For the love of God, ladies, take off those pants!
It's sinful when dogs wear them, too.
We’re taking a brief trip outside the manosphere today to take a look at a little posting I found on Jesus-is-savior.com – which, as far as I can tell, is not a joke site — on the evils of women wearing pants.
No need to dilly dally around with jokes; let’s just get right into it:
One of the most controversial subjects in America’s churches today is pants on women; but there is NO controversy if you believe the Bible. 1st Timothy 2:9 clearly instructs women to dress MODESTLY, i.e., of good behavior. A woman’s clothing says MUCH about her character. I guarantee you that women who approve of abortion (i.e., murder) also see no problem with women wearing pants.
Except, one presumes, while they are getting these abortions.
At this point the author, one David J. Stewart, quotes disapprovingly from a song by rapper Chingy, also on the subject of pants, specifically jeans. I won’t bother to quote all of the lyrics; you can get the gist of Chingy’s thesis from this brief excerpt:
Damn Girl
How’d you get all that in
Dem Jeans
Dem Jeans
Here’s the video, if you wish to double-check this transcription.
Stewart continues:
Only a rebellious woman, who deliberately disobeys the Word of God, would wear pants. … Pants on women are adulterous in nature, and cause men to lust and sin. Jesus made this clear in Matthew 5:28, “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” Women who wear pants deliberately cause men to lust, and commit the sin of adultery. …
The average person today scoffs at the idea that Rock-n-Roll, Satanism, and immoral sex go hand-in-hand, but they certainly do. When Rock-n-Roll came to America, so did pants on women become mainstream. Naturally, feminism, witchcraft, abortion, and homosexuality came as well. Rock-n-Roll is straight from the pits of Hell. ALL rock-n-roll women wear pants.
Ah, but it turns out we haven’t really wandered too far from the manosphere after all – and not just because of the mention of feminism. No, what strikes me about Stewart’s argument – aside from the fact that it is completely batshit – is that it is not really very different than the arguments advanced by the critics of the Slutwalks: that the “immodest” dress of women causes men to “lust and sin.”
One of the most common complaints I’ve seen in the writings of the antifeminist slutwalk critics is that women want to “do what they want to, and dress how they want to, without facing any consequences,” as if women who dress in ways these men find arousing have in fact committed some sort of sin that requires punishment from, if not God himself, then from the rapists of the world.
The slutwalk critics invariably insist they’re simply passing along useful advice to women – don’t dress slutty or you’ll get raped – but the talk of “consequences” (and the choice of that word) shows pretty clearly that the real impetus behind the strangely vehement attacks on the slutwalks is the desire to punish women for dressing, and more importantly, doing “what they want.”
Say what you will about the folks behind Jesus-is-Savior.com, but at least their position on the evils of pants is consistent with their overall fundamentalist ideology. The slutwalk critics don’t really have an excuse.
EDITED TO ADD: And, conveniently enough, here’s some douchebag on Reddit making this exact slut-shaming “argument.” Pro-tip: I don’t think “responsibility” means quite what you think it means, dude.
Ah, Reddit, always reliable.
Thanls, ShitRedditSAys, for pointing me to this. And to MFingPterodactyl for the sensible response.
Posted on August 18, 2011, in antifeminism, creepy, evil women, homophobia, idiocy, men who should not ever be with women ever, misogyny, MRA, rape, rapey, sluts. Bookmark the permalink. 396 Comments.
I think it means that feminists are duping women who would otherwise be happy being domestic animals into a lifetime of misery by making them, um, expect to be treated like intelligent adult human beings. Because if it weren’t for us meddling feminists filling their walnut-sized ladybrains with those ideas, women would happily be waiting on Antz hand and foot and making him feel like a big man, instead of making fun of him on the internet.
That’s the rough translation, anyway. I’m not a professional MRA-English translator or anything. XD
I think he’s just drunk.
The same perverts who want to control an army of male slaves while consuming a conveyor belt of female concubines.
Can you be more specific? xD
Okay… for 500 Ami points… to the person w/ the best response:
give me the evo psych reason for men being hardwired to wear pants and women hardwired to wear skirts!
Because cavemen.
Possibly because of berries in a forest.
