At the Society of Biblical Literature annual conference in Atlanta in 2015, I attended several papers on the Book of Revelation. The one that I have continued to think about—and which provoked most merriment when I reported it on Facebook—looked at the question of whether Jesus has breasts in Revelation 1.13 (given by Sarah Shier from Trinity College, Dublin).
In case you have already switched off, please bear with me. Exploring this issue raises some central questions about what kind of text Revelation is, what it is doing, and how we read it. (I should say from the beginning that the title of this piece is wrong; the question is not so much Jesus ‘gender’ as masculine or feminine, but his ‘sex’ as male or female. But if I had ‘sex’ in the title it would be even more confusing.)
The verse in question is translated thus in English (TNIV):
…and among the lampstands was someone like a son of man dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest.
But the Greek for the last phrase is περιεζωσμένον πρὸς τοῖς μαστοῖς ζώνην χρυσᾶν, ‘wrapped-around at the breasts a-belt gold.’
The question is: how should we interpret the word mastos, (from which we get the word ‘mastitis’ and ‘mastectomy’) meaning breasts or chest.
There are several places to look to explore this.
1. The etymology of the word comes from the verb masaomai which means ‘to gnaw’ or ‘to chew’.
2. Louw and Nida, the lexicon based on semantic domains of words (in contrast to traditional lexicons) comments:
the breast of both humans and animals, with special reference to the mammary glands — ‘breast.’
3. This is supported by the two other occurrences in the NT elsewhere:
‘Blessed is the womb that bore you and blessed are the breasts (mastoi) which you sucked’ (Luke 11.27; most ETs are rather more circumspect in their language).
For the time will come when you will say, ‘Blessed are the childless women, the wombs that never bore and the breasts (mastoi) that never nursed!’ (Luke 23.29)
4. BDAG Lexicon does give examples of the use of ‘breast’ in relation to men and women, but one of the prominent examples is in fact Rev 1.13, so there is a danger here of circular reasoning.
5. Of the 37 occurrences of the word in the Greek OT (the Septuagint, LXX), all are used to refer to the breasts of women. This is important because word usage in the LXX is likely to have affected word usage in the NT.
6. The more common word for ‘chest’ is stethos from which we get ‘stethoscope’ and (in a roundabout way) ‘sternum’.
All this is fairly compelling evidence on the meaning of the word. It appears to have a similar semantic range to the English ‘breast’ which we can find used archaically to refer to men’s chests, but which predominantly refers to women. But there are further issues to consider.
First is the contrast with Rev 15.6, where seven angels emerge from the temple similarly clad, but in this case with the gold belts around their stethos and not their mastoi.
Second is to consider the origin of the vision in Rev 1. The meaning of Revelation is often highly contested, because the imagery comes from at least three different sources—the OT, first century culture, and John’s understanding of Jesus—and these are often intertwined and in some tension. In this case, the vision of Jesus in Rev 1 combines features of the vision of the Ancient of Days in Daniel 7 and the vision of the encouraging angel in Daniel 10. In this way, John appears to be communicating that Jesus is both the messenger of God but the presence of God himself at the same time.
You can see how closely Rev 1 follows Dan 10 in particular:
| Daniel’s vision (10:5-6) | John’s vision (1:12-18) | |
| Clothing | linen with a belt of gold | long robe with a belt of gold |
| Face | like lightening | like the sun |
| Eyes | like flaming torches | like a flame of fire |
| Legs/feet | like burnished bronze | like burnished bronze |
| Voice | like the sound of a multitude | like the sound of many waters |
| Seer’s reaction | fell into a trance, face to the ground | fell at his feet as though dead |
| Divine response | hand touched him and told him not to fear | hand touched him and told him not to fear |
But at Rev 1.13, the gold belt from Dan 10.5 has moved from the waist to the mastoi. In other words, this looks like a deliberate change and so a deliberate choice of word.
There is some debate about the significance of the use of the imagery from Daniel. Greg Beale argues that it portrays Jesus as both king and priest, but David Aune argues that the imagery is not at all that of a priest. In her paper, Shier notes (as Aune did some years ago) that Jesus in Revelation uses the language of pagan goddesses to describe himself; ‘I am coming quickly’ (Rev 2.16, 3.11, 22.7, 22.12) and ‘I have the keys to death and Hades’ (Rev 1.18) have been stolen from the cult of Hecate. Aune in fact notices in passing that Mithras is depicted in a similar way, but he does not make much of it. In other words, this is god/goddess imagery, and not priestly.
