On Wednesday, the White House Council on Women and Girls released a report, “ RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT: A RENEWED CALL TO ACTION.” Wading through the sobering reality exposed by this report, one thing is crystal clear – sexual violence is widespread and deeply embedded in American culture. An overview of the statistics:
- Women and girls are the vast majority of victims: nearly 1 in 5 women – or nearly 22 million – have been raped in their lifetimes.
- Men and boys, however, are also at risk: 1 in 71 men – or almost 1.6 million – have been raped during their lives.
- Women of all races are targeted, but some are more vulnerable than others: 33.5% of multiracial women have been raped, as have 27% of American Indian and Alaska Native women, compared to 15% of Hispanic, 22% of Black, and 19% of White women.
- Most victims know their assailants.
- The vast majority (nearly 98%) of perpetrators are male.
- Young people are especially at risk: nearly half of female survivors were raped before they were 18, and over one-quarter of male survivors were raped before they were 10 years old.
- College students are particularly vulnerable: 1 in 5 women has been sexually assaulted while in college.
- Repeat victimization is common: over a third of women who were raped as minors were also raped as adults.
As a college professor, the statistic that terrifies me the most is not merely that 1 in 5 college women will be sexually assaulted before they graduate but that:
Most college victims are assaulted by someone they know – and parties are often the site of these crimes. Notably, campus assailants are often serial offenders: one study found that of the men who admitted to committing rape or attempted rape, some 63% said they committed an average of six rapes each.
Most campus assaults go unreported and when you look at the “repeat offender” reality, it should make quite clear that changing campus culture about reporting, punishing, and well….everything surrounding sexual assault is an URGENT priority.
The vast majority of perpetrators are known to their victims. As part of college life, this is particularly true and dangerously hidden given the image of rape as involving a stranger jumping out of the bushes.
In his opening remarks, President Obama issued a call to all of us – to refuse to accept sexual violence.
This is not an abstract problem that goes on in other families or other communities. Even now, it’s not always talked about enough. It can still go on in the shadows. But it affects every one of us. It’s about all of us — our moms, our wives, our sisters, our daughters, our sons. Sexual assault is an affront to our basic decency and humanity. And for survivors, the awful pain can take years, even decades to heal. Sometimes it lasts a lifetime. And wherever it occurs — whether it’s in our neighborhoods or on our college campuses, our military bases or our tribal lands — it has to matter to all of us.
Because when a young girl or a young boy starts to question their self-worth after being assaulted, and maybe starts withdrawing, we’re all deprived of their full potential. When a young woman drops out of school after being attacked, that’s not just a loss for her, that’s a loss for our country. We’ve all got a stake in that young woman’s success.
When a mother struggles to hold down a job after a traumatic assault, or is assaulted in order to keep a job, that matters to all of us because strong families are a foundation of a strong country. And if that woman doesn’t feel like she has recourse when she’s subject to abuse, and we’re not there supporting her, shame on us. When a member of our military is assaulted by the very people he or she trusted and serves with, or when they leave the military, voluntarily or involuntarily, because they were raped, that’s a profound injustice that no one who volunteers to defend America should ever have to endure.
So sexual violence is more than just a crime against individuals. It threatens our families, it threatens our communities; ultimately, it threatens the entire country. It tears apart the fabric of our communities. And that’s why we’re here today — because we have the power to do something about it as a government, as a nation. We have the capacity to stop sexual assault, support those who have survived it, and bring perpetrators to justice.
We also cannot tackle the cultural acceptance of sexual violence against women and girls without attention to domestic violence. Raising awareness on violence against women – there have been two fairly high profile PSA videos in recent months. One by Keira Knightly and one capturing “A Year in the Life” of a domestic violence victim. Both videos are worth watching.
Students at Montana State University have initiated a “Not in our house” campaign responding to sexual assault on campus. As the students at MSU, Vice President Biden, and President Obama all highlight, we all face a very important choice on the question of sexual assault. There is no neutrality. Silence is siding with rapists. Denial is siding with a culture that protects and hides rapists. I hope that the President’s new initiative and recent successes by organizers holding colleges accountable for Title IX violations will mark a change in our culture of violence.
This article is also featured on Catholic Moral Theology.
Check out these recent articles from around the web:
7 Questions: keeping college students Catholic by Michael J. O’Loughlin: “Katie Diller: Young adults are filled with passion and they are thirsty to live radically. Atheism can seem radical to students who might be shrugging off a flavorless experience of growing up Catholic. We have to talk about the mystery of faith in our lives. Pope Francis keeps encouraging us to go out of ourselves, to live mysterious lives in solidarity with the poor. Encounters with that mystery of love and self-sacrifice will always inspire curiosity about the mystery of Jesus and the Church.”
The Spirituality of Sports Fanaticism by Michael Rossmann, SJ, TJP: “But what makes something like the Olympics so beautiful, however, is that it unites people from around the world – athletes and fans both. Even if we might cheer in a special way for our own country, we can all stand in amazement at someone like Usain Bolt. I once watched the World Cup with a group of people from thirteen of the 32 teams that played that year, and while we would give each other a hard time if our countries competed, we were united in watching this display, even when we were not united by language, religion, sex, occupation, or personality.”
