Pharyngula

Posted by: Vicki, Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief | July 29, 2010 11:11 AM

This approach only calls for one garment: a blindfold.

Any boy who says "yes" to any of the "will this make you think improper thoughts?" questions can have his very own blindfold, to protect him from seeing things that would bother him.

Posted by: m.a.lukasiewicz | July 29, 2010 11:13 AM

Well, at least they are honestly stating their intentions.

Posted by: Doug Little | July 29, 2010 11:16 AM

Did studded leather bodice and ass-less chaps come up?

Posted by: daveau | July 29, 2010 11:16 AM

Dress for the glory of God.

B.. b... but God wants us to be fruitful and multiply. How will I know which girls will put out if they don't dress like strumpets?

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | July 29, 2010 11:19 AM

And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell.

"Hmm. I don't have the spine to follow Jesus' dictates. What if I just force everybody else to modify their behaviour instead?"

Christianity in a nutshell.

Posted by: daveau | July 29, 2010 11:21 AM

I sincerely regret that we didn't get a crack at this survey. That would have been a fun one to pharyngulate.

Posted by: history punk | July 29, 2010 11:23 AM

B.. b... but God wants us to be fruitful and multiply. How will I know which girls will put out if they don't dress like strumpets?

Dude, just marry one of them. As the feminist philosopher Phyllis Schlafly has discovered:

By getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don't think you can call it rape

How this works in practice in the Schlafly household is unknown because the liberal media refuses to ask the hard questions.

Posted by: Jam | July 29, 2010 11:25 AM

The freakin' veil lady on the website's banner absolutely kills me.

Posted by: Spiro Keat | July 29, 2010 11:28 AM

A J Milne
"Women should not wear clothing."

No, no, no.

If god meant us to be naked, we would have been born na...... Ah.

You're right, hallelujah. Get 'em off.

God does indeed work in mysterious ways.

Posted by: laurelrusswurm | July 29, 2010 11:30 AM

Those boys are downright scary.

Posted by: jmkspetz | July 29, 2010 11:32 AM

Oh, this is one of my hot-buttons. It's infuriating! The answer is not for women to dress more modestly, it's for {these} men to act with self-control. Instead of teaching "don't rape women" and "if the answer isn't an enthusiastic YES then it's automatically no" we teach "don't dress provocatively" with provocatively being a very fuzzy area (and often moving target) encompassing everything from jeans and a tee-shirt to a string bikini. And that's just in America!

As a woman, I resent the strictures (for my own good) put on my movements (walking alone after 9pm)and dress (ok, I'm an engineer, so provocative isn't in my wardrobe). Recommendations even include not wearing a pony tail, because it could be a handle or something, I'm not quite clear on that one.

/end rant

Posted by: Andrés Diplotti | July 29, 2010 11:34 AM

("Are bikinis immodest?" "Are jeans immodest?")

My Mr. Hyde says he expects possible answers to include "Oh yeah" and "Not enough." Sorry, my Dr. Jekyll has trouble keeping him in check sometimes.

Posted by: Spiro Keat | July 29, 2010 11:34 AM

Bugger: let's NOT put any more....

Posted by: Randomfactor | July 29, 2010 11:35 AM

AAAAARGH! This is my absolute biggest pet peeve! ALL chaps are assless. That's what chaps are! It's in the definition!

Spoonerism. He meant "chapless asses." That's what the lube is for.

Posted by: Kausik Datta | July 29, 2010 11:37 AM

At first, I couldn't get past the first line -

They're Christian, so you can trust them to have your best interests at heart.

Vicki @1 has it just right.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 29, 2010 11:40 AM

Hey, women have been telling me what I should wear my whole life.

what?

Posted by: Snikkers | July 29, 2010 11:42 AM

Islam & Xtians: Reactionaries of the world -- united!

Posted by: daveau | July 29, 2010 11:43 AM

Dianne@20-

What is it about religion that makes men unable to control themselves?

Oh, I think they can control themselves. It's just easier to seek out a peer group that not only agrees with your antisocial thoughts, but actively looks for loopholes that would allow you to behave that way, and then blame the victim. Can't beat religion for that.

Posted by: Aratina Cage | July 29, 2010 11:44 AM

What... you question my 'Christian logic'?

Don't you mean Ferengi logic?

Posted by: pixelfish | July 29, 2010 11:44 AM

Oh, THIS site! I once read it aloud for my boyfriend, and he still jokingly makes references to my "stumbling blocks" whenever I wear a low-cut top.

There's a whole section that has nothing to do with the clothes themselves, but mobility and activity. At one point, they even seriously put forward the idea that girls shouldn't carry messenger backs because the strap from the messenger back cuts across their torso between their breasts, and VOILA! STUMBLING BLOCK! (I've seen similar discussions about girls running, because OH NOES! THEIR BOOBIES JIGGLE!)

I think Vicky is right, and we should be telling these oh-so-sensitive young men to blindfold themselves.

...

This reminds me of the time I first noted in my Mormon upbringing that modesty messages were mostly ever aimed at the women ("Don't make it hard for the men to think clean thoughts") while the "clean thoughts" messages were aimed pretty much at the guys. (Thus reinforcing two bad ideas: one, that women never have such urges themselves, and two, that the woman is culpable for any such thoughts the guy has.)

Posted by: abhollandbeck | July 29, 2010 11:46 AM

Women's panties make me think nasty thoughts. Please, don't wear panties anymore!

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | July 29, 2010 11:47 AM

Y'know, someone should suggest to these folk that they're doing it all wrong...

I mean, 'is bikinis immodest' and 'are jeans immodest' are such generic questions. We need more detail. What sort of bikini? What sort of jeans? And worn how, exactly?

So, clearly, the interface they need is one in which you can actually upload photos. And then ask: 'Is this immodest?'

(/Oh, it'd work so much better. Trust me. And I'm sure no one would go 'round the web digging up deliberately suggestive stuff to upload purely to turn their hub into the unintentional softcore porn concentrator of the day... Because that would be hilarious wrong.)

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | July 29, 2010 11:48 AM

Do not get me aroused. You would not like me if I am aroused.

SteveG, it is traditional that conservative religious types blame rape victims because of the clothes they wore. With your scenario, women are still responsible for the sins that men do. And that is still bullshit.

Posted by: Timberwoof | July 29, 2010 11:49 AM

I wonder if this sort of reasoning combined with more obvious presence of gay people (I "knew" of only one gay person in high school; when I finally came out in college and met the rest of them, I was quite surprised ... and a bit disappointed) is what's behind boys these days dressing so slovenly. Are they afraid that by making themselves attractive to the girls, they also make themselves attractive to men?

Posted by: michellegalo | July 29, 2010 11:53 AM

That survey has been around for awhile. I remember reading it when I was a Christian college student. (I'm 26.) I was reading a lot of this sort of thing, including Ladies Against Feminism.

Speaking of stating one's intentions clearly.

In the very, very shallow defense of this survey, I don't see it even now as a justification of sexual assault. I do, of course, still see it as a very, very sexist double standard, but then, these sort of Christians believe in double standards and would say so outright.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | July 29, 2010 11:56 AM

Mormon boys rap about modest girls:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avXVHIYfK6c&feature=related

Mormon men talk about modest women:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2S888TocQ0
"I appreciate girls that dress modestly because it helps me with my thoughts. That way I can keep clean thoughts and a pure heart."
"When I see girls that aren't modest, it says to me in my mind that these people don't really care about the bodies that Heavenly Father gave them and they're very insecure, and I do not want to be around them."
"To fully claim Heavenly Father's blessings and protection, we ask you to stay true to the standards of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and not slavishly follow the whims of fads and fashions. The Church will never deny your moral agency regarding what you should wear and how you should look, but the Church will always declare standards and will always teach principles. As Sister Susan Tanner taught this morning, one of those principles is modesty. In the Gospel of Jesus Christ, modesty in appearance is always in fashion. Our standards are not socially negotiable. "

Posted by: DesertHedgehog | July 29, 2010 11:58 AM

"Taliban Tingle" has just been added to my fashion vocabulary.

Posted by: tutone21 | July 29, 2010 11:59 AM

@ pixelfish #39

...Don't make it hard for the men to think clean thoughts...

This made me "clean thought" in my pants. I blame you and your immodesty.

Posted by: Zzarchov | July 29, 2010 12:01 PM

This strikes me as a case of being obtuse. This is a valid point from an atheist standpoint.

This is not a threat of rape, this is a threat of being creeped out by being eye-oggled by someone.

If a woman shows up to a business meeting and then complains of harassment when people stare at her, is it there fault for not controlling themselves? Are they not altering their behaviour enough to prevent someone else from having to alter their behaviour at all.

This seems to be a case of "You are free to wear what you want, but I am free to oggle you. So in the interest of fairness I will give you a list of what I will oggle and you can do what you want, and I'll do what I want."

This is most funny because you are using religious logic to defend your point. "Lustful thinking is wrong and degrading", I am an atheist so I don't buy that I need more self-control if I don't believe a dusty tome that tells me thinking certain things is wrong.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | July 29, 2010 12:02 PM

It's SO nausiating, how can these people LIVE with themselves?

They do so with a smug self-righteousness that makes you want to give them a slap.

Posted by: Zzarchov | July 29, 2010 12:04 PM

in case the edit was missed (page was acting funny), "shows up to a business meeting in lingerie". Filter removed the words when copy pasting, and it turns the post from being chauvinist to be realist.

Posted by: JRD | July 29, 2010 12:05 PM

I hate to say this, but in fairness to the fundies, it's a bit of a leap to argue that this has anything to do with justifying rape. Not to say that it's not misogynistic as all hell and continues the common Christian theme of women as ultimately responsible for men's sinful thoughts and acts, but there's a pretty large gap between saying "these are things that can cause men to sin by thinking impure thoughts" to "these are things that justify sexual assault."

Posted by: amk.myopenid.com | July 29, 2010 12:07 PM

I've signed their petition on behalf of Mullah Mohammed Omar. I'm sure he won't mind.

Posted by: prichert | July 29, 2010 12:08 PM

I see a lot of people have already voiced this now but I believe it an misreading of these people to imply they see physical assault or rape as justified depending on clothing. This has everything to do with men having "impure thoughts", regardless of whether such thoughts or feelings in consensual between the males and females.

Posted by: dracil | July 29, 2010 12:10 PM

Honestly, it's not as bad as you guys are trying to make it out to be judging from their answers about men's responsibility in the open question section.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/CoxkKJE0ro_mSac3sNN0spZuE9c7BxOsLw--#9ee78 | July 29, 2010 12:11 PM

michellegalo said:

I do, of course, still see it as a very, very sexist double standard, but then, these sort of Christians believe in double standards and would say so outright.

Exactly the point. The issue is not the survey. The issue is how this particular variety of Christians think about the world and interpersonal relations vs how we do. Equality between the sexes is not high on their list, and this survey is a reflection of that.

Posted by: SteveM | July 29, 2010 12:12 PM

re 63:
Did you even read what you wrote?

...and continues the common Christian theme of women as ultimately responsible for men's sinful thoughts and acts,

which is exactly justification for sexual assault. If the woman's dress was "ultimately responsible" for a man's actions, then it justifies his action.

Posted by: SteveG | July 29, 2010 12:12 PM

RE: 45(Janine), 48 (SteveM) and others

I do see your point: The issue of blaming the victim is a big one, and something I do take offense to. I do have my guard up a bit whenever rape is brought up; it hurts me very deeply to see people take it lightly (which at first glance, I thought PZ was doing). I agree, this data could have an ultimate purpose of blaming the women. I still wish that PZ would add an extra sentence though to better link this, as the post does look a bit like he is wrongly using sexual assault as a sort of straw man.

Posted by: Mike in Ontario, NY | July 29, 2010 12:13 PM

I thought "Taliban Tingle" sounds like an alcohol-free cocktail. I'm not sure what would be in a Taliban Tingle, but I'm guessing one part club soda, two parts bitters, no ice.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | July 29, 2010 12:14 PM

I pointed this out before and I will repeat it, conservative religious types have routinely blamed the rape of women on the clothing that were wearing at the time of the assault. Quit making the mistake that this site is not pushing this view of "modest clothing".

Posted by: Snikkers | July 29, 2010 12:15 PM

I mean, some guys are shoe men... does that mean I'm supposed to wear baggies over my heels to prevent any lewd shoe-directed thoughts?

No, no. That's why crocs were designed.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | July 29, 2010 12:16 PM

I don't really think there was clothing made that would have prevented impure thoughts from this mind during puberty, (or my late teens, early twenties, late twenties, ah hell, I still have issues.)
I guess what I am really trying to say is: How can this make any difference? People want sex, it's an urge that is with virtually everyone. If we cover more skin the titillating bits just shift. (Ankles anyone?)

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | July 29, 2010 12:18 PM

You know if these boys didn't think that "immodesty" or "nudity" was so taboo and arousing, they might have an easier time accepting their physiological lust as natural and thus not make a big fucking stink about it.

What we need is a counter point "Nudists explain how to deal with arousal in everyday life"

Posted by: KennyG | July 29, 2010 12:19 PM

"We're not telling you what to wear — we're just listing the stuff that will justify raping you."

Maybe I have the reading comprehension skills of a rodent, but I think that the site was trying to get girls to dress modestly not because guys will start raping if they get the least it aroused but because the guys might start thinking secual thoughts, which is a pretty big sin according to most Christian sects.

Granted, "we're not telling you what to where- we're just putting the responsibility of controlling our hormones on to you" ain't much better.

Posted by: Steven Dunlap | July 29, 2010 12:21 PM

@ Janine, #79

I pointed this out before and I will repeat it, conservative religious types have routinely blamed the rape of women on the clothing that were wearing at the time of the assault. Quit making the mistake that this site is not pushing this view of "modest clothing".

It occurs to me after reading this that my snarky post #78 could be misconstrued as some sort of twisted defense of sexual assault. It was not. The "pressure" in the bottle does not and never will excuse or justify the manner of the "bursting" in that metaphor. Much regret if that's how it sounded. My metaphors clunk a bit sometimes.

Posted by: Nancy New | July 29, 2010 12:21 PM

"In the very, very shallow defense of this survey, I don't see it even now as a justification of sexual assault. I do, of course, still see it as a very, very sexist double standard, but then, these sort of Christians believe in double standards and would say so outright."

Anyone else remember this story?

Bill Donohue will be so relieved. Here's a story about a young girl being raped, her assailant protected by the church, and the girl herself getting all the blame…and it's the Baptists! Tina Anderson was raped by Ernest Willis, a Trinity Baptist Church member, when she was 15, and got pregnant. She accused Willis in the church, and here's what happened:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/05/its_not_just_the_catholics.php

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | July 29, 2010 12:22 PM

I see a lot of people have already voiced this now but I believe it an misreading of these people to imply they see physical assault or rape as justified depending on clothing. This has everything to do with men having "impure thoughts", regardless of whether such thoughts or feelings in consensual between the males and females.

Are you really so unaware of the justifications some men use for rape ? You really have never seen the argument put forward that women wearing a short skirt, or top showing some cleavage were "asking for it" ?

Posted by: Ray Moscow | July 29, 2010 12:24 PM

PZ:

... women are to blame for inciting men's behavior by wearing tight jeans or a strapless dress

Not only that, but for inciting "lust" (aka "sexual desire" in sane circles), which is just as bad as adultery according to Jesus.

Just like "hate" is just as bad as murder.

But yeah, stupid men often do blame women for "making them" act immorally.

Posted by: moochava | July 29, 2010 12:25 PM

1) people with power demand women dress "modestly"
2) women do not dress "modestly," because "modest" is entirely subjective and changes based on the needs of those with power
3) women are raped
4) women are accused of "asking for it" because they did not dress "modestly"
5) rape is downplayed, dismissed, or justified

Is this *not* what happens in other people's realities? Because that's what I'm seeing here.

It's like people expect "rape enabling" to consist of mustache-twirling villains who write openly pro-rape manifestos while sexually-insatiable degenerates prowl the streets defiling women. That's not how it works. *This* is what enabling rape looks like: offering excuses that rapists can use to justify their crimes to themselves or to a sympathetic jury.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | July 29, 2010 12:27 PM

@Ing -

Yes, the girl described in my post was the one with the problem, because she was behaving in a provocative way without understanding that, and she would have been mortified if she had understood that she was being overtly sexually provocative. She was embarrassing my friend and his wife, who didn't think it should be their job to address inappropriate kid behavior.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | July 29, 2010 12:28 PM

I do have my guard up a bit whenever rape is brought up; it hurts me very deeply to see people take it lightly (which at first glance, I thought PZ was doing).

Very few of the regulars here take the issue of rape lightly.

Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake | July 29, 2010 12:31 PM

Bernard Bummer:

Your modesty shines. Even if a guy doesn’t know what it is exactly, he will notice you and that there’s something different about you. That’s the right kind of attention.

Posted by: azalea_meme | July 29, 2010 12:34 PM

I took a look at their previous bits of wisdom and they're simply brain numbing. Would the Victorian Era come back with a vengeance if one were to stick by all of these guys recommendations. Oh, and it also extends to more than clothing.

It is a stumbling block to see a girl lying down, even if she's just hanging out on the floor or on a couch with her friends.

What's next? Walking (running is already there, as it causes the boobs to bounce), breathing, blinking, what else? I'd like to know, so that I can practice my modest statue-like posture after I've donned my burkha

But hey, as someone raves in their endorsements sections, it's all worth it:

Ladies, if you want to attract a healthy, God-glorifying relationship with a decent, respectable guy who will love, honor, and cherish you like crazy, then let The Modesty Survey serve as your wake up call on how to attract your prince... without kissing a lot of toads!

Yeah, thank you, but I think I'll pass. Toads are generally non-judgmental creatures with healthy sex lives, so it's 0-2 so far in Toads vs Horny Repressed Xian Teens.

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | July 29, 2010 12:35 PM

The survey is stupid, and girls should be able to wear whatever the hell they want, but it's also stupid to produce kids of either sex who have no idea what types of clothing and behavior might be distracting to those around them.

I know what you mean, but the line is unclear. Obviously, walking around with breasts/arse/genitals on display (just to take it to the extreme) would often be considered inappropriate and would certainly predictably provoke responses, but who should be responsible for the quality of those?

Certainly, no-one should be allowed to pretend that their lust comes from anywhere but inside their own head.

Posted by: Egbert Green | July 29, 2010 12:38 PM

"What they have to guard against? They should be plainer. 'We're not telling you what to wear — we're just listing the stuff that will justify raping you.'"

In fairness, there is a big difference between lust and sexual assault. These Christians believe they are sinning simply by having lustful thoughts.

Posted by: Coleslaw | July 29, 2010 12:40 PM

As a homeschooler, I've run into hot teenage girls who have absolutely no idea (or no conscious idea, which is different) of the effect that their behavior has on guys. They end up doing the most ridiculous sorts of things and making guys around them profoundly uncomfortable. I'm thinking of a 40something friend who complained to me that a neighbor's 17 year old would hang on him and sit on his lap wearing short-shorts. He felt uncomfortable telling her to get the hell off of him, as if that made him a dirty old man or something.

You believed this excuse? He couldn't say, "Please don't sit on my lap" because he felt uncomfortable about that? It sounds to me like he was bragging about being able to attract 17 year old hotties at the age of 40 something.

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | July 29, 2010 12:42 PM

@Forbidden Snowflake

"...this is hilarious..."

Enough to make professional satirists weap onto their iPads as ignorant buffoons earnestly pour out into cyberspace something which they could never hope to craft in a hundred lifetimes.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | July 29, 2010 12:43 PM

In fairness, there is a big difference between lust and sexual assault. These Christians believe they are sinning simply by having lustful thoughts.

Please read the previous comments before saying such things.

The fact a woman was wearing "immodest" dress is seen by some people as mitigating a man's blame if he rapes her. The authors of that website will be as aware of that, as should you.

Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD) | July 29, 2010 12:44 PM

What is an "improper thought" anyway? I probably have lots and lots of them. But I don't act on them.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | July 29, 2010 12:59 PM

On the subject of my Catholic homeschooling friends, they seem, by their absurd sex education, to have produced daughters who are fairly sexually provocative in their behavior AND a son who's all oglish about girls in running bras. Somehow their sex education has produced girls who have no understanding of what sorts of things guys find arousing and a boy who is obsessed with running bras.

All of this could be solved with some frank discussion, but they're too busy with the books about Jesus in the bedroom to talk about erections and boobs. Hint - if kids have been around nursing moms who aren't the "hide in the bathroom to feed the baby" sorts, they're fairly able to view boobs as baby feeders with secondary sex appeal and nothing to get all crazed about. And erections happen, but they can be embarrassing for guys and it's sort of rude to deliberately provoke** them.

**I'm talking about physical behavior here - rubbing, sitting on someone's lap, etc. Not about clothing.

Posted by: CherryBombSim | July 29, 2010 1:02 PM

Is the premise behind this that girls are *unaware* of which clothes excite "improper thoughts" in boys, and are wearing them by accident?

Posted by: Rich Wilson | July 29, 2010 1:03 PM

Is makes her look like a pig in heat on there?

Posted by: Egbert Green | July 29, 2010 1:05 PM

"The fact a woman was wearing "immodest" dress is seen by some people as mitigating a man's blame if he rapes her."

There is also a difference between applying some blame to the woman and saying that the man's act was justified. And pointing out what "some people" say does not justify painting the whole group as seeking to justify rape. That's why I took issue with PZ's remark.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | July 29, 2010 1:09 PM

Hmm, this Modesty Survey thing sounds familiar.

One sec...

Ah yes.

And shame on you PZ, you forgot the best mango of the bunch. Posted here for everyone's viewing "pleasure":

A young lady, regardless of your relation to her, can be a stumbling block/temptation to a young man. Sort of a disgusting thought, but men, if not walking in the Spirit everday, can be wolves.

My younger sister, 14, is just recently becoming more of a young lady. It was not too long ago that I (for the first time) had to bring up her dress to her. It’s not a question of incest. It’s a question of instinct. I could probably think for a moment and realize that it’s my sister, but why be put in that position in the beginning?

A girl is a girl. My sisters look like girls, and therefore they are potentially a temptation. Just because I have a relationship with them does not mean that their womanliness physically can not stir up wrong thoughts.

Even my Mom can attract my attention if she isn’t careful.

Yup, 14 year old female relatives better make sure they are properly made up and ruler the lengths of their skirts so that they won't "arise the lust" of their male betters.

Also, let's have a long conversation men who don't believe this has anything to do with the rape culture.

Let's parse a lot of phrasing in these works.

"Even my mom can attract my attention if she isn't careful."

Careful? Why should women be careful if it's just about arising lust. Surely, good Christian men are well-versed in proper consent.

Oh wait, no, they aren't. In fact, sex education, and the very idea of consent often seems entirely foreign to most right-wing Christians.

So, let's see here, no notion of consent, women are responsible for arising lust, lust in men is "uncontrollable" (i.e. justifiable if one "loses control" and oh yeah, it's the women's fault if this happens), and women need to be "careful" that this doesn't occur.

Okay, it isn't spelling out some written-out Section 8, Paragraph 3 of the Patriarchy Contract, where a woman is raped if she fails to meet the proper "Modesty Level", but there is a distinct subtext to these actions and they well know it.

How else do you keep women in line? How else do you get them to submit to a system where their brothers are sniffing their pant legs of a morning to make sure they aren't "arousing their lusts"?

Well, by making it very very clear in subtext that there will be "punishments" for crossing the line and these punishments will be "being used" by those with "uncontrollable" lusts.

You know, rape.

Hell, if the rhetoric's "warnings" weren't a big enough clue, there is also the context of the world we live in, where victim blaming is not only common in rape cases, it pretty much constitutes all rape cases. Rape cases are decided not on evidence of consent, but rather of "potential sluttiness" of the victim. Did she have sexual partners? Did she wear a short dress? Does she ever smile at men or belong to a Satanic cult like whatever religion isn't most popular in the county the case is being decided in? Must have "deserved it", cause she was "asking for it".

This is the culture we live in, where the "modesty standards" of the Christian Taliban is directly used as the main excuses of the rape culture. Where the Christian Taliban has the least amount of education in enthusiastic consent and has been trying to block such education to ALL children. Where the Christian Taliban has out loud ranted about modesty and then invariably turned around and stated its impossible for large swathes of women to EVER be raped. See Phyllis Schaffley on how married women can't be raped, conservative Christian congressmen ranting about how rape is only when a white, Christian virgin is raped by a stranger, etc...

And oh yeah, the actual Muslim extremists who many people don't have any difficulties seeing how they use the implicit threat of rape to keep their women in line, use the exact same arguments to defend their "modesty clothing" and "restricted wardrobes". This is the exact same arguments, no difference.

Yeah, rape culture, that's it in a nutshell.

Yes, there is also raw patriarchy and an intense double-standard and a belief that the very thought of lust is evil, but in practice, these "disjointed messages" are ones where rape and often murder are justified to women on grounds that they "incited you".

So yeah, no, thanks for playing, but you're wrong.

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | July 29, 2010 1:10 PM

"Pulling off a pullover shirt can be a stumbling block, even if there is a modest shirt underneath."

Presumably written by some guy who almost dislocated his own bollocks during the self-abuse that followed him glimpsing a bra strap.

Personally, I think it is disgusting that women are allowed to walk around naked under all of those clothes. Something needs to be done. (Possibly a mass-prayer that all women should grow a luxuriant body fur which further protects their dignity and the purity of my thoughts.)

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | July 29, 2010 1:11 PM

And repeated here, Kyso's rant on the subject:

Rebeloutionettes, I want you to listen to me just once. THERE IS NOTHING, NOT ONE SINGLE THING, THAT YOU CAN DO TO HELP A GUY WHO OPENLY ADMITS THAT EVEN HIS MOM CAN DO IT FOR HIM. Nothing you can wear, nothing you can say, no prayer that you can make, will do a damn thing for him until he decides to do something for himself. The incest taboo is one of the strongest taboos we ever learn, and we share it with virtually every society that ever existed anywhere at any time. If you’re hanging around a bunch of guys who are comfortable enough with their privilege to announce, ‘hey, when I look at my sister, I think, I’d tap that’ then the problem is not you and your Devil’s chunk heel shoes, it’s them, it’s THEM, OH MY GOD IS IT THEM. Don’t let anyone lump people like that into a sample population and then tell you that it is your responsibility to cater to that shit. It is not.

This is an important lesson, probably one of the most important, that feminists would like to give you, and that the patriarchy would like to bury. Sometimes, it’s just not your problem, and learning to recognize and enforce that boundary will save you a lot of heartache and give you the confidence you need to defend yourself when assholes like Fred Stoeker come around.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawk25bzfeJzooxtW_G2Jo9aQu4IkVxU0jns | July 29, 2010 1:14 PM

Somehow their sex education has produced...a boy who is obsessed with running bras.

That's one thing I get is that fetishization of wearing apparel can happen pretty easily at that age. Dress girls in flour sacks and boys will be ejaculating all over the baking aisle of the supermarket.

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | July 29, 2010 1:16 PM

@glowball (132):

The thing about that - I was in a self-defense course and the instructor was able to subdue me, and I have relatively short hair (well, not right now - haven't cut it in a few months, so it's kinda long.)

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | July 29, 2010 1:17 PM

Personally, I think it is disgusting that women are allowed to walk around naked under all of those clothes. Something needs to be done. (Possibly a mass-prayer that all women should grow a luxuriant body fur which further protects their dignity and the purity of my thoughts.)

Um, I thought that the Mormons had the solution for this; Magic Mormon Underwear. Clad in this, one is no longer naked under one's clothes.

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | July 29, 2010 1:22 PM

...Magic Mormon Underwear...

Don't be silly, my brand of stupid doesn't believe in magic, only the miraculous, god-given fleece can possibly save me from the brazen flesh that is concealed under womens' clothes.

Posted by: glowball | July 29, 2010 1:26 PM

Keving @ 135 Probability only. Also depends on the ability of the attacker and a host of other matters. And whether its life and death and your willing to leave hair behind, I suppose. Not saying you're wrong. I've somewhat different experience is all, but my hair might just be shorter. Probability. Irrelevant anyway, and I didn't mean to threadjack so I'll shut up now.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | July 29, 2010 1:31 PM

Of all the destructive nonsense that resulted from Christianity, I think the most destructive stuff came from these two Bible verses (Matthew 5:27-28):

You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

The idea that thoughts themselves are wrong is horrifying and might have been dreamed up by Orwell or Kafka if the Christians hadn't gotten there first.

Posted by: erichoug | July 29, 2010 1:37 PM

All of the guys who commented on these questions are either completely gay, sexually repressed or creepy ass fucks. check out this comment under the question of whether or not Bikini's are modest

"Generally a big temptation for guys."

Really? A temptation to what? I know for me it is a big temptation to go introduce myself and see if she's free for dinner. But then, I'm single and not a creepy ass rapist like this guy.

And P.S. for all of you on that board. A normal man LIKES SEEING WOMEN IN THEIR UNDERWEAR!!!!

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | July 29, 2010 1:40 PM

Part of the reason that I hate the abrahamic religions. Lust is a natural condition. But it takes religion to turn lust into something evil that must be stomped out.

People have to learn how to deal with their lusts, when to and when not to express and act upon them. But the abrahamic religions turns lust into a sin that men cannot control and that women have to deny.

Posted by: Travis | July 29, 2010 1:43 PM

Timberwoof #118,
Hehe, I understand your feelings completely (especially about the glasses). Being on campus during the summer is so nice...well all year is pretty good. I certainly let my mind run all lustful but discretely. These people seem to think both sides of this are terrible. Those lusty thoughts are oh so bad and to do that to some poor man is bad.

Besides, what they think of as being provocative and immodest is probably pretty tame. If only I could take them with me to a fetish night. That would probably blow their minds. But I would worry too much about how they would treat my friends.

Posted by: mikerattlesnake | July 29, 2010 1:45 PM

@127

Nailed it, as you consistently and reliably do.

I think one of the big problems here is the body/mind dualism inherent in religion (though not exclusive to it). For those of us that recognize our brain as a flawed product of a messy evolutionary process, it is easy enough to file away lustful thoughts in the "not my fault, not indicitive of my intentions file", but for these guys, it's an indictment of their immortal soul. It must make things like depression, anxiety, and other brain disfunctions all the worse as well. For me, I can compartmentalize, understand, and to some extent supercede these impulses and it's mostly because of what I have learned about the way the brain works.

Posted by: Greylander | July 29, 2010 1:50 PM

Having read some of the text answers to some questions on that survey, I have to have a bit of sympathy for those poor Christian boys.

They are taught, and they believe, that mere lustful thoughts and feelings are in and of themselves a sin... a grave crime against their god.

I think most of us here can agree that most (i.e. healthy, heterosexual) men are pretty much hard-wired to feel desire when they see an attractive woman.

So in their twisted world, so-called "immodest" women really are causing them to commit "thought crimes", and they are pretty much helpless. Although some ass-hole men might use the implications of this survey to justify rape, most of these guys are quite adamant that a woman's immodesty does not justify rape or any other bad behavior. For most of them, the woman's immodesty does not even justify their own "thought crime", which they expect god to punish them for.

That's quite a nasty little pickle they find themselves in.

No wonder they are pleading with women: "please don't make us want you."

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | July 29, 2010 1:53 PM

@ Travis from 149
I think there would be some mess as a result of a fetish night date for these people. I can't endorse it, as it might indeed make the happy normal people a trifle uncomfortable having chistian heads explode all over the room.

Posted by: mikerattlesnake | July 29, 2010 1:54 PM

@153

...leading them to resent women, and then blame women, and then...

Posted by: Travis | July 29, 2010 1:57 PM

Dhorvath,
You know, I think I know some people for whom that mess might actually be a turn on. But I guess you are right, it would be a pain to clean up.

Still, I would love to see their reaction to such a place. If they think regular life is immodest, well, they just haven't see enough.

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | July 29, 2010 1:59 PM

@153:

And it's even worse when said Christian boys are bisexual and suffer gender dissonance.

Posted by: LauraL | July 29, 2010 2:01 PM

Two things:

Anyone notice that women aren't even allowed to sign the petition? (not that they should want to...)

Also, I'm kind of weirded out that a large number of the survey signers are not even 18. It's kind of moot, but if 13 year old "Josiah Robertson" came up to me and tried to tell me I was immodest, I think I'd smack him in his teeth and send him home to mom.

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | July 29, 2010 2:03 PM

Having read some of the text answers to some questions on that survey, I have to have a bit of sympathy for those poor Christian boys... That's quite a nasty little pickle they find themselves in... No wonder they are pleading with women: "please don't make us want you."

In fairness, this also. I figure you do also have to keep in mind that religion is a mindfuck for men (originally: boys), too, in said way...

There's a bit of a mixed message, too, when you think about it. Or rather: a conveniently overloaded one. To women: men wanting you = your sin. To men: you wanting a woman = her sin and yours... Sure, you get to blame her, too, for goin' and bein' so dang desirable, but you're on the lineup too now, bub, for desiring, all the same. If thine eyes offend thee, and all...

Note, of course, that it's a nice twofer. One want, two sins. The economics of it are impressive. So now all have sinned, all have fallen short, feel yer guilt, come here 'n get yer now necessary forgiveness, all ye sluts 'n horndogs...

And, of course, it's an utterly inevitable one. Honestly, whoever came up with the idea that merely feeling desire is a sin guaranteed themselves an infinite supply of sinners. You'd get more or less the same return as you would classifying breathing as immoral.

Posted by: GravityIsJustATheory | July 29, 2010 2:06 PM

Regarding the intention of this survey:

1) I doubt* that they are intentionally trying to set out an "if you dress like this, we would be justified in raping you" list.

Rather, I think it is a genuine case of "its bad if I have lustful thoughts, so don't endanger my soul by dressing in a way that might turn me on".

2) However, I agree that this sort of attitude is part of the cause of the cultural attitudes that lead to people failing to take rape seriously if they think the victim was in some way responsible (and in some cases maybe even justifying it).

* Although I have come to realise that nothing is so stupid or evil that someone, somewhere won't try to justify it on religious grounds.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | July 29, 2010 2:08 PM

I was just exploring The Rebelution and it is a treasure trove of pure bugfuck craziness.

Posted by: eleusis | July 29, 2010 2:12 PM

What they have to guard against? They should be plainer. "We're not telling you what to wear — we're just listing the stuff that will justify raping you."

Talk about reading something into it that simply isn't there. This is on a par with Ken Ham's interpretation of the Declaration of Religion in Public Life.

All they're saying is that wearing those kind of clothes would justify impure thoughts, and women shouldn't lead men into sin (ie, impure thoughts). I think that's a pile of shit, of course, but to say rape has any more than a tangential and insignificant part in this is ridiculous.

After reading:

We're not telling you what to wear — we're just telling you what we, as guys, have to guard against.

My first thought was how milquetoast and unlike Islam the Western brand of Christianity is. We should be thankful this is as bad as it gets.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | July 29, 2010 2:13 PM

@ Travis,
Oh, I get that. I would also love to see their eyes bug out and their jaws trailing on the floor. I feel sorry for them that they don't get to enjoy their lustful thoughts and couldn't appreciate an event like that.

Posted by: GravityIsJustATheory | July 29, 2010 2:18 PM

Actually, having just read a bit more of the survey, any and all of the suggested intentions seem possible.

For exemple, this post here seems to be a case of what I suggest above, turned up to eleven. (tl;dr; "Please don't make me need to poke my eyes out to avoid going to Hell!")

Whereas this one here is ... ambiguous ... and potentially may actually mean (or at least could be interpreted to mean) that dressing wrongly could get you raped and would be your own fault. Either way, it is very creepy to read, and whoever wrote it is clearly fucked up in the head.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | July 29, 2010 2:20 PM

@Cerberus #172 -

Actually, the Rebelution site goes even further than just demonizing sexuality - they explicitly apply their anti-lustful-thoughts ideology to desires for other pleasures as well, including food, friendships, etc.

Now all biologically-based desires must be renounced for Jebus - if I eye that piece of pie, I'm making Jebus sad. What a crock.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | July 29, 2010 2:22 PM

Ok, I'm getting tired of the "how dare you draw the obvious conclusion, you're like Hitler Times 20" type posts, so for all the thicker men in the audience:

A primer: Rape Culture 101.

Please read.

Yeah, there's some big contexts for why many feminists are connecting "do something about your modesty, because it's dangerous not to, hint hint" to the rape culture where the woman's perceived modesty is pretty much the central focus of most every rape trial.

Also, again, for the late comers:

The post of one of the modesty crusaders:

A young lady, regardless of your relation to her, can be a stumbling block/temptation to a young man. Sort of a disgusting thought, but men, if not walking in the Spirit everday, can be wolves.

My younger sister, 14, is just recently becoming more of a young lady. It was not too long ago that I (for the first time) had to bring up her dress to her. It’s not a question of incest. It’s a question of instinct. I could probably think for a moment and realize that it’s my sister, but why be put in that position in the beginning?

A girl is a girl. My sisters look like girls, and therefore they are potentially a temptation. Just because I have a relationship with them does not mean that their womanliness physically can not stir up wrong thoughts.

Even my Mom can attract my attention if she isn’t careful.

Kyso's response:

Rebeloutionettes, I want you to listen to me just once. THERE IS NOTHING, NOT ONE SINGLE THING, THAT YOU CAN DO TO HELP A GUY WHO OPENLY ADMITS THAT EVEN HIS MOM CAN DO IT FOR HIM. Nothing you can wear, nothing you can say, no prayer that you can make, will do a damn thing for him until he decides to do something for himself. The incest taboo is one of the strongest taboos we ever learn, and we share it with virtually every society that ever existed anywhere at any time. If you’re hanging around a bunch of guys who are comfortable enough with their privilege to announce, ‘hey, when I look at my sister, I think, I’d tap that’ then the problem is not you and your Devil’s chunk heel shoes, it’s them, it’s THEM, OH MY GOD IS IT THEM. Don’t let anyone lump people like that into a sample population and then tell you that it is your responsibility to cater to that shit. It is not.

This is an important lesson, probably one of the most important, that feminists would like to give you, and that the patriarchy would like to bury. Sometimes, it’s just not your problem, and learning to recognize and enforce that boundary will save you a lot of heartache and give you the confidence you need to defend yourself when assholes like Fred Stoeker come around.

Posted by: MrFire | July 29, 2010 2:29 PM

We should be thankful this is as bad as it gets.

No, we shouldn't. We really, really shouldn't.

Posted by: Vicki, Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief | July 29, 2010 2:33 PM

SteveM:

Yes.

To reiterate, if a boy gets turned on by looking at a girl, this is not a problem. The problem would be if he hassled her. If someone has trouble controlling his (or her) sexual urges when he sees a given garment, he should look elsewhere. Let him stare at his own shoes until he can get home and take care of the matter quietly in private.

Posted by: Kieranfoy, Faerie Godfather of Death, GMKSC, OED | July 29, 2010 2:36 PM

Um, I thought that the Mormons had the solution for this; Magic Mormon Underwear. Clad in this, one is no longer naked under one's clothes.

Oh, but Janine, you don't understand!

The Magic Underwear TM is sacred! The evil, sinful Scarlet Women are defiling the most holy of Holy Garments by pressing them to their soft, naked flesh; rubbing them against those portions which may not be name, sliding and stroking them with their Devils' Dumplings whenever they put them on! Their Caverns of Sin must needs be pressed against the Holy Crotch TM of the Magic Underwear TM!

They are NAKED under their underwear! Underwear is insufficient! Holy Underwear is rapidly converted to the service of the Dark Prince by the corrupting influed of womanly flesh, and turned into Garments of Lubricious Wickedness! The holiness of the Magic Underwear TM must be protected from this by... another layer of underwear!