If Jesus has breasts, then it is because part of the vision is that he takes the place of pagan goddesses, claiming to do what they do.
We shouldn’t really be too worried about this flexibility of sex identity in Revelation. After all, the 144,000 apparently male martyr-warriors in chapter 14 (who were counted in chapter 7) are in fact (female) ‘virgins’ in Rev 14.4. More widely, we should remember that the NT is rather less bothered about the sex of Jesus than we often are. When Paul talks of Jesus as the first Adam in Romans 5 and 1 Cor 15, he must be referring to Jesus as the first human and not as the first male, since he clearly includes women amongst those who die because of sin and shall be made alive because of redemption.
Similarly, in 2 Cor 11.3, Eve is an archetype for men as much as women of people who are deceived. (And, once more, the men as well as women are to be presented to husband Christ as a (female) virgin.) The depiction of Jesus as the personification of the woman wisdom from Proverbs 8 underlies much of the language of John 1, and we probably have an allusion to that in Rev 3.14 (‘the origin of creation’, compare Prov 8.22).
Perhaps the most striking example of female imagery for Jesus comes in 1 Peter 2.2-3:
Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation, now that you have tasted that the Lord is good.
Peter here is making a pun on Ps 34.8, ‘Taste and see that the LORD is good.’ Instead of calling God ‘good’ agathos, he calls him ‘kind’, chrestos, evoking the title of Jesus Christos. Be like babies at the breast of God, since the milk you have tasted from his breasts is the kindness we find in Jesus.
What do we learn from this in our reading of Revelation?
First, it is worth noting the importance of careful attention to the text itself, and what it actually says (mastoi) rather than what we think it says or what it ought to say (stethos). In that regard, feminist readings are particularly helpful, since they look again at things that we might have overlooked, especially if we are reading through male spectacles. Shier went on in her paper to suggest that, in some sense or other, the Jesus of chapter 1 ‘steals’ the breasts from frustrated mother goddess in ch 12, who now has no child to feed—which I found rather less convincing. Here the reading has moved from attention to the text to an ideological critique of the text from the perspective of the reader, which I find usually tells me more about the reader than anything else.
But noting the language here reminds us that John does not appear simply to be writing down something he saw as if it was like a picture before him. The language of ‘seeing’ has very broad connotations—’I see what you mean’, ‘I was blind but now I see’, or from the 2008 film Avatar ‘I see you’—and it is sometimes hard to pin down what is going on.
What does it mean to ‘see’ something in a dream or vision? How does that compare with the mundane ‘seeing’ of everyday life? To imagine that John is describing to us an audio-visual presentation that passes before him is unnecessarily naive. Every term in his vision is laden with theological meaning. When he ‘sees’ one ‘like a son of man’, he is not seeing a human figure but is theologically understanding Jesus as the Son of Man from Daniel 7 who was handed over, crucified, and raised in vindication, now come on the clouds to the Ancient of Days and seated at his right hand (Acts 7.29). This vision of Jesus is a composite symbolic theology—a compelling picture using the rhetorical device of ekphrasis, the description of a real or imagined work of art.
In my commentary on Revelation, I address this question directly (and not many commentators do!): did John actually have a vision?
Most ordinary readers of Revelation assume that John had some sort of vision, and that what we have is a more-or-less straightforward description of what he saw as if he was describing a picture. But there are several reasons for qualifying this kind of understanding.
The first relates the nature of visions and spiritual auditory experiences…But even more important evidence comes from the text itself.
John quite often describes things that make no literal sense, or are inconsistent or incomplete, and these indicate that he is more concerned with the meaning of the words he uses—and their symbolic significance in the light of Old Testament texts he is drawing on and contemporary Graeco-Roman symbolism—than in writing a report about meaningful things that he has seen. It is not actually possible for a rainbow to ‘have the appearance of an emerald’ (4:3); English translations often try to make sense of this by rendering it as ‘shining like an emerald’, but this is not the language that John uses.
