: "the degree of emotional detachment maintained toward a person, a group of people or an event." A nude model in a studio is simply a bunch of lines and forms with no direct concrete regard for her as a sex object. Her aesthetics is abstracted, psychically and emotionally distanced, from the vulgar, concrete view that might obtain if the nude model were sitting on a street corner at midnight in the ghetto.

The word, lovely, is a very psychically distanced, aesthetically high-culture term. Smokin' hot is a crude, psychically close term. One may, correctly, describe the Mona Lisa as a lovely woman, but not smokin' hot.

There is a disparity of use, also, with regards to analogy. What does it mean to say one's wife is lovely? Does it mean that she is sexually attractive? Not necessarily. To be lovely means to inspire a loving regard and that regard may not relate to sex. One may say that one's wife is a lovely cook. That does not mean that one has sex in the kitchen (pardon the vulgarity). This is chaste love. It means that the cooking she does in orderly, balanced, proportional, in good reason. Smokin' hot can only inspire a reference to vulgar sex. The statement, "my wife is a smokin' hot cook," means something totally different in the kitchen. It does not mean that her approach to cooking is orderly and balanced. Indeed, it means that it is wild and uncontrolled. Smokin' hot is always a measure related to physicality, never to aesthetics or gracefulness. Thus, one may say of a football player. That his run was smokin' hot, but not that it was lovely.

To think otherwise it to participate in the aesthetic and moral deadening of the culture. It has been going on for a long time.

The Chicken

IPad mispunctuated my sentence. It should read:

Thus, one may say of a football player that his run was smokin' hot, but not that it was lovely.

The Chicken

Yes Chicken, I was trying to make the same point earlier. "Lovely" or "beautiful" simply does carry different connotations with it.

The Elephant

"Lovely" or "beautiful" simply does carry different connotations with it.

In both your mind and the one you're saying it to.

Now, Step2, be nice to your fellow commentators.

Hope springs eternal.

But maybe you were joking.

Partially, it was a meta comment. He agreed with everything you wrote but would only accept it from a male perspective, so I gave him a very sarcastic one.

...when menopausal women get angry, smoke comes out of their ears, which usually coincides with a hot flash.

Bill, I think you may have stumbled upon the Lost origin of the smoke monster :)

You, Ilion and the Masked Elephant seem to miss that fundamental point. It profits your brother nothing to specifically point out to him how beautiful your wife may or may not be. There is no reason for him to be exhorted to consider and admire her beauty, especially since male sexual attraction is primarily visual in nature. When you comment to another man that your wife is beautiful, outside of a handful of exceptions, you are asking him specifically to consider something about her that is the basis of male sexual attraction.

Henceforth, no one may comment to another man that his wife is his wife --for we all know what husbands and wivws do! -- and certainly may not testify to his brother-in-Christ that she is the mother of his children, lest he ponder, "How comes it to be that this upstanding man of faith has fathered children?"

No, no! It's far better that we make our women, as women, as invisible as possible, lest other men think thoughts of a male persuasion. I wonder whether anyone has given ant thought to how this might be accomplished?

Lydia,

A quick follow-up:

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2011/08/04/in-defense-of-a-nascar-prayer/#more-32697

Milliner is normally a very sensible writer, but on this subject, I think Joe Carter's response in the comments hit the nail on the head.

Let's return you to the days of yesteryear. The word "hot", in the reproductive context, is derived from animal husbandry as a shorthand for, "the animal is in heat," meaning, of course, ovulating. When most animals are in estrous, they exhibit heightened attractive power for the male of the species.

The Masked Chicken

When in heat, females also exhibit heightened sexual interest toward the male of the species.

And that, is the difference between the words 'sexy' and 'hot.' What the latter communicates that the former does not is that she's sexually aroused.

see also: "hot and bothered."