Men have such a vulnerable crotch area that it is best protected by clothing which supports the testicles and penis. Pants not only provide support for the penis and testicles, but ensure that these vulnerable appendages make for a smaller and more compact target that is, therefore, less likely to be hit in a fight.
Women, by contrast, must be available for sex at all times otherwise they will be the victims of whining. Skirts are better suited for this purpose.
Men should wear skirts as it obscures their vulnerable bits and makes them more difficult to hit when they are hunting for mammoths.
However, because men are raving beasts who find it very difficult not to rape women /sarcasm (which can render women sterile in certain cases – consensual sex is usually preferred for the continuation of the species as women are more likely to orgasm in a consensual situation which helps the sperm get to the egg), women should always wear pants in order to make accessing their vaginas more difficult.
“The same perverts who want to control an army of male slaves while consuming a conveyor belt of female concubines.”
….Wait, wait, are you implying that feminists wish to have the ‘female concubines’ to ourselves, for sex, or that all non-feminist women are concubines and we’re not diverting them to their true purpose of serving men? Unclear.
Hey! What I do with my conveyor belt of horror is my own business!
“… waiting on Antz hand and foot …”
Lol, this is a nightmare. The worst thing anyone could do to an MRA is saddle him with a brainless twit who wants to exchange servitude for protection.
Seeking protection from a fantasy “bad man” that feminists conjured into their minds, women sought shelter under the wings of the biggest thug of all. Trembling in fear of the bogey-man that existed only in their imagination, women traded their freedom and their future for the kind of “protection” only the Mafia can provide.
For years, big government has fed upon the blood of men to pay for the feminist bargain. But its thirst has grown too large and now the beast is coming after you for its pound of flesh.
So where will you hide now?
The feminist religion and the religion of the far right are one and the same. So bloated have you both become, that you can no longer even say “trust me” without blood spattering from between your teeth.
Who now speaks for equality, liberty, and dignity, if not the MRM?
Personally, I want all the male slaves and the female slaves to have a giant orgy.
SOYLENT FEMINISM IS PEEEEOPLE
You should tell that to David K. PEACE AND FREEDOM!!!! Meller.
He thinks all woman should be submissive, docile, subservient homemakers. He considers himself a leader within the MRM as well.
Also, women pay taxes as well. Even women who don’t consider themselves feminists pay taxes. And your comparison of feminism to the far fight is… a stretch. A great big, hot yoga style stretch.
Are you drunk?
Ami:
Pants are way more complicated than skirts (buttons, zippers, snaps, hooks, pockets) which are better suited to the more intelligent, higher functioning male brains. Skirts are simple, and therefore designed for simple lady brains. Has any man ever put the wrong leg in the wrong pant leg or tried to put both legs in the same hole? Of course not. Only women do that because they’re mentally inferior.
I bet a man invented pants.
(I wanted to work in something about Title IX or VAWA, so just assume that those have something to do with everything.)
A skirt, you see, is shaped like a Neolithic hut (of which a wigwam or a tipi would be an example). In Neolithic times, men went out to hunt the mammoth, while women stayed in their huts, vacuuming, playing bridge with other women, tending to children and making mammoth casserole. In the Early Neolithic period, women were generally naked, but during the cooling climate change in the Late Neolithic period, women started to need clothes whenever they went out to do their womanly gathering of nuts, berries and Campbell’s Cream of Mushroom for dinner. When they began to make clothes for themselves, they instinctively shaped them like their dwellings, so that they could feel secure and bound to the home even while they were physically away from it. Thus, wearing a skirt fulfills a woman’s deep psychological need to always be bound to the home. It symbolizes that she has evolved to belong exclusively to the domestic sphere.
Okay, one down. Next. Why did men evolve to wear pants? Let me think …
I got it, I got it, I got it!! When a man hunts the mammoth — which is a really huge animal — it is important to find some way to inspire fear in your target. That way, the mammoth will run away and hurl itself off a cliff, instead of chase you around the plain and gore you to death. By wearing pants, and thus letting the dumb animal see two legs (or three, depending on the size of the hunter’s package and the cut of his pants), the hunter creates an optical illusion that there are actually two of him, not one. When you got five hunters, the mammoth thinks there are actually between ten and fifteen of them. The mammoth runs away in fear and hurls itself off the cliff. Meatballs! Thus, wearing pants is an evolutionary advantage for the hunter, and since men have evolved to be hunters, they are drawn to wearing pants as an evolutionary adaptation.
