Dr. Joan Bushwell's Chimpanzee Refuge

Feministe takes on guilt-inducing erections

Posted by Dr. Joan Bushwell on April 2, 2007
(6)
More »

For your perusal: Christian warriors fighting immodesty one guilt-inducing erection at a time

The Feministe blog adroitly unzips, strips, and de-wingtips the Modest Survey from the “Rebelution,” a Christian teenage rebellion against low expectations. The take home message of the survey is that women are expected to protect their brothers in Christ by wearing modest clothing. Although not quite venturing into burkhaville or the depeche mode of The Handmaid’s Tale, it’s great to know that women are still considered wicked temptresses and that men will easily “fall” because of “unguarded body” on a woman.

Here’s a cheery excerpt:

Deuteronomy 22:8 says, “When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet for your roof, that you may not bring the guilt of blood upon your house, if anyone should fall from it.” My sister has often heard from other girls, “It seems the whole point to this modesty thing is to try and hide the fact that I’m female. If I do that, how will a guy ever notice me?”

In my opinion, modesty is no more about hiding the fact that a woman is a woman than having a parapet around a roof is about hiding the fact that the roof is a roof. The primary purpose of the parapet is so that no one falls off the roof and dies, bringing guilt upon the homeowner. One primary purpose of modesty is to prevent men from “falling” on account of a woman’s unguarded body.

Anyone wanna bite of this apple?

Signed,

Doc Bushwell, atheist in sensible Land’s End garb.

Three pant-hoots and a grooming session to Stephanie for the tip.

(6)
More »

Comments

  1. #1 kemibe
    April 2, 2007

    “Seeing a girl stretching (e.g. arching the back, reaching the arms back, and sticking out the chest) is a stumbling block” — 57% agreed, only 21% disagreed

    “Seeing a girl’s chest bounce when she is walking or running is a stumbling block.” – 76% agreed

    “Any shorts that are shorter than mid-thigh are immodest.” — 84% agreed

    Guess we won’t be seeing these respondents at track and field meets or road races. Or leaving the house, for that matter.

    Where do they find kids like this? Calling them “socially retarded” doesn’t begin to address the degree of internal maladjustment holding them hostage. I can’t imagine the constant barrage of dissonance that would result from trying to live in the 21st century while harboring Paleozoic ideas about humanity.

  2. #2 Ex-drone
    April 3, 2007

    It just seems all so confusing and frustrating for these poor, weak fundie males. I picture a group of them looking at a woman in a burkha, rubbing their chins and saying, “You know, maybe those Muslims have got a good idea here.”

    But wait. Aren’t fundie males obsessed about, in their view, the weak morals of gay males? By extension, shouldn’t they be blaming themselves for being so damned alluring? So let’s get Christian males to wear the burkhas. Doing so will keep them from tempting homosexuals, shield their eyes from having to look at women, and visibly segregate them from normal society.

  3. #3 M. Jones
    April 3, 2007

    Maybe they’re the target audience for this T shirt from Jesus and Mo.

  4. #4 writerdd
    April 3, 2007

    >Where do they find kids like this?

    Doh. At evangelical churches

  5. #5 Warren
    April 3, 2007

    When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet for your roof

    Umm, wait a minute, I’m confused. Putting a protective covering on a newly-raised construction of wood — is that pro- or anti-erection? Or is this instead a subtle point about condoms we’re all missing?

    And IIRC Deuteronomy also warns sternly against eating shellfish and crossbreeding animals, which would suggest the entire town of Oatman, AZ is doomed, doomed, doomed, parapets and all.

  6. #6 Bill from Dover
    April 3, 2007

    I think Michael was onto something with that solo glove – it was just the wrong color. How better to show ones control of his lust?