/fundie

Wow. I feel sullied, dirty and used.

In a bad way.

As for the rest... yeah, this shit: not as blatant as burkhas, but almost worse. This is a burkha of the mind.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | July 29, 2010 2:37 PM

Re: Mattir's anecdote

She does not appear to blame the girl; she blames her parents. Also, anyone who thinks that teenagers have a great natural grasp on the consequences of their actions (hell, a grasp on the actions themselves) has either never been a teenager or has forgotten. This girl needs someone to explain to her that 1. her actions are inappropriate and 2. though the neighbor guy was nice enough about it, some other man may not be.

Even if a teenage girl gets excitement out of being intentionally sexually provocative with a man, it is unlikely that she is aware of the implications. If you do not have an appreciation for how unsophisticated a teenager's understanding of consequences is, you need to gain one. No, I'm not suggesting that we blame girls who behave this way. I'm suggesting that we inform them of the possible consequences so that they can protect themselves from creeps. That doesn't mean they can't flirt or be suggestive. It means they need to learn when and where they can do so without getting hurt. That takes an understanding of human sexuality and society.

The parents in Mattir's story have done a huge disservice to their children.

Posted by: Moggie | July 29, 2010 2:46 PM

#160:

Sexual feelings exist; they're natural, and not inherently good or evil. What we do with our sexual feelings — sexual/social behavior — can be (and all too often is) evil, but blaming evil behavior on our natural, inescapable thoughts doesn't help.

And this shit is aimed at kids. I remember being a teenage boy. Impure thoughts: are you fucking kidding? I could probably have been turned on by seeing a mannequin in a shop window. I could get an inconvenient erection just hearing a pleasant voice. Hormones! There can be few things more screwed up than saying to young people: those thoughts you have all the time, those things you do in private, even those dreams you have that you have no conscious control over? They're all evil, and can send you to hell.

Posted by: marilove | July 29, 2010 2:49 PM

BigMKnows: Nonsense, really?

It's not just the men who rape who use such ways of thinking to justify rape. It's other people, too: Juries. Police officers. Parents.

The point is: Why wouldn't men who think this way not use this line of thinking to blame women who are raped? Even if they aren't rapists. But you better believe some of them are. And this line of thinking doesn't just exist with the religious. But people like this (men AND women) will be more likely to justify rape, and justifying rape is not very far off from encouraging it.

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | July 29, 2010 2:49 PM

@Moggie:

Haha - try being bisexual and a Christian teenager. Those thoughts you have of attractive men? Well, stop having them - look, we have an attractive woman for you to look at. Oh, but if you think lustfully about her, you're going to hell.

It does stuff to you, serious stuff.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | July 29, 2010 2:50 PM

It's far too easy to forget how ignorant, self-absorbed, and clueless some of us were at age 17. Girls do not occupy the top rungs of power in most cultural settings, so when they start to realize that just having a more obviously female body attracts attention and is therefore a way to wield power ... well, all sorts of things can go wrong.

Add to this situation a lack of sex education, a religiously-inflected (or infected) fear/need relationship with males, and young girls may well indulge in behavior that they view as mildly exciting but necessary to get attention, while the same behavior may be viewed by everyone outside the girl's mind as blatantly sexual; as, in fact, an invitation to engage in sex.

It's up to adults, as Mattir pointed out, to educate children. It's also up to adults to cut children some slack when it comes to bad judgement, and to not take advantage of their expressions of bad judgement. It's incumbent upon mature men to take responsibility for their own actions, and to maintain some perspective about the difficulties of growing up female.

When church leaders repeatedly put the onus on women to dress in a way that removes stumbling blocks on a man's journey toward godliness, they are trafficking in the adam/eve myth and damaging the relationships of all the humans who are supposedly in their care.

Posted by: pteryxx | July 29, 2010 2:53 PM

"Your modesty shines. Even if a guy doesn’t know what it is exactly, he will notice you and that there’s something different about you. That’s the right kind of attention."

*sigh* If people really wanted their children to get "the right kind of attention", they could raise them to be confident, secure, capable people who take joy in being themselves and can appreciate others for who they are. Well-grounded children and adults make harder targets for abusers, speak up in defense of others, and don't perpetuate the cycle of abuse on their own families. And more to the point, they're a joy to be around.

Why should we spend decades un-learning the lessons of a sick and twisted culture, when we could have just been treated as people from the start?

Posted by: Endor | July 29, 2010 2:57 PM

"How can one talk about behavioral norms in dress and behavior without creating a "blame the victim" sort of culture?"

Smash the patriarchy ;)

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | July 29, 2010 3:03 PM

It's up to adults, as Mattir pointed out, to educate children. It's also up to adults to cut children some slack when it comes to bad judgement, and to not take advantage of their expressions of bad judgement. It's incumbent upon mature men to take responsibility for their own actions, and to maintain some perspective about the difficulties of growing up female.

And this is part of what is so troubling about this stupid survey. It allows teenage boys, with their hormones and unmyelinated prefrontal cortex, to cast votes about what is and isn't sexually distracting. It would be so much better for adult men to talk about their own experiences of having been teenage boys, how they dealt with erections caused by store mannequins, and how one must never use one's genitals (or any other part of one's body) to hurt people. Giving 14 year old boys the right to dictate standards of behavior for women is like giving the world's nuclear arsenal to the Taliban.

My friend did deal appropriately with the teenage girl who kept trying to sit on his lap. He prevented her from doing it and told me about it because he thought I had a better relationship with her parents and could discuss the issue more effectively.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, avec fromage | July 29, 2010 3:08 PM

Vicki (@183):

To reiterate, if a boy gets turned on by looking at a girl, this is not a problem.

QFT! Our fundamental nature as sexual beings is not evil. Some folks' sexual behavior is, but that's a separate issue.

Also, I should have included in mine @198 some mention of the fact that the ecstatic nature of human sexuality makes it a threat to religious heirarchy, which asserts a divine monopoly on ecstatic experience.

Posted by: Copyleft | July 29, 2010 3:11 PM

They're asking TEENAGE BOYS this?

The list of things that could generate "impure thoughts" in teenage boys is hardly limited to specific articles of clothing.

You'd also get "Yes" answers to ice cubes, formica, paper clips, and Tupperware.

Posted by: derelicthat | July 29, 2010 3:18 PM

Disclaimer, I have not gone through the entire thread yet. I took some time to explore the site, reading some young Christian male's take on the "Responsibility of Modesty."

Yes, just like certain men will jump off a roof, despite the parapet. If a man wants to jump, you should do what you can to stop him. But, if he forces his way past and jumps anyway, the guilt is on his head, not yours. The parapet is there to keep men that don’t want to jump from falling. It’s the same with modesty.

Wow.

I don't know whether to applaud their bravado in just being honest about their delusion or vomit quietly to myself. And this on the heels of one of my coworkers talking about this really interesting book he was reading about pick-up artists. So much raaaaaage.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | July 29, 2010 3:20 PM

Thank you Mattir. That has been bugging me as well, but you put it out in words very clearly, while I was still trying to figure out exactly what was bothering me.

I think one of the most important things that any child learns as they grow up is the difference between levels of social comfort. Doing something to someone that they find uncomfortable is generally not nice.

Empathy plays a big role in this, by encouraging children to consider the reactions they will produce before acting. Sometimes that fails and that is when social communication cues become important to evaluate reactions as they occur.

Learning body language, facial expressions, vocal tones and the like can allow a child to determine whether their activity is appropriate in a given situation. This seems to me a far more appropriate way to educate children than by telling them that doing this is not ok and that is ok.

Posted by: roxane.murray | July 29, 2010 3:26 PM

I wish I could remember the exact quote, but the immortal Toby Ziegler in West Wing once said something like, "Lug wrenches make adolescent males think impure thoughts."

Posted by: Coleslaw | July 29, 2010 3:29 PM

Re: Mattir's anecdote She does not appear to blame the girl; she blames her parents. Also, anyone who thinks that teenagers have a great natural grasp on the consequences of their actions (hell, a grasp on the actions themselves) has either never been a teenager or has forgotten. This girl needs someone to explain to her that 1. her actions are inappropriate and 2. though the neighbor guy was nice enough about it, some other man may not be. Even if a teenage girl gets excitement out of being intentionally sexually provocative with a man, it is unlikely that she is aware of the implications. If you do not have an appreciation for how unsophisticated a teenager's understanding of consequences is, you need to gain one. No, I'm not suggesting that we blame girls who behave this way. I'm suggesting that we inform them of the possible consequences so that they can protect themselves from creeps. That doesn't mean they can't flirt or be suggestive. It means they need to learn when and where they can do so without getting hurt. That takes an understanding of human sexuality and society. The parents in Mattir's story have done a huge disservice to their children.

Some of us are looking at who she exonerates, not who she blames. My hunch is that if someone had dumped a 100 pound bag of concrete into the lap of the poor, bewildered 40-something neighbor instead of a hundred pound 17 year old, he would have figured out a way to get rid of it, rather than sitting there thinking there was nothing he could do.

Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD) | July 29, 2010 3:38 PM

@168

Aha! In that case I've never had an improper thought. :-)

Posted by: legistech | July 29, 2010 3:40 PM

What could caust "impure" thoughts in young boys?

Well, for one thing, an extensive survey that asks in great detail about specific things that might cause impure thoughts. Because I know I enjoyed considering the various ways in which these articles of clothing might be enticing (I didn't feel any guilt over it, though). I also liked that they included pictures of many of the articles, just in case.

I think the system is set up as a justification of nonconsensuality. However, I don't think most of these boys see it that way. There is a question on the guys' responsibility, and almost universally they indicate that it is up to them to keep these bad thoughts out of their heads. You get quotes like:

In the extreme, even if a girl were to walk naked on the street (which would naturally be very appealing to look at) I have no right to gaze at her or lust.

And as for repressed urges, one young boy notes:

We need to keep our thoughts pure and stop blaming girls for our impure thoughts. And guys can be modest too. Nobody EVER touches on that. We can be just as distracting to a girl as they are to us. Keep your shirt on. Pull your pants up. Seriously.

Yeah, we can be just as distracting "to a girl." Uh huh.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | July 29, 2010 3:42 PM

From Mattir

My friend did deal appropriately with the teenage girl who kept trying to sit on his lap. He prevented her from doing it and told me about it because he thought I had a better relationship with her parents and could discuss the issue more effectively.

Posted by: timrowledge, Ersatz Haderach | July 29, 2010 3:44 PM

Pretty much the only sense I can come up with whereby some person can legitimately tell person B to cover up is the "you've been wandering around in strong sunshine stark naked for an hour, you might want to cover up and let you skin recover to reduce the odds of skin cancer" sense.

You might *want * to tell someone to cover up because you find them ugly, or distracting but you don't have any right to demand it. You probably do have some rights in cases where safety is involved but where one can draw a sensible line is above my paygrade. Can I tell a naked girl to stop using an arc-welder? Can I tell her to cover up when *I'm* using the arc-welder?

Besides, to be back to more directly on topic, I though the point of Good Christian Virtue (trumpets, fanfares etc) was *resisting temptation*. If you prevent persons of the appropriate gender from dressing in provocative ways how can you be virtuous and resist?

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/2Cpr09BisvAGE8xTLScKqHa9oE8qMtok#e64de | July 29, 2010 3:45 PM

Anyone notice that women aren't even allowed to sign the petition? (not that they should want to...)

Also, I'm kind of weirded out that a large number of the survey signers are not even 18. It's kind of moot, but if 13 year old "Josiah Robertson" came up to me and tried to tell me I was immodest, I think I'd smack him in his teeth and send him home to mom.

Maybe I'm sick, but if I was a girl my reaction would be to embarass the little fundie-in-training...

Lean over a little and give him an eyefull of cleavage. That'd blow his little mind.

You could also ruffle his hair and say, "awww... you're sooo cute!"

Much more funny, and no jail time for hitting a minor.

-Kemanorel

Posted by: mikerattlesnake | July 29, 2010 3:47 PM

oh, and I just want to make it plain: if you read PZs original post and thought he meant that while someone was raping someone else, the rapist would be thinking "well, according to that survey I read, this is ok," you are unquestionably an idiot.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | July 29, 2010 3:51 PM

The entire point of the survey was to enable teenage boys to tell women and girls how to dress. That's it - 13 year old Josiah is supposed to be telling me how I should dress so that he doesn't have sexual thoughts.

What a crock.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | July 29, 2010 3:53 PM

I'm suggesting that we inform them of the possible consequences so that they can protect themselves from creeps. That doesn't mean they can't flirt or be suggestive. It means they need to learn when and where they can do so without getting hurt.

OTOH, learning to navigate one's society in general, including being AWARE of the existence of thieves and creeps, and learning how to deal with them, is another issue.

Incidentally though, the thing with sitting on someone's lap unasked is a question not of sexuality necessarily, but of bodily autonomy: shouldn't touching someone in any way be consensual, since it's doing something to my body? In that case, having anyone sit in my lap, or hug me, or whatever would be inappropriate, even when not in any way sexualized.

Posted by: Craig | July 29, 2010 3:58 PM

OMG this is horrifying.
Under "The way a girl walks can be a stumbling block", some 20-year old says,

"True. I have seen girls walking in a rather titillating way, but I would have to say that this type of immodesty can only be deliberate. It is more the obvious intention that gives the effect."

What the fucking hell? A girl can't even WALK AROUND without you getting a boner? Every time you get aroused by some girl who is walking, she's deliberately trying to be titillating?

Your brain is broken.

Oh, and 75% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that, "The way a girl walks can be a stumbling block."

Taliban indeed.

Posted by: mikerattlesnake | July 29, 2010 4:02 PM

@230

I always make that mistake.

@229

"OTOH, learning to navigate one's society in general, including being AWARE of the existence of thieves and creeps, and learning how to deal with them, is another issue."

That sounds pretty much like a rewording of the text you were criticizing. A theif is responsible for a stolen car, but I would still teach my kids to lock their car in certain areas. A rapist is responsible for a rape, but I would still teach my daughters to be aware that those people are out there (and that in a perfect world they wouldn't exist). I would encourage them to find communities where they have to limit themselves as little as possible and to dress how they please, but I also think mentioning that not going out alone in unfamiliar areas and getting hammered with a bunch of dudes you don't know might not be the best idea is probably still reasonable.

Posted by: Greylander | July 29, 2010 4:04 PM

@157, mikerattlesnake:

@153

...leading them to resent women, and then blame women, and then...

Well yes and no. Yes, some men will go down this line of thought/feeling -- those who are socially maladjusted or just generally prone to blame anyone but themselves. The one's who actually feel agonizing guilt over the mere "thought crime" of lust will find actual rape completely abhorrent and inexcusable.

Posted by: SteveM | July 29, 2010 4:07 PM

Who is this "Dog" moron who keeps dropping by just to say, "gotta go, be back later"?

Posted by: jody | July 29, 2010 4:07 PM

In reply to #26, How 'bout Richard Head for a fake name? Ben Dover works too.
Bart Simpson uses Amanda Huginkiss.
The women I've know in my life could undress a man just by looking at him. That is awsome and fearful as the xtian boys will never find out.

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | July 29, 2010 4:14 PM

Who is this "Dog" moron who keeps dropping by just to say, "gotta go, be back later"?

He/she/it is a linkspammer. Ignore. Delete. Place on blacklist. Never fucking go to site as revenge.

(/Sometimes, I think we need a new protocol, exactly for this. It could be like the reverse of a link. An unlink. You click on it, and your browser is told: it's advertising itself via linkspam, so: never go there. Ever.)

Posted by: mikerattlesnake | July 29, 2010 4:14 PM

@Jules

And most rapes and assaults are not committed by strangers, so there's a huge portion that will not be stopped. I think that teaching safe behavior is not a bad thing, but you can't pretend it's a cure-all.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | July 29, 2010 4:19 PM

A really alarming statistic from the survey was this one: only 13 percent said they did not respect a girl less if she dressed "immodestly."

Makes the idea of a dating blacklist even more appealing...

Posted by: mikerattlesnake | July 29, 2010 4:24 PM

@242

Yes, that is true. But someone determined to steal your car will do it regardless of whether you lock it too, and it can happen in upscale neighborhoods, but I would warn my kids about leaving their car unlocked in a rough neighborhood anyways. Teaching one does not preclude teaching the other. I don't buy the "anyone could get raped, so do what you want all the time" logic entirely. The same could be said about murder, theft, etc. I think that, for the most part, it's a fine rule. In its essence, that is what I would teach my hypothetical daughter, but I'm not going to pretend that there are not opportunistic rapists and simple safety guidelines for dangerous places. I would like to know that when my daughter goes to a new city for the first time and goes to an unfamiliar bar, that she is bringing a friend along. If she has no friends in the city, I wouldn't want to stop her from going out, but I think there are some easy things one can do for their own safety.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | July 29, 2010 4:25 PM

That's what I was referring to when I said "when and where."

It's a lie that you can protect yourself from rape by avoiding everything that's different enough to be labeled "dangerous" by middle-class culture.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | July 29, 2010 4:29 PM

I think there are some easy things one can do for their own safety.

Posted by: mikerattlesnake | July 29, 2010 4:37 PM

@251

And you're right, those things don't make someone "safe", but I think they make them "safer" (at least in that particular context, to some degree). To be fair, I would probably teach a kid of either gender that going to an unfamiliar bar by yourself and getting shitfaced is probably a bad idea.

I would hope that raising a daughter to be strong, independent, intelligent, confident responsible, and aware would be enough, but I don't know if could help but advise them to use caution in certain, extreme situations.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | July 29, 2010 4:40 PM

Jadehawk OM
See my response to mikerattlesnake. I regularly go out alone. And drink while I'm out. I even talk to strangers. But, I have gotten pretty good at identifying creeps and getting away from them. I'm not just talking about carrying pepper spray or self-defense classes. I'm talking about understanding the rape culture and identifying ways to protect yourself as much as possible from the effects of it. I even said that it won't save everyone. And I never said girls shouldn't go out and have fun or that they need babysitters to do so. Tossing out all discretion for the sake of having fun is risky. If you are willing to take those risks, that is your decision as an adult. I would prefer that young girls at least get lessons on which situations/people are more likely to cause harm so they have a choice as to whether they want to put themselves in that position.

I go down dark alleys alone. I never go to house parties without at least one friend with me. Why? I'm not afraid of the dark, and I'm far more likely to have something bad happen to me at a stranger's private residence. As a 17-year-old, I wouldn't have inferred that. It's important to not send them out blind. If they choose risk, it should be with the understanding that they are doing so.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | July 29, 2010 4:46 PM

I would prefer that young girls at least get lessons on which situations/people are more likely to cause harm so they have a choice as to whether they want to put themselves in that position.

Posted by: Ariel from Canada | July 29, 2010 4:51 PM

I disagree that trying to protect yourself is completely unrealistic. Yes, it's important to accept that you can't have control of the world around you. And that bad things happen to good people who play it safe. But a fatalistic attitude that you have no control over your own destiny doesn't seem helpful.

Posted by: Zzarchov | July 29, 2010 4:53 PM

Ok, I feel like I am insane and on crazy pills.

I am not godly, my wife too is an atheist. She does not like men oggling her. She dresses modestly not because its fear of rape, but because she isn't a religious overbearing jackhole.

Men should not tell women what to wear, period. Women can choose to do as they wish.

But women can't tell men what to think and cant tell them whether or not they can think sexy thoughts (though HR and the law disagree, even if you don't speak or act on your thoughts). So if a 20 year old woman wants to wear a short shorts and a bikini top so be it! Freedom! If a 65 year old man wants to sit on his porch and stare at her as she goes by, that too is his freedom to be a creep and think perverted thoughts. If you think the man should think more modest and christian thoughts, then it appears you are still highly under the sway of christian values.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | July 29, 2010 4:55 PM

Jadehawk
Eschewing reality for the sake of not blaming yourself should something go wrong is not a very healthy approach to life.