Syria crisis: Incendiary bomb victims ‘like the walking dead’ by BBC News: “A BBC team inside Syria filming for Panorama has witnessed the aftermath of a fresh horrific incident – an incendiary bomb dropped onto a school playground in the north of the country – which has left scores of children with napalm-like burns over their bodies.”
Catholic schools provide a beacon of hope to Washington families by Cardinal Donald Wuerl: “Our faith can never be relegated to just an hour inside church on Sunday. As Pope Francis has urged us, we need to “go out” and bring Christ’s love and hope to our communities and our world.”
Francis’ comforting phone call to Argentinean rape victim Alejandra Pereyra: “The Pope’s telephone call at 15:50 local time on Sunday 25 August caught Alejandra Pereyra di Villa del Rosario – who lives in the Province of Cordoba, Argentina’s second biggest city – completely by surprise.”
Our fantasy: A Congress that gets stuff done by Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein: “A little more than a year ago, we published a book about American politics — and particularly Congress — titled “It’s Even Worse Than It Looks.” In our book and in these pages, we lamented the ideological divides in Washington, which had become almost tribal in nature, and the skewed nature of political polarization, emphasizing a Republican Party gone off the rails. Unfortunately, little has happened in the time since to lift our spirits.”
Five myths about millennials by Mark Glassman: “Millennials also set loftier social goals than prior generations. Each year, a survey conducted by the University of Michigan asks high school seniors to rate their life’s ambitions. Data compiled by Jeffrey Jensen Arnett, a psychology professor at Clark University, shows that millennials rated ‘contribute to society,’ ‘correct inequalities’ and ‘be a leader in the community’ higher than baby boomers did when they were younger.”
Francis and the Very New Evangelism by Thomas C. Fox, NCR: “The Very New Evangelism preached by Francis is simple, practical stuff. It’s about what it means to live the beatitudes in today’s life.”
How Dr. King Shaped My Work in Economics By Joseph Stiglitz: “Much of my scholarship and public service in recent decades — including my service at the Council of Economic Advisers during the Clinton administration, and then at the World Bank — has been devoted to the reduction of poverty and inequality. I hope I’ve lived up to the call Dr. King issued a half-century ago.”
Check out these recent articles from around the web:
A Policy of Rape Continues by Nicholas Kristof: “We’re at the 10-year-anniversary of the beginning of the genocide in Darfur, yet, instead of subsiding, it has been amplified this year. Just in the first five months of 2013, according to the United Nations, another 300,000 people in Darfur have been driven from their homes — and untold numbers killed or raped.”
Pro-Baby, but Stingy With Money to Support Them by Eduardo Porter: “But though American families may have adapted better than others to women’s march into the labor force, the United States lags far behind in providing the government support that makes it easier for many couples to start a family.”
Pope decries ‘dealers of death,’ opposes drug legalization by John Allen: “In his most pointed bit of political commentary since arriving in Brazil two days ago, Pope Francis this afternoon blasted narco-traffickers as ‘dealers of death’ and came out against trends in Latin America towards the legalization of drugs.”
Vatican Radio: Homily at Marian Shrine at Aparecida: “It is true that nowadays, to some extent, everyone, including our young people, feels attracted by the many idols which take the place of God and appear to offer hope: money, success, power, pleasure. Often a growing sense of loneliness and emptiness in the hearts of many people leads them to seek satisfaction in these ephemeral idols.”
What Will Happen to the Other 367,000 Babies Born Monday? by Amanda Marcotte: “Of the nonroyal 367,000 babies born Monday, UNICEF estimates that 24,000 will probably not live to see their fifth birthday. Most of the 24,000 children under 5 we lose a day around the world die from preventable causes: diarrhea, malaria, neonatal infection, pneumonia, preterm delivery, or lack of oxygen at birth.”
Pope Francis & Springtime by Michael Sean Winters: “It is this quality of Pope Francis, his simplicity, his ability to sense what ordinary people are thinking and feeling and to speak to them in ways that they understand, this is what has created the sense that it is springtime for the Church again. It is his awareness that if you are going to speak about poverty, it is best not to be spotted in a Mercedes, sit on a golden throne, and dress up in Baroque, jewel-laden attire.”
Reweaving the circle of protection by Kathy Saile and Galen Carey: “It’s been more than 140 days since sequestration went into effect, cutting $84 billion across the board from government programs this year. It may be difficult to comprehend the effects of that number. However, it is not difficult to comprehend that a child who is undernourished this year could have learning difficulties for the rest of her life—which will hurt her ability to earn enough money to provide for herself and her future children. It is not difficult to comprehend that a father in South Sudan who needlessly dies from AIDS this year because of reduced access to treatments will leave his family in dire straits. It is not difficult to comprehend that an elderly person on a fixed income in the Midwest will sit hungry and cold in a dingy apartment next winter because of cuts to essential assistance.”
Pope Francis: Arrival Speech in Rio, Vatican Radio: “Our generation will show that it can realize the promise found in each young person when we know how to give them space; how to create the material and spiritual conditions for their full development; how to give them a solid basis on which to build their lives; how to guarantee their safety and their education to be everything they can be; how to pass on to them lasting values that make life worth living; how to give them a transcendent horizon for their thirst for authentic happiness and their creativity for the good; how to give them the legacy of a world worthy of human life; and how to awaken in them their greatest potential as builders of their own destiny, sharing responsibility for the future of everyone.”
