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.
Thanls, ShitRedditSAys, for pointing me to this. And to MFingPterodactyl for the sensible response.
Bathrobe, God has a butthole, duh.
You’re hilarious, MRAL.
Jackoffasaur – are you responding to anyone in particular, or are you just ranting at anyone who will listen (read) what you write? Also, usually if you are trying to point out gaping holes in someone else’s arguments, it is helpful to provide a coherent argument of your own. Just a suggestion.
On second thought, it seems to me that you are just here to stir the pot, get a chuckle, and leave. Which is entertaining I suppose…but you should really take some lessons from some of our resident MRA’s because you are getting terribly boring terribly fast.
Why would God need a dick? He got Mary inseminated apparently without using one.
Bathrobe, God has a butthole, duh.
What, did he show it to you?
Wouldn’t be the first time. Was it Moses He mooned?
Summa Theologica, Part 1, Question 3, Article 1, Is God A Body?, Jackoffasaur Recension
Jackoffasaur Objection 1. It seems that God is a body. For a body is that which has the three dimensions. But Holy Scripture attributes the three dimensions to God, for it is written: “He is higher than Heaven, and what wilt thou do? He is deeper than Hell, and how wilt thou know? The measure of Him is longer than the earth and broader than the sea” (Job 11:8-9). Therefore God is a body.
Jackoffasaur Objection 2. Further, everything that has figure is a body, since figure is a quality of quantity. But God seems to have figure, for it is written: “Let us make man to our image and likeness” (Genesis 1:26). Now a figure is called an image, according to the text: “Who being the brightness of His glory and the figure,” i.e. the image, “of His substance” (Hebrews 1:3). Therefore God is a body.
Jackoffasaur Objection 3. Further, whatever has corporeal parts is a body. Now Scripture attributes corporeal parts to God. “Hast thou an arm like God?” (Job 40:4); and “The eyes of the Lord are upon the just” (Psalm 33:16); and “The right hand of the Lord hath wrought strength” (Psalm 117:16). Therefore God is a body.
Jackoffasaur Objection 4. Further, posture belongs only to bodies. But something which supposes posture is said of God in the Scriptures: “I saw the Lord sitting” (Isaiah 6:1), and “He standeth up to judge” (Isaiah 3:13). Therefore God is a body.
Jackoffasaur Objection 5. Further, only bodies or things corporeal can be a local term “wherefrom” or “whereto.” But in the Scriptures God is spoken of as a local term “whereto,” according to the words, “Come ye to Him and be enlightened” (Psalm 33:6), and as a term “wherefrom”: “All they that depart from Thee shall be written in the earth” (Jeremiah 17:13). Therefore God is a body.
On the contrary, It is written in the Gospel of St. John (John 4:24): “God is a spirit.”
I answer that, It is absolutely true that God is not a body; and this can be shown in three ways.
First, because no body is in motion unless it be put in motion, as is evident from induction. Now it has been already proved (2, 3), that God is the First Mover, and is Himself unmoved. Therefore it is clear that God is not a body.
Secondly, because the first being must of necessity be in act, and in no way in potentiality. For although in any single thing that passes from potentiality to actuality, the potentiality is prior in time to the actuality; nevertheless, absolutely speaking, actuality is prior to potentiality; for whatever is in potentiality can be reduced into actuality only by some being in actuality. Now it has been already proved that God is the First Being. It is therefore impossible that in God there should be any potentiality. But every body is in potentiality because the continuous, as such, is divisible to infinity; it is therefore impossible that God should be a body.
Thirdly, because God is the most noble of beings. Now it is impossible for a body to be the most noble of beings; for a body must be either animate or inanimate; and an animate body is manifestly nobler than any inanimate body. But an animate body is not animate precisely as body; otherwise all bodies would be animate. Therefore its animation depends upon some other thing, as our body depends for its animation on the soul. Hence that by which a body becomes animated must be nobler than the body. Therefore it is impossible that God should be a body.
Reply to Jackoffasaur Objection 1. As we have said above (Question 1, Article 9), Holy Writ puts before us spiritual and divine things under the comparison of corporeal things. Hence, when it attributes to God the three dimensions under the comparison of corporeal quantity, it implies His virtual quantity; thus, by depth, it signifies His power of knowing hidden things; by height, the transcendence of His excelling power; by length, the duration of His existence; by breadth, His act of love for all. Or, as says Dionysius (Div. Nom. ix), by the depth of God is meant the incomprehensibility of His essence; by length, the procession of His all-pervading power; by breadth, His overspreading all things, inasmuch as all things lie under His protection.