If you leave a drink unattended and an asshole slips something into it, what he's done to you is not your fault. Probably you had no way of knowing he would do it. But it happened. And it never has to happen again if you never leave your drink alone again. How is that blaming yourself? I realize some people do, but it is not inherent in the action. Ideally, you don't have to have the horrible experience to learn the lesson. Then, if something does go wrong, you say, "I did what I could." And it's still not your fault.

The idea is to do what you can to minimize negative experiences. Of course, life will be tough no matter what you do, but your approach seems to verge on defeatism. "Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die." But you don't have a death sentence, only the remote possibility of one, and there are actions you can take to prevent it.

Anyway, this is close to a threadjacking. Being told by xian men what to wear is only loosely affiliated with protecting yourself from them.

Back to your regularly scheduled program.

Posted by: Paul | July 29, 2010 4:55 PM

It sounds like you think it's pointless to even try to avoid danger because it's either going to happen to you or not. Or at least, that's how I keep reading it. It sounds a bit like predestination. I hope I'm misunderstanding.

Do what you can to avoid danger, as long as it does not disproportionately affect your decisions. Whatever you're comfortable with. Just don't pretend that it's in any way up to you whether you're a victim or not.

Or so I take away from what she's saying. I could be off the mark, but even with people who are simply speaking of cautioning certain behaviors, there is the seemingly underlying buy-in to the concept that you have some control over whether someone chooses to victimize you. You really don't, in most cases, and you don't do teens many favors in telling them things that give them that impression. Suggest ways to reduce harm, but it does need to be clear that at the end of the day you can only control your own behaviors, not those of others. There's a reason women find rape shameful, and focusing on them doing their part in protecting themselves can send the wrong message.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | July 29, 2010 5:02 PM

But a fatalistic attitude that you have no control over your own destiny doesn't seem helpful.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | July 29, 2010 5:09 PM

There's no way I can guarantee I won't be killed by a grizzly bear while I'm hiking in the wilderness, but I try to reduce the chances that it will happen. People mistakenly think that if you do everything right and follow all the rules, a bear will not attack you. That's not true.

Life is not safe. Living is not safe. There's no way you can make my life entirely safe. There are no guarantees. Nevertheless, we do what we can to up our chances of coming out of most situations unharmed.

Everyone has a personal scale that balances "safe" and "overly-protected". My personal scale does not include staying out of the wilderness to reduce the chances of bear attacks, but it does include carrying pepper spray in bear country. To each his/her own. I imagine that Jadehawk would feel half-dead if she restricted her life to exclude all rape-possible situations.

For women, one has to say one is lucky if one hasn't been raped ... yet. That's a pretty sad state of affairs. Religion is not helping.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | July 29, 2010 5:20 PM

Anything I can possibly add to this conversation will apparently eitgher be perceived as fatalism or trivialising rape; so, I'd really prefer if everyone here did read the essay I mentioned earlier (it's not online apparently; it's part of the Yes Means Yes book), because it was written by a rape victim in defense of doing crazy, dangerous, fun things.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | July 29, 2010 5:23 PM

I've yet to meet a rule that was actual risk assessment on a case-by-case basis, rather than an absolute "don't do that" sort of thing.

I think it was Steven Pinker who suggested that we needed to emphasize statistics in math classes. That way people would be better at applying risk assessment.

I agree that effective risk assessment is the key and works far better than blanket edicts. I was trying to convey the notion of teaching risk assessment as opposed to simplistic rules, but I suppose my use of examples could've been seen as rules instead.

Posted by: Ariel from Canada | July 29, 2010 5:37 PM

Jadehawk, after seeing your clarifications I don't think we disagree. I definitely see the harm in telling girls to never walk in a dark alley or go to a bar and get drunk or whatever, and then have them blame themselves when they didn't follow rules A - Z and end up in a bad situation.

Some of your earlier posts just reminded me of an attitude I hate, that I often see from people who engage in obviously harmful behavior. Example, smokers whose excuse is, we're all going to die sometime, what's wrong with me smoking 3 packs a day? Of course everyone is entitled to their own risk-benefit analysis, but I lost a parent to lung cancer at a young age and this attitude nevertheless gets to me.

Posted by: norm.olsen | July 29, 2010 5:47 PM

I would never tell a woman what to wear. For one thing, I have terrible fashion sense. So much so that not only does my girlfriend tell me what to wear, but she goes to the extra and much appreciated step of purchasing all my clothing for me, thus stopping me from making an even bigger fool of myself (she can't do much about what I say in public).

Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD) | July 29, 2010 5:50 PM

I would never tell a woman what to wear. For one thing, I have terrible fashion sense. So much so that not only does my girlfriend tell me what to wear, but she goes to the extra and much appreciated step of purchasing all my clothing for me, thus stopping me from making an even bigger fool of myself (she can't do much about what I say in public).

Posted by: Nysamis | July 29, 2010 5:54 PM

Christian culture has this odd relationship with the locus of control. Since no healthy person would have any need for the "cure-all" for sin they're selling, the church needs to create the concept of sin in people's (especially children's) minds. Accepting the consequences of sin as a plausible explanation for all the negative aspects of life requires some form of thinking like a victim. From this debased position, they affirm that Jebus is in control of everything.

But even though they say that god is in control of everything from curing your cat of fleas to the Gulf Oil Spill, they sure seem to actively disbelieve that. If their god truly hated "immodest" women, and didn't want them to sin, don't you think he would try to ameliorate the situation before it includes other people? (Like strike them with a lil' mini lightning bolt whilst contemplating lacy bras and assless chaps.) If god really was omnipotent, he could make these signs super clear that there was no non-supernatural explanation.

So since they actually don't have any clear evidence of what their deity wants, they have to guess. From the victim standpoint, it's even more fun to be able to boss people around. A big part of evangelical culture revolves around "not making people stumble." Since anything anyone could do involves pissing off at least one person, this is impossible. Obviously not everyone gets to decide, since it would get so absurd that eventually there would be a debate on the possible ungodliness of taking a walk with your dog (or other such absurdities.) So only the leaders get to decide what's a-ok and what leads to damnation. And since they're all men, and thinking as victims, they think that scantily dressed women are asking for it. Clearly without god, everyone is going to give in to their most bestial desires! There will be impromptu orgies in the streets! Everything and anything will form this katamari-like giant ball of copulation, which when stretched out, would go from Hicksville, Arkansas to the moon and back! Oh no!

They think that they're safe from all this carnal lust because they've been praying and keeping their eyes on Jebus. There's this whole implied thing that prayer and devotion have an expiration date, and if Christians don't keep on praying, these desires will come up and they'll be unstoppable. Clearly there's a lot of repression going on. The fallacy is in assuming that everyone is like this. A man and a woman aren't automatically going to have wild sex because there's no chaperone in the room. Since the Christian locus of control is all messed up, they only think they can control other people, but not themselves. The truly crazy ones think the only reason they don't go out and commit every sin they can think of is because they're Christian. I wonder how much rape statistics would go down if more people give up this magical thinking and took some responsibility for their own actions.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | July 29, 2010 5:56 PM

Ariel from Canada
What makes it so messy is when victims do follow rules A-Z and still get attacked. A lot of times the response is to add more rules. The more rules there are, the more ways a victim can be blamed.

It's tough because the idealist in me wants to encourage women to take charge of their safety, but the pragmatist in me knows there are serious limits to our control of our safety and serious consequences in perception when we do try to take control.

I come down on the side of encouraging safety. Jadehawk comes down on the side of victim blame absolution.

Neither of us wants to neglect the other, but in some ways--with the rape culture being what it is--they are incompatible.

And, frankly, I don't know that my position is the better one.

Now I'm depressed. I'm going to go hug my niece.

Posted by: Robert H | July 29, 2010 6:04 PM

Women wearing "provocative" clothes is an excuse for rape, not its cause. 100 years ago seeing a well turned ankle was more than a normal healthy guy could stand (bullshit!) Rape has little to do with sex and a lot to do with power, control, and contempt toward and degradation of the victim.

Ironic that the Fundies are approaching the subject this particular way; they ought to be telling the guys that rape in certain cases is punishable by stoning to death and in others requires marriage to the victim without possibility of divorce. That ought to keep them pliable.

Actually, I guess it's not ironic; there is a certain inevitability to blaming the woman produced by 3000 years of institutional misogyny.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | July 29, 2010 6:12 PM

Are you comparing the threat of being attacked by a bear, an animal who isn't conscious in any moral sense of their actions, to the threat of being attacked by a fellow human being who presumably makes choices about their behaviour and has some level of impulse control?

What I was trying to say was that just being alive is dangerous, and that you cannot remove nor prevent all dangers.

I was trying to say that it is wrong to give the impression that if one does everything right one won't be harmed. It wrong to teach that harm is always prevented by following the rules. Someone up-thread mentioned statistics -- yes, that's the reasonable approach. Following rules of modest dress/behavior (as well as following rules for bear avoidance) may even foster a false sense of safety, while simultaneously hindering reasonable assessment of the situation when things do go wrong (i.e. blame the victim for not following all the rules).

And lastly, I wanted to make the point that avoiding danger can be taken too far. Human beings who put too much emphasis on avoiding danger are like the walking dead.

No, it's not the same (nor even anywhere like) being raped, but there is one point of convergence. People blame victims of bear attacks for the attack. Happens all the time. Even if they were not wearing a bacon necklace, even if they followed all bear-avoidance rules, the attack must have been the victim's fault. I saw this in Glacier National Park when a bear attack was blamed on the victim, "He must have had food in his tent." No, there was no food in the tent, but people look for a way to blame the victim whenever there is a culture that fosters "If you do everything by our rules you'll be okay".

At least bear-avoidance guidelines will tilt the statistics in the hiker's favor. Rape-avoidance via modesty is a fucking mind fuck that doesn't even give one a statistical advantage. Religious communities that focus on modesty as a means of rape prevention do change one statistic, they lower the reporting of and prosecution for rape. In other words, they assure that more rapists get away with it.

Posted by: marilove | July 29, 2010 6:19 PM

in the sense that both of them are things we can never completely prevent, yet can take steps to reduce the likelihood of in any given situation, even if not ever to zero --- it seems to me that they are comparable.

You are conveniently ignoring the fact that a bear is an animal and largely can't control his actions, while a man can. Men aren't animals. They can actively choose to rape or not to rape. Bears can't really actively choose to attack or not attack. They just act on instinct. This is a very important distinction that you are ignoring. The situations are not the same and it's pretty offensive to compare them. Rape is not the same thing as a bear attack.

A woman can take every precaution in the world and still be raped.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | July 29, 2010 6:38 PM

@marilove

Young women should be able to wear anything they want. They should also refrain from sitting on people's laps without asking first and understand what sorts of behavior is considered sexually provocative in a given culture. The young woman in question did not know how to ask for consent or how other people would interpret her behavior/physical contact. It is easy for religious parents to fail to teach their kids some basic commonsense things.

My friend got the girl off his lap and told me in the course of a conversation about other stuff that he didn't think she understood how people saw her behavior and expressed concern that she would be going off to college and put herself in hazardous situations (the house party example) unintentionally. The "what if she was fat" and "what if it's really hot" examples have nothing to do with the issue. Knowing the guy, he would have had the same concerns. What else should he have done? Not experienced uncomfortable sexual feelings? Jumped up and screamed?

Posted by: kc5tty | July 29, 2010 6:40 PM

This survey comes from the website of 2 19 year old homeschooled brothers who will be attending Patrick Henry College in the fall. They have a website called Rebelution (sp?) that they started when they were 15.

Trying to recruit people to the site to get a revolution of young Super-Christians to lead the country. Patrick Henry is supposed to have the most White House fellowships or some kind of appointments of any school in the country.

Trying to register on the site to read in the forums I had to give a name, email address, statistics, 100 word essay on what the Rebelution mens to me and a 150 word essay on what I expect to get from the forums and what I expect to give back to the forums. Talk about hard to register! After jumping through all those hoops, a connection died so I gave up. Jebus ... help me

You gotta see that site. Fry your brain.

steve

Posted by: tutone21 | July 29, 2010 6:42 PM

@ Jadehawk #249

it wasn't what i was referring to, however. You see, I've done shitloads of stuff that could rightfully be described as highly dangerous, and the worst thing that ever happened was a boob-grope. Other women get raped before they're old enough to know what that is, by their own family; and yet other women are living their lives according to all these "don't do that, don't go there" rules and still get raped by their well-off, cultured, well-regarded husbands. It's a lie that you can protect yourself from rape by avoiding everything that's different enough to be labeled "dangerous" by middle-class culture.

QFT!! Most people (i.e. the rebel kids pledging to be modest) are under the impression that rape happens when some guy storms out of nowhere and attacks a woman. However, the large majority of rapes that occur are between 2 people that know each other. This typically isn't all that newsworthy so it isn't publicized, and often times it goes unreported because if it is reported then the situation gets scrutinized and the victim's behavior is put under a microspcoe to see what she did "wrong." The best thing any of us can do is to be acutely aware of our surroundings and get trained on how to defend ourselves.

Posted by: John-H | July 29, 2010 6:48 PM

Quite Frankly I am shocked at the way the commenters here seem to be saying that men should be responsible for their thoughts and actions. I ask you is it my fault that when I see a woman dressed in provocative clothing I am filled with lustfull thoughts? Am I to be blamed just because when I see an attractive woman or an unattractive woman or something vaguely woman shaped I am reminded of the fact they have female bits that in conjunction with male bits can be used to perform carnal acts? Unfortunately this survey does not go far enough as even the most modest women often use their feminine wiles such as having a female body to create damaging thoughts in myself and many other men. In my opinion we should create a society like that of the dwarfs of discworld in public there should be no distinction between men and women there should only be men. That is the only way to protect us from having unatural thoughts forced on us by women.

Posted by: David Marjanović | July 29, 2010 6:57 PM

It's SO nausiating, how can these people LIVE with themselves?

They can't. That's exactly why they ask for your help obedience to rules that would, superficially, make it easier for them, as described in comment 167.

If we cover more skin the titillating bits just shift. (Ankles anyone?)

I'll shake with disgust while I quote Salvador Dalí... "A woman's feet and forearms must be of exhibitionist beauty."

Certainly, we can't forget that women wearing tight jeans cannot be raped.

<headdesk>

Seriously, that's a country I don't want to live in, for this and other reasons.

Incidentally though, the thing with sitting on someone's lap unasked is a question not of sexuality necessarily, but of bodily autonomy: shouldn't touching someone in any way be consensual, since it's doing something to my body?

That's how I've been treating that issue, and I bet I didn't invent this attitude, even though I was never explicitly taught it...

This is actually a huge problem that I see in a lot of religious families. They totally fail to see that consent is integral to all human interactions and not just sex. They don't stop tickling their kids when the kids ask them to

:-S :-S :-S

This is fucking torture.

But this is a nice handy little guide to what turns guys on. :-p

This, and Mattir's anecdote, reminds me... it... could be interesting to have such a guide the other way around. For instance, I have no clue as to whether a man's thighs are something women generally look at. Chest, abs, ass, genitals, yes, but is that all? When it's hot, I wear shorts, and those are usually about short enough that I'd notice them on a woman. Am I running around in the equivalent of a miniskirt or -dress (not micro-, but still mini-)? Can there even be such an equivalent? I have no idea. There appears to be a cultural expectation that women don't talk about or hint at such things, not even to each other, and don't act on them unless more drunk than I've ever seen. What Men Want™, in contrast, is plastered all over the culture; the media will remind you of that every half hour.

Of course, for people like me that's a feature rather than a bug, at least most of the time. Outside the Endless Thread, I've never got any sexual attention that I noticed, and until recently it would have freaked me out. Probably still would in many imaginable situations. I'd feel bullied like I was through most of highschool.

Posted by: David Marjanović | July 29, 2010 7:06 PM

That is the only way to protect us from having unatural thoughts forced on us by women.

"Unnatural"?

Unlike the owners of the site we're talking about, we don't advocate Christian morality. Have thoughts all you want, there's nothing wrong (let alone unnatural) about them. Just don't act them out as long as you aren't sure that the other person wants you to.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | July 29, 2010 7:08 PM

David Marjanović, you may need to calibrate your sarcasm meter and take another reading on #297.

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | July 29, 2010 7:19 PM

...But this is a nice handy little guide to what turns guys on. :-p

... except that, as discussed, given who's being polled, you'll probably discover everything turns guys on...

(Pauses to think about that...)

... which, come to think of it, is, I guess, a reasonably accurate general picture, anyway.

(/Carry on, then.)

Posted by: Neil | July 29, 2010 7:22 PM

I understand what Jadehawk is saying in #249, but where does a rational person draw the line between encouraging robust, fully free living, and understanding the real risks that do exist whether we want them to or not? Is there even a line to be drawn?

I sometimes see posts in these threads that, taken the wrong way, might seem to advocate keeping young women ignorant of the facts that there are dangerous assholes in the world whose actions cannot always be predicted, and that women are, in general, at a greater risk for some crimes than men. But if anyone brings up anything a woman might do to counter those risks(which men do for themselves all the time, believe it or not), they are often shouted down by a chorus of people yelling "Men, just stop raping women!!!111!!", as if the men reading this blog have a master key that will inactivate rapists' genitals, or can send out a secret bro-memo that everyone will obey.

possibly meaningless anecdote time-I have a close friend who is an exceptionally headstrong person. She is the most self-sufficient, self-driven person I've ever met. She is assertive, intelligent, skeptical, physically fairly strong, and can easily dominate just about anyone who isn't just as self-assured as herself. She moved to Vegas for a couple of years, did as she pleased, and had a great time, overall. She is also the only close friend I have who has told me that she was drugged in a bar. She was dancing, drinking, and flirting with guys in her usual fashion, and left her drink unnattended for a couple of minutes. She suspects that the very charming fellow she was chatting with a few minutes before may have been the culprit, but will never know for sure as he was suddenly nowhere to be found.
She started to feel much more drunk than she knew she should, and since she didn't have any friends with her or available to call, she decided to get herself to safety. She got in her car, and a mile or so down the road, became dizzy and blacked out, hitting a parked car before she came to and finally made it home. She almost got in serious felony legal trouble, and the real culprit was never found or identified despite her best efforts. (on a good societal side note, the police believed her, and did look for the guy based on her description, and she was not charged with the hit & run or dui)
When we talked, there was only a hint of self-blame in her own assessment, and she got over that quickly, much more quickly than some might. And fucking-a good for her! I certainly did not tell her that's what she should have expected, or that she was "asking for it." We both knew who to blame, even if we didn't know his identity. But being an intelligent, headstrong person not at all used to losing her self-control, she still felt like a bit of a sucker because of an asshole's criminal actions. Does anyone think that her experience won't, or shouldn't, inform her perspective? Should she just go back to that bar, or one down the street, and leave her drink unattended around strangers some more, just to prove to amoral criminal animals how free and equal she is? She knows she is not to blame, and doesn't need to prove it to herself.

I think there are some easy things one can do for their own safety.

yeah, we'd all like to think that, it just happens not to be true

By my own male experience of victimization (not rape, but male violence), that is just about the most stupid over-simplification I've ever heard. Believe it or not, there are dangerous people of all kinds in all kinds of places, and they will vicitmize others if they can. It may be a minority of cases, but there are men who rape or otherwise victimize women that they don't know. Why is something good advice when it's about avoiding thieves, or murderers, or con-men, but suddenly sexist or wrong if the crime is rape?

I have no idea what it's like to fear sexual predation. And I'm not trying to be an internet tough guy, but as a fairly large, somewhat rough-looking male, I don't even generally get any trouble from aggressive male types looking for a fight. Yet I have lived in some really ghetto-riffic areas where tweekers and gangbangers were threatening to me. I have had to run to escape violence before, and I ran like hell, proud or not. I'm all for doing everything we can to prevent rape, or the victimization of anyone. In a less than perfect world such as this one, where it seems no crime will ever be completely eliminated, should those actions not include basic self-awareness, and a little sense of covering one's own ass? Going wild and living free is great, and I recommend it for everyone. I'm not suggesting that females never go anywhere alone, or dress any certain way, or anything, and I am not blaming any victims. But even us privileged males are, in every experience I've had or heard, better off going wild with trusted friends than alone with a stranger. I don't go raise hell or get too wild or drunk with anyone I don't know very well, becuase it is not as safe as with trusted friends around in any respect- why would we expect that to be any safer for a single woman?