Academia — here I come.
I really have never understood the ‘modest women wear skirts’ thing, especially in pretty much any era before oh, late Victorian. Until that time, women’s underwear? Split crotch. All of it. So effectively, a woman in a dress had 0 layers of clothes to go through to actually have sex. This is why Victorian era streetwalkers could perform their trade without leaving the street. And yet pants, even bloomers, were beyond scandalous. I flail my arms at the incomprehensibility.
@Steph, since no one seemed to be answering your question –
Sizing on womens clothing SUCKS. Big time. First, there’s at least two regularly used sizing formats for women: The more prevalent 0 – 14 (and beyond, though most stores will only carry through 14 or sometimes 16) and then for many pants and designer jeans, what purports to be a waist size (I’ve seen these range from 22 to 34 in stores).
There’s also the plus size (size 14 and up range), womens sizes (Append a W to sizes 12 or up, usually cut wider but not taller), Petite sizes (like womens, but with a P) for women under 5’2″, Tall sizes (usually with a T, for women over 5’10”) and juniors sizes (which run from 1 to 15 usually, and are cut with narrower hips and smaller chests, generally).
On top of all that, NONE OF THESE SIZES IS REGULATED. A 12 in one store is nothing like a 12 in another store. I personally currently have clothing in my closet, that fits, ranging from a size 10 (gap jeans) to a size 18 (designer dress). Even the waist size measurement scales don’t actually match up to what you’d get if you put a measuring tape around your waist. How bad is the sizing issue in womens clothes? Bad enough that there’s a company out there making a good profit and in a lot of demand because they’ve refitted those ‘look under your clothes’ scanners to scan women and spit out what sizes they wear in various stores and designers. It’s confusing on a daily basis for women who’ve been putting up with it all their lives, I can’t imagine how daunting it can be for women who are transitioning. My sympathies.
Best bet is to try on a bunch of jeans in a variety of sizes. At many stores, a worker can probably look at you and tell you what range to try. Also, know your body shape. Key words to look for are ‘skinny jeans’ or slim or narrow cut (better if you have narrow hips), Curvy or similar words for if you have larger hips or a well developed rear end. Classic fit is generally going to have a higher waistband.
Good luck!
For years, big government has fed upon the blood of men to pay for the feminist bargain. But its thirst has grown too large and now the beast is coming after you for its pound of flesh.
And for those of us who don’t speak MRAtaphor? :D
“For years, big government has fed upon the blood of men to pay for the feminist bargain. But its thirst has grown too large and now the beast is coming after you for its pound of flesh.”
Ah, *that’s* why they wanted to defund Planned Parenthood!
AntZ, what the fuck are you even talking about?
What cracks me up is the delusion that these MRAs don’t receive any protection from the government.
For years, men have eaten the anchovies off the pizza that is womanhood but now the anchovies are all gone, and only the feta cheese remains, and the delivery man is unhappy at how men historically have never tipped him, and a sub place has moved in across the street from the pizza parlor and men will now be forced to eat their own blood soaked tuna subs.
Look, I can make metaphors that accuse vague unsubstantiated things too! xD
give me the evo psych reason for men being hardwired to wear pants and women hardwired to wear skirts!
The wedgies and occasional ball-displacement that pants can cause if improperly fitted give men the edge they need to remain ruff, tuff, and ornery (necessary alpha traits), while the airflow of a skirt helps keep women fresh (necessary to service alphas).
Speaking for myself, the clothing is less interesting than the person within, but who am I to judge a man on his skirt fetish?
But I like feta. :(
I always enjoy people talking about the evils of BIG GOVERNMENT while they’re on the fucking internet.
the feta is made from the blood of DEAD BABIES ozy!
which is a metaphor for women playing golf…
which is a metaphor for MRAs making metaphors…
which is a metaphor for Ozy liking feta :D
I would love to see a picture of what it’s like inside AntZ’s head.
“Seeking protection from a fantasy “bad man” that feminists conjured into their minds, women sought shelter under the wings of the biggest thug of all. Trembling in fear of the bogey-man that existed only in their imagination, women traded their freedom and their future for the kind of “protection” only the Mafia can provide.
