This lady removed the article, "Male Gynecologists Are Wrong" from her web site at the request of a Christian woman committed to purity and modesty who sent the ministry an email about her concerns about male gynecologists. The title of article was misleading because this ministry used some arguments to justify that male gynecologists were okay and twisted some scriptures. But we still have a copy of the debate and how the Christian woman committed to purity and modesty responded. The rebuttals are in red.
Lady of Ministry's Email:
My husband Ray forwarded your email to me, asking me to answer since I have had both a male and a female OB/GYN. All three of my babies were delivered by a male doctor.
Rebuttal From Woman Committed to Modesty: I wanted to let you know that my mom had a male gynecologist like you. In fact, he delivered both my sister and me in 1979 and 1983 via C-Section. There were almost no female gynecologists at that time so I imagine there were probably not many female gynecologists available either when you gave birth. Many rural areas in the US still do not have enough or no female gynecologists. I know that today Dallas area has many all-female ob/gyn practices though. Most women who had babies before 1990s had a male gynecologist unless they had a midwife. My mom said that if it had not been for me that she would have never thought about this issue because she was taught that doctors could do pretty much anything. She stopped going to a male gynecologist around 1999 after I brought this issue to her attention. I asked her if she thought that a male gynecologist could stay pure in mind and she said no.
I understand your desire to protect your purity, and I applaud that. However, I believe you are going too far in trying to make the case that male gynecologists are wrong. It's fine to take a personal stance of preferring a female doctor; it's fine to urge others to go to a female doctor; but stating that it's wrong, across the board, is unwise and, I believe, unfair.
Rebuttal From Woman Committed to Modesty: Christians have been taught to trust the medical industry completely and that they can do anything in name of medicine even if it is against God’s will. Many of us have fallen to this cultural blind spot. I thought you did a wonderful article about abortion. Abortion was not performed in the bible, but infanticide was. You shared bible verses that support that abortion is wrong. There were no male gynecologists in the bible either. I am glad that you agree that life begins at conception.
The abortion issue reminds me so much of opposite sex intimate medical care. Think about it this way: it is wrong for a man to shoot a pregnant woman and kill her unborn baby, but it’s okay for a doctor to kill an unborn baby through abortion in the name of medicine. Both the man and the doctor are equally guilty of murder. I think that all abortion doctors should be in prison. It is wrong for a man who is not in the medical profession to examine and touch private parts of a woman he is not married to, but it is okay for a male doctor to do that in name of medicine. That is ridiculous because God has the same standards for everyone including medical professionals.
I think you lack understanding of some important issues. Most men think differently than women; in fact, God designed their brains in a way that allows them to compartmentalize, concentrating on only one thing at a time. It's like having a chest of many drawers, where only one drawer can be open at a time. When most male OB/GYNs walk into an examining room, they are focused on serving their patients' medical needs. They truly can examine women's private parts without being distracted by an erotic component, because of the God-given design of the way their brains work. I did read your essay, and I understand your skepticism that this could be possible. But I'm curious, how many male gynecologists have you actually spoken to, to do a reality check against your beliefs?
Rebuttal From Woman
Committed to Modesty: The
things you shared about how men’s minds work are not true. I have
learned a lot over the years about how men’s minds work. I did
not know that tight blouses could make men lust for a long time. If
it was true that men could see women’s private parts as objects
in a non-sexual way, can you please explain why so many men have lustful
thoughts when they see scantily clothed or naked women? It is worse
when men see naked women. Male gynecologists are no different from other
men. I encourage you to consider reading a godly pastor, Josh Harris’
Even a Hint. He updated his book and changed the title to “Sex
Is Not the Problem (Lust is). He talked about how he and his family
went to a beautiful beach that had some scantily clothed women and that
he struggled with lustful thoughts. He shared this on page 66-67 of
the book: “After a vacation to a certain beach in Florida one
year, I decided I could not go back. The water was great, the beach
was great. But it was also crowded with women in revealing swimsuits.
Shannon and I talked about the temptations and the next year found a
more isolated beach to visit. It was not as nice, but I was not sinning
every day and had a much better time”. Based on your arguments
about how men’s minds work, he should have been able to see those
women on the beach as just objects in a non-sexual way.