Pope Francis to Brazilian Bishops: Are we still a Church capable of warming hearts?: “A relentless process of globalization, an often uncontrolled process of urbanization, have promised great things. Many people have been captivated by the potential of globalization, which of course does contain positive elements. But many also completely overlook its darker side: the loss of a sense of life’s meaning, personal dissolution, a loss of the experience of belonging to any “nest” whatsoever, subtle but relentless violence, the inner fragmentation and breakup of families, loneliness and abandonment, divisions, and the inability to love, to forgive, to understand, the inner poison which makes life a hell, the need for affection because of feelings of inadequacy and unhappiness, the failed attempt to find an answer in drugs, alcohol, and sex, which only become further prisons.”
State Department seeks to broaden religious reach by Elizabeth Tenety, Washington Post: “The State Department announced this week the creation of its first office dedicated to outreach to the global faith community and religious leaders. The project, born in part of recommendations by its working group on religion and foreign policy, will be headed by Shaun Casey, a United Methodist member and professor at Wesley Theological Seminary in Washington.”
Why millennials are leaving the church by Rachel Held Evans, CNN Belief Blog: “Having been advertised to our whole lives, we millennials have highly sensitive BS meters, and we’re not easily impressed with consumerism or performances. In fact, I would argue that church-as-performance is just one more thing driving us away from the church…”
Pope Francis: “Go, do not be afraid, and serve”: “Today, in the light of the word of God that we have heard, what is the Lord saying to us? Three simple ideas: Go, do not be afraid, and serve.”
Sociologist Robert Bellah has described Memorial Day as a day that serves to “integrate the local community into the national cult” of American civil religion. Memorial Day was first officially observed on May 30, 1868 for Americans to pause in awe and gratitude for the supreme sacrifices made by those who died fighting in the Civil War. It was originally called Decoration Day, as the graves of Union and Confederate soldiers were decorated with flowers.
Since then, the 620,523 women and men who have died fighting for our country in World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan have been remembered on this day, moved by Congress in 1971 to the last Monday of May.
In 2000, President Clinton passed a resolution requesting that Americans observe a “National Moment of Remembrance” at 3pm local time, pausing to remember and respect the lives lost by our servicemen and servicewomen. In 2002, the VFW released a statement lamenting American’s nonchalant observance of Memorial Day and trying to rally support for legislation previously introduced in Congress to return to the practice of observing Memorial Day on May 30, in the hope that this stand-alone holiday might reorient more Americans back to the day’s original significance.
Since, for most Americans, Memorial Day is a day for relaxation and fun, backyard barbeques, and the official start of summer, it makes me wonder what kind of “civil religion” Bellah would describe us practicing today.
I have to admit the reason I went to a Memorial Day Parade last year was to show my son the marching bands and the flashing lights on the police cars and fire engines. And it was mostly for the fire engines.
Once there, however, I was taken aback by what I saw: in addition to the bands and dance troupes, a few antique automobiles, and a police and fire detail, there was a squadron of fragile-looking senior veterans marching to honor their fallen comrades. I was struck not only by the charisma surprisingly revealed through their fragile figures, but the sparse crowd that stood at attention for them. It was mostly other senior citizens and young families who had brought their children to take in the sights and sounds. There were a few others who were in their 20s and 30s, but most were casually talking over coffee or flipping through their phones. My eyes locked with a veteran pulling a wagon full of American flags waiting to be handed out – to spectators who either didn’t want a flag or who never showed up in the first place. And this was in Cambridge, just blocks from where George Washington took command of the American Army on July 3, 1775, leading America’s first soldiers to confront tyranny.
After my surprising sense of anger at the seeming apathy of my fellow citizens subsided, I had to acknowledge that this was my first Memorial Day parade since my grandparents took me by the hand to one as a child. Both of my grandfathers were veterans, and I still remember the pride in their eyes when they’d stand, remove their hats, and place their hands over their hearts as the American flag would pass us. They never spoke of their friends and relatives who never made it home, but I have long felt a sobering sense of gratitude for the fact that my grandfathers did return home – or else I may very well not exist.
I have complicated feelings about our armed services. Saving Private Ryan was released when I was in high school, and the awe I felt watching the honor and sacrifice of the soldiers on the screen made me wonder if I had what it took to serve my country and the cause of freedom. When it was time to think about choosing a college, I investigated the service academies and considered a future in the military, but got turned off by what I saw as systematic endorsement of rigid conformity, blind obedience, and a good deal of bureaucratic inefficiency. The more I got involved in community service and international immersion trips, the more skeptical I became of the good being done in the name of our national defense. I learned about the School of the Americas and other injustices inflicted abroad. And the fact that 27 cents of every $1 paid in taxes goes to the military when there are so many grave needs in our schools, health clinics and hospitals, and neighborhoods.
I was in college on 9/11 and in the days afterwards. I remember the swell of patriotism, and in some cases, xenophobia. I studied abroad in Madrid after the U.S. invaded Iraq in March 2003 and was advised by friends, family, and even professors to try to pass for a Canadian, in order to avoid the derision of Europeans opposed to America’s unilateral aggression. I was exposed to a lot of views throughout my studies and travels in Europe that I never heard, read, or saw back home. It opened my eyes to how the U.S. is viewed by (some of) those outside our borders.
