5 Unexpected Ways Christians Sexually Objectify Women

5 Unexpected Ways Christians Sexually Objectify Women

Christians usually take pride in their opposition to the sexual objectification and exploitation of women… but most Christians are completely unaware that they have been practicing and promoting the very thing they claim to oppose. Rather than recognizing the ways they are doing so, they have often codified sexual objectification into their rules and expectations for Christian thinking and conduct.

Here are five ways Christians sexually objectify women… and they just might surprise you:


#1 — Modesty Rules

Exactly why do we require women to cover this or that body part? Because those body parts are “sexual,” Right? That perception is sexually objectifying. Women are not a collection of “parts”—some sexual and some not—they are whole persons. As soon as we legislate that one body part must be treated “sexually,” we are sexually objectifying the whole woman.


#2 — The “Men Are Visual” Myth

Contrary to what we’ve all been told, God did NOT make men as primarily “visual” in their sexual interest and arousal (see this article). What we observe in men today is entirely conditioned behavior. It is our culture’s expectation that every man will treat the simple sight of a woman’s body as a sexual event and respond sexually, so that’s what they do. This false yet pervasive conditioning has normalized the sexual objectification of women, weaving it into our cultural fabric and, sadly, into Christian teaching and practice. The widespread adoption of visual stimulus for sexual arousal has paved a highway for the porn industry to explode, and has resulted in rampant sexual bondage even among those who desire to live a life pleasing to God. 


#3 — Every Man’s Battle

Because the church so completely embraced #2 above, a new book and strategy invaded the Christian world a few years back… claiming that it could help men overcome sexual bondage. The core strategy from Every Man’s Battle tells men that they must constantly guard against any sight—in person or just an image—which might trigger lust. When it happens, they are instructed to “bounce their eyes” away from the sight so as to keep their heart pure. This means that every woman or image they see must be evaluated for its impact on that man sexually! If a man is sexually evaluating every woman he sees, he is most definitely sexually objectifying them.


#4 — A Wife’s “Sexy” Lingerie

Every wife longs to feel beautiful, attractive, and desirable to her husband. So, the use of seductive lingerie might seem like a good idea—and a lot of fun—to capitalize on the conditioned “visual” response in her husband as a part of sex play. However, I would suggest that by doing so, she is sexually objectifying her own body and serving to further reinforce the visual response in her husband to certain body parts of a woman. Much better and healthier would be to cultivate a relationally-based sexual arousal and fulfillment… which will serve to keep the couple’s sex life vibrant into their twilight years (see The Renewed View of the Body).


Cry Room#5 — Church “Cry Rooms”

Of all the places where the God-given usage for breasts can be most openly expressed and observed, the church should be at the top of the list. Instead, however, churches often build “Cry rooms” so that nursing mothers can feed their babies without risking the exposure of their breasts to the men and boys in attendance. The church is treating breasts as if the perpetuation of their sexual objectification is more important than allowing the God-designed beauty of their maternal purpose to be seen. The inescapable message to men and women is that breasts are to be treated sexually… even when a mother is nursing.


If the church really wishes to impact society for truth and stand against the sexual objectification of women, then the people of God first need to take a hard look at their own core beliefs about the meaning of our physical embodiment as humans… male and female… in God’s image. We need to root out ways that we have embraced the false sexualized and pornographic view of the body, and start treating the human body with dignity and in harmony with truth.


— David Martin


For more on this topic:
Lie #2 – Visual Arousal 
The Renewed View of the Body
The Pornographic View of the Body

The Imago Dei

Referenced in the image above:
Is Women’s Modesty the New Legalism Among Christians?

Feel free to Leave a Comment on this post.

You are welcome to share this blog with others…


comments user

A very thought-provoking post David — I also read the Renewed View of the Body.

In regards to your point #4, I have some questions:

Is your point that a husband’s or wife’s natural sexual arousal when seeing their spouse nude (or nearly nude), should be de-emphasized or not focused on at all because that would not be ‘cultivating a relationally-based sexual arousal and fulfillment’? I’m striving to understand what relationally-based sexual arousal and fulfillment would look like in everyday exchanges and interactions between husband and wives.