Sorry to go on so long, but I really am curious about some of these issues. Obviously, safety warnings to women are often a tool of fear, used to control behavior, and should be treated skeptically. But to pretend that all considerations are just artifacts of sexist, controlling behavior strikes me as juvenile contrarianism and letting one's goals, idealism, and politics cloud reality. I could be wrong, but I know that stranger rape happens, just as sure as mugging, gang violence, bar fights, purse-snatching, or any other crime that we all use our wits to avoid.

Posted by: Chgo_Liz | July 29, 2010 7:43 PM

The posture/movement section is the worst, IMO.

The way a girl walks can be a stumbling block.

Lifting a long skirt any higher than the knee in order to step over something is a stumbling block.

Seeing a girl's chest bounce when she is walking or running is a stumbling block.

I pretty much can't set foot outside the door, according to them.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | July 29, 2010 7:46 PM

For a short period of time I worked as an office manager in a high school. As far as I could tell, the boys were turned on by anything and everything -- and only serious illness slowed them down.

Thank you, Lynna, that was exactly what I was trying to convey.

Posted by: nomen-nescio.myopenid.com | July 29, 2010 7:51 PM

I pretty much can't set foot outside the door, according to them.

not without getting at least some teenage boys turned on, no. sad but pretty much true. (thank goodness the damn hormones eventually settle down, i'd not be a teenager again for anything.)

also the reason why the whole "female modesty" approach is not only discriminatory but totally futile. teaching boys to control their own actions and impulses is the only just and effective method, and cannot be stressed overmuch. the problem really is with the testosterone, as far as i can tell.

Posted by: John-H | July 29, 2010 7:53 PM

David Marjanovic @301: You are wrong such thoughts are sinfull for as Jesus said anyone who looks on a woman wih lust has had sex with her well I think he said that I've never actually talked to the guy but I've been told he said something along those lines. Anyway you don't understand I'm not having those thoughts the women make them and then send them to me and all other men using their bodies. Thats why good christians are telling women to cover themselves but they are now capable of sending these thoughts through clothing and even objects that resemble women like statues, mannequins, Drawings, clouds and fruit. The ony way to defend our minds from these attacks is for us to have all women dress act and look exactly like men so that they can't project these evil thoughts into us. I would like to reiterate that its not my fault me and other christian men are the helpless victims of women.

Posted by: Jasmine | July 29, 2010 7:57 PM

Seems to me that the christian boys are, perhaps subconsciously, soaking up this attitude.

Hi Lynna,

This is terrible! Even in Queen Victoria's era, when modesty and chastity were bywords, there were consequences for rape.

I have heard this view before, and definitely don't condone it :)

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | July 29, 2010 8:02 PM

Jasmine:

The modesty movement is a gift to humanity, one which likely would protect your daughters from having to give up your virginity prematurely, or dress like a stripper so that ultimately she is concerned with submitting herself to the "male gaze" that she develops an eating disorder.

Hooo boy, are you in the wrong place!

A couple of points:

1) Virginity? Really? I don't suppose you realize that virginity is nothing special at all, do you?
Bonus point: "Having to give up your virginity" sounds a hell of a lot like a metaphor for rape, so good job victim blaming.

2) Who the fuck cares about Queen Vicky? Would she be as pro-modesty if she were raised in a different time and a different situation? Why should I listen to some long dead monarch, anyway?

3) Eating disorders have nothing to do with clothing. At all. Societal pressures to be perfect, control issues, sure. Many girls I have known who have eating disorders dress extremely non-provocatively, because they hate how they perceive themselves.

4) You're a fucking idiot.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | July 29, 2010 8:06 PM

For David M: Regarding your question about what women look at -- for me it depends on the guy. If I know a little bit about a guy and already admire him (especially his mind), then I can be turned on by seeing the hair on his forearms, the shape of his hands, and yes, of course, his thighs, as well as lots of other body parts.

As for guys I don't know from Adam, it can be kind of shocking to see perfect pecs, demonstrations of obvious good health, skill, etc. and realize that it gives me a little thrill. This reaction is superficial compared to liking almost all the parts of a guy I already admire for some aspect of his personality.

What is really lovely is to find that a person you admire also comes with extras, like admirable biceps. The biceps aren't required, but if they're there, hey, enjoy.

Posted by: Seth | July 29, 2010 8:07 PM

@19

Those boys are downright scary.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | July 29, 2010 8:11 PM

Jasmine, do you really think that modesty and chastity were privileges of all women during the 19th century?

You have heard of slave women, servants, prostitutes, and tradeswomen being raped, right? Ever heard of someone being punished for such a rape? I'm pretty sure those crimes were not commonly prosecuted in the 19th century, and they're still pretty hard to prosecute now.

And I agree with ODS - you're an idiot.

Posted by: Neil | July 29, 2010 8:12 PM

Well, some of you may think me clueless or unable to see my own privilege, or even that I am intentionally sexist, trying to control the lives of women with fear...I don't know, since no one has replied to me(although there was some clarifying discussion while I wrote my own comment).

But whatever else, I can say this: at least I got in before the real morons showed up! And good luck!

Posted by: Chgo_Liz | July 29, 2010 8:14 PM

Cobolt @ #320:

So what I hear you saying is that men should take themselves out of any situation that might be a trigger for them...in other words, men should stay home, out of the public eye, away from the triggers that cause them to fall back into their nasty addiction to...treating women as objects instead of human beings.

OK then, why don't you get the ball rolling?

Posted by: btthegeek | July 29, 2010 8:18 PM

Th only real problem I see with modesty is in the workplace, and it has little to do with the conversations above. IMO, most people should be able to control their urges, along with being able to use cutlery, comb their hair, etc.

Some of the women where I work occassionally wear low-cut tops and short skirts, and I get to be the one to tell them to knock it off, not because I'm afraid they are inviting harassment or violating any of my personal standards of modesty, but because I work at a public company with a wide range of customers. We want people to view us as professional, and able serve the community's needs. All we need is one pissed off fundagelical, or muslim, or whatever, complaining that we let someone come to work dressed like "that," and we could lose a customer.

As far as I know, this is the only reason I could think of where modesty could be dictated, and it's more of a business policy centered around making the customers comfortable with all of our staff.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | July 29, 2010 8:20 PM

Cobolt
Men taking note of attractive women and being turned on is not what most of us are against here. See 'Tis's comment upthread. Nobody bit his head off for admitting to lust. Sure, look, be attracted, think dirty thoughts. But, please, do your damndest to keep it to yourself. Do not impose your sexual attraction on the woman you're looking at. Unless you get her permission, of course.

Jasmine
Please read the other comments for comprehension. Your point has been addressed repeatedly. Modesty does not save women. However, if dressing modestly makes you comfortable, go for it. It's your choice. Just don't fool yourself that you're protecting yourself from anything other than the sun. A false sense of security is a good recipe for disaster.

David M
I like broad shoulders, a tight ass, hands*, and feet. Those are the places my eyes go to first. But, as with men, you're going to find variation among women regarding what turns them on. For me, the biggest turn-on of all is, of course, a beautiful mind. And a tight ass.

*Hands are always naked, too. Mmmm...nudity.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | July 29, 2010 8:21 PM

Jasmine:
Okay, I'll buy that models are pushed into eating disorders and substance abuse issues to maintain a body type, but it still falls into the category of "societal pressures to be perfect."

I would bet for you though, there were a whole bunch of underlying issues that caused you to hate your body. It's never just one thing, sorry.

Also, general acceptance of all body types (not forced modesty) is what will give girls a healthy body image. A girl can feel just as fat wearing a sack as a mini-skirt. (Or, conversely, just as good about herself.)

Care to take on my other points? Especially 1) victim blaming and 4) you're a fucking idiot?

Posted by: Cobolt | July 29, 2010 8:22 PM

@329
Sorry, to spell out the obvious. If you want to wear revealing clothing you will get looked at. If you don't like being looked at don't wear revealing clothing. Men have just as much right to walk down the street as you do.

@330
It's definitely come up in the past in a similar thread. I haven't had the time to read all 300 posts, but there are those here that have said that exact line.

Posted by: David Marjanović | July 29, 2010 8:37 PM

Thanks for the answers. Of course I expect variation, that's why I wrote "in general".

The Modesty Movement is just a weird fetish subculture with a deceptive name.

LOL!

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | July 29, 2010 8:41 PM

Cobolt
I think the important thing here is that you not be held accountable for your own actions.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | July 29, 2010 8:52 PM

Come on Cobolt. No one is saying that you can't appreciate the sight of a lady (dressed however your fantasies are triggered.) Your post above makes it sound like she deserves to be leered at depending on what she is wearing. That's not cool. Seeing someone is different from staring at them. One act is passive the other is aggressive.

Posted by: Cobolt | July 29, 2010 8:57 PM

Just like men are at fault because you are self conscious about being stared at.

Fact is fact, if a good looking woman walks down the street in a tank top and tight shorts she's going to turn heads.

Did you do the thought exercise OurDeadSelves? What's your vice? How did you do?

Blaming blokes for being blokes?

That's fucked up.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | July 29, 2010 9:11 PM

Cobolt
Sure, a woman dressed in a tank top and tight shorts will turn heads. There are a lot of assholes out on the streets. If you're fine with being one of them, that's your call.

Noticing is one thing. Forcing a woman to realize that you notice is another.

Posted by: skepticalseeker.com | July 29, 2010 9:16 PM

I think Jules is right on. I don't care if I'm being looked at, but don't harass me.

Posted by: Miki Z | July 29, 2010 9:19 PM

A rubric I've heard before:

turned head = looking
turned shoulders = staring
turned feet = stalking

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | July 29, 2010 9:25 PM

Wait...Jasmin was serious? I was sure it was a joke as it read of the pompus arrogance right out of a victorian era tract. It's a joke right?

Posted by: Faux Snail | July 29, 2010 9:26 PM

Come on now, these guys are even itching to screw their moms and sisters.

When sharing 1/2 their genes won't deter their hornyness, nothing will.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 29, 2010 9:35 PM

Noticing is one thing. Forcing a woman to realize that you notice is another.

QFT

Posted by: SphericalBunny | July 29, 2010 9:44 PM

This survey fits right in with the Christian attitude tho, doesn't it?

Xtians in an xtian majority country? - Help! We're victims!

Xtians in a country whose laws protect their freedom to believe + practise? - Help! We're victims!

Xtian men who are free to subjugate the xtian women who agree to it, but can't force compliance from other women? - Help! We're victims!

Xtian men who can't control themselves and expect women to have to do the work of ensuring their mental states? - Help! We're victims!

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | July 29, 2010 9:44 PM

Women deal with this every goddamned day.

Now that's just not true. Some days I get tired of it and I stay home altogether.

Of course, some days I want to go to a nerd place RL and get like 4 times the awkward for a fraction of my time, so it's not like it's ever really even.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 29, 2010 9:50 PM

But at the end of the day if you didn't have sexual attraction, which is exactly what this is all about, then where the hell would the human species be?

Well we of course have sexual attraction. The key is as humans we should be able to control our "animal" impulses.

Some of us are capable of understanding when those impulses are valid, and some, well, stand open mouthed on the street drooling at "chicks" when the go about the own private business.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | July 29, 2010 9:51 PM

Cobolt
The survey endorsed the idea that thoughts are evil. Most (if not all) of the commenters here disagree with that view. In fact, there are several comments that directly criticize it.

Your complaint is with the survey makers who are demonizing thoughts, not with the commenters here who are just asking to be treated as humans and not blamed for other peoples actions.

Posted by: Miki Z | July 29, 2010 9:54 PM

Cobolt,

In these very comments are those comments which say that modesty ... well, the original is creepiest:

The modesty movement is a gift to humanity, one which likely would protect your daughters from having to give up your [sic] virginity prematurely... [sick]

I went to church every Sunday as a child, as many of the posters here also did. This list, or one like it, will be decided on by men / boys, taken to church, and given to the women / girls with the explanation:
1) Following the rules on this list will keep us safe from our thoughts.
2) You're safe from our deeds, because we are good God Fearing Menfolk.
3) If you deviate from this list someone will almost certainly try to rape you.
4) It won't be one of us, of course: see #2.
5) If you do get raped, don't say you weren't warned.

This is couched more or less baldly than that depending on the church. Some will go on at length about how once you start down the path of immodesty you become more open to "compromising situations". Others will cite the wickedness of man, especially Not-Our-Kind-Of-Christian man. The gist is, in my experience, all the same.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | July 29, 2010 9:59 PM

Nice try Cobolt.

But at the end of the day if you didn't have sexual attraction, which is exactly what this is all about, then where the hell would the human species be?

This isn't about healthy sexual attraction-- it's about controlling women so you (men) don't have to control your impulses.

A woman doesn't want to be leered at? Easy answer: make her wear a sack! Because obviously men can't act civilly towards that tempting bit of meat, am I right?

You know what? If a woman doesn't like the fact that you looked at her, it's still not her fucking problem, but yours.

ps:

Not act involuntarily, or cause them to stalk a girl or indeed entice them to rape, I think it was rather disingenuous of PZ to bring that up, but to think the "wrong" thoughts.

Your privilege is showing. You might want to cover it up.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | July 29, 2010 10:08 PM

Anyone else here surprised that Cobolt has been accused of staring at tits? Stunned, I tell you. Stunned.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 29, 2010 10:15 PM

I'm talking about those that wear provocative clothing and then complain about being looked at

Wow I've never heard this as an excuse for anything before.

cough cough rape cough

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | July 29, 2010 10:23 PM

Shorter Cobolt: But it's too hard to not be an asshole.

You are responsible for your own actions. Period. A "girl's tits" are none of your business if she doesn't want them to be*. When you make them your business, you are imposing on her. How easy or difficult it is for you is not really her problem.

Also, in addition to blaming your inability to control yourself on women, you've managed to make blanket accusations of the women on this thread without any substantiation of your claims. I suppose it's also our fault that you can't actually back up what you're saying?

I'm really sorry that Some Bitch™ gave you hell for staring at her tits. Really. Poor you.

*Her shirt is not what grants you permission; she is. You know, the sentient being attached to the boobs.

Posted by: Miki Z | July 29, 2010 10:24 PM

Or try not looking at people at all sometimes. No, not sarcasm. There's just no need to look at every person you pass in detail, nor to read every shirt, check every button, what have you, of all passersby. Not you, personally, of course, dear reader -- just some random person who does act like a walking hard-on.

Posted by: Cobolt | July 29, 2010 10:32 PM

It's so easy to attach a fictional character to other forum posters isn't it.

I won't stoop so low as to accuse you of being feminist man-hatters but it is quite clear there is a large separation between the behavior I'm talking about and the behavior you are imagining.

I'm going to leave it there.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | July 29, 2010 10:41 PM

I won't stoop so low as to accuse you of being feminist man-hatters but it is quite clear there is a large separation between the behavior I'm talking about and the behavior you are imagining.

How very passive-aggressive of you.

I will say it again: Women are not eye-candy for your pleasure. End of story.

We do not like being treated as objects, which maybe why we're a bit touchy about having our tits stared* at.

But, you're going to be a creepy bastard that can't get that. Whatever.

*Since you can't tell the difference between a glance and a stare, I'm just going to go ahead and assume that you're leering at women.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | July 29, 2010 10:43 PM

I won't stoop so low as to accuse you of being feminist man-hatters but it is quite clear there is a large separation between the behavior I'm talking about and the behavior you are imagining.

Dear me, forgive me for not begging for your forgiveness.

I'm sorry, but I think you're being more than a little unfair to Cobolt. I don't have a dog in this fight since I haven't been posting here all that much for the last year or so, and I don't know if he (seems like a reasonable assumption) has given y'all reason to think ill of him, but going from what he actually said to things tantamount to accusing him of condoning rape seems more than a little unfair.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | July 29, 2010 10:48 PM

Emmet OM
Please reread the thread where Cobolt comes in. We've repeatedly said that looking isn't the issue. As a matter of fact, when I catch a man looking at me and he looks away, embarrassed, I cut him some slack. I think we've all been a bit taken in by the good looks of a stranger and stared a little too long. The embarrassment shows that we were just interested in the person, not meaning any harm. That's a whole different ballgame from leering. Being called attractive can be a pleasant experience or an oppressive one. It really depends on how much he treats me like a human.

My main source of frustration with Cobolt is that he keeps claiming we're saying things we aren't saying. I really, really, really get that guys like to look at women. For realz. I'm not a member of the Thought Police. So look and think what you want. Just don't drag me (or whoever you're looking at) into it with you. And stop using stupid hypotheticals and extrapolating from them that everyone (or most everyone) behaves that way.

Also, stop blaming other people for your actions.

Those are my requests to Cobolt, restated because apparently the first 8 times of telling him he could look but not leer were translated as "I'm a man-hatter [sic]!"

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | July 29, 2010 10:49 PM

...I'm sorry, Anomic. *Hugs*

Posted by: A. Noyd | July 29, 2010 10:56 PM

Cobolt (#370)

I'm talking about those that wear provocative clothing and then complain about being looked at.

Guess it's a good thing that "provocative" isn't relative to the individual or anything. Oh wait. It is, and since only you know ahead of time what provokes you, you are also responsible for dealing appropriately with that provocation. Otherwise us women are saddled with the absurd and impossible task of dressing and moving in a way that avoids provoking anybody.

(#379)

but it is quite clear there is a large separation between the behavior I'm talking about and the behavior you are imagining.

If it's "quite clear," then you can easily spell it out and avoid ambiguity. Don't tell us we're getting you wrong and then refuse to make yourself clear.

~*~*~*~*~*~

OurDeadSelves (#374)

Or, gasp!, try looking at her face for once.

Or even (and this is for Cobolt) look her in the face and ask her what her shirt says. In other words, acknowledge her as a person and make your intent clear. People do this all the time in any gender combination in actual shirt-reading situations. She'll either tell you what it says or offer you a better view so you can read for yourself. (Remember to look back at her face when you're done, even if your "nature" is compelling you to let your gaze linger.)

~*~*~*~*~*~

Emmet (#380)

Worse, I occasionally get "busted", embarrassed, and have to look away quickly. Even worse still, after a bit of conversation and so on, I will occasionally tell an attractive woman that I think she's attractive and, *gasp*, give her my number (rather than asking for hers: I'm roughly 0 for 10 on this experiment, btw). I don't think any of that makes me a monster, a lecher, nor does it mean that I condone rape.

But if the woman makes it clear she doesn't like you looking at her, do you blame her for provoking you? Do you think it's the responsibility of women who don't want to be looked at by you to dress in a way that doesn't provoke you? I'm going to guess no, since you say you're embarrassed when you're caught looking and you talk with a woman before telling her she's attractive.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | July 29, 2010 11:05 PM

Better the shady guy doesn't notice you in the first place, yeah? Hence, modesty.

unless they're into that kind of thing, which you should have known before hand.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | July 29, 2010 11:06 PM

"But what do you do when someone powerful has noticed you, you can't shake him off because his family is more powerful than yours, and he attacks you because you won't sleep with him? And what if say, the person had a mental illness diagnosis, so that the person couldn't go to the police? Because the guy said that they were crazy, and threatened to use their refusal to have them incarcerated? ie. sleep with them or end up in the "system"?

Better the shady guy doesn't notice you in the first place, yeah? Hence, modesty"

Yeah the problem in that is on the women and not that people there are basically slaves to a barbaric feudal state.

Posted by: Miki Z | July 29, 2010 11:12 PM

Wow, Jasmine, just wow. You know what else would make you need to hope for avoiding notice by the shady guy? Maybe he would kill your parents if you told. Or excommunicate you. Or whatever.

Sshh. Stay quiet. Let someone else get raped. Then be sure to note that you weren't because of your 'modesty'.