I’ve had illuminating conversations with students at Catholic colleges who are enrolled in R.O.T.C or are veterans attending college after already having served our country. They remind me that the military is a vehicle for social mobility, and in some cases, one of only a few viable options to pay for college without being overwhelmed by student loans. They also point out the humanitarian aid and peace-keeping operations enhanced by U.S. military resources, personnel, and expertise.
My feelings are complicated because of all these complex issues. I don’t mean to reduce everything down to one issue or a single day. Mourning the departed and honoring their sacrifices on Memorial Day should stand distinct from paying tribute to our surviving vets on Veterans Day. War isn’t the same as national security; moreover, the rise of terrorism has changed how to approach both. Although recent headlines ranging from reigning in defense spending to sexual assaults on soldiers by other soldiers add to my hesitations, these concerns shouldn’t be projected onto all our soldiers, especially fallen heroes from previous decades. It takes great courage to stand up to evil, and their courage should not be forgotten.
I’ve discussed these ambiguous feelings because they might be shared by others who feel committed to the cause of human dignity and human rights, to justice and peace. But such uncertainties shouldn’t give us license to be stand-offish when it comes to honoring those who’ve paid the ultimate price for the privileges and liberties we so readily enjoy.
Labor organizer Mother Jones famously urged people to “Pray for the dead, and fight like hell for the living.” In a homily earlier this week, Pope Francis stressed the fact that “Courageous, humble, and strong prayer can accomplish miracles,” and lifted up victims of wars and refugees as being in particular need of our prayer. These steadfast prayers for peace and healing should be combined with public action that demonstrates support for those who have been forced to bear the costs of war, both personal and financial. Visiting a cemetery, standing at attention for a parade, or observing a moment of silence at 3pm today might be the first step to revitalizing our commitment to uniting our prayer and action to honor the dead and fight for the living.
This Mother’s Day, Americans will spend an estimated $21 billion to show their appreciation and love to the women who gave us the gift of life. That breaks down to almost $170 for each consumer to say “Thank You!” in cards, flowers, brunch, and other gifts.
Moms certainly deserve the recognition, thanks, and praise. But we should be better about doing this all year long. And we should more consistently stand up for all the women in our lives, including others’ moms or moms-to-be.
Robert and Sarah’s posts this past week highlight the denigrating images, messages, and pressures put on women today. Robert cites the “real beauty” campaign by Dove. And while Dove’s attempts to subvert dominant paradigms of unrealistic standards of beauty are laudable, Dove’s parent company, Unilever, runs ads with almost the opposite message for a different subsidiary, Axe (Axe soaps and scents seem to strip women of any brainpower or agency by depicting them as magnetically – and lustfully – drawn to any man who dons their product). Ads like these make it hard to reverse trends that indicate women have one negative thought about their body every waking hour – and that as many as 97% of women have at least one negative body thought a day.
Maybe there’s more we can do for Mom – and other moms and moms-to-be – than send a card or some flowers once a year?
Cultural pressures and expectations are one thing. When these degrading images start to shape us, they can lead to even worse objectification and exploitation. Patriarchy of all kinds engenders a “rape culture” that stands idly by while pornography, domestic abuse, sexual assault, and human trafficking (including that of women and children trafficked for sex) impact an increasing number of lives.
These are not subjects that are easy to discuss. Yet if we are going to honor Mom, we should move beyond words and gestures of gratitude. We need to confront the realities of sin, both personal and social, that degrade moms and all other women and girls across our country and all over the globe.
This means addressing the fact that 40 million Americans watch porn regularly, including 70% of 18-24 males. It requires that we acknowledge porn is so pervasive that it accounts for 35% of all internet downloads, is exposed to children on average by age 11, and that Sunday is the most popular day of the week for watching porn. If ever there was a day to abstain, let’s hope it would be Mother’s Day. Not only out of respect for Mom, or sisters and daughters who may one day become moms, but to girlfriends and spouses, since such widespread viewing is being linked to growing trends in sexual dissatisfaction, infidelity, and divorce.
It means confronting the fact that even if we vow never to raise a hand to a woman in our house, 1 in 4 women will still experience domestic abuse in their lifetime. The same ratio of college women are sexually assaulted, and the numbers are also disturbingly high among high school girls, reaching almost one in five. It’s not enough to refuse to be a perpetrator; we must be committed to being allies and advocates who are actively and steadfastly working to end violence against women. One way to honor Mom is to end the culture of indifference that persists in our enlightened age that professes a commitment to liberty and equality.
It means standing with women and girls for human dignity and human rights. It also means being more informed and responsible consumers, who refuse to buy clothing stitched by female garment workers in sweatshop factories like the one that collapsed and killed more than one thousand in Bangladesh a few weeks ago. And boycotting produce picked by farmworker mothers that makes slavery a part of our food chain.
If we fail to acknowledge and atone for these sins, Mother’s Day risks becoming a Hallmark Holiday that ultimately rings hollow. Moms and moms-to-be deserve better than that, especially since their love for us is anything but just-for-show.