Can you provide some specific examples of how husbands and wives would communicate their arousal and sexual desires? For instance, what would they say to each other? What would they communicate with their body language? Also, what would they say to their spouse about their desire for their spouse’s body that would contrast sharply with the Christian sexual objectification that you are referring to?

I am not just talking about a husband toward his wife since men are also becoming increasingly sexually objectified in our culture — just see the ‘Magic Mike’ movies about male strippers that have been breaking box office records in the last few years with women as the primary consumers.

    comments user
    David Martin

    Thanks for writing, Ed. I apologize for the delay in responding.

    Communicating all that really needs to be understood about this issue is impossible in just one paragraph! The point is that we definitely need to rethink the things we’ve always assumed to be true and ask the hard questions until we settle on what is really true. From that perspective, it sounds like the article accomplished its purpose for you!

    When it comes to the relational vs. visual question, many people assume that by saying that God made us “relational” rather than “visual” it means that the visual is completely immaterial. The fact is that we ALL as humans ARE visual… it’s one of the primary ways we interact with our world. We perceive things around us visually, and then we interpret what we see according to our experience, culture, beliefs, and conditioning, and we respond accordingly.

    The lie is that the simple sight of a woman’s form has intrinsic meaning and inexorably incites a sexual response in men. This is simply false. That we would find it aesthetically pleasing and attractive to our eyes is exactly what God intended. That we should consider the very sight of it to be a sexual experience is NOT what God intended.

    But let’s tie the Relational aspect into it…

    Have you ever seen a person who owned an absolutely ugly dog which they adored? To that person, that dog is no longer ugly… but because the sight of their dog calls to mind the depth of love and relational joy they’ve experienced with the dog, they rejoice to see the dog every time, and they love to pet and cuddle that dog. Visually perceived, but relationally comprehended… and the relationship drives the response. Others would see that same dog and not have it impact their heart or their response in the same way at all.

    What if the dog is a gorgeous show dog? Well, that dog might turn a few more heads in admiration, but still, only the owner of that dog who has a close relationship with the dog would go nuts about the dog and want to hug and cuddle the dog every day.

    What about my wife’s body? Well, I can guarantee you that my wife doesn’t look anything like a playboy model naked. But I can also tell you that I love seeing her naked, and she’s absolutely her most beautiful without any clothes. Her body excites sexual responses in me… as it should… but why? Is it because she has breasts and I can see them? No. Its it because she has this gorgeous feminine figure that blows me away? No. It is because she is my wife… her body excites me because it is HER body. The sight of her naked form is a lovely reminder to me of the fact that I have a sexual relationship with HER and I have spent 25 years finding my true sexual fulfillment in her alone. So… does the sight of her body excite my sexual interest? Of course it does… but not because they are “female parts,” rather because her body is HER to me… MY wife. My love. My sexual partner.

    But let me add something that changed in my sexual relationship with my wife when I came to understand the truth and stopped sexually objectifying my wife’s body (yes, that’s possible!)… I had for all my life focused on the sexual appeal of breasts. That was my “trigger” with pornography. So, when I married, when in the act of intercourse, when I was ready to go “over the top,” during penetration, I would focus my attention on her bare breasts. And because of my conditioning, it worked like a charm. When I understood these truths, however, I recognized that I was doing that and that it was demeaning to her and her body. So, I rejected that “technique” and I simply enjoy the entire experience with my wife.

    You absolutely should enjoy your wife’s body sexually. You should absolutely find it beautiful and attractive. You should NOT treat every sight of it as a sexual turn-on (have you read this personal story?) And you should NOT treat expect the same sexual reaction to the sight of any woman’s body as you have with your wife…. if you do, you are still seeing the “sexual” in the “parts” and not in the relationship.

    I hope that helps. Feel free to write again.

    Pastor David Martin

comments user

Regarding point #1, would you say a nude beach would be appropriate for Christians? I went to one and found, just as you suggest, that the sight of those normally covered parts did not arouse me in that setting. The experience was less frustrating than a beach with bathing suits.

    comments user
    David Martin

    Michael, thanks for writing.