Reply to Jackoffasaur Objection 2. Man is said to be after the image of God, not as regards his body, but as regards that whereby he excels other animals. Hence, when it is said, “Let us make man to our image and likeness”, it is added, “And let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea” (Genesis 1:26). Now man excels all animals by his reason and intelligence; hence it is according to his intelligence and reason, which are incorporeal, that man is said to be according to the image of God.
Reply to Jackoffasaur Objection 3. Corporeal parts are attributed to God in Scripture on account of His actions, and this is owing to a certain parallel. For instance the act of the eye is to see; hence the eye attributed to God signifies His power of seeing intellectually, not sensibly; and so on with the other parts.
Reply to Jackoffasaur Objection 4. Whatever pertains to posture, also, is only attributed to God by some sort of parallel. He is spoken of as sitting, on account of His unchangeableness and dominion; and as standing, on account of His power of overcoming whatever withstands Him.
Reply to Jackoffasaur Objection 5. We draw near to God by no corporeal steps, since He is everywhere, but by the affections of our soul, and by the actions of that same soul do we withdraw from Him; thus, to draw near to or to withdraw signifies merely spiritual actions based on the metaphor of local motion.
Hey, the new troll is cool! Can I play with it?
Tell me, Jackoffasaur, does the Holy Spirit have nipples? It’s very important for me to know. I have this thing later tonight…
So God’s an Alpha, MRAL?
KEE-RIST on the Concorde, you can’t even do sockpuppetry right, son.
And VoiP wins the thread.
The morons on the far right are obsessed with telling everyone what to do.
“Man up, shape up, step up” is the usual trumpet call for men to jump off the cliff of self-sacrefice like lemmings.
“Be a darling, be an angel, be a honey” is the sweet music charming women into surendering their humanity and turning into turnips.
But look through their smoke screen, and the entire charade is about POWER. Guess who decides what it means to “man up” and “be a darling”? The same perverts who want to control an army of male slaves while consuming a conveyor belt of female concubines.
I will never understan how feminists rationalize serving up their fellow women, bound and helpless upon that conveyor belt of horror, for the payoff of a slice of blood-stained power.
“I’m merely pointing out the obvious gaping FUCKKING holes in your arguements”
Um. No, you aren’t. You need to spell out your *cough* logic a bit more if you want to point out holes in our arguments. For example, how exactly is a woman wearing pants the same as someone drink driving?
god’s dick, like jackoffasaur’s intellect, is non-existent.
I like how a biblical commandment addressed to men is interpreted as being actually aimed at women, because surely Jesus didn’t really expect men to take responsibility for their own behavior. And obviously He was referring specifically to an article of clothing that didn’t even exist in His time.
Not that I haven’t seen this logic before, but it still cracks me up.
Zarat – could you explain how the hell that relates to a post about how women wearing pants is evil?
Lyn, he can’t, he’s just gearing up for more fuckery.
I will never understan how feminists rationalize serving up their fellow women, bound and helpless upon that conveyor belt of horror, for the payoff of a slice of blood-stained power.
Uuuum OK but how does this answer our important question about if the Uncreated Light Itself, the Devouring Fire at the End of Time, has a ding-dong or a hoo-hah?
That’s some prime grade word salad you’ve got going there, AntZ.
I’ve always liked the idea of the Shekhina. She was Yahweh’s “other half” until some bastard neutered her into the sexless “Holy Spirit”.
Holly and Hellkell, your troll-detection powers are keen. And you are correct.
But MRAOfficer’s theory about God’s butthole has a notable precedent: Carl Jung had a famous vision of God shitting on a cathedral; the vision had a big effect on him and he wrote about it in his autobiography.
http://books.google.com/books?id=7qDcC963BiUC&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=jung+god+shitting&source=bl&ots=C9xeeYdA5k&sig=5qvCxlwousMqgPD7Ud_xKH8urFU&hl=en&ei=QblNTvTNDaOnsAKhzsTmBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=jung%20god%20shitting&f=false
Anthony seems to be having some strange visions of his own. I prefer Jung’s.
“I will never understan how feminists rationalize serving up their fellow women, bound and helpless upon that conveyor belt of horror, for the payoff of a slice of blood-stained power.”
Does … anyone … know what this means?
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.