In order to preserve the dignity and privacy of female patients, it is standard procedure to give them garments and sheets that cover up anything not being examined at the moment. Women patients just do not lie naked on exam tables! Doctors go to great lengths to keep women from the intense discomfort of nakedness. In addition to that, any ethical male doctor will have a nurse in the room with him to protect both the patient and the doctor.
Rebuttal From Woman Committed to Modesty: Covering certain parts of a woman's body still does not make it right for a male doctor to examine a woman's private parts. The male doctor still sees private parts of a woman who he is not married to and that is wrong. Doctors have a chaperone to protect themselves. A chaperone does not help to protect sexual abuse or prevent lustful thoughts. Many women are sexually abused by doctors with a nurse present. A chaperone often defends the doctor when she/he does something wrong. What about a chaperone watching an unmarried man and woman having sex? Does it make it less sinful? What about a man having a chaperone present every time he looks at pornography? Does it make it less wrong? ) Check out this article, Do Chaperones Really Protect Patients?
But it's not just my thoughts on the issue. Here are the words of Dr. William Cutrer, a Christian OB/GYN also committed to serving the Kingdom of God in ministry. This is from his book on infertility with my friend Sandra Glahn, When Empty Arms Become a Heavy Burden (2nd ed., 2010, Kregel): What about gender differences in choosing a doctor? Either gender can provide quality medical care without violating the person of the patient. I have heard about and read of physicians taking advantage of patients, but most have high standards of personal ethics and deserve patients' trust. It is far more critical to have a caring, competent physician who can communicate than to focus on gender.
It might help at this point to reveal a well-kept secret: what goes on (or rather, what doesn't) in the physician's mind during the infertility investigation. The female anatomy is fairly standardized so that no one is so remarkable as to be memorable. Also, my mind is so compartmentalized that before entering a patient's exam room, I review the chart to see where we've been and where we're going. Then I open the door and fix my full attention on that one patient. Ideally, I can focus so there is no other patient in the world for the duration of the visit. This way I can ask all the necessary questions with total concentration. I make notes on the chart to trigger my thinking for future visits. When I leave the room, I begin to focus on the next medical need. If there is an important date for testing or results, I indicate it in my notes. For the time allotted, that patient is the center of my attention.
Rebuttal From Woman
Committed to Modesty: Many
people say that bathing patients is not sexual. This is not true. Why
have so many male nurses abused female patients? David who was a very
godly man in the bible lusted when he saw Bathsheba bathing and then
they became immoral. I encourage you to check out a list of male
OB/GYNs in the news that have sexually abused women.
Male doctors who care about babies
can still work with them, but they should not deliver babies and allow
a female doctor to deal with procedures that involve the private parts.
I am very supportive of male neonatologists. It is possible for a woman
who undergoes C-Section to have her private parts covered if a male
anesthesiologist or pediatrician has to be present.
2.) Dr. Levy, a well-respected male gynecologist who took pictures of many women’s private parts with a pen camera
Oprah Winfrey asked several male gynecologists on her show, "Do sexual thoughts ever enter your mind during the exam?" One said, "No. It's no different from examining a knee or an ear." Another explained, "There are no sexual thoughts. I am working very hard to make the patient feel as comfortable as possible; that takes a lot of effort and confidence and energy. We want to get the exam over as quickly as we can. Basically, when a patient is in a gown and a sheet, there's no sexual connotation. I am doing my job."
Rebuttal From Woman
Committed to Modesty: Are
you aware that Oprah is into New Age stuff so she would not be a good
resource to use? Most male doctors are not going to admit the
truth that they have lustful thoughts from time to time. What about
this article: 25% percent of male gynecologists admitted in a 1979 article
that they had sexual contact with their patients in
Ladies Home Journal. It is ridiculous that the male gynecologist
on Oprah Winfrey show made this statement: "No. It's no different
from examining a knee or an ear." If genitals and breasts were
really similar to knee or ear, why do people not walk naked in public?
Genitals and breasts are very sacred sexual organs. Can you explain
why a husband is excited to see his wife’s genitals and breasts
if they are just like ear and knee? God wired a man to become sexually
aroused when he sees a woman naked and his wife should be the only woman
he sees naked. The only person of the opposite sex who should see and
touch private parts of a sexually mature person is spouse. Knee
and ears are not private and can be seen by anyone. This example
reminds me of an argument that a nurse at an abortion clinic used when
a pregnant woman came in: You are only carrying 10 weeks of tissue and
it’s not a child. That is a huge lie. You know how God feels about
unborn babies. Life begins at conception. A 1 day embryo is a baby period.