Dove’s recent “Real Beauty Sketches” ad campaign has sparked strong praise from those who think it opens the eyes of women to the way their self-image regarding their physical appearance can become twisted and distorted (for a whole number of reasons). Critics argue that the takeaway is that the women featured in the commercials really are closer to “beauty” than they realize, seemingly reinforcing an illegitimate standard of objective beauty or attractiveness. My feelings are mixed, as it does both.
In all aspects of life we can magnify small or nonexistent shortcomings and stress over them, and this is particularly true for women and their physical appearance, as they live in a culture that glorifies the objectification of women. At the same time, the Dove commercials do reinforce illegitimate stereotypes regarding attractiveness that negatively impact the perceptions of self-worth held by many women.
Yet the critics seem too tame when it comes to confronting the real menace. It is not simply that common cultural standards of attractiveness at this moment in American history are wrong and harmful, but that any embrace of standards of attractiveness—the rating, sorting, and objectifying of human persons based on their physical appearance—is incompatible with respect for the dignity and worth of the human person and stands as a serious obstacle to the common good.
If we really want to cure or greatly reduce some of the most destructive ills in our society, including divorce, infidelity, suicide, bullying, sexual assault, the sexualization of children, sexual and street harassment, the pervasiveness of pornography, racism, colorism, materialism, greed, insecurity, superficiality, eating disorders, sexism, and human trafficking, our society needs to reexamine the way it views attraction and attractiveness. Fundamentally irrational notions of attraction and attractiveness are widespread, and they lead to the dehumanization—or the depersonalization—of others, opening the door for injustice, insecurity, hatred, and exploitation. To be clear, these are all complex problems and they each require a myriad of responses in order to move toward the common good (far more than reducing the physical objectification of others), but what many consider frivolous and fun is actually a grave underlying problem.
Our society glorifies disconnecting people’s physical appearance from their spiritual, intellectual, and emotional natures in order to objectify them so that they can be used instrumentally as sexual objects or observed, classified, and rated like pieces of art or inanimate objects.
This fosters insecurity in millions of Americans. Few things cause more widespread unhappiness in our society. It can tear relationships apart with spouses looking outside of their marriage for affirmation of their worth as a person or spouses resenting the other based on whether or not each spouse is seemingly measuring up to standards of attractiveness. The result: conflict, dysfunction, infidelity, and divorce.
It can lead to malicious bullying, which in turn can produce fear, self-hatred, eating disorders, self-harm, substance abuse, sexual promiscuity, reckless behavior, and even suicide. And all of these can exist without bullying when people, especially young people, measure themselves against airbrushed models or even their best friend and find themselves lacking the traits that supposedly make one attractive. They turn to these self-destructive behaviors to fill that void, to overcome insecurities, or perhaps just to escape the pain and unhappiness of the moment.
Irrational notions of attractiveness foster materialism and greed because attractiveness can be purchased if one has the financial resources for expensive cosmetics, clothes, stylists, and even surgeons. It reinforces the individualism that permeates our society by inciting the person to treat him or herself like an object that can and must be improved, and this self-absorption—this obsession with the superficial—leads people to betray other values like authenticity, community, and justice.
On a societal level, the obsession with physical attractiveness and pressure to conform to the fleeting, capricious standards of the moment bear a heavier burden on girls and women. Those women who refuse to conform are often faced with scorn, contempt, and mockery, particularly those in the public spotlight, those shattering glass ceilings. And those women who do accept conformity as a necessity or by choice are nevertheless often punished, seen as less serious than their male counterparts. This plays no small role in the inequalities that exist between men and women in the workplace.
And this obsession leads to violence against women. Certainly the desire for power often plays a dominant role in sexual assault, but sexual desire based on physical attraction cannot be left out of the equation. It is integral to rape culture. It drives sex trafficking and forced prostitution.
Notions of attractiveness also reflect and fuel ugly forms of bigotry in our culture: racism and colorism. The preference for lighter skin in American society is both pervasive and repulsive. Unjust, indefensible prejudice is dismissed as preference and harmful effects are ignored.
All of this should lead to one conclusion: retaining superficial attraction to those toward whom we are not genuinely attracted (as persons not objects) and maintaining standards of attractiveness regarding members of the opposite sex, or even our own, are harmful practices and morally indefensible. Human persons, equipped with reason and the capacity to recognize the dignity of others, can and should discard them. They should stop objectifying themselves. And they should take on social structures that reinforce and perpetuate these practices. The result would be greater human flourishing for both those who objectify and those who are objectified. Deconstructing these irrational prejudices would lead to a more widespread appreciation for the dignity and worth of each person and make evermore present the kingdom of God.
For one whose life is directed by the desire to reach their full potential as a human person, the purpose of physical and sexual attraction is to find joy through communion in a unified relationship with a spouse. Our notions and understanding of both legitimate attraction and standards of attractiveness should flow from this reality.
For those who are married (or in relationships of that nature, as well as in relationships on the way to marriage), legitimate physical attraction is based on genuine love that manifests itself in the desire for physical unity and sexual expression with one other person. This legitimate attraction is based on love and truth, not prejudice and cultural programming. It reflects a real desire to be with another person, to share one’s self with them in a unique and intimate way. And it inspires sentiments and desires that correspond with this legitimate wish for unity.