In his vision of the throne room, it is often not clear how the location of each group (living creatures, angels, elders) fits with the location of others, and the description develops through the text as John adds further details which are quite prominent (such as the altar before the throne) and it is odd that he did not mention these previously if he was simply describing a scene.
In his description of the New Jerusalem, he describes it as ‘like jasper, clear as crystal’ when jasper is an opaque gem (21:11); the walls of jasper, though the city is of gold (21:18); the foundations decorated with gems, then actually being gems (21:19); the walls are ‘144 cubits’ but John does not tell us in which direction (so English translations usually supply the missing detail, 21:17); and John does not really make clear the relationship between the central street, the river of the water of life, and the (single) tree of life which appears to manage to grow on both sides of the river (22:1–2)…
Did John have a vision (or series of visions)? If he did, he has reported it in a very careful way. We don’t have a vision; we have a vision report, a text, and we should attend to it. John’s aim is not to impress us with his visionary experience, nor (necessarily) to encourage us to have our own. Rather, John wants us to order our lives in the light of the truth about God that these vision reports reveal to us.
Revelation is indeed a ‘strange’ book—but as we look closely and encounter its strangeness, we find new levels of meaning and significance. As we lean on these ancient doors of knowledge, we find they slowly ease open to reveal a sparkling treasury of wisdom.
You can read Sarah Shier’s study of gendered Jesus in Rev 1 in chapter 4 of her PhD thesis (pp 102ff) which is available online here.
An alternative view has been offered in a recent journal article here, arguing that the image of Jesus’ mastoi comes from a variant reading in the LXX of Song of Songs 1.2. This illustrates the challenge of reading Revelation: should we account for features of the text by looking at the OT, or by looking at its cultural context? I think in this case culture is the more persuasive influence.
(A shorter version of this article was first published in 2015.)
Buy me a Coffee
I don’t get that Rev 14:4 implies that the 144000 were female. It seems to me to be saying that they are men who have not had sex with women, i.e. virgins. We would use the same term today for men who are celibate from birth and who have never had sex with women.
Because the Greek term for virgin is female, which we don’t have in English. And they cannot be male men in the sense that they represent the whole people of God, male and female.
A bit like we are all ‘sons’ in biblical terms as inheritors, even women.
Another related point. The purpose of female human breasts is to provide milk for human children although the Song of Solomon implies they have sexual purposes as well.
So, in the resurrection where you have stated elsewhere that there is no sex in heaven, will both men and women be breastless or even genderless?
Will human reproduction still occur in the new heavens and new Earth?
We will be immortal and so will not eat. Do you think we will have digestive systems?
No chocolate cake in heaven? Not much of a heavenly banquet …
ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great and afterwards chocolate cake.
Since we are created in the image of God it would hardly be surprising to us for God to have breasts. I fear that this lady does appear to not know or understand God.
Indeed the Israelites knew God was/ as The Breasted One. ( El Shaddai) With all that implies. In fact, this seems to be one of the very first names the Israelites had for God. Before they were even Israelites.
El Shaddai, one of the names for God in the Hebrew Bible, is generally translated as God Almighty. But it turns out this was a misunderstanding by early translators. In fact, the meaning of El Shaddai, while not entirely clear, is most likely to mean ‘God, the breasted one.’ Perhaps those early translators weren’t keen on the idea of a God with boobs.
Strongly supporting this interpretation of the name El Shaddai is the context in which it pops up. It doesn’t occur that often, but the association with fertility and children is unmistakable. Here’s a whistle-stop tour:
In Genesis 17:1, El Shaddai promises Abram countless descendants.
In Genesis 28:1, Isaac asks El Shaddai to bless Jacob with many children.
In Genesis 35:11, El Shaddai tells Jacob to be fruitful and multiply.
In Genesis 43:14, Jacob asks for the blessing of El Shaddai as his sons return to Joseph with the hope of securing the safety of his son Benjamin and the safe return of Simeon from Egypt.
Later, when he is blessing Joseph, he prays, “may Shaddai bless you with the blessings of the heavens above, and the blessings of the watery depths beneath and the…
The name also appears in Psalm 91, which talks about people sheltering under the shadow of God’s wings, an image that invokes the picture of a mother bird protecting her young.
