Over on Boing Boing, Mark Frauenfelder has posted the excerpt below from A Love That Multiplies: An Up-Close View of How They Make It Work by Michelle and Jim Bob Duggar — yes, those Duggars — explaining how women “defraud” men when they dress in a way that men find exciting (in their pants).
This, sadly, is not exactly an original or even unusual notion in reactionary religious circles.
Indeed, a couple of years back, I found a rather scary post on a radically pro-patriarchal site called the CoAlpha Brotherhood in which one young man calling himself Drealm lamented that, as a man living “in a university town that’s overrun with young girls” he was literally “forced to stare at hundreds if not thousands of women a day, all of whom bring sluttiness to all new pinnacle”
Like the Duggars, Drealm thought that “a woman dressing provocatively and leaving a man in an unfinished state of excitement … is an assault on men’s sexuality.”
When women dress like this, he argued, he and other men couldn’t help but want to rape them.
[T]he only thing I want to do to a slut is rape them. … dressing like sluts brings out murders, rapists and sadists in men. … A society based on sluts, might as well be a pro-rapist society.
Reading back over this now, it’s all a bit too reminiscent of the thinking of Elliot Rodger. Indeed, after Rodger went on his misogyny-driven murder spree, one CoAlpha Forum member wrote that Rodger “would have been a true hero” had he only killed more sorority women; the site now adorns its front page with an homage to Rodger.
But it isn’t just those on the margins of the manosphere who think this way. In The Myth of Male Power, the 1993 book that essentially provided the ideological blueprint for the Men’s Rights movement today, Warren Farrell famously wrote of the “miniskirt power” secretaries allegedly had over their male bosses.
Farrell is a couple of decades older now, and apparently it takes more than a miniskirt to render him powerless these days. And by “more than a miniskirt” I mean less. As in no clothing at all. When Farrell put out a new eBook edition of The Myth of Male Power last year, he had his publisher put a rear-view shot of a nude woman on the cover, “to illustrate,” as he explained in an appearance on Reddit,
that the heterosexual man’s attraction to the naked body of a beautiful woman takes the power out of our upper brain and transports it into our lower brain
This sort of logic, like that of the Duggars and of “Drealm” from the CoAlpha Brotherhood, also conveniently takes the blame for (heterosexual) male behavior and transports it into the bodies of women. With the Duggars, we’ve seen exactly where this sort of logic can lead.
Farrell, much like the Duggars and the excerable “Drealm,” also seems to think that women commit a kind of fraud against men when they “stir up sensual desires” that they don’t intend to fulfill. As Farrell wrote in The Myth of Male Power, when a man pays good money to take a woman out, and she doesn’t repay him, as it were, with sex, she is in his estimation committing a kind of “date fraud” or “date robbery.”
Or even a sort of date rape. Farrell wrote that
dating can feel to a man like robbery by social custom – the social custom of him taking money out of his pocket, giving it to her, and calling it a date. … Evenings of paying to be rejected can feel like a male version of date rape.
Emphasis mine, because holy fuck.
This is what happens when your ideology makes women responsible for (heterosexual) men’s desires. Hell, it’s what happens when you make anyone responsible for the desires of someone else, regardless of gender or sexual orientation.
Your pants feelings are your responsibility. Not anyone else’s. Full stop.
Exactly. Whereas, if one saw it as feminists do, as a straightforward matter of power, with the stronger (usually male) overpowering the weaker, and using/abusing their privileges in so doing, and sexualizing that abuse in order to intensify the power trip, the whole thing suddenly becomes very clear.
The Colon does seem a logical choice, although I’d say he’s more likely to kill his ex and/or kid(s) than a series of random strangers. Oh well…into the pool he goes!
Are you saying that rape is sexuality?
Mark,
Nobody is saying that men don’t sometimes feel lust when they look at women, We’re saying that it isn’t an excuse for rape and we aren’t responsible for how men react to their sexual desires. They are responsible for their own behavior. Men don’t rape because they experience sexual attraction. Everyone besides asexuals and people on libido suppressing meds experience sexual attraction. Most of us don’t rape because of it.
Do you really think women (the ones who find men attractive anyway) don’t experience strong feeling of sexual desire when they see a hot guy? Why do you think True Blood was so popular?
To the extent that people are capable of actually thinking about what they are doing, of course their actions are their own responsibility – but as far as I can make out, the guys above are actually complaining about the (extreme/abnormal) feelings generated by the clothing of others rather than mind control.
Wouldn’t it make sense to have some thought for the sensitivities of others with regard to clothing etc. in public?
