Categories
antifeminism creepy evil women homophobia idiocy men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA rape rapey sluts

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.

396 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Nobinayamu
Nobinayamu
13 years ago

Wow, David J. Stewart! He’s always been a hit on Fundies Say the Darndest Things. I’m going to be honest – I don’t think he’s real. I think he’s kind of a very elaborate Poe. I could be totally wrong (check it out NWO) but FSTDT has been quoting him for years and I don’t buy it.

Seriously, when he starts quoting hip hop, or gets all rhapsodic about the evil harlot attire of young pop stars and movie starlets… I think it’s satire.

I hope it’s satire.

Amused
Amused
13 years ago

At the time when those Bible verses were written, men living in the Fertile Crescent did not wear pants either. They wore dresses, and, in the case of Egypt, skirts. Pants, given that they are harder to tailor, not easily interchangeable between individuals and less comfortable in the searing Middle Eastern climate didn’t become widespread (or associated with men) until much later, and today, there are Biblical regions where men still favor dresses over pants. So what the authors of the Bible considered “modest” at that time is not a question that’s easily answered. Jesus, in all likelihood, didn’t wear pants either.

As far as I know, the only assessment of the significance of pants in antiquity comes from the Greeks, at a time when pants became fashionable among the Persian aristocracy. The Greeks invariably described pants as effeminate, and mocked men who wore them for being effete.

But why am I surprised? Everyone knows the MRA’s are some of the most ignorant people on the planet.

filetofswedishfish
filetofswedishfish
13 years ago

“evils of pants”

And that, is why I don’t wear pants. It complements my practice of witchcraft and being a Rock-N-Roll woman so much more nicely. Suck it, Fundies, I don’t practice your religion.

Since we have the Alpha Cock Carousel, can we also have Rock-N-Roll Women?

ozymandias42
13 years ago

Kathleen Hanna, rock-n-roll woman, wore dresses. Do I get a prize now?

Bagelsan
Bagelsan
13 years ago

When Rock-n-Roll came to America, so did pants on women become mainstream. Naturally, feminism, witchcraft, abortion, and homosexuality came as well.

Homosexuality? Were us pants-wearing women just so inspiring of lust that some men stopped wanting to fuck us entirely? 😀

Holly Pervocracy
13 years ago

I assure you, I wear pants no more than absolutely necessary.

…this habit seems to only be getting me into more adultery, though.

Debbie
13 years ago

wait…a lot of rock and roll women wore dresses! also uh since when were pants immodest….This dude has to be a poe

Debbie,

cynickal
cynickal
13 years ago

I refute the tyrany of pants.
If GOD had wanted us to wear pants we’d have been born with them

Seraph
Seraph
13 years ago

In my experience, it’s much easier to have sex with a woman in a long, loose dress or skirt than one in jeans, especially tight ones. Just sayin’.

Pam
Pam
13 years ago

One of the most controversial subjects in America’s churches today is pants on women

Yep, they’re not concerned about such trivial things as poverty, homelessness, etc., they’re concerned about pants on women.

As for Timothy 2:9
I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes

The concern was about classism, of women dressing in a manner which immodestly showed off not only theirs but their husband’s wealth and high standing in society.

Lyn
Lyn
13 years ago

All through high school I wore pants instead of the freaking school dress…so that I could sit cross legged without the danger of showing anyone my underwear.

Maybe, so that they’re clear, they can tell us how long and shapeless the skirts should be so that they aren’t ‘immodest’?

Joanna
13 years ago

But…pants make my ass look awesome! It’s not my fault that some religious nut lusted after me as per his natural animal instinct and felt he was going to hell for it. That’s his problem, not mine.

Feyline
13 years ago

Debbie: I have evidence! On the night I was raped, I was wearing loose-fitting man-pants that would be baggy as hell even if they weren’t oversized. Since, as we’re all aware, rape is something committed exclusively by men against women when said men are driven so crazy with lust that they just have to violate someone, clearly there’s no other explanation. Perhaps it has something to do with how each leg being individually encased draws attention to the fact that there is space between our legs in which a crotch resides; the fact that our bodies have sexual characteristics is clearly an irresistible aphrodisiac!

[Note: I think I look sexy as all hell in those pants, but somehow I don’t think that’s what the dude in the OP was talking about.]

kariface
kariface
13 years ago

Lol. In England, pants means underwear. It’s nice to know that this guy doesn’t want me to wear undies!

Lyn
Lyn
13 years ago

Kariface – that makes reading this ‘argument’ much more fun!

Karalora
13 years ago

“Evils of Pants” would be a great name for a band.

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.

Then again, that’s probably the point. The real “sin” is being female.

Ms. Crazy Pants
Ms. Crazy Pants
13 years ago

“The concern was about classism, of women dressing in a manner which immodestly showed off not only theirs but their husband’s wealth and high standing in society.”
—Ummmmm, classism has been around for centuries. I have no qualms about them fighting classism, but starting with how women dress is not the place to go. First, getting all classes of people in the world equal education and access to food, water, and housing is the place to start, without making them required to join a particular religion. Getting rid of classism also means that peoples thoughts all have the same value in society too, which means buddah is just as relevant as jesus is just as relevant as any atheist. Oh, and making a bunch of money in a capitalistic society doesn’t tend to get rid of classism; it promotes it.