    If we truly do reject the sexualization of particular body parts, then it would be inconsistent to then turn around declare that a nude beach would be immoral, for the only thing that would make it immoral is if it were an illicit sexual context or experience. If we are going to live as if the truth is true instead of a lie (sexualizing body parts), then we cannot then treat “morality” rules based on the lie as morally binding.

    And when we DO live our lives as if the truth is true, we fin ourselves set free (John 8:32) from the sin bondage that accompanies the lie. In your case, you went to a nude beach (in keeping with the truth) and found that the lie (seeing naked bodies is a sexual experience) no longer had any power over you.

    For most people the lie is so deeply entrenched in their mind and heart that they cannot even imagine that what you experienced is even possible.

comments user

I agree with everything here except #3 “This means that every woman or image they see must be evaluated for its impact on that man sexually! If a man is sexually evaluating every woman he sees, he is most definitely sexually objectifying them.”

The body is not pornographic but there are pornographic images and displays of the body which SHOULD be avoided. So while I agree that we shouldn’t bounce our eyes from simple nudity, but if there is a seductive look (nude or not) it can still cause me to stumble. I am not evaluating the woman, I am evaluating the presentation.

    comments user
    David Martin

    Phil, thanks for writing.

    Actually, you’ve proved my point rather than refuted it. Here’s what I mean…

    One of the things we’ve written about on the MCAG site (see this article) is the fact that men are NOT primarily “visual” in their sexual response. What you’ve described as “a seductive look” is indeed received visually, but it is interpersonal communication that is discerned, not a body part–even if a body part is being used as the “medium” of communication. A seductive look is one that communicates sexual availability. And there is nothing more tempting to a man than the woman who communicates that she’s desirous of his sexual interest.

    Consequently, turning away from the “seductive look” is not a decision about what I see, but rather a decision about what I will entertain in my heart about her; what sort of communication will I accept from her; what aspect of a relationship with a woman will I allow to take root.

    Even when the “seductive look” is captured in an image, my experience with living the truth has been not the need to look away, but a deep sense of sadness that this woman–fully worthy of her dignity as an image-bearer and valued as a person rather than for her sexual appeal–is so misguided that she believes that her value as a woman is greater because she can deliver the “seductive look.” When you really see that that’s what’s happening, it’s not appealing, its saddening. I wish for so much more for her, and I’m angry at a culture that has ingrained the lie into her life that she’s acting upon as if it were true.

    So yes, I may turn my head away, but not to protect my own moral purity… rather to refuse to participate in the indignity that she is an unwitting victim of.

      comments user

      Well said. The more I read your answer, the more it makes sense. I missed it at first so I sent a rebuttal to which you did not respond. I guess the reason was you already said it.

      It is truly about what I will entertain in my heart about her and not about her body. But it is still tempting and I revisit this blog for help. When you think about how a woman bears God’s image it is sad when they behave this way.

        comments user

        And you affirm my point that while we should not evaluate the woman, the presentation requires discernment so as not to be tempted (and they can be tempting as you say) to participate in the indignity.

comments user
Robert Weber

David, I’m so glad I found your website. While I’m still learning about separating the eye from the heart, what you’ve written here resounds more than any other “antidote” to porn that I’ve found. While I don’t have complete relief, yet, I have hope for the first time in nearly a decade (when the Every Man’s Battle methodology began failing me).

Anyway, I have a question about point #3, above. While I agree that a church or religious body mandating “modest’ clothing for women and young ladies is contrary to God’s view of us and arguably damaging to her and the community as a whole (and modesty is a behavior and attitude far more than a style of dress), and while I am learning the truth that men are aroused relationally and not visually (unless trained to be so) I have to also admit that we live in a world where the overwhelming majority of males have, indeed, been conditioned to respond sexually to a woman’s form and shape.

So, given this, how would you suggest I guide my own daughters to dress? I want to raise them with a healthy view of themselves and relationships, and I desperately want their marriages to not have the same sexual struggles that mine did (arising from a combination of my expectations and my beloved’s perceptions of herself and what is “appropriate” even within the context of the marriage bed). Anyway, I would love your advice.

    comments user
    David Martin

    Thanks for writing, Robert.