It is among these couples where we are most likely to find people who have discarded the erroneous belief in the objective beauty of others and turned away from superficiality and the objectification of others. And it is most often not the product of a conscious choice to reject these, but instead the result of experiencing unparalleled attraction to another person and intuitively comprehending the authentic nature and sources of beauty. Past notions of what is and is not attractive then seem silly and absurd. This type of authentic attraction to another person, the real desire to love that person and become one flesh, contrasts sharply with superficial attraction, which is in fact fleeting, arbitrary, and useless.
To try to discern the attractiveness of others for whom we lack this desire and these feelings is to irrationally cling to an artificial construct that generates destructive prejudice and helps no one. It is fundamentally irrational and pointless, disconnected from the lived reality of genuine, authentic attraction. There is therefore a responsibility to make one’s understanding of attractiveness align with this reality and to deprogram the prejudices we have inherited and invented regarding superficial attraction and attractiveness.
For those still seeking a spouse, it is better if physical attraction flows from a real connection that holds the possibility of future communion—grounded in some mixture of common values and personal chemistry—rather than acting as a tool to arbitrarily spark relationships with people whose physical appearance will change with time, but whose values may never allow for genuine communion. This is not to say that authentic one flesh relationships cannot be sparked by a superficial attraction shaped by one’s subjective understanding of attractiveness, merely that these relationships would be the fairly rare, exceptionally fortunate outcomes of an approach that tilts heavily toward failure. The divorce rate may actually be surprisingly low rather than surprisingly high when we consider how many people choose to build their marriages on such a shaky foundation. But again, real attraction can supplant arbitrary attraction so failure is not inevitable.
A better approach to finding a spouse would be to discard one’s superficial standards of attractiveness and personalize the search for one’s spouse—to base it on the future one would like to build with a spouse and that ineffable, intuitive attraction to the spirit of another person instead of on meaningless, capricious predilections.
It is not just sensible and rational to deconstruct these prejudices; it is a Christian duty. We are called to treat each other as brothers and sisters. Think about how ridiculous it is to try to objectively determine the attractiveness of your brother or sister, mom or dad, son or daughter. Is your assessment distorted by your love for them? How about the fact that you are familiar with their spiritual and emotional natures? Are you failing to objectively see them as they are in reality?
In fact, once we realize the notion of objective beauty is a preposterous, fanciful delusion, we might come to see that we are seeing them as we should—as a unified, whole person with not just a physical, but also an emotional, intellectual, and spiritual nature—and that capricious standards of attractiveness are in fact distortions of reality. Our vision is not distorted by the proximity of the relationship, but rather because we love the person and know the person, we see him or her as an integral whole, just as God sees persons, not as a collection of parts or features. And the more we love someone, the more easily we can see their genuine beauty.
And it’s not a matter of seeing their so-called internal or inner beauty. We have all heard the aphorism that “beauty is only skin deep,” but this is not true. The internal vs. external beauty divide is fundamentally false, possible only when we fail to view the other person as they are, as an integral whole with a physical, emotional, intellectual, and spiritual nature. To appreciate beauty is to see how it permeates another person’s entire being.
And if we can see that is the case with our close friends and loved ones, we should be able to see why this standard—viewing people as whole, integrated persons—aligns with Christian responsibility to treat all as brothers and sisters.
If we do this, we might be able to live up to the challenge Christ places before us—to eradicate lust in our hearts. This is among his most radical teachings and to most contemporary Americans it must seem like an entirely unreasonable duty. That is probably true unless effort is made to get to the very root of the problem by eliminating that prejudice that generates that lust. A person is perfectly capable of leaving behind this prejudice. And once they do, they will see their past celebrity crush or random object of desire as a human being, a person with dignity and emotions, someone to whom they are not actually attracted, rather than seeing them as an object. They will then live in reality, where their perceptions match their authentic desires and values. At this point, the everyday obsession with capricious standards of attractiveness will look just as silly as when Brent Musburger embarrassed himself on national television doing what millions of Americans do every day.
Beauty is Subjective
The science of attraction/beauty is heavily contested. Some studies equate symmetry with attractiveness while others claim “averageness” is the key to beauty, findings that are irreconcilable. And this is just the beginning of the contradictions. These studies range from what we might generously call ‘inconclusive’ to those that can only be identified as outright pseudoscience. And many of the results, which are supposed to transcend cultural prejudice, seem to resemble precisely what one would expect to see in a similar study from the 1930s by Nazi eugenicists. Can an actual scientist in this day and age actually believe in the aesthetic superiority of whites? Sadly, yes. From dubious variables to missing variables to the failure to isolate environmentally-constructed biases, these studies are rife with methodological errors and fail pathetically in their attempt to prove a universal standard of physical attractiveness. Many reflect the humorous fact that people tend to rate more highly the attractiveness of others who share their own features, leading to results that are more likely to reflect simple narcissism than confirm the existence of some imagined innate ability connected to passing on genes.
