Her Body Is Good Design

I am always upset to hear religious leaders, especially Jewish religious leaders, say things that I find abhorrent. I dislike the way their words taint their associated religions, and damage the idea of God. I am even more disturbed when these messages are aimed primarily at women.

Rabbi Shmuley (radio host and host of TLC’s “Shalom in the Home”) recently published an article admonishing mothers of nurslings to preserve their sexual attractiveness for their husbands by covering up when breastfeeding, or indeed eschewing breastfeeding altogether should it become an issue for the couple. He argues that a man has a difficult time seeing a woman’s breasts used to nurse his child and continuing to view them as sexual objects, which could lead to frigid love life. He says that if a woman puts her baby’s needs before her husband’s needs, she’s committing a “cardinal sin” by putting someone before her spouse in her marriage.

There are so many things wrong with the article that I scarcely know where to begin. What irritated me enough to write this response, however, was the idea that a woman’s body should, by design, be a thing of sexual provocation to her husband, and if it is seen used for any other purpose, it loses its primary glory.

Years ago I debated with a Catholic priest who asserted that the reason Mary could never have given birth to any other children after Jesus was because God had consecrated her womb for a sacred purpose, and that once so consecrated could never again be used for any profane purpose. I argued, “But you yourself said childbirth was a miracle! You yourself said giving birth to children was a holy activity!” It seemed completely unnatural to me that any cleric (especially of Catholicism!) could call childbirth “profane” (as opposed to “sacred”), and it seems just as unnatural that any rabbi­—coming from a religion that teaches that breastfeeding is a baby’s right for two years—could relegate the quality of beauty of a woman’s body to the realm of the sexual gratification it grants her husband.

One of my philosophies about design is that great design inspires emotional loyalty; we become passionate about things that are elegant and easy to use. We are passionate about things that do their jobs well and in a graceful, attractive way. The female body, in my opinion, is the epitome of natural design. A woman is soft, flexible, strong, elegant. She is sexual, protective, evocative. The female body was designed not merely to stimulate her husband’s sexual appetite (though that is certainly one of its many functions), but also to give birth, to sweat, to run, to fight, to breastfeed her babies. Women are designed not just for attraction but for use. We are supposed to get dirty. We are supposed to bleed. And we are supposed to nurse our young. Any man that cannot appreciate that his wife can and is designed to do all these things without losing his sexual taste for her has issues far beyond how long she nurses her baby. Not only should e not lose his taste for her, he should be inspired by her diversity. He should be moved by the many things her body is capable of doing. He should feel a sweltering of pride that this woman he loves can be tender, and sexual, and utterly utilitarian at the same time. That is the appropriate response to good design.

Perhaps the real trouble is not that women place their babies before their husbands, or that men are sexually turned off by breastfeeding, but that as a culture we are not taught to value the more basic functions of the human body. Perhaps the problem is that sexuality has been divorced from the body as a biological imperative, as an animalistic desire. In this day an age we cannot afford to take sexual promiscuity lightly, but on the other hand, if we make it too sterile, if we divorce it from the reality of what people are and what bodies are, we do it no great service, either. Sexuality should not be defined by lace bras, thong panties, satin negligees and perfume. So much emphasis is placed on women being “sexy” (with a very limited idea about what constitutes “sexy”) that we almost forget entirely that women can and are still desirable without being “sexy”! Men aren’t merely attracted to women because they look good in bathing suits; sexual attraction is a whole-person experience, not necessarily strictly visual. (Even given that men are very visual creatures.) Men are attracted to women, and especially husbands to their wives, for many, many reasons. Sexuality and sexual activity have to exist in a real world environment which includes crying children, late nights at the office, upset stomachs, and the moody blues. The relationship between our bodies and how we use them and how we live in this very real world is complex; our bodies cannot be one thing today and something else tomorrow, God forbidding the twain should meet! Bodies are designed for many purposes, and are capable of elegantly carrying out many different tasks. This should evoke wonder and awe, not disgust, especially over something a simple and sweet as a suckling babe!

I don’t think there is anything wrong a woman choosing to display her body to her husband only under particular circumstances to preserve his perception of her if that’s her choice. But I have a huge problem with Rabbi Shmuley encouraging this behavior, especially at the expense of a nursling child. It isn’t only men that have to love the female body for what it is, but women too. The division of sexuality and reality is a social problem, and Rabbi Shmuley’s advice only perpetuates it. The fact that women’s breasts make lovely sexual objects is but icing on the cake; any man should be able to see those breasts used for other purposes and still be able to treat them as sexual when appropriate.

Subscribe via RSS 2.0 | Comment | Trackback