    Obviously, we still cannot just go around in public as if there’s not a conditioned visual response to the female form in most men. So, teach your daughters to pay attention to styles that are obviously sensual in their design or which expose more than our culture deems “appropriate.”

    But at the same time, teach them to not run in fear from the prospect that some guy out there MIGHT have wrong thoughts when they look at her. When that happens, it’s TOTALLY on the guy. Period. Furthermore, the fact that some guy does that (and they will…) has NO reflection on her integrity AT ALL… and it does NOT diminish her dignity ONE BIT!

    One of the ways you can solidify that message is to communicate to your daughters that the “rules” they need to honor “out there” do not apply in your own home. In our home, my wife and I made the conscious decision to no longer consider the exposed body to be a “problem”… no matter how exposed. We treat the entire body with respect and its owner with complete dignity at all times. We very intentionally changed the rules in our home to implement that new policy, and we changed our habits in our home to reflect the new expectation. For example, while my wife and I have always slept naked, after that “rule” change, we no longer worry about closing the door to our bedroom before getting ready for bed, nor do we have any problem with the kids coming in to talk to us while we’re in our “jammies.” To or from the shower is not a concern, nor getting in or out of the hot tub (which we use sans clothes). If you haven’t done so, you should read the blog post by Pastor David Hatton about “porn-proofing” your kids.

    You see, if you really want your daughters to understand that their bodies are fine… that they are NOT “lust magnets”… and that any guy who has wrong thoughts about them is actually the one who’s in the wrong, then make sure you home is a place where what they wear on their bodies (or not) is never an issue of sin or shame. If they actively experience the truth at home, then they will be equipped to know and recognize the perversion of our culture without allowing it to stain their own perception of themselves.

    The other way you can help teach the truth is to allow your girls to make decisions about their attire dependent on the context they will be in. When we made the change in our home, we also abandoned the notion that our girls could never wear bikinis. If the context is swimming with a bunch of church friends, then a bikini would probably not be well-received. But if we are having a family outing to a public beach, then there’s no reason to enforce such a rule. Their bodies are NOT the problem!

    One more point… the female form is beautiful; it is God’s design and intent that they be beautiful! Women are–I believe–purposefully designed to find personal pleasure and satisfaction in their own beauty… that’s why they pay so much attention to their appearance. Clothes do not make a woman beautiful, they are only beautiful to the measure that they allow the woman’s beauty to shine through. The more that an outfit allows the woman’s natural form to be seen, the more striking the outfit will be (think “red carpet” outfits of celebrities…). Where the rubber meets the road for your daughters is that she should not be ashamed of having curves–it’s where a lot of her beauty resides–and she should not fear to attire herself in a way that capitalizes on her form as one very real aspect of her beauty (cleavage is not sinful… it’s beautiful!). Provided she’s not dressing in clothing that is designed or worn for the purpose of attracting sexual attention or inflaming sexual desires or interest, then you should not shame your daughter for allowing her feminine beauty to be noticed. It is NOT godly to hide that fact that she’s a woman in a woman’s body.

    I also hope that your wife can also learn to reorient her own view of her body. It’s amazing how healing the correct view of our bodies is… particularly for women. I have long asserted that women are the greater victims of the pornographic view of the body, because when men have a pornographic view of women’s bodies, it pertains primarily to something outside themselves. But when women submit to the pornographic view of the female form, it pertains to how they view themselves! It’s internal. When a woman truly understands that her value as a woman is NOT in how her body impacts a man’s libido, and that her body is NOT a temptation to sin simply because it has feminine curves, then it can transform her perception of herself.

    Please keep us posted on how things are going for you. And feel free to contact me personally (see the contact page) if you want to take the discussion offline.

    By HIS Grace,

    Pastor David Martin.

      comments user

      I appreciate everything you have written and have found it to be very helpful in my own walk. My question is in regards to your statement:

      …Provided she’s not dressing in clothing that is designed or worn for the purpose of attracting sexual attention or inflaming sexual desires or interest, then you should not shame your daughter for allowing her feminine beauty to be noticed…..