Further, in seeking to find some evolutionary basis for objective standards of attractiveness, there is a tendency in these studies to ignore the impact of some of the most powerful forces shaping understandings of attractiveness—fashion, cosmetics, status, talent, fame, public personality, etc. No person with even a modicum of common sense could deny that these heavily shape understandings of beauty. Whole industries exist because of their success in shaping perceptions of attractiveness, fostering insecurity, and promoting their products as remedies. The media is often complicit in this. This is why people wear makeup, get dressed up, have their hair done a certain way, and engage in various other activities that they have learned will make them more likely to meet contemporary standards of attractiveness.
The reality is that beauty is fundamentally subjective. Notions of attractiveness are overwhelmingly shaped by personal prejudice, whether inherited from mainstream society, formed by a subculture, influenced by personal experience, or consciously constructed. Even those with disdain for mainstream culture’s standards of beauty often retain some level of illegitimate and irrational prejudice regarding the external appearance of others. They might be drawn to those who dress like a hipster or attracted to those who look like their ex-boyfriend or ex-girlfriend. And they may feel superior to those who accept popular notions of attractiveness because they have largely deconstructed these. They have not, however, moved past the type of illegitimate discrimination that impedes the quest for authentic communion.
The alternatives to seeking a spouse based on how they fit momentary standards of attractiveness are often equally facile, whether one is using another’s status, wealth, innate intelligence, “winning personality”, confidence and charisma, or any other characteristic that is not intimately connected to the character of the potential romantic interest. Certainly these could reflect character traits. Wealth may signify wisdom or temperance, but not necessarily, making it an ineffective proxy for character (and those interested in wealth are probably more often interested in the wealth itself than in the character traits that may have helped generate it). There is no correlation between having equally high innate intellectual abilities and achieving marital bliss. The link is not there between sharing a socioeconomic status and having an increased capacity for communion. The construction of “types” can only inhibit the quest to find a spouse with whom one can achieve real, enduring emotional, physical, intellectual, and spiritual unity.
The foolishness of those who claim to identify objective standards of beauty can be exposed by anyone familiar with history, art history, popular culture, anthropology, cross-cultural studies, or a variety of other fields. The knowledge of other cultures and eras make it clear that notions of attraction are fleeting and capricious. They change radically with time and across cultures, even in the era of globalization. The idea that “beauty is in the eye of beholder” is a bit of ancient wisdom that remains just as true today. This becomes clear when one reflects on the radically different notions, for instance, of what constituted an attractive woman in the Renaissance, Victorian England, the 1980s, and today. Contrast the past appeal of bound feet in China with how repulsive someone in the United States would find them today. The differences are so obvious that explaining them would simply belabor the point.
Preferences for certain body types would seem to be the most likely biases to reflect a survival of the fittest instinct, yet these four eras alone show that there is no objective standard wired into the human brain. Even today, when we look across the globe we can find cultures that obsess over thinness combined with voluptuous breasts (like ours), but we can also find others where the mark of an attractive woman is large physical size (which can be seen as a reflection of health, wealth, fertility, or simply what a woman is supposed to look like). The dominant traits of attractiveness in one place can be seen as thoroughly unattractive—repulsive even—in another.
One needs no special knowledge of science, history, or culture to see how subjective notions of beauty can be. Personal experience can show us how notions of attractiveness can (and do) come and go, rather than merely reflect animalistic programing. A sour experience with someone can make one less physically attracted to them. Many have developed a strong physical attraction toward someone who they did not find physically attractive initially. As one ages, it is common to shift one’s perceptions of the attractiveness of people at various ages. For instance, 14-year old girls and 40-year old women are likely to rate the attractiveness of various boys and men in radically different ways. Dating someone new can dramatically change one’s type. A change in mainstream culture can alter how one views past attractions, as those with an embarrassing celebrity teen crush can confirm. Nearly everyone has experiences that confirm just how fleeting and superficial these are.
Reason over Instinct
Let us imagine that there is some inherited instinct to use the appearance of heath and youth and (if we are really willing to stretch it) body type and facial bone structure to find fertile mates to pass on our genes. It would nevertheless be preposterous for a civilized human with free will and the capacity to use reason to instead rely on irrational prehistoric prejudice to find a suitable spouse. Animal instincts that reflect a primitive mind are no excuse to fail to develop one’s intellectual, emotional, spiritual, and even physical capabilities. Reason allows us to connect notions of attractiveness to actual attraction. The idea that we should evaluate spouses by their external appearance because cavemen did it and we must be controlled by the same impulses is more than mildly absurd. Perhaps instead we should select our spouses based on their ability to kill a wooly mammoth.
Others should not be treated based on the supposed natural instincts of the homo sapien. If an unfaithful man tries to hide behind his natural instinct to spread his seed, this defense rightfully is typically seen as ridiculous and indefensible. If a man gets into a dispute and turns immediately to violence and kills another man, does he get a free pass? Not in any civilized society that values human reason, free will, morality, and justice.
We are free to pick a spouse based on our desire to be with someone who will be a good partner and parent, someone with whom we would enjoy building a life together, someone with whom we have a desire to become one flesh. To do otherwise is to turn away from our highest capacities and embrace irrationality. Human persons are not ethically permitted to act like irrational animals driven by extinct. There is a moral duty to eliminate immoral prejudice.
And ultimately if one wants to pick a spouse based on his or her fertility, perhaps relying on their skin tone or the size of the bridge of their nose is not the most reasonable, reliable method.