@ Mark
You are almost there. If you had read the comments for comprehension you may have understood better. Here, I’ll fix your statements to help you.
a) the degree of lust that these men feel and the importance they assign to it is a social construct as evidenced by the constantly changing styles of dress and modesty thresholds over time and cultures;
b) the degree of lust they feel when they see women’s bodies and choosing to not act on that lust will not harm them in any way, but they will use it as an excuse to hurt or attempt to control others;
c) they do feel that way but it simply doesn’t matter because other people’s rights to bodily autonomy and safety take precedence in this matter.
I’m bisexual (technically pan, really) and in spite of seeing beautiful people of all genders every day, I’ve never had the urge to hurt or control any of the ones I feel lust for. It doesn’t even cross my mind. I seriously can’t even begin to understand that reaction. I feel lust for my fiance on a regular basis and it never makes me want to hurt him, or even do or say inappropriate things to him in public, no matter how strong the sudden urge to hop in the sack. I DON’T UNDERSTAND HOW THIS IS A THING.
PS: FFS my dog has the common sense, self control and courtesy to not pop a squat in the house every time nature calls, why is this a difficult concept for MRA’s et al?
This.
Mark, I’m deeply “sensitive” to any clothing other than banana hammocks. Do you take this into account when you dress in the morning? No? Maybe because you’re a fucking adult and can dress however you damn well please? And that any reaction I may have to you is my own problem that I need to deal with? All right then.
No, it wouldn’t. As has been pointed out several times above, men keep shifting the goalposts when it comes to “appropriate” clothing, and have even been known to molest fully covered women. It happens all the time, even to veiled women in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The problem is not what women are wearing, it’s the way men feel fully entitled to ACT.
Your argument is nonsense.
I just realized that the list may have been multiple choice instead of bullet points, so my answer is all of the above in my list and d) as added by EJ.
Please stop making my sexuality the responsibility of all women, everywhere.
Please stop suggesting that I am not in control of my sexuality.
Please stop suggesting that once aroused, my lusts must be sated and that if the woman or women who aroused them won’t sate them, that justifies forcing myself upon those women.
Are you fucking kidding me with this? How about having enough thought for the well being of others to not harass, assault or rape them. How about that?
If a man truly doesn’t have impulse control if he sees a patch of female skin, he needs to get help. Not make it the responsibility of others to regulate their dress. The smell of cooked broccoli disgusts me. It turns my stomach. But do I tell other people they can’t eat broccoli? No! People can eat what they want. It’s my issue. So I deal with it.
However, sexual predators do not truly have a serious impulse control problem and they don’t lack the ability to tell right from wrong when confronted with the sight of exposed woman flesh. You know how you can tell? Rapists and child molesters don’t lose control in public and start assaulting right and left. Rapists use roofies, they manipulate drunk women into being alone with them, they act polite on a date and then act the rapist when they get their date alone. Child molesters groom their victims. They lure them away from parents. They target kids who are vulnerable because their parents are unable or unwilling to keep an eye on them. They are calculating. They plan their acts. Josh Duggar waited until his victims were asleep. He didn’t lung across the dinner table in front of his parents.
Rapists and molesters actively make the choice to rape and molest. Women’s clothing doesn’t make a damn bit of difference.
I think women are stunningly beautiful and people like this are frankly making me ashamed to 🙁 To say that wearing something specific makes men unable to control themselves is grossly insulting.
@fromafar2013
I’ve never felt that way either, but then again I’ve never felt all manner of things that other people claim to feel. Does that mean I should just ignore what they are saying?
@Flora
“And that any reaction I may have to you is my own problem that I need to deal with?”
I’m not sure that that is how society actually works, is it? There are a large number of things that I wouldn’t dream of doing in public because it would likely cause offense to other people.
@Bina
Yeah, I don’t think clothing is related to the incidence of sexual assault. I think certain kinds of clothing might make some people really uncomfortable though.
@Falconer
It’s pretty mind boggling that you read “To the extent that people are capable of actually thinking about what they are doing, of course their actions are their own responsibility ” as ” once aroused, my lusts must be sated and that if the woman or women who aroused them won’t sate them, that justifies forcing myself upon those women.”
@Mark:
You know, taking into account how some of our predecessors found ankles showing enticing, and how some asshats today still dare to put the blame on CHILDREN (hell, TODDLERS even) for making someone horny, one is really forced to think over how much of all this is about how certain people actually dress and how much of it is about some people feel entitled to things based on little more than them wanting it (which is not really socially acceptable even when mere objects are involved – which makes “objectification” actually an understatement). Yes, there is a discussion to be had about where the boundaries should lie regarding clothing and sexual enticement in a society, but that’s pretty far down the line as things stand.