Conversely, the ill favour of Shaddai is associated with a lack of fertility and the deaths of children. Naomi, who lost both her sons, says, ‘Shaddai has made life very bitter for me. I went away full, but I have come home empty.’ Joel 1:15 talks of cursing from Shaddai, resulting in the failure of crops and seeds dying in the ground. Isaiah 13:6–8 says the terror brought by Shaddai will be like the anguish of a woman in labour. Shalom.
My imagination is invoked to see an eighth golden lamp stand standing amongst the others. It is like “ὁμοῖον” the others. The flame is its head, the breasts are the oil containers.
I’ve decided the lamp stands are anthropomorphic, so, what does the scene allude to?
I think it alludes to Esther’s seven maids.
We now have a suitable feminine allusion.
Iirc every time YHWH has (metaphorical / symbolic) sex-specific organs they are always and only female (breasts, womb). God never has, eg, male genitalia (although maybe “seed” / sperma is a counter example?)
Also, the resurrection body is arguably asexual (“like angels in heaven” Matthew 22:30 & Mark 12:25). And Jesus is the exemplar of the resurrection par excellence.
How many times is this?
This is indeed an interesting question. Does the resurrection body in the New Heavens and new Earth need food or water? No requirement to urinate or defecate?
No toilets in the New Earth then.
And yet isn’t there going to be a big banquet?
Personally if it means perfect physical and mental health then I would be quite content with a physical body that does all of the above. But perhaps with the innocent excitement of a child.
Isn’t Jesus our true food? If he is all the light we need, won’t he also be all the food we need?
theres nothing wrong with the physical creation, it is still ‘good’. I see no reason it, or a form of it, should not continue.
A bit like the Old one when we’re on holiday then.
And yet he was still a man after resurrection. I find it odd certain physical features suddenly disappeared at his rising.
Well he appeared to eat breakfast with the disciples after the resurrection.
and that is my point.
And a piece of fish in Luke 24.
How can we tell that a deliberate point is being made by the choice of mastois, rather than it simply being a reflection of the somewhat uncouth Greek of Revelation?
Or it may be no more than a textual corruption of stethesi, introduced by copying error at an early stage. The Amsterdam Database of New Testament Conjectures seems to be offline today so I cannot check whether any scholar of note has ever proposed this. I always tell people that the Sermon on the Mount contains a markedly higher density of textual corruptions than the material around it, which strongly suggests it had a history of its own, as a document, before being incorporated into Mt. I’m conjecturing the same about the Letters to the Seven Churches.
Im not a Greek scholar but if the lettering in both words is quite different how likely is it a scribe would make such a mistake?
Given the number of times God is compared to a mother, including by Jesus, it does not seem out of place this is part of the imagery John experienced.
Whether they would look similar or different depends on the script that was used.
Why do you think John’s language is “uncouth” or careless?
Not entirely sure what the point of this topic is. In Genesis 1:27 it is declared that “God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” So both “male and female” must have been understood to be “in the image of God”. It is also interesting, apropos a couple of the comments above, that this creation into two sexes and subsequent command to go forth and multiply occurred before the Fall, which I understand to be the point at which man became mortal, requiring salvation. So man in his initial unblemished and presumably (but never explicated!) immortal state was both sexed and commanded to procreate. But then there is Mark 12:25: “For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.” The possible inconsistency here would seem to be a more absorbing and maybe a little less irreverent topic than whether Jesus has female breasts, if sex and the Bible is your thing.
Is it not worthwhile trying to understand the text, wherever it leads?
I don’t see an inconsistency, the next age is not just a return to Paradise but much more. On a different level.
Not entirely sure what the point of this topic is. John Rogitz
April 10, 2026 at 3:14 pm
The point may be click-bait?
As we have just celebrated Easter, reading this blog my thoughts turned back to John’s account at the tomb of the risen Christ in chapter 20
Peter outran the others and looking in ‘sees’ BLEPEI (v5)
Simon arrives and he too ‘sees’ THEOREI (v6)
Next the other disciple arrives who also ‘sees and believes’ EIDEN KAI EPISTEUSEN (v8)
So we move from observation to understanding to revelation.
Perhaps Revelation should be read in a similar light?
An interesting post. But I’m slightly confused by your “self-quote”.
You say…
“John quite often describes things that make no literal sense, or are inconsistent or incomplete, and these indicate that he is more concerned with the meaning of the words he uses—and their symbolic significance …”
I basically agree with this, but there seems to be an assumption, (which I don’t agree with), that a vision or dream would have to “make sense… Be consistent… Be complete.” Of course, they don’t!