Race and Attraction
This all ties in to a reality that receives far too little attention: racism has an intimate relationship with popular notions of attractiveness in the United States. In numerous studies, ideal features eerily resemble Aryan standards of beauty based on notions of racial superiority. The argument that people are genetically more attracted to others because of their facial bone structure, hair type, or skin color is simply a contemporary manifestation of eugenics. The premise that attraction based on race, which is itself a social construct, could be driven by natural rather than environmental factors is patently ridiculous.
Yet such prejudice is pervasive. Data culled from dating websites show an astonishing amount of racial discrimination by those seeking a romantic partner, even among those who claim to not care. Look at Maxim’s Hot 100 List which is full of blonde white women, yet has only a handful of black women. Consider the fact that fewer than 4% of runway models are non-white. And where black women are included in a catalogue of objects we are to admire, there is a strong tendency to include only or predominantly light-skinned black women, reflecting and reinforcing colorism.
In 1970, Toni Morrison wrote The Bluest Eye, which is about a young black girl, Pecola, who has internalized standards of beauty that reflect racial bigotry and longs to have blue eyes. This poison persists in our culture. On Race in America on CNN, they showed a little girl who was ashamed of her “ugly” black skin. The real ugliness is the racism connected to the way our society commonly defines beauty.
There simply is no rational purpose for maintaining prejudice regarding facial features, skin color or tone, or other features of this nature. One can try to hide the ugliness of prejudice behind the word preference but it does not change the basic reality of the situation. Is it acceptable to refuse to be friends with someone because of the color of their skin? Is that mere preference? Then why do so many feel like it is acceptable to exclude those of a certain race from an even more important, more intimate, more potentially joy-inspiring relationship? Why are we not indignant when we see SWM seeks SWF in a personal ad? Why is this one area where racial prejudice largely gets a free pass? There is no good excuse for this.
What the Church Should Teach
The Church should teach a personalist understanding of attraction and attractiveness. This starts with the recognition that all people have dignity and worth as children of God and that each has an emotional, physical, intellectual, and spiritual nature. The responsibility to love others as brothers and sisters demands treating them as integral wholes. To isolate their physical nature and judge them based on this is to objectify them, to depersonalize them. To truly appreciate the beauty of another person requires seeing their beauty as a person—undivided—and being animated by love for that person. Appreciation for the beauty of another can become authentic attraction when it reflects a real desire to pursue the unique, intimate relationship shared by loving spouses. Romantic, physical, and sexual attraction to others is fundamentally irrational and worthless, and looms as an obstacle to the full communion of spouses, their ability to become one flesh, which all married couples are called to become. Persons can and should discard irrational notions of attractiveness and illegitimate attraction by deconstructing the prejudices that foster them.
It is not enough to work for individual conversion, it also essential to work for the breakdown of social sin embedded in social norms and structures that punish authenticity and promote the objectification of others.
The Church should work for a society that allows authentic spousal love to flourish. It should stand against materialism, consumerism, and superficiality. The idea that we can manipulate our physical appearance through conformity to fashion and cosmetic trends in order to find authentic, enduring love is absolutely senseless, and the Church should make that clear. The responsibility is to be countercultural—to unapologetically promote a radical understanding of human dignity and love.
I once read a conservative Catholic periodical discuss how you can notice the cute waiter or waitress, but don’t flirt with him or her and embarrass your spouse and kids. Others subscribe to the “you can look, but not touch” philosophy. These are pathetic guidelines that reflect a weak, milquetoast faith that is infected by bourgeois values, particularly the supreme bourgeois value, individualism. We live in a culture where relationships are often two people pursuing their own individual interests and desires, joined together by collective behavior designed to achieve these individual ends through enlightened self-interest. Catholic marriage instead finds inspiration in the Trinity, seeking genuine communion based on selfless love. This reality should permeate everything the Church teaches about human sexuality, including attraction and the recognition of beauty. Sexuality without intimacy and exclusivity is beneath the dignity of the human person.
By opposing the objectification of others, the Church can provide a solid foundation for an assault on numerous forms of injustice and make a major contribution to the common good and human flourishing. Only when we reject the legitimacy of capricious, fleeting standards of attractiveness can we really take on the insecurity epidemic present in our society and the evil that objectifying others can foster.
Otherwise, how can we tell teenage girls to focus on their character, academic performance, and the other things we value rather than their physical appearance when we fail to reject the legitimacy of their objectification and it has such a concrete impact on their everyday lives? How can we convince spouses to feel secure and relish the joy of marriage when their spouse is attracted to others and disconnects the attractiveness of others from his or her actual feelings toward the person? How can we fully utilize the gifts and talents of the female population when social norms often suppress their potential to serve the common good and create rivalry with other women? How we can destroy rape culture without destroying the legitimacy of viewing other persons as objects to be consumed? How can we eradicate racism when it is so deeply connected to the most important, intimate aspect of people’s lives?
We cannot get to the heart of any of these social ills unless this type of objectification is wholly and unambiguously rejected as illegitimate. Given how pervasive notions of attraction and attractiveness are in our society, the promotion of these ideals represents a monumental challenge, but there is no alternative. Truth, love, and justice demand it.