      Isn’t a lot of the fashion today, but especially the bikini designed to do this very thing?

      I also would like to know your thoughts in regards to the article: Christian Modesty – The Public Undressing of America. It can be found here:


      Thanks for your time and effort.


      comments user
      Salina 💝😁✝️

      David Martin,
      I really liked your response to Robert sent at July 17, 2017 12:19 pm!

comments user

I have to admit I had difficulty with David’s July 17 response to Robert. I also admit it is probably MY problem.
This web site has been revolutionary for me in that I no longer see the nude female body as lust causing. However, I still struggle with partial nudity, even cleavage. I find it frustrating and I think “Finish getting dressed or finish getting undressed, the suspense is killing me!” Like Michael said (above) nudes on the beach are less frustrating than bikinis. I feel teased.
I guess I am OCD, an all or nothing kind of guy. My ideal would be Amish women who swim nude! (I doubt if they exist)
This makes it difficult transitioning my family to the new mind set, they are not ready to strip. Still not sure how to advise my daughter to dress.
I need help and prayer on appreciating the body in purity in whatever dose it comes.

    comments user
    David Martin

    Thanks for your candor, Phil.

    I would suspect that what’s going on is that you’re not fully “cured” with reference to shaking the pornographic view of the body. Here’s what I mean.

    If you were to see a woman with her arms partially exposed, it wouldn’t cause you to stare and think “go long sleeve or sleeveless! The suspense is killing me!”

    Why wouldn’t you think that? Because you don’t sexually objectify a woman’s arms… so covered or uncovered or anything in between, it really doesn’t make a difference to you.

    But you DO still sexually objectify a woman’s breasts… at least to some degree (i.e. you’re not fully “cured” yet). So if the breasts were fully exposed, then the “suspense” would be immediately dissipated and the truth (that it’s simply a body part) takes over without much competition… and no lustful distraction. But with a bikini tantalizingly hiding the nipple or a push-up bra creating a lot of cleavage, and now the cultural conditioning overwhelms the truth in your heart and mind, and you still struggle.

    I’m not sure I can tell you what the “answer” is to “fix” that… except more truth. The more you live and experience the truth, the more easily the truth will be able to fend off and dissolve the influence of the conditioning that still has a hold in your heart.

    Regarding your family, I would suggest a “family meeting” to allow you to openly share the truths that you’ve come to embrace and discuss their implications. Tell them that in your home, the “out there” rules which sexually objectify women’s (and men’s) bodies will NOT be in force. Then, begin to live contrary to the “out there” rules yourself. From my personal experience, I found that the more I lived contrary to the “rules” at home, the less I experienced the power of the conditioning I had lived with for over 30 years.

    David Martin

      comments user

      Thank you David for your quick response. I think you nailed it. Your answer makes sense and helps a lot. The only reason I feel teased is that I still think certain parts are strictly sexual until I can see with my eyes they are not. “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.”

      Thank you

comments user

I can’t find the link to “porn Proof Your Kids”. Could you send it to me please?

Thank You

comments user

If public nudity were completely legal and normal, the Porn industry would go out of business and the sex trafficking would come to a halt.

comments user

As for cry rooms, one of the things that happens quite often when nursing is that the baby falls asleep. That in itself is a good reason to have a quiet place to nurse. It just shouldn’t have curtains to keep mom from observing the service in progress.

comments user

I’m glad that my husband likes the lingerie that I have, but he couldn’t care less whether or not I wear it. I like wearing lingerie, and while I only seem to wear it once a month or so, it makes me feel pretty and sexy. And yes, I also feel sexy and pretty without it as well. It’s not about me or my husband objectifying my body any more than wearing a pearl necklace with a nice dress for a dinner out is. That is all.

comments user

David Martin,

I have reread your response to “Robert Weber on July 16, 2017 at 3:21 pm” several times. It sounds like you are saying it is OK for his daughter to dress like a street hooker as long as she is comfortable with it?

