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.
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!
The less restrictive you are, the less it affects you.
oh, definitely. Ever been to a nudist colony? You’ll never want to look at a naked body again.
AACC, I am giggling like a fool over “hraka-ing bricks.”
@speedlines:
“Ever been to a nudist colony? You’ll never want to look at a naked body again.”
It’s actually that very reason why I’m starting to think wearing clothes is a good thing (aesthetically, not in terms of practically). If people lose interest in nudity as a result of it being too common-place, I would consider that to be a great loss. xD
Of course I’m talking about wearing clothes in the freest sense of the concept; I don’t really care all that much what people wear, and we definitely shouldn’t have a society where people cover themselves out of shame.
OK, I officially hate “stumbling block.” That’s another one I heard a lot in high school, but it reminds me of Frollo. “It’s not my fault/I’m not to blame/It was the gypsy girl, the witch, who set this flame…”
@kirbywarp – the short answer is no. Men don’t have to worry about being modest. Men are the only active agents – the ones who can sin or not-sin. Women are merely temptations to sin (“stumbling blocks”). They must be altered or removed from sight so the active agents – men – are not tempted to sin.
As for women themselves, there are only Madonnas and Whores – Madonnas have no sex drives of their own, and so must be notified when they’re being a “stumbling block”. Whores want everything with a cock anyway, so how men dress doesn’t matter. They are conscious and deliberate stumbling blocks, and must be punished for it.
Funny thing about all this “stumbling block” business. I find it two places in the Bible. The first is Leviticus 19:14, and it’s a clear and simple commandment against cruelty: “Do not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block in front of the blind, but fear your God.” God will get pissed if you curse the deaf or put a stumbling block in front of the blind.
The other is 1 Corinthians 8:9, and it’s probably a reference to the Leviticus quote: “Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak.”
Funny thing, though – the “freedom” the writer of Corinthians is referring to is the “freedom” to eat food that has been offered up to idols, something which was pretty taboo. The idea was that educated Christians knew that offering food to idols meant exactly nothing, since there were no other gods and the idols were simply dead stone. However, if you give “weaker brothers” the idea that breaking taboos in general is okay, then you’ve caused them a lot of damage.
Funny how this call for personal restraint, and avoiding the appearance of sin to avoid misleading others, became yet another excuse to control women.
Or, what Katz and Frollo said much more simply and elegantly than I did.
OMG the modesty survey.
I just wasted 20 minutes reading it and playing with the filters. It seems men 30-39 have the biggest sticks up their asses, while homeschooling doesn’t make as much of a difference as you might think.
Mind-bogglingly, 93.5% of respondents either agree or strongly agree that “A modestly dressed girl can still be a stumbling block because of her attitude and behaviour”. So even if you dress like Laura Ingalls Wilder, if you don’t act just right you’ll ruin everything, you little whore!
Wow. What a perfect illustration of the impossible standards patriarchy spawns. Imagine what it would be like if women weren’t the default sex class and could just wear, you know, whatever they liked! Without being to blame if their brothers in Christ “stumble” (I assume this is a euphemism for masturbation)!
CHAOS!! ANARCHY! CATS AND DOGS LIVING TOGETHER!!!!11!!!
(Seriously, what is it with fundamentalist Christians and masturbation. What is the big deal? There are entire books dedicated to helping Christian men not masturbate. Can you imagine?)
In case anyone doesn’t believe me about the anti-masturbation book:
http://www.amazon.ca/Every-Mans-Battle-Winning-Temptation/dp/1578563682
It’s a whole series – Every Man’s Battle, Every Young Man’s Battle, Preparing Your Son for Every Man’s Battle, Every Woman’s Battle (more about infidelity – i.e., making do with the asshole you married when you were 19 instead of leaving him for a guy you actually have something in common with – than jerking off), Every Single Woman’s Battle, Every Man’s Marriage, and so on. Seriously, it’s the Star Wars Extended Universe of sex-negativity.
It warms the heart to see devoted Christians obeying Christ’s command: “If thy eye offends thee, call whoever you were looking at a dirty slut and demand she drape several layers of tarp over her head.”
Whenever I hear people claiming that such and such behavior is required by any deity, I hear this some playing in my head: http://youtu.be/HkXPyY9Wo_A