I certainly think that John has ruminated on, and explored his visions, and I totally agree that they are far more than straightforward vision reports. But even if they were, I wouldn’t expect them therefore to be consistent or logical.
I think in a vision, if John was describing something he was seeing, he would not call a rainbow ‘like an emerald’ because it cannot be. Or elders ‘falling down’ whilst holding harps and bowls full of incense, because that cannot happen.
That is the level at which I think the visions don’t ‘make sense’. Does that help?
An ordinary rainbow is not vivid or saturated. I think Johns point was to say the rainbow surrounding the throne had a saturation of 100%, like an emerald’s.
Perhaps—except that is not what he says…!
The unlikely pairing of rainbow and emerald got me thinking how strange juxtapositions work.
I would expect to see Jesus looking after the lamps on the stands by reading that the one like an anthropoid lamp stand had a wick trimmer, a jug of oil, a light and a snuffer to keep the lamps in good order. Not a sword, breasts and stars and keys. but they do somehow correlate.
Churches are more like messy bird nests full of gaping mouths.
Ian,
Is it your view that Sarah Shier’s Thesis is a serious piece of scholarship that needs to inform the belief of the Church ?
Peter
I am not sure it is from a confessional point of view at all. And I note that, within this piece only, I don’t find her argument convincing.
Indeed Peter
On Sarah Shier’s Thesis, it would appear that to aquire a Phd one is only required to present whatever fanciful topic one wishes.
In this week of the Resurrection and the manifestations thereof of Christ one is asked
“Does Jesus have boobs”?
It seems to me that it is little wonder that our
Erstwhile Church is in it’s current dystopian state.
Paul, even as an aged saints wanted for himself and the Church to “Know Him……and the Power of His Resurection”. Alas, Christ is robbed of His Glory and His Church impoverished
Hi Alan,
If I have understood his intention properly, I think Ian Paul has introduced Shier’s eccentricities to explore the character of the Book of Revelation.
I am just noting what the text says.
For 40 days Christ in word and deed prepared
His followers for the preaching of that Gospel on the day of Pentecost “He is Risen” it was forever after the central plank – mission statement of the
Apostles Teaching
In our preparation for Pentecost and the day of His Power what “gospel” will we preach, with what zeal, with what power, with what authority?
With what evidences that we are a Resurrected People?
Well we know Jesus was born male as he underwent circumcision. As far as I know female circumcision was not practised in the Jewish tradition.
Thanks Peter
I note your comment oddly tucked in between my two much earlier comments.
The title of the piece is “The gender of Jesus in the Book of Revelation” which I thought was click-bait, even if other subjects of Revelation are mentioned.
Your latter comment was quite generous
However I am quite dubious of Ian’s reading of Revelation of which the Glory of Christ and the overcomers { Christ, Angels and Saints} are the Focus; not what John saw or even understood what he thought about what he was seeing or if he incorporated pagan or ancient apocalyptic elements into his report, even after God’s warning of adding to or taking away from this manifestation of The Word. Shalom.
there is no reason why God would not use current beliefs or realities to make a point to John.
I think Ian has gone down a cul de sac in this particular article.
He has written some good material on Revelation, to be fair. Nobody gets it right every time !
Ah, thank you for letting me know that, against your infallible measure, I am fallible!
What have I said that is incorrect? The meaning of the term? The context of the writing? The challenges of reading Revelation?
Ian,
I was attempting to pay you a light hearted compliment
Peter
PS could you please always use a surname when commenting? It is difficult to distinguish between two “Peters”
Somehow I don’t think God was ” making a point” to John.
I remember noticing Samuel Rutherford (I can’t find the reference) speaking of Christians sucking Christ’s breasts; I don’t imagine he was the first or only Christian writer to use this bold metaphor. It is of course a metaphor of Christ supplying spiritual nourishment to his people, just as he said he is the bread of life (though we don’t literally eat him) and he gives the living water. So Jesus is to us, in some ways, by analogy, like a mother; in other ways like a father, or a brother, or a husband. It is well to be reminded of this multi-faceted relationship, as long as we don’t take any of the metaphors too literally. But there is no ambiguity about his sex; he was, and remains after his resurrection, male. He doesn’t have literal breasts, any more than he has a literal sword coming out of his mouth.
