I don't buy any of that. If having an attractive wife is a sign of a vain man, then why isn't an unattractive wife the sign of an insecure man, the kind of man who thinks he can do no better than take a wife who has been rejected by all others?
IT's not a matter of professions, really. It's his position on the attraction scale relative to his partner.
As House, M.D. put it, women who are tens date men who are tens, fours date fours, with a flexibility up or down of one rung of the scale.
The complaint is basically that Osteen's constantly being wrong should, reasonably, in an orderly universe in which Justice is a concept, not merely a complaint, or a punchline, be expected to have a negative effect on his position on the scale of attraction.
This sort of scale adjustment would have made Isaac Asimov a 22, and given him the option to date multiple internationally famous lingerie supermodels, while Hovind would have a hard time drawing the amorous attention of a gila monster.
I imagine you mean Kent Hovind, who is married to Jo Hovind.
View attachment 1036
Jo may not be lingerie model material, but certainly not a gila monster. This pic is 31 years old, so we can assume she may have dropped a little on the erection inducement thermometer. [Side note to all young men in hearing range: As a near to 60 year old man, I say this, "Get ready for it. Either get rich, so you can entertain attractive young women, learn to love the less than perfect aging female body, or just give up on the whole sex thing and become a geriatric inverse virgin. That's your choices.]
I know quite a few lingerie models and one would be surprised. A lot of them fall into the "cleans up good" category. A trio of plain but good hearted gals show up at the back door and an hour later, when the makeup and hair people are finished, three of the most beautiful women a man might see in a month are strutting past him in their underwear. The same goes for strippers and pole dancers.
This whole discussion strikes me as bizarre. This is supposed to be a place "to promote rational thought as a better means to access truth," yet we are led to believe a woman's subjective attractiveness is an indicator of her husband's psychological makeup, character and integrity. It hardly seems rational, and certainly petty, small minded, and tiny bit misogynistic. However my mind is not closed on the issue. I'll entertain any argument to refute my observations.