I grew up Mormon. The boys side of the conversation was creepy in the extreme. You are stewards. You will get the priesthood to make you give, because men are takers and women are givers. The priesthood puts you in charge, so you have a duty to make sure your sisters (both biological and "of the faith") are being modest.

The urge to have sex with them is natural, God gave it to you. But don't mess with your little factory, or you'll screw it up. Remember: God put those sexual urges in your body, but satisfying them through masturbation is a sin.

Good luck, girls.

Posted by: Lyr | July 29, 2010 11:13 PM

Hey, Christian men: stfu, we don't need you telling women how to dress!

Posted by: Cobolt | July 29, 2010 11:15 PM

Jules
I think we've all been a bit taken in by the good looks of a stranger and stared a little too long. The embarrassment shows that we were just interested in the person, not meaning any harm. That's a whole different ballgame from leering.

This has been my exact point. I'll apologize for letting you think I was talking about all women. Clearly that is not the case (that all women think like this).

It's those that make an issue of it that I was targeting. And they are out there, and in this forum. I just can't for the life of me find that post.

Posted by: Emmet, OM | July 29, 2010 11:19 PM

We called him a skeevy little lech, not a serial rapist.

I never suggested that anyone had accused him of being a serial rapist, merely that the interpretations of what he did say were uncharitable.

To pick on one thing Cobolt got slammed for, if someone wears a tee-shirt with something “clever” written on it, it's a reasonable assumption that people will want to read it (otherwise the tee-shirt was a waste of money). I had a peculiar experience 5 or 6 years ago where I wore a very old tee-shirt to a friend's barbeque. I'd worn it dozens of times before, but that night, for no apparent reason, everyone wanted to read it. Accordingly, I can't blame someone for wanting to read it, nor, on the other hand, can I blame the wearer for misinterpreting the motivation of the reader. This kind of thing happens. But, TBH, to accuse someone who does read it of ogling their tits, or accuse someone who relates such an event here, strikes me as uncharitable at best. I've had the experience myself of trying to read someone's tee-shirt and felt that I had to clarify with “I'm reading your tee-shirt not ogling your tits” (which was appropriate and humorous in the social circumstances).

In short, I'm not willing to jump on the bandwagon of vociferously condemning Cobolt, or anyone else, for relating such an occurrence, and I think that more than one person has been uncharitable, even OTT, in their interpretation of what he said.

Posted by: Emmet, OM | July 29, 2010 11:26 PM

But if the woman makes it clear she doesn't like you looking at her, do you blame her for provoking you? Do you think it's the responsibility of women who don't want to be looked at by you to dress in a way that doesn't provoke you?

Of course not! But, in all fairness, I don't think that Cobolt suggested that either.

Really, I do think that he could have phrased a few things better, more precisely, but I don't think he deserves to have such opprobrium heaped upon him.

Posted by: mylf | July 29, 2010 11:34 PM

@Mattir

"What else should he have done? Not experienced uncomfortable sexual feelings? Jumped up and screamed?"

God. Stood up. Gone to the toilet. Joked that she was too heavy. Gone to speak to someone else. Same thing both women and men do when faced with unwanted advances or inappropriate behaviour.

Repeated the behaviour if she continued. She'd soon get the notion of what was appropriate behaviour.

Not whinged to another person that a child was turning him on. His problem.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | July 29, 2010 11:40 PM

Emmet
Cobolt wasn't just relating an experience where there was a misunderstanding. He was blaming women for getting upset when he stared at them too long. I understand that there will be easily offended people out there who will not be appeased by any explanation. He did not qualify his anecdote with that. And, he made his anecdote sound as if it were the regular reaction of most women. He has since said he did not intend to paint us all with that brush, but that clarification came after a lot of the criticism to which you are referring. I get hit on all the time, and most of the time I actually engage in conversations with the guys. I don't have some hare-trigger response to male attention. What I do have, however, is no patience for being treated like an object and then being blamed for it. It's bullshit, and I'll call a guy on it to his face as readily as I will on the internet.

SphericalBunny
Very similar to my experience. I'd dress down on purpose, not wanting any attention, and it would still happen. The guys were often way more persistent and obnoxious about it, too. These days when I am approached, I usually just lead out with, "I'm a baby-eating atheist" and I get left alone. I've given up on thinking my clothes will make any difference.

Posted by: BoxNDox | July 29, 2010 11:44 PM

Having spent the past week at Laguna Beach, I must say there are plenty of people I'd personally prefer to see wear more clothes - although of course I'd never tell them so.

Jebus, how'd we collectively get to be so damn fat anyhow?

Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula | July 29, 2010 11:57 PM

Jasmine wrote:

But what do you do when someone powerful has noticed you, you can't shake him off because his family is more powerful than yours, and he attacks you because you won't sleep with him? And what if say, the person had a mental illness diagnosis, so that the person couldn't go to the police?

Does he have a sacred book outlining his philosophies on life that happens to be bound in the skin and flesh of a recently-deceased loved one?

Note: this is an in-joke for those Pharyngulistas familiar with a post on one of several very long threads about an incident with a cracker by a sickening (and now-banned) woo-soaked, Jesus-loving creep, not a dig at you per se.

Not that what you wrote wasn't kinda stupid, though.

Posted by: John Morales | July 30, 2010 12:35 AM

[meta]

Emmet,

The truth is that if one dresses to attract, as we all do [...]

"We all do"? Wrong, wrong, wrong.

I never have, and I never shall.

(Never even combed my hair, except under duress.)

Posted by: SC OM | July 30, 2010 12:39 AM

I get hit on all the time,

No, Jules - really? :P

and I never shall.

Aren't you married?

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | July 30, 2010 1:04 AM

1)It's interesting to see my comments described as both fatalist and as pretending danger doesn't exist.

2)It's equally interesting to see the likes of Cobolt make arguments that, at the end of it, disparage men. After all, I've just spent 2 weeks surrounded by well-shaped men without t-shirts working with pick-axes and sweating in the sun; and yet, I managed to not stare at them or make inappropriate comments in their presence. And this is the case for many women in many situations. Guess either women are superhuman, or men are subhuman.

Or maybe, it's privilege talking; I've made this comment over at pandagon, in the thread on a christian counseling student getting kicked out of her program for refusing to counsel a gay person: the privileged seem to have an incredibly hard time not acting on their thoughts, while the non-privileged have this impulse-control down pat, by necessity.

3)since David M asked for what appeals to women visually, I'll second the broad shoulders thing. Other than that, I seem to lack things I find attractive constantly; all men have different things worth looking at, I guess. I will however note that I don't know any women who find the view of male genitals actually arousing by themselves. Those things really didn't evolve for visual appeal, I think.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | July 30, 2010 1:13 AM

all of which, it seems, would be unnecessary given a more charitable and insightful interpretation of what he was really trying to get at, which wasn't nearly as unreasonable as some of the more hyperbolic replies seemed, to me, to make out.

So, either Cobolt can't or won't read the previous comments for comprehension, or he's claiming that men shouldn't have to bother learning discretion. Either way, he looks like an idiot.

Posted by: Jasmine | July 30, 2010 1:49 AM

Jules,

I've actually had this happen to me, too. I wouldn't say I get more attention, necessarily, but I still sometimes get some. But its a very specific type of guy that hits on me, and they go about it in a much more respectful way. In Little Mosque on the Prairie, which is an Islamic television show, one of the lead characters has a woman in a burqa move to his town and is absolutely obsessed with her. But he has so much respect for her vows of chastity that he endeavours to treat her with extreme honour and respect, and would never dream of feeding her a mere dinner and hopping into bed with her without being married. Please don't take this a segue on Islam, though- I am not responsible for every event in Muslim societies, and hope we don't have to go there.

Have you ever read the book, Unhooked, by the way? Its by Katherine A. Bogle, about the hookup culture on college campuses- because the modesty movement is actually tied into the abstinence and chastity movement, as well, and there are all kinds of arguments for that.

Given that in the age of modesty, there was more respect for the construct of the virgin- and how few people can escape being "prude shamed" nowadays- it kind of makes sense.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | July 30, 2010 1:58 AM

1)A man who will only fuck me after being contractually bound to me is a waste of my time, and I'm glad I do not attract such.

2)I'm bored to tears by the moral panic about "hookup culture". women are slut-shamed more than they are prude-shamed, and either will only stop once we get men to treat women like people; covering women up won't do it.

3)Virginity is and should be considered worthless (or best yet, it should be entirely abandoned as a concept, since it only makes sense for purely heterosexual, vanilla sort of people anyway); sex is a skill. And just like it's stupid to not ever learn to cook until after marriage, it's stupid to not ever learn to fuck until then. Now, there's people who don't find sex (or cooking) particularly important to their happiness, and those may well not bother to learn the skill; but that's different from the artificial and absurd notion that sex is the one skill in the world that's best done by people who have no flaming clue what they're doing.

Posted by: ecpaulsen | July 30, 2010 2:40 AM

What can you expect from a religion where a nuns habit is just one veil short of a burka?

Posted by: mylf | July 30, 2010 3:09 AM

@ Jasmine

" it kind of makes sense."

How does respect for virginity make sense? Strikes me as neurotic.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | July 30, 2010 3:18 AM

Better the shady guy doesn't notice you in the first place, yeah? Hence, modesty.

*facepalm*

Modesty does not make one invisible.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 30, 2010 3:31 AM

Jasmine:

the hookup culture on college campuses- because the modesty movement is actually tied into the abstinence and chastity movement, as well, and there are all kinds of arguments for that.

There's nothing awful, terrible or evil about hookups or "hookup culture". Sex is not bad. There are all kinds of arguments against abstinence, chastity and purity movements/programs. They're all bullshit and they do.not.work. Full stop.

Given that in the age of modesty, there was more respect for the construct of the virgin- and how few people can escape being "prude shamed" nowadays- it kind of makes sense.

Given that in the "age of modesty" (Which one, by the way? Which country?) there was a more than healthy bawdy side to life and given that people were every single bit as sexually active, you really have no point. You are aware, aren't you, that in your 'golden age', men were expected to be sexually experienced and the women who provided said experience were part and parcel of everyday life. Women who wished to marry, those of a certain class, your 'virginal construct' gals? Yeah, they weren't supposed to enjoy sex, and the whole virgin part of the deal was so the man would know he was getting good stock. Women were considered chattel in your 'golden age'. That's what your modesty movement wishes to bring back. Women as property.

There was no respect for "the construct of the virgin" - that's one load of crap you have going there, by the way. Supposedly, you're talking about people. What you're doing with your construct is dehumanizing people and that is never a good thing.

Now, I don't know what planet you're living on, or how often you get to visit the one the rest of us are living on, but there isn't much 'prude shaming' going on. Most people shrug over someone's choice to be a virgin; basically, no one much cares about it. Slut shaming, on the other hand, that is still an issue, unfortunately. As Jadehawk said, that won't stop until women are treated like people.

You and those like you, who, one way or another, want women to be treated as an abstract ideal or construct are a huge part of the problem in making sure women are not treated as people. By pushing the whole modesty/abstinence/chaste crapola, you not only effectively dehumanize women, you make absolutely sure they take the full brunt of blame and shame for the actions of others. What you're pushing is loathsome and contemptible.

Posted by: Alice Bluegown | July 30, 2010 3:38 AM

@ Jasmine: not being in Canada I haven't seen the show, but from what I can gather, describing Little Mosque on the Prairie as "Islamic" is like calling Father Ted "Catholic" or The Vicar of Dibley "Anglican" - doesn't really tell the whole story...

Posted by: Marie the Bookwyrm | July 30, 2010 3:50 AM

Ye gads, Alice Bluegown! There really is such a show??? Then I guess Jasmine is not a troll, but instead is blinkered by a religious culture.

Posted by: Classical Cipher | July 30, 2010 3:57 AM

Re: Cobolt's lack of self-control

It's not just the fact that apparently in this idiot's world women can't wear low-cut tops and short-shorts without men feeling justified in being creepy and unpleasant (though that's quite bad enough). It's a trap, as Cerberus pointed out. By this reasoning, every creep is justified and every woman is fair game. If a man is leering at us, pretty clearly he's found something about us provocative. So he's just being a man, so we can't blame him, and we shouldn't wear that/walk like that/eat that/whateverthefuck if we don't want our bodies fucking stared at/audibly picked over like a juicy fucking ham at a meat market. What's fanfuckingtastic about that is that in my experience, there does not appear to be any fucking correlation between what I wear and the level of creepiness I have to deal with. Hell, today I wore too-big jeans and a t-shirt to the corner store and I was leered at by some creep. Other days, I've worn stereotypically provocative clothing and made an effort to look nice, and people (even -surprise, Cobolt- the male kind!) manage to keep their eyes and hands to themselves. (And by the way, to Emmet above, I for one try to look nice sometimes for reasons not having to do with suitors, and moreover I reject the suitors for reasons not having to do with them not being an optimal mate, physically or otherwise - e.g., I WASN'T FUCKING LOOKING!) Sometimes it's the other way around. What exactly is it that I'm supposed to do to avoid unwanted sexual attention, which, moreover, is apparently JUSTIFIED in some people's eyes? The answer is apparently to stay fucking inside.

[/rambling rant echoing other people's points]

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 30, 2010 4:08 AM

Jadehawk, true and granted.

As for the sitcom, it's a sitcom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Mosque_on_the_Prairie

Posted by: Moggie | July 30, 2010 4:26 AM

#308:

No matter how subtle the cues of female sexuality, they will pick up on them. The writer said it was as if the boys could see right through the burkas.

On one occasion when I was a teenager, I was walking down a long, straight road when I saw a woman approaching in the distance, and instantly thought "holy crap, she's not wearing a bra!" She was still so far away that it was difficult to be consciously sure that she was even female; nevertheless, the region of my teenage boy brain devoted to boob-jiggle (that'd be roughly 70% of the brain volume, I'd guess) was able, in a fraction of a second and with input from just a few photoreceptors, to correctly determine bralessness. That moment, I felt proud to be human, let me tell you.

Posted by: TheCalmOne | July 30, 2010 4:31 AM

Faithfully pursue the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit.

Sorry, but I don't find that attractive at all in a woman. In fact, the exact opposite is one of my prerequisites.

Recently treated my partner to a $100 voucher at a lingerie store - God, she loved it...

Posted by: Jasmine | July 30, 2010 4:43 AM

Alice Bluegown,

I love the word google-fu. Just had to let you know that :)

Posted by: Jasmine | July 30, 2010 4:50 AM

Angel Kaida,

What an awesome username. Love it.

Posted by: El | July 30, 2010 4:52 AM

Studies made by religious organizations?
Like the studies that link fat and lesbian, breast cancer with abortion, gayness with unhappiness etc.
How old are you Jasmine?

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 30, 2010 4:57 AM

Jasmine:

Its great that you can control yourself around the majority of men that you see. But men are much more visual than women, for one thing.

You continue to spout bullshit. Most adults are capable of controlling themselves. As for men being more visual, sorry, that's not getting a pass. To some extent, perhaps, if you're busy generalizing. I'm highly visual, and I'm not male. I'm an artist and photographer. Visual is what gets me going. Visual is the surefire way to get my attention.

That's why Playboy is so popular among certain men, and Playgirl has a gay male following.

You might want to cough up a few citations here. Legitimate ones.

Most women as an entire group that I know aren't really as into that sort of thing, although they sometimes pretend they are to be one of the guys, so to speak. I did have one darling girlfriend, though, who used to flood my inbox with infamous "girl only" mailers. I'd get them about once a week, and never quite had the heart to ask her to stop.

Okay, cough up the citations, Jasmine. All you have here is anecdotal. There are a lot of men who aren't into porn; there are a lot of women who aren't into porn. There are a lot of men who are into porn and there are a lot of women who are into porn as well.

You certainly seem to be sold on every single hoary chestnut of a stereotype going, Jasmine. That happens when you're part and parcel of something which depends on the devaluation and dehumanization of human beings. Religions of all stripes are great at dehumanization. They depend on it - oh, you aren't good, you're bad, you're sad, you're lower than dirt, so grovel, grovel, grovel! Keep on grovelin', now! Thing is, someone has to be on top of the grovel heap - funny how it's never women, eh?

As for your "darling" girlfriend, perhaps if you were capable of viewing both her and yourself as human adults, you'd be able to say "that's not my thing, so could you take me off your e-list? Thanks." You also wouldn't have to resort to passive poison, such as "darling girlfriend". Bleah.

Posted by: Alice Bluegown | July 30, 2010 5:03 AM

@ Jasmine - I would have thought the very existence of Playgirl would imply there are significant numbers of women who are into "that sort of thing" (I don't believe the magazine is reliant on its gay following). There are also women who read Playboy, by no means all of them lesbian.

It's true that women consume far less 'pornography' (using the term in its absolute broadest sense) than men, but recent figures indicate this is a fast-growing market. I think you should be careful of trying to shoehorn anybody - male or female - into your world view.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | July 30, 2010 5:07 AM

Its great that you can control yourself around the majority of men that you see. But men are much more visual than women, for one thing.

You continue to spout bullshit. Most adults are capable of controlling themselves. As for men being more visual, sorry, that's not getting a pass. To some extent, perhaps, if you're busy generalizing. I'm highly visual, and I'm not male. I'm an artist and photographer. Visual is what gets me going. Visual is the surefire way to get my attention.

Most women as an entire group that I know aren't really as into that sort of thing, although they sometimes pretend they are to be one of the guys, so to speak.

Posted by: Miki Z | July 30, 2010 5:09 AM

Jasmine, are we running through your objects faster than you can Gish Gallop?

I'm summarizing some choice excerpts, purely for myself:

(310> The modesty movement is a gift to humanity, one which likely would protect your daughters from having to give up your virginity prematurely,

(317) This is terrible! Even in Queen Victoria's era, when modesty and chastity were bywords, there were consequences for rape.

I have heard this view before, and definitely don't condone it :)

(328) BTW, have you ever had an eating disorder? ;)

Oh, and I think fear not, said the angel, applies here.. :)

Again, WTF with the smileys? So... eating disorders are now winky? And what do angels have to do with anything?

(390) But what do you do when someone powerful has noticed you, you can't shake him off because his family is more powerful than yours, and he attacks you because you won't sleep with him? And what if say, the person had a mental illness diagnosis, so that the person couldn't go to the police? Because the guy said that they were crazy, and threatened to use their refusal to have them incarcerated? ie. sleep with them or end up in the "system"?

Better the shady guy doesn't notice you in the first place, yeah? Hence, modesty.

(421)Given that in the age of modesty, there was more respect for the construct of the virgin- and how few people can escape being "prude shamed" nowadays- it kind of makes sense.

(444)Why not look at the ones that say that those who don't have premarital sex have more successful marriages, with an larger percentage not getting divorced? They also report more happiness in their marriages and more success with their partner.

Why not look at the reports where cult members report happiness with their cult, too?

What's that I hear? I think it's the sound of galloping. Must be going to fetch another argument.

Posted by: John Morales | July 30, 2010 5:10 AM

Jasmine,

But you do realize that being a virgin isn't some horrifying cross to bear, right?

Perhaps not; on the other hand, what exactly is the problem with not being a virgin? :)

--

PS At the risk of TMI, when I was in my very early teens, I worried sometimes I might die without having experienced sex¹. Do you find that weird?

--

¹ I no longer have that worry.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 30, 2010 5:11 AM

Jasmine:

Why not look at the ones that say that those who don't have premarital sex have more successful marriages, with an larger percentage not getting divorced? They also report more happiness in their marriages and more success with their partner. Its because of oxytocin and vasopressin, you see. You know, the bonding hormones in men and women? Which stop working as well if you have too many partners? And which has been scientifically proven...

Provide citations. Legitimate ones. Pretend studies by religious organizations do not count. All that is, is made up confirmation bias.

I had a very active sex life before I married. I still have a very active sex life. I've been married over 30 years. If we're going all anecdotal, I know lots and lots and lots of people just like me and they've all been married for a long time. Happily. Going into a marriage a virgin with zero experience and an ongoing inability to satisfy a partner as well as an inability to keep things interesting? Not good.