Thanks. What a fascinating illustration! I cannot imagine many people using that kind of language these days…!
“….just as he said he is the bread of life (though we don’t literally eat him)”
Protestant heretic!
Sound Zwinglian!
“Heretics they call us by the same right that they call themselves Catholics, both being wrong.”
Great article.
Does Paul speak of Jesus as the first Adam in Rom 5 and 1 Cor 15, or as the second Adam and the first man, albeit understanding that Adam can be translated man?
While called the second Adam, he is also the “Last Adam” (1 Cor 15:45) because his work is complete, and no further representative is needed.
In 1 Corinthians 15:45-49, the first Adam represents our natural life, while Christ represents our spiritual and resurrected life.
Thanks Alan. I asked this as Ian writes ‘ When Paul talks of Jesus as the first Adam in Romans 5 and 1 Cor 15, he must be referring to Jesus as the first human and not as the first male, since he clearly includes women amongst those who die because of sin and shall be made alive because of redemption.’ I would understand that in these passages Jesus is referred to as the last Adam as he represents that humanity brought to an end through true faithfulness and then by death, and the second Adam or Man for a new humanity by his resurrection.
.
Peter
Agreed , as do we all. Shalom.
In English one speaks of a man’s ”breast” but not of a man’s ”breasts”, although men do have breast tissue and can indeed suffer from breast cancer. Turning to the new Cambridge Greek Lexicon I see, however, under ”mastos” that the word can mean the ”1 breast (of a woman or goddess)”, and then ”2 breast or nipple (of a man or god)”. This does rather suggest that the proposal that the figure at the beginning of Revelation is shown as having female breasts has very uncertain foundations indeed. How difficult it is to speculate about the exact nuances of the meaning of words in a text written almost 2000 years ago, especially a text as linguistically idiosyncratic as Revelation.
does it give examples beyond Rev so as to conclude it can mean the male chest of man or a male god?
see Liddell and Scott.
Tom, the issues here are:
1. There has been a deliberate change from stethos. Why?
2. Revelation is saturated with the OT language and ideas. In the OT mastoi only refer to women’s breasts.
3. Revelation is written in a context where (in Ephesus) a multi-breasted goddess stands as the sole source of nourishment and fertility.
4. In relation both to religion and ‘politics’, John repeatedly takes attributes of those rival power structures, and attributes them to Jesus and to God.
So attributing fertility and nourishment to Jesus alone, and not Artemis, fits with
a. the language
b. the context
c. the polemic, and
d. with other similar images where we are breast-fed by Jesus eg in 1 Peter 2.
What is the weakness in that argument?
I am. God’s identity. Our identity. Who am I?
https://learn.ligonier.org/podcasts/things-unseen-with-sinclair-ferguson/who-am-i
Breasts: feeding, nurturing, growing.
1 Peter 2:2-3
(Imago Dei- his character, what he is like, Good, who he is.).
Jesus is the image of God, incarnate. Worship Him.
https://www.openbible.info/topics/jesus_as_image_of_god
mastos is just a dialect variant of mazos which is commonly used of men in the Iliad. My Abridged Liddell and Scott says: ‘one of the breasts (sternon being the whole breast or chest), mostly of women but also of men. mastos differs from mazos only in dialect.’ (p. 422)
But never in the biblical texts. In fact, LXX positively avoids it.
And see my response to Tom above.
Not quite never: mastoi is used of the male lover in Song of Songs 1.2, 4 LXX as a metaphor for love.
It’s true that John is often alluding to the pagan world of his readers but is there clear internal evidence that the Artemis cult is being attacked? I remember the warning years ago in OT studies to beware of parallelomania.
Here’s the LXX translation of Song of Songs 1.2-4:
2 Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy breasts [agathoi mastoi sou] are better than wine.
3 And the smell of thine ointments is better than all spices: thy name is ointment poured forth; therefore do the young maidens love thee.
4 They have drawn thee: we will run after thee, for the smell of thine ointments: the king has brought me into closet: let us rejoice and be glad in thee; we will love thy breasts [agapesomen mastous sou] more than wine: righteousness loves thee.
It’s anatomical; men and women have a similar but not identical blueprint in this respect.