For years, big government has fed upon the blood of men to pay for the feminist bargain. But its thirst has grown too large and now the beast is coming after you for its pound of flesh.
So where will you hide now?”
Funny seeing someone invoke the Mafia in the middle of a screed that all but screams out loud “Now you will have to turn to US to protect you!”. And you’re such a coward you can’t even come out and say what you really mean, which is that you want to be in that “biggest thug” position and reap the rewards for it that you think you’re owed.
I imagine it’s like that scene in The Shining with the bloody elevator from his metaphors, Katz.
@katz http://images.bbgsite.com/news/2008/12/24/mn_introimg.jpg
Back to the title of David’s post. Wouldn’t you know it, but that’s what the carnies have to shout to get women properly prepared to ride me.
Dragonlance? :D
There appear to be good guys (plural) in that picture. How about this?
@Ami Women should wear skirts because it makes it easier for them to ride the Alpha Cock Carousel.
Men should wear pants because the convenient fly-zipping mechanism makes it possible for him to take off after mammoths at a moment’s notice, even in the middle of the oral sex he might be receiving at the time from adoring women.
It’s EVOLUTION!
@katz the MRAs are the good guys… durh
@Alpha w00t! you’re finally here! :D We can have a Q&A session! :D
how many cocks do you have? :3 are they themed like rocketships or unicorns and horses and stuff? :3
No kidding. And those fellow women might be “bound and helpless” but I haven’t heard the safeword from any of them yet either, so full speed ahead! ^^
I’d just like to leave a picture of a rock n’ roll woman who doesn’t wear pants here.
enjoy
I think this post points out the ultimate fallacy with the ‘wear slutty clothes you deserve to be raped’ argument. Sluttiness is in the eye of the beholder. A woman might wear a set of clothes she thinks is perfectly fine, but other people may disagree. And apparently there are some people out there that consider even pants to be too slutty.
For years, [puppies] has fed upon the [kittens] of [ducklings] to pay for the [otters] [belugas]. But its [pandas] has grown too [meerkats] and now the [water rat] is coming after you for its [chipmunk] of [marmot].
It makes just as much sense this way.
“Homosexuality? Were us pants-wearing women just so inspiring of lust that some men stopped wanting to fuck us entirely?”
I’m so glad I wasn’t drinking anything when I read this . . .
It’s been a while since I saw it, but I recall Antz being a pretty good movie.
Anyway, here’s a Girls in Suits Tumblr that I’ve just browsed through.
My favourites are this, this, this, this, this, <a href=http://girlsinsuits.tumblr.com/post/604093183/loopdeville-olive-thomas-in-a-mans-suit, and this.
Oops, screwed up the tag on this one.
Also forgot this awesome fedora one.
Ah, awaiting moderation. Too many links.
The long and short of it is, I found a Tumblr with lots of pretty pictures of women in men’s suits.
Amazing! It’s like NWO and David K Meller got together and spawned, or something.
I wish I had access to my books, because this is a lot more complicated than classism/wealth.
For all that history has really screwed with Paul, and the Renaissance views of Rome/Greece have done the same to the classical age, Paul’s underlying message is very close to that of Jesus: Be gentle to one another; treat your fellows as equals.
Take the issue of headcovering: only women who were married (and free) were allowed to wear head coverings. Paul said that everyone was equal to the free/married (it was a different age). That meant the slave and the prostitute couldn’t be told apart from the women who were, “proper”, and chaste; which removed an aspect of social reminder of their second class status.
That same message is in all of his works (the deutero-Paul is more problematic). With the epsitles being written in Koine, and the culture to which his referents were related being lost, a huge amount of projection got stuck into turns of phrase.
And the people doing that projecting were jerks.
All of a sudden I feel sorry for Antz wife.
Katz:
I would love to see a picture of what it’s like inside AntZ’s head.
Lang’s “Metropolis” without the subtitles.
The long and short of it is, I found a Tumblr with lots of pretty pictures of women in men’s suits.
ZOMG SWOON
[i]nedbeaumontjr | August 18, 2011 at 10:05 pm
[/i]
I have said it before and I will say it again, but WHO LET THAT FUCKING POLAR BEAR IN HERE?
I mean really. We’ll let MRAs in, but seriously, structural engineers?