Christians have one of the highest divorce rates. Evangelical xians, specifically. They also have a high rate of extramarital affairs. So, how about you address that?

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | July 30, 2010 5:17 AM

anecdata: I don't care for playgirl because penises just aren't visually appealing. they're fun and all, but nothing much to look at. And I'm not the only one who thinks so; neither am I the only one who nonetheless greatly enjoys the view of a beautiful male body (especially a beautiful male body in action).

Again, your circle of friends is only representative of the type of woman you'd be friends with. Of the female acquaintances I've ever bothered to ask this question, most found some kind of "porn" appealing and stimulating.

Posted by: Jasmine | July 30, 2010 5:18 AM

Miki,
The Age of Modesty was the Victorian era. You can look it up if you like.

So... eating disorders are now winky?
Actually I don't regard that emoticon as a wink- its a smile with a tear coming out of one eye. That's how a lot of the more sophisticated netizens regard it ;)

Sorry if you have problems with people smiling- perhaps you need to a bit more :)

And as for my arguments? I feel very secure in them, actually.
BTW, the abstinence arguments aren't in the pamphlet. They are in a book that I read last week in my local library. One of the author's last names is Bush, I believe. And of course, there is the endocrine Bible, the Alchemy of Love and Lust. You should read it, as the ignorance around this topic is just shocking :)

Posted by: mylf | July 30, 2010 5:20 AM

@ jasmine

Have only had a quick glance at pubmed, and can find nothing linking oxytocin and vasopressin to human sexual behaviour in the way you describe. Please do provide the links, as I was kind enough to do to for you show that abstinence-only sex education has proven counter-productive in terms of STDs and teen pregnancy. I suspect you have taken the word of the more whacko chastity organisations, but will be happy to view the data. If you've ever seen it. If it exists.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 30, 2010 5:21 AM

Jasmine:

Because I've always heard from people in the gay community that it was. Out of all twenty or so of my close girlfriends and roommates, not a single woman was a consumer, whereas lots of boys in my high school consumed pornography.

Oh FFS, this is absurd now. You've "heard" from "people in the gay community". I think you're lying, Jasmine. I'm a member of the gay community and you are not ringing true. Tell me, what's your involvement with the gay community? Do you work with Pflag, are you involved with Pride Days or are you helping out with getting gay marriage legalized? Exactly how many gay friends do you have? By that, I mean friends. Not acquaintances or someone that someone that someone that someone knows.

You have twenty close girlfriends, do you? As this seems to be your basis for every conclusion, your every conclusion is going to be fatally flawed. You no doubt hang out with people who are similar to yourself and into the same things, including the same religion a/o lifestyle. Do you see how this would give you a false reading?

Oh, here's a little secret for you: most people in high school tend to be a tad curious about sex and naked bods. That's normal.

You keep up this level of bullshit, I'm going to end up with a hemorrhage from a near-fatal eyeroll.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | July 30, 2010 5:25 AM

What's the argument about here? If you want to abstain until marriage, that's fine. If you want to have sex before marriage, that's fine too. In a free society, it's a personal choice: provided that everyone involved is a consenting adult, and no one is harmed or exploited, I don't see either option as inherently "right" or "wrong". So... why the need to argue about it? :-/

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 30, 2010 5:28 AM

Miki:

Oh give me a fucking break. You have got to be a fucking poe.

Yeah, I'm with you. The level of absurd was pushed too far. Heh, well, it wasn't a bad effort all around. One good thing to remember - the real 'Jasmines' of the world, they tend to be remarkably curious in the right setting and easily and happily corruptible.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | July 30, 2010 5:31 AM

walton, it's the "value" argument that's the problem. virginity is not valuable, it's a really arbitrary dividing line between... well, other arbitrary things.

I've stopped considering the concept of virginity to be meaningful after a few conversations with gay men and women who technically always remain virgins, and a few kinky people who have been sexually active for years before losing their virginity, and lastly, recently reading about the concept of "process oriented virgins".

you're right that the when, why, with whom, how much, etc. of sexual activity is up to every individual; but the argument for the value of virginity is something else entirely, since virginity isn't a real thing; it's an invention of a mind with very little imagination as to what sex is.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 30, 2010 5:33 AM

Jasmine:

the local gay bookstore in the city I went to college was full of it. There was a huge shelf of it- you could get Playgirl there, as far as I can remember.

By golly gee whillakers, there's a ton of of that there porno in non-gay bookstores too! There are even special porno stores, ya know! Oh my. You can get Playgirl at Wal-mart and the nearest convenience store, you fucking idiot. Does that mean that the bulk of convenience store customers are gay? Well, to someone with your lack of brain power, probably.

Posted by: John Morales | July 30, 2010 5:34 AM

Walton:

What's the argument about here? If you want to abstain until marriage, that's fine.

Walton, I'm surprised at your obtuseness here.

The reason why matters; if it's because you think you'll become "damaged goods", then that's not fine.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | July 30, 2010 5:36 AM

Anyone else notice that Jasmine and Cobolt don't post in the same time periods?

Posted by: Jasmine | July 30, 2010 5:39 AM

Oh FFS, this is absurd now. You've "heard" from "people in the gay community". I think you're lying, Jasmine. I'm a member of the gay community and you are not ringing true.

Holy cannoli, do you know me or something? And if so, how?

C. Brent Boles

The ben­e­fits of absti­nence are unde­ni­able. One does not need to be a Chris­t­ian to under­stand that the absti­nent teen who waits until mar­riage will never get an STD and will never become preg­nant out of wedlock.

Absti­nence has other ben­e­fits, as well. A recent sur­vey of sex­ual sat­is­fac­tion in Amer­ica showed that the most sex­u­ally sat­is­fied Amer­i­cans were mar­ried Chris­tians. Another study shows that the divorce rate among Chris­tians who were vir­gins on the day of their wed­ding is only 3 per­cent. Sex­u­ally activ­ity in ado­les­cents is an inde­pen­dent risk fac­tor for depres­sion and attempted sui­cide. These teens are two to three times as likely to have depres­sion and three to seven times as likely to attempt sui­cide when com­pared to absti­nent teens.

The last four decades of “com­pre­hen­sive sex edu­ca­tion’’ and “values-neutral edu­ca­tion’’ have been a dis­mal fail­ure. The CDC report doc­u­ments that STDs remain as a prob­lem among teens, and Ten­nessee is 10th in the nation in terms of teen preg­nancy. A recent study shows that even those com­pre­hen­sive pro­grams that reduce unpro­tected sex and delay onset of sex­ual behav­ior have very short-lived effects, and their impact does not extend beyond six months.

Don’t teach bad behaviors

A study pub­lished in the Archives of Pedi­atric and Ado­les­cent Med­i­cine fol­lowed 662 African-American mid­dle school stu­dents from four pub­lic schools. The study eval­u­ated the stu­dents over a three-year period and com­pared an abstinence-only pro­gram with a pro­gram that taught only safe sex and a pro­gram that taught both. The abstinence-only pro­gram also cov­ered STDs, and only 33 per­cent of the stu­dents in that pro­gram became sex­u­ally active dur­ing the study.

About 52 per­cent of the stu­dents in the safe-sex arm of the study became active, and 42 per­cent of the com­bined group became active.

Inter­est­ingly, the abstinence-only cur­ricu­lum also did not reduce con­dom use in those teens who chose to be active. Many crit­ics have claimed that abstinence-only pro­grams reduce con­dom use among those stu­dents who are active. Other stud­ies con­cur with these findings.

Our schools are com­mit­ted to edu­cat­ing stu­dents about the dan­gers of cig­a­rettes, alco­hol and drugs. A myr­iad of pro­grams exist to show teens the con­se­quences of these behav­iors. To my knowl­edge, none of these pro­grams teach stu­dents how to inhale cig­a­rette smoke “safely.’’ None teach teens how to pace alco­hol con­sump­tion in order to keep their blood-alcohol lev­els below 0.8. They don’t teach stu­dents how to roll a joint prop­erly or how to shoot up with clean nee­dles. Such pro­grams focus on avoid­ing such behav­iors alto­gether, as they should.

It is time we rec­og­nize that the pub­lic health prin­ci­ple of pri­mary pre­ven­tion — risk avoid­ance instead of risk reduc­tion — should apply to sex education.

C. Brent Boles, M.D., is a mem­ber of the Chris­t­ian Med­ical and Den­tal Asso­ci­a­tion, is in pri­vate prac­tice in Murfrees­boro, and is the chief of ob/gyn at Mid­dle Ten­nessee Med­ical Cen­ter. He is also the Affil­i­ate Res­i­dency Pro­gram Direc­tor for the depart­ment of ob/gyn at the Meharry School of Medicine.

4 Responses to “Abstinence benefits are clear”
Feed for this Entry

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | July 30, 2010 5:44 AM

also, my dear "sophisticated netizen" learn to fucking blockquote. the tags are displayed under the comment field. it's not that fucking hard.

Posted by: SphericalBunny | July 30, 2010 5:46 AM

Jasmine, seeing as he only vaguely referred to 'some studies' without links, names or papers, the entire article is 1) only an opinion piece and 2) an argument from authority.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 30, 2010 5:51 AM

Jasmine:

Holy cannoli, do you know me or something? And if so, how?

All I know of you is what you're writing in this thread. You're making wild, unsubstantiated claims. When people ask you specific questions, you go out of your way to ignore them. Now, what I said was that your claims weren't ringing true to me. I then asked you specific questions. Let's try again:

What is your involvement with the gay community, Jasmine? What exactly are you involved in? Pflag? Crisis center? Pride Days? Gay Marriage? What? Just wandering around a neighbourhood which has gay people doesn't count as "involved with the gay community." Going into a gay bookstore doesn't count either; nor does having an acquaintance with a gay person. If you're going to claim involvement, let's hear what it was/is.

C. Brent Boles, M.D., is a mem­ber of the Chris­t­ian Med­ical and Den­tal Asso­ci­a­tion, is in pri­vate prac­tice in Murfrees­boro, and is the chief of ob/gyn at Mid­dle Ten­nessee Med­ical Cen­ter. He is also the Affil­i­ate Res­i­dency Pro­gram Direc­tor for the depart­ment of ob/gyn at the Meharry School of Medicine.

This is not peer reviewed science. It's a puff confirmation bias piece. Seems you aren't even capable of recognizing science as opposed to psuedo-science.

Posted by: John Morales | July 30, 2010 5:52 AM

SphericalBunny, no. But it's a study of young children, hardly applicable to older adolescents.

Here's the source for Jasmine's #483:
Efficacy of a Theory-Based Abstinence-Only Intervention Over 24 Months
(John B. Jemmott III, PhD; Loretta S. Jemmott, PhD, RN; Geoffrey T. Fong, PhD
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2010;164(2):152-159.)

Participants: A total of 662 African American students in grades 6 and 7.

Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was self-report of ever having sexual intercourse by the 24-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were other sexual behaviors.

Results: The participants' mean age was 12.2 years; 53.5% were girls; and 84.4% were still enrolled at 24 months. Abstinence-only intervention reduced sexual initiation (risk ratio [RR], 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48-0.96). The model-estimated probability of ever having sexual intercourse by the 24-month follow-up was 33.5% in the abstinence-only intervention and 48.5% in the control group. Fewer abstinence-only intervention participants (20.6%) than control participants (29.0%) reported having coitus in the previous 3 months during the follow-up period (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90-0.99). Abstinence-only intervention did not affect condom use. The 8-hour (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.92-1.00) and 12-hour comprehensive (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91-0.99) interventions reduced reports of having multiple partners compared with the control group. No other differences between interventions and controls were significant.

--

In short, yeah, this study supports that abstinence education reduces sexual initiation amongst 6-7th graders (12 year olds).

Posted by: Alice Bluegown | July 30, 2010 5:58 AM

I seriously recommend everyone googles C Brent Boles - you won't regret it. This guy looks like the Kent Hovind of medicine...

Posted by: Jasmine | July 30, 2010 6:01 AM

http://www.amazon.com/Alchemy-Love-Lust-Theresa-Crenshaw/dp/0671004441

This book, by Therese, is full of citations.

As well, all of the abstinence studies are in Wendy Shalit's book, Good Girl Revolution. I did look for it, but don't know where I put it. Still, look it up if you like.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | July 30, 2010 6:04 AM

oh, we'd like, since so far everything you've produced is pseudoscience of the most pathetic kind

does any of the citations address the question of how many kids one can have before the oxycotin runs out/stops working? This is REALLY important, you know.

Posted by: Alice Bluegown | July 30, 2010 6:10 AM

Miki Z @ #488 - thanks for that. Playgirl was rarely seen in the UK even in its heyday, so I'd no idea what recent issues looked like. Actually seems kind of a shame it ended up the way it did (and I concede Jasmine had a point about the gay readership)

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 30, 2010 6:14 AM

Jasmine:

Still, look it up if you like.

That's not how it works, Jasmine. A book full of citations to "studies" done by and for religious organizations is not peer reviewed science; it's not a properly done study.

You're the one making the claims, you provide the evidence. Actual evidence. You search Google Scholar, Pubmed or other places one can find actual peer reviewed scientific studies, find those which you think support your stance, then link to them here so they can be read.

We await your evidence, cupcake.

Posted by: Jasmine | July 30, 2010 6:18 AM

Jadehawk,

Do go ahead and buy the book; it should challenge your assumptions. And yes, it does talk about oxytocin's role in birth, insofar as I remember.

Here's the book that I was reading in my local library:

http://www.amazon.com/Hooked-Science-Casual-Affecting-Children/product-reviews/0802450601

Its written by two scientists, and is backed up with studies.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | July 30, 2010 6:20 AM

walton, it's the "value" argument that's the problem. virginity is not valuable, it's a really arbitrary dividing line between... well, other arbitrary things.

I agree that virginity is not "valuable". I equally dislike the opposite point of view, though: the idea that being an older virgin is baaaaad, and that someone who isn't sexually active in their twenties must be a failure at life (a message promoted, implicitly or explicitly, by men's magazines and much of the commercial media, for instance).

The religious fundamentalist attitude of "sex is the most awful and evil thing ever and you must only do it within marriage to make babies" is obviously not a healthy outlook. But I don't think the equally-common attitude of "sex is the most important and awesome thing ever and you must get laid as often as possible in order to be happy and successful" is a healthy one either. Especially not when it's mixed with a heavy dose of misogyny, which is what leads to the misogynistic culture of men's magazines and the "seduction community".

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | July 30, 2010 6:27 AM

well walton, i didn't notice anyone who is arguing that one absolutely must have sex or otherwise be a failure, so I don't know what your point is

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 30, 2010 6:29 AM

Wowbagger:

I'd say it'd stretch as far as having watched a couple of episodes of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy...

:Snortle: Always a possibility. :D Since I can't get an answer, I'll assume the correct answer is none. Either that, or the "involvement" was one of horrified titillation from a safe distance. There's always the possibility that she/he* was involved with the gay community in an attempt to straighten out those misguided souls...

*Assuming 'Jasmine' is not a poe.

Anyway, it seems Jasmine doesn't have a clue that we in the gay community keep a constantly updated list; it's mailed out regularly. So, of course I know her...in a roundabout way.

Posted by: Miki Z | July 30, 2010 6:32 AM

Umm, I'm confused (and creeped out, again -- you're creepy, Jasmine!):

Hooked says this, in its product description:

A practical look into new scientific research showing how sexual activity causes the release of brain chemicals which then result in emotional bonding and a powerful desire to repeat the activity.

But you say this:

Its because of oxytocin and vasopressin, you see. You know, the bonding hormones in men and women? Which stop working as well if you have too many partners? And which has been scientifically proven...

So... the book you say supports you kinda says that "the problem" with hooking up is that the whole bonding thing works too well.

And what mylf (and others) says: Please provide citations to articles, not to books. Books are meant to sell, articles are meant to report the results of studies. They're different.

@Walton: Have you ever had a drink of high-proof alcohol? I think of it as kind of the same: only a big deal in some cultures, not for kids, having no bearing on a person's worth, and the fundagelicals want to regulate it heavily because some people enjoy it.

Posted by: mylf | July 30, 2010 6:37 AM

@Jasmine

As well, all of the abstinence studies are in Wendy Shalit's book, Good Girl Revolution.

Apparently not, since you seem blissfully unaware of the plethora of studies showing that abstinence sex-ed is detrimental to teenage sexual health, while coming up with one of dubious relevance in 12-year-olds.

Still, do provide the ones you claim are are there.

Did you bother to read the few I gave you?

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | July 30, 2010 6:39 AM

I have never met anyone with that attitude. Have you? Seriously?

it's just that i don't see anyone advocating that here; unless walton misconstrued my comparison of cooking and sex as skills with such an argument?

Posted by: John Morales | July 30, 2010 6:45 AM

Jasmine, you seem confused as to what a doctorate is.

M.D. refers to "Doctor of Medicine".

It is not a Ph.D. "Doctor of Philosophy".

Doctors may or may not be scientists, too.

Also note that you've not cited scientific literature, but an advocacy piece.

--

Deepak Chopra is a doctor, too.
Does that make Ayurveda scientific, in your eyes?

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 30, 2010 6:51 AM

Jadehawk:

I have; they reside deeply in toxic male territory in which sex is a way to keep score on who's manliest of them all; occasionally also crops up as an over-enthusiastic response to previously experienced sexual repression.

I have too, on both the underlying reasons you mention. Personally, I have a laid back attitude about sex and sexuality, akin to that of Beatrice Campbell Cornwallis-West: "I don't care what they do, as long as they don't do it in the street and frighten the horses".

but this study is just too awesome not to share: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3782434

Hahahaha. Nice. Thanks for linking that one.

Posted by: Dania | July 30, 2010 7:01 AM

Jasmine, could you please state clearly what the hell are you going on about on how oxytocin and vasopressin will "stop working as well if you have too many partners" (and how many are too many, BTW?)? And provide relevant citations (not pop science books).

Posted by: Miki Z | July 30, 2010 7:03 AM

Jasmine, have you figured out what you can claim as your involvement with the gay community without being discovered as a liar?

If you're going to flounce off when you run out of new arguments, you might as least post saying so. We're waiting with baited (is today IPOAPD?) breath.

It's almost like you're spewing an argument, then doing some post hoc googling for support.

Posted by: mylf | July 30, 2010 7:10 AM

@John Morales

Or they've been too polite to say:)

Posted by: SphericalBunny | July 30, 2010 7:18 AM

@Miki Z

mylf - my, yes! let's fornicate! ...?

John(son) Morales - ethical penis. ...?

I would scream 'now do me, do me' but my window is open and it might be terribky inappropiate.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | July 30, 2010 7:44 AM

so, I'm done sifting through the oxytocin references from that book. what I've learned from it is that castrated rats have less vasopressin in some areas, that lactation decreases sexual desire, that certain maternal instincts caused by oxytocin are retarded in virginal rats, and that injecting dudes with naloxone will make them enjoy sex less. Also, that oxytocin is apparently released at most acts of pleasurable touch by people and/or baby-like things, which probably explains old cat ladies (and would mean christoids would have to ban cats, or limit everyone to one cat, just to be consistent)

Nothing about "diminishing returns" from "overdosing", or anything else that would hint at diminished production or sensitivity to oxytocin by slutty animals. I shall now move on to the vasopressin section and see what's there.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 30, 2010 7:58 AM

Ooh, a religious based tract/book misrepresenting what the real science says. Shocked! Just shocked I say. ;)

Posted by: John Morales | July 30, 2010 8:03 AM

Walton, any comment on my #479?

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | July 30, 2010 8:19 AM

Because I've always heard from people in the gay community that it was. Out of all twenty or so of my close girlfriends and roommates, not a single woman was a consumer, whereas lots of boys in my high school consumed pornography.