@fionabeswick
Biology just called and politely asked for to stop dressing up unscientific bullshit with pompous empty phrases like “in evolutionary terms”, “Nature’s way” and “some pheromone blah blah horseshit blah”.
@ WWTH
QFFT
Mark! Fellow male – what’s an example of women’s clothing that would prevent extreme feelings of lust in men?
Mark, you massive carbuncle, rape isn’t sexuality. Men are not natural born rapists.
Hmm… Men are evil rape machines that cannot control their lust?
So why aren’t gay men raping straight guys in gym locker room on the regular?
Oh, that’s right. They have not been conditioned to think other men’s bodies are theirs to use.
Mark, you clearly want an excuse to rape. You’re nasty. I’d rather step on a slug barefoot than ever shake your hand.
Mark – you’re doing a tremendous job of interpreting every comment you’ve gotten in the most simplistic way possible. This is what most rational people call “arguing in bad faith”.
Well, look, it’s the zombie lie of “women [and apparently, sleeping 5 year old girls] provoke rape and sexual assault by the way they dress.” Will this old myth never die?
And there’s already a troll arguing for it. Lovely.
OT: Hi, everyone!
@fionabeswick
Your comments about The Islamist were interesting and I realize my last post may have been a bit too snippy.
I do believe nature doesn’t give a shit about the fitness of who or what reproduces though.
@Bina – yes I think it does make sense to dress with some thought to the reaction of others. That’s why I don’t wear track suits and trainers to the office, or pyjamas, or the same dress I’d wear to a nightclub. (Ok, I have actually done all those things, but it wasn’t ADVISABLE). I certainly wouldn’t wear those things to a client meeting. We aren’t in a social vacuum. The way we dress helps frame us to the perceptions of others. It communicates educational level, social class, profession, cultural background – all kinds of things. To think it ought to be otherwise may be noble, but it isn’t realistic. Sometimes the standards that frame attitudes are so bad that they have to be changed – and I think they really have changed a lot for the better in the West in the past 50 years. Not perfect. Not evenly distributed between men and women, but much improved.
And it’s also ok to acknowledge that people also change their style of dress to deliberately attract when they are ‘on the prowl’ – men do it, women do it. If I wear a low cut top and expose my ample cleavage, I expect I’ll get a reaction different from when I’m wearing business attire. I don’t mind if a man is attracted or looks – that’s kinda the point. But he doesn’t have the right to touch until I give it to him. And I don’t owe him that permission.
@Mark:
Oh, sure. That’s why this SA burka-clad woman was recently kicked out of a mall for showing her bare hands:
http://www.barenakedislam.com/2015/05/27/saudi-arabia-burqa-clad-woman-kicked-out-of-shopping-mall-for-indecent-exposure-of-her-bare-hands/
There is no limit to those “sensitivities of others” when it comes to women’s bodies. Not only every inch of them should be covered (in black, preferably, to obliterate them better), but they’d best stay out of the public view altogether.
But… huh, wait. Even that does not stop men from raping women out of public view and in the supposed safety of their own homes. Well, I guess the best way for women to accommodate those “sensitivities of others” is to be dead.
But… wait. Huh.
@ Mark
What are they saying, exactly? Let’s go back to the OP.
This is not something to be ignored, this is something to be condemned. This is not normal. Society should not be operating under the assumption that this is what all men are like and that this is all women’s fault somehow. Expressing disgust at this is not ignoring it.
But what are you trying to say? That this is okay, or normal (ie: biological)? You are defending this, correct? You are saying that these men who do think like this shouldn’t change, but that all of society and all women (including children) should accommodate them (by changing their dress, actions, activities, etc) and then take the blame if they don’t do so ‘sufficiently’ (ie: getting raped anyway), correct? If you aren’t saying that, please clarify your point.
Spacelawn,
My MIL once told me she didn’t need to read the Bible because the preacher told her what to think. That attitude is not that uncommon. Many people know the words to the hymns and certain carefully chosen parts of the Bible by heart, but they never bother to learn the more inconvenient parts. (It’s love thy neighbor, not your straight neighbor, your white neighbor etc.) That would be work and since all they have to do is believe to get to heaven they don’t see the point of reading the Bible. They already have what they want from religion: The ability to be God’s favorite. Now, how you believe in something you know nothing about I don’t understand but it makes alot of people happy.
^THIS. SO THIS.