“The wedgies and occasional ball-displacement that pants can cause if improperly fitted give men the edge they need to remain ruff, tuff, and ornery (necessary alpha traits), while the airflow of a skirt helps keep women fresh (necessary to service alphas).
Speaking for myself, the clothing is less interesting than the person within, but who am I to judge a man on his skirt fetish?”
…
Is this an episode of Twin Peaks? First MRAL’s sockpuppet, then Antz’s ranting, and now this?
Lol, this is a nightmare. The worst thing anyone could do to an MRA is saddle him with a brainless twit who wants to exchange servitude for protection.
I KNOW.
Especially because it seems that MRAs are mostly brainless twits who think they should be able to exchange protection for brainless servitude.
Is this an episode of Twin Peaks? First MRAL’s sockpuppet, then Antz’s ranting, and now this?
Would you like a piece of pie?
I see. So basically like this (it goes without saying that his mind has an inexplicable Freddie Mercury soundtrack):
That’s the darkest version of The Wind in the Willows I’ve ever read.
I wear pants accidentally. I assume that’s okay?
Just replace every bracketed word with “rabbits” and it will properly describe the trauma of watching Watership Down as a child. Jeezus fucking christ those goddamn rabbits.
Yeah, I was hraka-ing bricks myself. But I had already read the book which was even scarier.
Jordan, I approve very much.
Spear, Antz was the one with Woody Allen and Sylvester Stallone, right? Yeah, it was the better of the two insect-themed animated movies that came out in 1998. ;)
“So bloated have you both become, that you can no longer even say “trust me” without blood spattering from between your teeth.”
So true! But my special, feminist-designed Dead Baby Skin Dental Floss works nicely on those hard-to-clean spaces, so my fangs stay nice and shiny.
Yeah, I was hraka-ing bricks myself. But I had already read the book which was even scarier.
I’d also read the book, but it didn’t have the impact of the red crazy rabbit eyeballs. Glah.
Seconded.
But seriously, these guys need to be made aware of Rule 36. There’s no such thing as dressing in a way that won’t cause someone, somewhere, to lust for you. It’s literally an impossible task.
If you ever need that illustrated, enjoy: http://www.therebelution.com/modestysurvey/
Long story short, some years ago a nice online youth group puts together a giant survey so that young women could get some guidance from their male peers on the topic of modesty. You can swim through the excruciatingly thorough pile yourself, or just take my word on it that at least 10% of men find the fact that girls exist to be immodest, much less anything they actually do or wear, and that it really doesn’t take much to get a purportedly Christian sample set to start admitting to incestuous thoughts, or get the middle-aged men to stop lurking in order to give the teenage girls some helpful if creepy advice. I found the survey to be very illuminating, although not in the way the Rebeloution probably envisioned.
My father has a friend who had immigrated from a very conservative Middle Eastern country when he was in his thirties. He once told my father that even when a woman wears an abaya (a floor-length cloak) and a niqab (a veil covering most of the face), he can still glean basic information about her looks: if she’s young, if her body is proportional, if she’s slim, if she’s got a flat stomach, if her legs are long, if she has big firm boobs, etc. He said, in particular: “When you live all your life surrounded by women who are dressed like this, you learn to see through that clothing. Me and my friends back home, we used to ogle veiled girls all the time. Doesn’t matter what they are wearing, they might as well be naked.”
Which brings up a really good point — each person is responsible for his or her own “dirty” thoughts. If a man is horny, then even if all women are clad in burquas, he’ll still fantasize about them, and his imagination will fill in the blanks. Although questions of good taste and appropriateness to the occasion remain, of course, it is idiotic to charge women with the responsibility for men’s thoughts about their bodies.
I find a hardened leather sporin protects my junk quite well while also holding my wallet and phone.
Which is good because I’d need to call 911 when some woman may find my plaid skirt and knee-socks too sexy to resist.
If God has a body, does God have a belly button?
Fun fact (for dull values of “fun”): The so-called “modest” clothes? I … kinda appreciate those, in ways I’m fairly sure their proponents didn’t really intend.
This is my problem, of course, if you want to call it a problem, but the point is that there can’t be a universally agreed upon definition of “modest” clothing.