The same can be said of nudity of an opposite sex person in front of
a person of opposite sex who is not spouse. It breaks my heart about
how the medical profession has twisted God’s special gift of sex
for married people. Nudity is a big part of sex in marriage. If I were
a nurse or doctor, I would refuse to do any intimate procedures on sexually
mature male patients even if I knew for sure that I could stay pure
in thoughts. I feel every wife should be the only woman to see and touch
her husband’s genitals. I do not want to take the privilege of
a wife to be the only woman to see her husband naked away.
Concerning Dr. Cutrer's Levitical priest argument for performing gynecological exams on women, it is pretty lame. It assumes that the priests examined women (which they probably did for contagious diseases such as leprosy) but there is no indication in the Bible that they inspected female genitalia. The Hebrew people were far more modest than the surrounding nations. It would be unthinkable for them to examine women like a gynecologist does today. - Christian Counselor Who Has Worked With Men With Sexual Addictions
Two main issues are the heart of the argument here. - Billy
First, the argument is made that cross-gender
exams are sanctioned by the precedent of the Old Testament priesthood.
Using this precedent succeeds in either minimizing the Levitical priesthood
by defining it as a social construct, or exalting the medical profession
to God-ordained status. If the Levitical priesthood is only a social
construct, without divine
The Biblical argument must be approached
from two directions. If we understand that doctors are human, and that
medicine is a pursuit of human science, doctors can never be viewed
as not subject to the failings of any human pursuit or defined as separate
from Biblical authority. They cannot exist outside either biblical morality
or social law. First, is it ok for men, who are not the husband,
to touch women in their intimate parts? Clearly, in most human
endeavors, this is a rhetorical question. Why should it be different
for the medical field? Biblical sanctions cannot be found for
such activity. While assumptions may be drawn concerning the priesthood,
doctors are not priests, and the drawing of assumptions
is no basis for professionals executing their duties. In addition, creating
Medicine as a new priesthood of Modern or Postmodern expression has
serious historical and social consequences. Second, should women, who
are Biblically exhorted to be "keepers at home" enter into
a field of professionalism like medicine which has the potential to
make them disobedient to the exhortation? Socially, this is a taboo
Arguments for gender neutrality are generally made from the perspective of either superhuman capacity or callousness on the part of the medical community. While the first is clearly not true, the second is no recommendation.I also think it would be helpful to consider the longer, bigger view, such as the history of medical practice before the day when women were trained in medicine. Millions of women and babies would have died without their intervention, even taking into account the services of midwives. To say it is wrong is to dishonor all that honorable, non-sexual work.
Rebuttal From Woman
Committed to Modesty: The
reason we did not have female gynecologists years ago was due to the
fact that medical schools would not admit women. This was a HUGE mistake.
I agree with you that many women and babies would have died without
doctors. Rachel died after giving birth to Benjamin in the bible. A
number of women have very high risk pregnancies so it would not be safe
for them to give birth with midwives. I am thankful for improvements
in the medical field such as C-Sections. But that does not mean that
male gynecologists are okay. Only women should have been allowed to
become gynecologists in the beginning. Medical school is to blame for
There is nowhere in the bible that says that it is okay for male doctors to examine private parts of women they are not married to. There were no pap smears in the Bible. Pap smears were not invented until around 1928. Midwives delivered babies in the bible as you know.
Home | Being Modest | Dressing Modestly | Art Education and Nudity | Medical Modesty | Questions and Answers | Are Male Gynecologists Biblical? | Truth About Opposite Sex Intimate Medical Care | Arguments and Rebuttals | What Christian Medical Professionals Should Do? | Christians and Medical Schools | Christians and Nursing Schools | Christians Committed to Modesty | Has Your Marriage Been Affected By Cross Gender Intimate Medical Care? | Modesty During Surgery | Why You Should Support Medical Patient Modesty? | Way To Heaven | Resources | Recommended Books | Links | Recommended Movies | Other Issues For Christians | Contact Info
©Copyright 2017-2019 BiblicalModesty.com. All Rights Reserved.