Kendra, the bionic mommy
Kendra, the bionic mommy
13 years ago

I don’t think David J. Stewart is a poe. It’s a tough call, but my reasoning is that no poe could be as dedicated as he is. I have also been enjoying his posts at FSTDT for a while, and I think you would have to actually be such a hardcore fundie to spend as much time as he does writing at his website. I really enjoyed his rant about Faith Hill. That was a classic.

I do know plenty of conservative Christians do think it is sinful for women to wear pants. They have this obsession with modesty. I actually think pants are more modest. You can see up a skirt or dress, but pants always cover what’s down south, if you know what I mean.

carswell
carswell
13 years ago

Oh one of my favourite fundie sermons is The Sin of Bathsheba, read it and weep – or laugh – whatever is your wont.

… O that you could understand the fierce and bitter conflict in the souls of your brethren, when you provoke them by the careless display of your body. Oh, that you could hear their pleadings with God for help and deliverance from the power of those temptations. Oh that you could see their tears of shame and repentance when the temptation has overcome them, and they have sinned with eyes and heart and mind. Never again would you plead for your right to dress as you please.

The fact is, you have no such right. You have no right to destroy, by your careless dress, the brother for whom Christ died. You are bought with a price, and are not your own. You are duty-bound to glorify God in your body —to clothe that body, not as you will, but as God wills. And a little of real love for the souls of your brethren would remove for ever from your heart the desire to dress as you please. …

And on the subject of pants in particular:

Here we have come to a bone of contention which divides churches, families, and friends. The background is this: historically in our culture, the men have worn pants, and the women dresses. This is an undisputed fact, which is embodied in the proverbial expression that a wife who runs the house “wears the pants in the family”. The woman’s “liberation” movement, which is more than a century old, has sought to put the pants on all the women, figuratively speaking. …

I do not ask here, is it wrong in the eyes of God for a woman to wear slacks? I ask, what effect are her slacks likely to have on the eyes of men?

And first, in their very nature slacks are apt to reveal and display the form of a woman. Women contend for modest slacks, but who wears them? In the very nature of the case, it is difficult to make a pair of modest slacks, (especially for a woman who has a full figure), and as a matter of fact, it is an extremely rare thing to see a woman in slacks which are not too tight. Why is this? Why may men wear slacks which fit loosely, while the slacks of women must cling to every inch of their legs and loins? Verily because it is the god of this world who inspires these styles, and he knows his business only too well. He knows only too well that it is a snare to a man’s heart to have displayed before his eyes the form of a woman’s legs and loins. These a woman ought to keep carefully concealed at all times, and there is nothing that will do it so well as a dress. A loose-fitting skirt or dress, provided it is not too short, is also the best possible clothing with which to conceal the form of the woman’s lower anatomy.

But some women suppose that because their slacks are not skin tight, they are therefore modest. Well, now, suppose that your slacks are loose enough that they leave a little space between the material and your body. Still they basically display the form of your legs and loins. That is the nature of the garment, and can hardly be avoided. And further, as soon as you bend over, those “modest” slacks of yours will be stretched just as tight over your form as the skin tight slacks which other women wear. So unless you are so thin that you have no form with which to attract a man, or so fat that your form will only disgust him, (and you are no competent judge of this), you had best leave slacks alone.

The full text of the sermon is here. I recommend you read it in all its glory:

http://www.momof9splace.com/sinof.html

Lyn
Lyn
13 years ago

Reasons not to demonise your own sexual desires number 4381. Seriously, how much time has that guy spent trying not to look at women who, SHOCK HORROR, bend over? And at least he spells out that he only wants women who are attractive to him (not too thin and not too fat) to wear hoop skirts.

carswell
carswell
13 years ago

**When Rock-n-Roll came to America, so did pants on women become mainstream. Naturally, feminism, witchcraft, abortion, and homosexuality came as well.**

Homosexuality? Were us pants-wearing women just so inspiring of lust that some men stopped wanting to fuck us entirely?

No, no, pants-wearing women are so inspiring of lust that men become drawn to their brothers in confusion.

Steph
13 years ago

Well, that sermon’s got one thing right. I buy guys’ jeans for the fit, but I have a hard time finding ones that will cling to my legs in the way I want; they’re all too baggy! I’d get girls’ jeans but I don’t know how the sizing works – any other genderqueer/trans people have tips for dealing with this? (I really want to show off my legs; they’re probably my best feature because I exercycle the hell out of ’em.)

filetofswedishfish
filetofswedishfish
13 years ago

I really and truly hate so many of the narratives in that sermon. It makes me glad that I can go “That isn’t the game I’m playing! I don’t have to follow YOUR rules!”, and then take my ball to the other side of the play ground.

1 2 3 16