Marriage: Creating a Partnership, Not Reeling in a Catch
Last week Groupon offered a ticket to lasting love (at a 76% discount!) by way of your own personal "boudoir photo shoot." The ad proclaims:
The great Romantic painters had the same goal—to craft an image so beautiful that it would come to life and marry them. Increase your chances of turning images into love using the modern version of painting, photography …
The sample photo suggests that the way to transform "images into love" to is throw on some kitschy lingerie, splay yourself in the most awkward position imaginable on a bed, and fork over $95.00 for the picture.
The image might have gone from G-rated to R-rated, but the sentiment in this marketing campaign is strikingly similar to those of the conduct books popular around the eighteenth century. Such literature offered young ladies not only moral and domestic instruction, but also tips on how to attract the best husband. If you've read any Jane Austen, then you've encountered her satirical treatment of these works: priggish Mr. Collins reads passages from one popular conduct book to the captive Bennet girls, and the heroine of Emma tries to make a love-match by painting an "enhanced" portrait of her friend in hopes a gentleman will fall in love with the woman in the painting.
Since reading (as opposed, perhaps, to seeing) is believing, here are some samples from the original sources:
In his 1765 Sermons to Young Women, Rev. James Fordyce wrote:
Your best emblem, beloved, is the smiling form of peace, robed in white, and bearing a branch of olive … in a female we wish nothing to reign but love and tenderness ….
A modest but animated mien, an air at once unaffected and noble, are doubtless circumstances of great attraction and delight.
Dr. John Gregory warns women in A Father's Legacy to his Daughters of 1774:
The power of a fine woman over the hearts of men, of men of the finest parts, is even beyond what he conceives. They are sensible of the pleasing illusion, but they cannot, nor do they wish to dissolve it. But if she is determined to dispel the charm, it certainly is in her power: she may soon reduce the angel to a very ordinary girl.
Centuries of advancements for women separate Emma and the conduct books from the Groupon boudoir photo offer, yet they all convey the notion that if a woman can project the desired image—angelic in the eighteenth century, erotic in the twenty-first—she will succeed in her quest to catch a man.
When the basis of marriage was economic or political—as it has been for nearly all of human history—it made sense for a woman to direct her wiles toward making "a good catch." Most times her very livelihood depended on it. But around the time these conduct books were being written, a major shift was taking place in the view of marriage, a shift that occurred through a newly emerging Christian understanding of marriage.
To add a comment you need to be a registered user or Christianity Today subscriber.
or
or
Bless These Hands That Instagram My Food
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Pinterest
Comments
Displaying 1–10 of 59 comments
See all comments
NATHAN KIRBY
Great article and great posts, Karen! I like the companionsip/complementary model. Men and women are different physically and emotionally. Viva La Difference! We should respect our differences and work together to the glory of God and the kingdom. Even so, the bibical model is with the man as head of the wife and loving her as Christ loved the church. Modern feminism influences in the church tend to erode this bibically based relationship amd make something evil of the man being head of the wife. I think the scriptures say they became "one" which seems to make it complementary. Men have unique talent and abilities and so do women. We need to complement each other not dominate each other but do all for the glory of God. Also, I never have understood how the church is being "feminized"? Would someone expain this to me, please! I loosly head a men's fellowship organized from our Senior Sunday School Men's Class that meets socially once per month to pray for each other but mostly to just fellowship and enjoy each other's company. It opens with a scripture and then we pray for individual prayer needs . We keep it pretty simple and it seems to enjoy success as the average attendence at the 8 AM monthly breakfast is around 18 men. The women's class in our department now have their own once per month breakfast which they enjoy. On the other hand our church (average attendence 300+) seems to have problems organizing a men's fellowship. It always seems to be hinged on a special speaker such as a champion fisherman or hunter or on hunting or fishing or camping. Men attend but it never seems to go anywhere because of unknown reasons. Why? Methinks the leadership of churches think to appeal to men the events must hinge around hunting or fishing. Is this true? Why? I do neither but praying for and serving others does appeal to me. One of the best ministries we have adopted lately in our local church is "Fathers in the Field" which pairs men with fatherless boys. Great ministry! I would like to know what it takes to make the church more appealing to men and exactly what makes it "feminized"? What is being done now in my church and others doesn't seem to work. I do miss Promise Keepers as it seemed to appeal to men and it certainly appealed to the more nobel aspects of being a Christian man and husband. Keep up the good work, Karen, and please do let your husband grow that beard:) I am sure he deserves it! God bless you and your blog.
Doreen Ashley
It was Adam who chose his own course of action. And the point I was making in the first place is that the Bible is clear that woman was created to be a help equal to man, not an "allurer" as MacArthur and Eldridge have deliniated us to be. Writers in the earlier eras used the word "temptress" to describe what these modern writers are doing--ascribing this "role" to women as if that is our created function.
Doreen Ashley
It was Adam who chose his own course of action. And the point I was making in the first place is that the Bible is clear that woman was created to be a help equal to man, not an "allurer" as MacArthur and Eldridge have deliniated us to be. Writers in the earlier eras used the word "temptress" to describe what these modern writers are doing--ascribing this "role" to women as if that is our created function.
casey
Then to Adam He said, Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, You shall not eat from it Genesis 3:17
casey
Then to Adam He said, Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, You shall not eat from it Genesis 3:17
Tim
Gen 3:6 - "She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it." I don't see anything about who was listening to whom, except that they both heard what the serpent said and then ate the fruit. Cheers, Tim
KR Wordgazer
Thank you, Casey, for your graciousness.
KR Wordgazer
Thank you, Casey, for your graciousness.
Doreen Ashley
Actually, KR was right, the Bible says that Adam listened to Eve and ate the forbidden fruit.
Doreen Ashley
Actually, KR was right, the Bible says that Adam listened to Eve and ate the forbidden fruit.
*