Through a series of wrong turns and poor assumptions, Josiah Lippincott (“Women objectify men as much as men objectify women,” March 10), comes to an assertion about women in his op-ed that is absolutely false: “A woman’s virtue doesn’t make her beautiful. It makes her good. There is a difference.”
Just after Lippincott finishes ranting about women’s tendency to objectify men, he makes his first mistake. He writes, “we need to be wary of taking the anti-porn argument too far, to the point that we treat a man desiring a woman sexually as an evil in itself.”
Lippincott fails to recognize the extent to which pornography afflicts our world. An analysis of 400 million web searches from July 2009 to July 2010 shows that 13 percent of searches were for erotic content. In the summer of 2015, 56 percent of adults aged 18-24 admitted to seeking out pornography once or twice a month, and two-thirds of those even more frequently so. Despite this, Lippincott worries that those who stand against pornography may accidentally vilify the natural attraction of a man to a woman.
If Lippincott had bothered to consider the dominance of pornography in our culture, he may not have proceeded with his argument, as he relies on his emphasis of men’s physical desire for women to define true beauty. He writes, “True beauty is sexy. The things men find beautiful about women are grounded in the biological requirements for creating new life.” This is Lippincott’s biggest stumble: He asserts that a woman is only beautiful if a man thinks she’s sexy.
And that is absurd.
Lippincott seems to understand beauty in limited terms, restricting his definition to physical attributes. This is a severe demotion from Lucchese’s understanding, that “true Beauty is the superlative of the Good.”
Lippincott also asserts that men grant women their beauty. If a woman’s true beauty is synonymous with her sex appeal, then a man must recognize it so that it may exist.
He further limits his definition of beauty by qualifying attention-worthy traits as those relevant to bearing children. Thin waists, child-bearing hips, omega-3 deposits, long and shiny hair, developed breasts — all of these features have something to do with producing children and radiate sex appeal, according to Lippincott.
If Lippincott wants to make the argument that women are beautiful because of the physical attributes their female hormones warrant them, he needs to recognize all the features that entails. While some women exhibit “long and shiny hair” and “developed breasts” thanks to the hormones that prepare them for motherhood, they also experience acne, bloating, and menstruation. Pregnant women have swollen fingers, puffy ankles, and stretch marks. Sexy, right?
Lippincott may not have received the memo, but women aren’t just wives, mothers and homemakers anymore. Many hope to take on the role of wife and mom at some point during their lives, but they may, and should, exercise other vocations simultaneously. Besides, not all women can have children, and others simply choose not to. We are designed to do many things.
A woman’s beauty is not contingent upon her looks, her motherhood, or the way men perceive her. Lippincott fails to support his claim that virtue plays no part in a beautiful woman, which won’t shock anyone who understands the basic Christian and Aristotelian perceptions of beauty. So, to all the short-haired, narrow-hipped, single women out there: Don’t worry, you’re still beautiful.