Oh, man, I remember when the Modesty Survey first made the rounds. Some sample results:
“Leotards, sheer skirts, and tutus in theatre or dance performances are immodest.” — 36% agree or strongly agree
“It is okay for girls to wear tighter and/or more revealing clothes if they are working out.” — 52% disagree or strongly disagree
“Clothing (especially light-colored shirts, dresses, or pants) should always be tested before it is worn to guarantee that it does not become slightly transparent in certain lighting.” — 76% agree or strongly agree
“It is a stumbling block for a girl to sit with her legs spread apart.” — 50% agree or strongly agree
“It is a stumbling block for a girl to bend over with her backside towards you.” — 61% agree or strongly agree
“Seeing a girl stretching (e.g. arching the back, reaching the arms back, and sticking out the chest) is a stumbling block.” — 56% agree or strongly agree
“Seeing a girl’s chest bounce when she is walking or running is a stumbling block.” — 75% agree or strongly agree (Knock off all that walking, you hussies!)
“A purse with the strap diagonally across the chest draws too much attention to the bust.” — 48% agree or strongly agree
“Decorative stitching and designs on the back pockets of jeans draw too much attention to the rear.” — 44% agree or strongly agree
“Seeing a girl take off a pullover (i.e. a shirt that must be pulled over the head) is a stumbling block, even if she is wearing a modest shirt underneath.”– 37% agree or strongly agree
“Shirts with messages across the front draw too much attention to the bust.” — 47% agree or strongly agree
“Sweatshirts with messages across the front draw too much attention to the bust.” — 25% agree or strongly agree (Yes, there are two separate questions about whether seeing words on a shirt gets you horny.)
“Shirts or dresses (long or short-sleeved) with slits in the sleeves are a stumbling block.” — 40% agree or strongly agree (No dressing like a character in a 1980s dance movie, girls!)
“Spaghetti-strap shirts and dresses are immodest.” — 61% agree or strongly agree
“V-neck shirts or dresses are a stumbling block, even if they are not revealing.” — 34% agree or strongly agree
“Shirts or dresses that show the shoulders (i.e. more than a normal sleeveless top) are immodest, even if they are not otherwise revealing.” — 38% agree or strongly agree
“The lacy, lingerie look of some tops is a stumbling block.” — 66% agree or strongly agree
“The same standards of modesty should apply to wedding and bridesmaids’ dresses as to everyday attire.” — 65% agree or strongly agree (Sorry, ladies, no wedding gowns with V-necks, spaghetti straps, or off-the-shoulder sleeves. And for heaven’s sake, no lace! You want to give some innocent guy a wedding boner?)
Needless to say, all swimsuit designs were immodest to at least some respondents. So no ballet dancing, no swimming, no working out at the gym. And watch it with the walking and sitting, too.
On the plus side, only 14% of respondents found jeans unacceptable, and only 29% agreed that skirts are always more modest than pants. So, um, yay pants?
But the creepiest part is easily the “Open Questions” section, where respondents are encouraged to write their own answers to questions like, “How do you feel about girls who purposely flaunt their bodies?” Did I mention that the survey is about teenage girls? And that fully half the respondents are adult men?
@Amused:
“If a man is horny, then even if all women are clad in burquas, he’ll still fantasize about them, and his imagination will fill in the blanks.”
I think you can say more than that actually. I believe that the more restrictive you are of sexuality, the more you tend towards obsession. The less restrictive you are, the less it affects you. It’s kinda hard to explain, but I think it has something to do with biology’s idea of tolerance; the more you are exposed to some stimulation, the more stimulation you require to achieve the same results.
So while it’s clear that pervy men will be pervy and non-pervy men will be non-pervy no matter what society they live in, I think it takes a restricted society to make a non-pervy man pervy. (Sorta like Hitchen’s quote about religion and good/bad people)
Anthony said, “For years, big government has fed upon the blood of men to pay for the feminist bargain. But its thirst has grown too large and now the beast is coming after you for its pound of flesh.”
Anthony, you may not realize it but the feminist government carnival of doom is now bloody at the feast of the dinosaurs. Just think about it and everything you thought you knew about Valentine’s Day will suddenly be exposed as the fraud it is.
@Shaenon
Wow…
I wonder what a similar survey would look like for guys. Or can guys not be immodest? Do they have to be modest for other guys, or for those wandering-eyed ladies? Do they even care about what guys wear? Can guys not be on sports teams or work out if they’re bare-topped or wearing spandex? So many questions!