I like others find a naked woman somewhat boring, but a scantly clad woman exciting. The bible does not say any thing bad about simple nudity, BUT does say that women should be dressed modestly. I take that to be dress modestly or not at all. Bikinis and such can draw unwanted attention.

    comments user
    David Martin


    I’m not sure how you got that idea. My first paragraph to Robert said this:

    Obviously, we still cannot just go around in public as if there’s not a conditioned visual response to the female form in most men. So, teach your daughters to pay attention to styles that are obviously sensual in their design or which expose more than our culture deems “appropriate.”

    I also said this:

    The other way you can help teach the truth is to allow your girls to make decisions about their attire dependent on the context they will be in.

    In both cases, I’m talking about the fact that how attire is interpreted within a given context does matter. It’s not that our bodies are bad or immoral or indecent, but that we need to consider the context, and who is in that context, and how it will be interpreted by those people in that context.

    I once had a friend who grew up in Venezuela and a Missionary Kid. He was therefore fluent in Spanish. One time as a young adult, he had the opportunity to preach at a church in another South American country that spoke Spanish. While preaching, he told a story about his “broken car”… and as he spoke, he could tell that people were quietly giggling about what he was saying. Only after the sermon was over did he learn that the word he used for “broken” in Venezuela was actually a swear word in the country he was preaching in. It was as if we were telling a story about his “damn car”… from the pulpit!

    Here’s my point… there was nothing wrong with the word he used… but had he understood the context better, he would have avoided it in that country!

    Likewise, our attire is in many respects a form of communication. And if we wear clothing that we know is interpreted as sexually alluring, we need to “not use that word in church” if you see what I mean.

    Regarding the Bible teaching that women should dress “modestly,” I would challenge that assertion… it really does not. The Greek word translated as “modest” in 1 Tim. 2:9 does not mean what we typically mean by that word today, and there’s no other passage in all the bible that tells anyone to dress to “avoid sexual responses”

    For a more detailed treatment of 1 Tim. 2:9, see this article:

    Rightly Dividing 1 Timothy 2:9

    David Martin

    comments user
    Phil Conte

    I tend to agree with Gordy on this. I’ve discussed this in other comments here and got an excellent rebuttal,which I agreed with in theory, but I still find scanty clothing difficult. I find the best option, which is frowned on by most Christians, is to just go ahead and picture the woman nude. That brings closure for me.

      comments user
      Phil Conte

      Clarification, I agree with the second part of Gordy’s comment about scanty clothing, not that you are condoning our daughters dressing like street hookers.

comments user
Phil Conte

I am reading a great book by David Grams called “The Real Gospel”. While not a naturist book, it really makes the point that Jesus freed us from sin, not just pardoned our sins, or swept them under the rug, so to speak. We have been restored to a right relationship to God, just like before the fall!

However, most of us have been taught that it was OK for Adam and Eve to be naked before the fall but now we need to wear clothes because sin has entered the world. Well to an extent this is true due to bad weather, thorns, bugs and ultraviolet radiation, but even when those elements are mitigated and the weather is agreeable we still need clothes to ‘cover our shame”. Sounds to me that this line of thinking denies the finished work of Christ. I know this is a serious charge. Is this an extreme view or does anyone agree?

    comments user

    Phil, I think you’re right on and there are lots of Christians who agree with you. Shame is something that was bought, paid for, and forgiven on the Cross of Christ.

comments user

So I had a thought today. By sexualizing nudity, aren’t we as a society in effect sexualizing the image of God reflected in our bodies? In doing so, we surely we commit blasphemy and side with the enemy of our souls.

comments user
bruce kurtzer

Thanks for this great article. The Bible talks about renewing our mind, as Christians we need to think differently and act differently to the world, and our view of nudity is just one area that we need to lead the way in thinking differently.
Every mans battle should not be a sexual one, but should be a battle to expose nudity for what it is, it is normal and natural. I am thankful that people like you (and myself) have joined the frontlines of that battle, not just attacking the lies of the enemy but also rescuing those held in bondage by the lies and sexualized views of nakedness.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.