Second off, joke's on you if you think they were being honest to begin with, and that it would be relevant even if they were. Women, especially women brought up in the exact same sub-sub culture as you, are trained from childhood on that sex is bad, if you're a woman. You're not allowed to show any interest in it at all, whatsoever. If the socialization kicked in completely, they're too humiliated at the prospect of being turned on (It makes them sluts) to have porn. If it didn't, they're still probably guilty. And even if they weren't, you think they'd tell a card carrying member of the oppressors? They were probably rightly concerned not to, since you'd go off on a slut shaming tour against any who said yes.

We're waiting with baited (is today IPOAPD?) breath.

By the way, you should expand pedanticism if you're really going to do this. Don't just get the grammar pedants.

Posted by: Miki Z | July 30, 2010 8:24 AM

By the way, you should expand pedanticism if you're really going to do this. Don't just get the grammar pedants.

Being quite the pedant myself, grammar is the only area where I wouldn't be auto-invoking SIWOTI syndrome by participating.

Posted by: John Morales | July 30, 2010 8:30 AM

Rutee, 'pedanticism' is a (relatively) recent neologism; better to write 'pedantry'.

<runs>

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | July 30, 2010 8:32 AM

Walton, any comment on my #479?

Okay...

Walton, I'm surprised at your obtuseness here.

The reason why matters; if it's because you think you'll become "damaged goods", then that's not fine.

People are entitled to do what they want with their own bodies, for whatever reasons they choose. As long as they're not coercing or harming anyone else, why would we need, or want, to convince people that their personal attitude to sex is wrong? :-/

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | July 30, 2010 8:49 AM

@John Morales: KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

People are entitled to do what they want with their own bodies, for whatever reasons they choose. As long as they're not coercing or harming anyone else, why would we need, or want, to convince people that their personal attitude to sex is wrong? :-/

Posted by: El | July 30, 2010 9:07 AM

Sometimes people blame the victim to feel safer.
If you think that a woman was raped because she dressed unmodestly, then you feel safe because you dress modestly and nobody is going to rape you. You feel safe because you get yourself out of the group of possible victims.

A lot of people look for the actual causes of accidents using the same logic.: I will never have a cancer because I eat well, I don't smoke and I exercise. I will never be eaten by a bear because I never have food in the tent etc
You feel safe by throwing a lot of crap on the victim, because you don't want to identify yourself with a victim.

Posted by: John Morales | July 30, 2010 9:20 AM

Walton, see here: Virginity.

Refer to the section titled The case of a man "enticing" a virgin..

This is to what I refer.

(Note I have deliberately linked to a religious site.)

Posted by: InappropriateSusan | July 30, 2010 9:34 AM

Showing cleavage when wearing a swimsuit is, if anything, worse than showing cleavage in a normal situation. Swimming pools are going to have enough temptations for a guy as it is, and to be frank, wet cleavage is more of a stumbling block than dry cleavage.

Best analysis ever.

Posted by: mikerattlesnake | July 30, 2010 9:41 AM

@548

I would say the majority of posters in this thread aren't insisting those things, and most are telling those few that they are full of shit.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | July 30, 2010 9:47 AM

miki, your avowel of such a pronounced affection for certain letters is worrisome

Posted by: Miki Z | July 30, 2010 10:06 AM

Jadehawk, it makes my life hard. eBooks are helping -- I alphabetize the contents before reading. Next book: aabgiinorrstvwy'. I hear it's wonderful. (The first few pages at least get an A from me!)

Posted by: mylf | July 30, 2010 10:26 AM

@Miki Z

I find 'nyms containing the letters 'a', 'e', 'i', 'o', and 'u' provoking. I only sometimes find 'y' provoking. Please act consonant with this information.

Consonant with this information, I find I must make an avowel (apologies to Jadehawk) that your constant self-regard and possibly self-abuse may make you go blind. and a bit chafed.

Changing your 'nym is the only solution. Well, not the only one. Liberal use of KY will prevent lasting damage. (Er, not on your eyes). But self-provocation is doubly sinful, as you are both provoker and provokee.

Posted by: sigaliris | July 30, 2010 10:35 AM

I'm a lurker and normally don't comment, since there are so many others who do it with brilliance and skill. However, I was moved to sign in on this occasion by mad curiosity as to whether our friend "Jasmine" might be Jasmine Baucham, stay at home daughter of well-known patriarchal dominionist Voddie Baucham. The only thing that made me think they might not be the same is that Our Jasmine speaks of "boys at [her] school," and The Other Jasmine has been home-schooled, so I don't know where she would have met anyone who confessed to using porn. So, maybe not the same--still, Our Jasmine expresses sentiments that would do The Other Jasmine proud. I feel pretty sure Our Jasmine is on the same wavelength with the Ladies Against Feminism faction.

Posted by: NoUnicorns | July 30, 2010 10:38 AM

I'm late to the thread, but I can't help addressing this:

Jasmine @421

one of the lead characters has a woman in a burqa move to his town and is absolutely obsessed with her. But he has so much respect for her vows of chastity that he endeavours to treat her with extreme honour and respect, and would never dream of feeding her a mere dinner and hopping into bed with her without being married.

Oh dear, an example from sitcom. One that doesn't even support your case.

Modesty hasn't protected this woman from male attention, it has attracted it!

The first part of your statement is correct; Baber is obsessed with her, based entirely on how she is dressed. He infers chastity, based only on the clothing. The idealized picture of woman that he carries in his head is a picture of a woman who is completely covered (at least when in public). He makes an entire suite of assumptions based solely on her attire.

And "never dream of feeding her a mere dinner and hopping into bed with her without being married."? Come on, Baber does not spend each episode wandering about the town of Mercy seducing women - with or without feeding them dinner. It would be out of character (bad writing) for him to start now. (There is lazy writing in this episode, but that is a whole other problem.)

Take away lesson:

Provocative dress is in the eye of the beholder.

What the beholder does next is up to the beholder.

Posted by: Chgo_Liz | July 30, 2010 10:51 AM

Jadehawk @ #423:

And just like it's stupid to not ever learn to cook until after marriage, it's stupid to not ever learn to fuck until then. Now, there's people who don't find sex (or cooking) particularly important to their happiness, and those may well not bother to learn the skill; but that's different from the artificial and absurd notion that sex is the one skill in the world that's best done by people who have no flaming clue what they're doing.

QFT and brilliance.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | July 30, 2010 11:10 AM

No, I'm done sifting through the oxytocin references from that book. what I've learned from it is that castrated rats have less vasopressin in some areas, that lactation decreases sexual desire, that certain maternal instincts caused by oxytocin are retarded in virginal rats, and that injecting dudes with naloxone will make them enjoy sex less. Also, that oxytocin is apparently released at most acts of pleasurable touch by people and/or baby-like things, which probably explains old cat ladies (and would mean christoids would have to ban cats, or limit everyone to one cat, just to be consistent)...

Now, I think I'll go up my oxytocin levels. Who needs a hug?

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | July 30, 2010 11:36 AM

Wait...Jasmine supposedly is a westerner? So how does her example of a prince forcing a woman into sexual servitude because he owns the authorities have any basis in reality? Seriously, if you actually know where this has happened and you're using it to make a point about modesty and not going to the police or dateline, fuck you you selfish bitch!

Posted by: molto legato e sostenuto | July 30, 2010 12:01 PM

Any Muslim and Christian men who will be forced to do evil if their eyes are exposed to the sight of women's flesh should just wear a revurka; problem solved.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | July 30, 2010 12:26 PM

Yeah, Jasmine may be male. Who knows.

Posted by: pteryxx | July 30, 2010 12:45 PM

Late to this (very entertaining) thread I see; and I have little to add but my 2c to DavidM via Jadehawk @417:

...all men have different things worth looking at, I guess. I will however note that I don't know any women who find the view of male genitals actually arousing by themselves. Those things really didn't evolve for visual appeal, I think.

I may not be your target audience here but *cough* ... I beg to differ.

Posted by: Jasmine | July 30, 2010 1:03 PM

Jadehawk,

Its the second book that I listed that you want. It deals explicitly with vasopressin and oxytocin. And the prairie voles study can be extrapolated to humans, too- or it would never have been made as prominent as it is.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | July 30, 2010 1:16 PM

Jules @572:

My boyfriend recently related his experience with going to a Mormon youth group event when he was 14. The message--in mixed company--was all about how masturbation is a sin. The minister also went on to condemn petting. My bf's reaction was, "What, like her dog?" To which a young Mormon girl turned around and *demonstrated* what petting was by rubbing her crotch. His impression was that the Mormon girls were all highly sexual. He thinks that the Mormon church does everything in its power to make you want sex, and then it tells you you're wrong for wanting it.* But, that was his outsider's opinion as a teenager in Alabama. Seems to line up with what I experienced in my evangelical youth group, though.
*Seriously. Masturbation sermons in junior high mixed company is just asking for hormone explosions.

As far as the discussion of masturbation goes, that's par for the mormon course. The bishops are so used to questioning people during their temple worthiness interviews about "living the laws of chastity" that they no longer have any idea of what is considered rude and inappropriate by the rest of society. It would be less damaging if they actually taught reality-based human sexuality, but they teach lies, instill guilt, and hand out punishment.

Usually, mormon boys are subjected to far more repetition when it comes to lessons on the evils of masturbation, and they are subjected to far more invasive personal interviews -- supposedly to make sure they are worthy of the priesthood penishood, or of going on a mission, etc.

In Young Women groups, the subject is usually cloaked in talks about virtue, purity, and being deserving of marriage to a priesthood holder. And, girls are normally separated from boys for those talks. Your boyfriend just lucked out in his exposure to a particularly clueless mormon authority figure. BTW, most of those authority figures are not trained to give out sexual or relationship advice. Pity the children.

Here's a good source on how the LDS Church Demonizes Masturbation

Posted by: Vicki, Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief | July 30, 2010 1:18 PM

Jasmine--

That doesn't follow. That the study about voles has been made as prominent as it is means only that some people wanted to extrapolate from it, not that the extrapolation is valid. So, yes, that's evidence that some people think it supports their worldview: but we already knew that. Your own comments are the existence proof there.

I could repeat, all over the net, the point that the U.S. state with the lowest divorce rate is Massachusetts. My doing so would not be evidence that legal recognition of same-sex marriage encourages people to stay in heterosexual marriages.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | July 30, 2010 1:31 PM

@580

And don't forget that Jasmine should NOT make up bullshit to insist that her oral stance actually has benefits. I assure everyone there is no science that people can run out of love...it's not like gasoline.

Yes I see my typo and I'm leaving it as is.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | July 30, 2010 1:43 PM

Lynna
That pamphlet is horrifying. Demonizing is right. Yeesh. Their depiction of masturbation is similar to Jasmine's depiction of multiple sex partners. "Don't engage in perfectly safe, normal sexual behavior, because if you do, you're body will go haywire!!1!!" Except they say masturbating increases sperm, and s/he's saying multiple sex partners decreases oxytocin. It's all bullshit, either way.

My bf managed to carry the guilt from his few Mormon experiences with him for a while. His own parents are not terribly religious, so he worked it out eventually, but just the exposure to those ideas at a formative age was enough to give him sustained grief.

Posted by: SteveM | July 30, 2010 2:02 PM

Jasmine, PLEASE, PLEASE learn to use some html tags (right there under the "Leave a Comment" box) to distinguish what you are quoting from your replies. It would also be nice if you include the comment number that you are quoting from so we can go back and get the full context of the quote. Not everyone is reading this straight through from the beginning, so we don't immediately know what comments were said earlier and by whom. Thanks.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | July 30, 2010 2:11 PM

Lynna
Child abuse, indeed. My hyper-conservative evangelical church did much the same thing to the kids there. (My parents actually had reasonably healthy views on sex[for evangelicals especially], so I fared a bit better.) I remember we did a CD burning party one time, and one of the sweetest, most innocent little 15-year-old girls in the whole group got up and confessed to everyone that she masturbated. She honestly thought she had to in order to be absolved. She later went on to marry a guy that she didn't actually date first, and their first kiss was at the altar. It was her first kiss ever. Weird, weird shit.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | July 30, 2010 2:31 PM

Holy suicidal cow-fuckers! The more I go through that site Lynna linked to, the worse it gets. How messed up in the head do you have to be to decide that bestiality or death are better options than masturbation?

Religion is evil.

Posted by: Moggie | July 30, 2010 2:42 PM

#580:

Playboy was much more interesting in those days; the women didn't seem to be quite as airbrushed as they do today.

When I saw some fairly recent Playboy pictures, I was horrified. "Airbrushed" doesn't do them justice: those women looked barely human! I concluded that modern Playboy is a magazine for men who are turned on by smooth plastic androids. That this is a large enough demographic to support the magazine is rather surprising.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | July 30, 2010 2:56 PM

I'd just note, from many years of experience, that most of the time when women walk out of the house and go work or some local activity that interests them, they are NOT actively looking for a sexual partner and being 'hit on' is mainly a distraction from what they ARE there for - work or activity - and frankly having to change gears to address someone ELSE'S biological drives without being rude is a pain. I'm sure all the guys here have had the experience of being in the middle of something interesting and being blindsided by someone changing the subject to 'let me tell you about Jesus and how I can save you'. To me as a woman, and many other women, changing the subject to 'let me tell you how horny I am and what you can do about it' is JUST AS ANNOYING.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | July 30, 2010 3:10 PM

What crowepps said.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | July 30, 2010 3:12 PM

"And the prairie voles study can be extrapolated to humans, too- or it would never have been made as prominent as it is."

Seriously has the prairie vole EVER been used for a human model other than this?

There's a reason we need many phases of drug testing...rats even don't directly extrapolate to us.

Posted by: triskelethecat | July 30, 2010 3:39 PM

@Dhorvath: You made me LOL with that one. Yeah, there sure are not women in Playboy now.

On that topic: my 7th grade woman teacher came into class one day with a magazine covered in brown paper and proceeded to read us an awesome story by Ray Bradbury..."All Summer in a Day" IIRC. She wouldn't let us look at the story ourselves because at the time the only place it was printed was Playboy!

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 30, 2010 4:12 PM

This is "the prairie vole study." Prairie voles were a useful model in this case because, highly unusually for mammals and even moreso for rodents, they are monogamous.

Posted by: crowepps | July 30, 2010 4:20 PM

I agree and constantly wonder why this is so complicated. Don't talk to people out of the blue. It's an imposition on their time that is almost certainly not welcome.

What I do have a real problem with is 'what do you think of the exhibit/I saw something similiar in Seattle/you sure give me a boner, want to get laid?'. That is NOT the smooth segue some guys think it is.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 30, 2010 4:27 PM

Go ahead, secrete some oxytocin!
Your posterior pituitary will make more...

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 30, 2010 4:37 PM

Sven:

Your posterior pituitary will make more...

Riiiight. When are those posterior pituitary implants going to happen anyway?

Posted by: Lynna, OM | July 30, 2010 4:38 PM

Jules @589, Yes, the more you learn about the LDS Church, the worse it gets. Church leadership knows they have a PR problem, but they mistakenly think that when people get to know mormonism, they'll like it more, and that they'll think well of mormons for participating in such a great religion. They are deep, deep in denial.

Here's a link to an article that outlines most of the micro-managing in which the LDS Church engages in order to keep it's sheeple in line: http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon355.htm
Excerpt:

Mormon teenagers and youth leaders are provided with a booklet called "For the Strength of Youth", in two formats. The first is purse size, and the second is wallet size. They are encouraged in a variety of ways to master its contents. It describes in summary form the "standards" by which the young people are supposed to live, including things like abstaining from sexually related activities, reading the scriptures daily, dressing in certain ways, the number of earrings women can wear; the importance of avoiding body piercing, tattoos and other “extreme” forms of dress or personal style, etc.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | July 30, 2010 4:50 PM

One of my brothers lives on the outskirts of town, with his yard surrounded by cultivated fields. The vole population soars and dips on what seems like a regular cycle. When the population is at its highest, the voles don't have enough to eat, so they start eating each other.

I don't know if this increases their oxytocin levels or not.

But I'll bet Jasmine could extrapolate the cannibalistic behavior to humans.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | July 30, 2010 5:09 PM

Oh, gosh, I don't have any problem with talking to people out of the blue at, say, an art show opening or a museum or the bookstore. ABOUT the art, the exhibits or the books. Men or women. If there's a tingle I might even respond favorably to 'want to get together for coffee sometime?'

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 30, 2010 5:50 PM

Lynna:

But I'll bet Jasmine could extrapolate the cannibalistic behavior to humans.

Yeah, no problem. Lots of religions keep the ritual cannibalism going, the catholics being the most serious.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 30, 2010 6:08 PM

Brownian:

Actually, people can. It turns out love is more like an air supply.

Oh snap. +1

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 30, 2010 6:14 PM

ODS, I'm the one who requested details on the "age of modesty" - I asked which age and which country. Never did get an answer as to which country. Had a damn good laugh when the answer finally showed up. Honestly, as ages go, that one should be renamed Kink Central.

Posted by: crowepps | July 30, 2010 6:18 PM

The Age of Modesty was the Victorian era. You can look it up if you like.

"There were never enough 'voluntary prostitutes' to meet the voracious Victorian demand. Consequently, enterprising entrepreneurs established a system of obtaining 'involuntary prostitutes' Men who wanted sex with little girls were prepared to pay a good price, and a standard pricing system brought about twenty pounds for a healthy working-class girl between the ages of fourteen and eighteen, a hundred pounds for a middle-class girl of the same age; and as much as four hundred pounds for a child from the upper class under age twelve... " (Rush 1980, p.64).

http://home.pacbell.net/tonyprey/burning/vicera.htm

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | July 30, 2010 6:46 PM

Caine:
Yeah, I was wondering about the "Age of Modesty" too-- I've never come across that term.

I'm just... flabbergasted by the ignorance of Jas-bot. (I know, I know. I shouldn't be, but there it is.)

And you're right, Brownian, I shouldn't have assumed any sort of education with this one.

Posted by: crowepps | July 30, 2010 6:54 PM

Unfortunately, too many Christianists who insist that 'public morality' is well served by a public pretence that sex doesn't exist can't grasp that denial of the existence of a natural human drive inevitably leads to perversions such as child sex workers and rape. Hypocrisy is NOT the same thing as 'honoring moral standards', no matter how widespread.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | July 30, 2010 7:08 PM

Caine:
She laid claim to everything we accused her of not knowing about:

1) Eat disorders
2) Teh Gheys&trade
3) Porn

etc.

Is it bad I want her to come back so I can point & laugh some more?

Posted by: JeffreyD | July 30, 2010 7:26 PM

Caine @ #264 regarding Jasmine-4831 - As usual, you are being far to soft, kind, supportive of, tender to someone whose concept of society and history stopped at regency romance novels and Disney films. Bet she likes sparkly vampires too.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 30, 2010 7:39 PM

ODS:

Is it bad I want her to come back so I can point & laugh some more?

Absolutely not.

triskelethecat:

A Midwife's Story, the diary of a 1600's midwife

A Midwife's Tale: The Life of Martha Ballard, Based on Her Diary, 1785-1812 by Laurel Thatcher Ulrich. Great reading. There was that whole ax murder business too and lots of people in prison, other people being generally flaky, just people being people.

JeffreyD:

Caine @ #264 regarding Jasmine-4831 - As usual, you are being far to soft, kind, supportive of, tender to someone whose concept of society and history stopped at regency romance novels and Disney films.

#264 was Jadehawk. I haven't been nice at all. ;)

Bet she likes sparkly vampires too.

Aauugh, no, no, no! Quick, someone bring me a grimoire, stat!

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | July 30, 2010 7:51 PM

To bring this back on topic:

While I am at work, I wear a polo-shirt, jeans, and sneakers. The shirt isn't tight, the jeans aren't tight, and I'm showing no more skin than any of the guys I work with.

So, what happened today? You guessed it: my boobs got ogled at least twice.

My point: "modesty" is bullshit.

Posted by: John Morales | July 30, 2010 8:04 PM

[meta + pedant]

Caine, I'm very much suspect JeffreyD made a transpositional typo and meant to refer to #624.

Posted by: JeffreyD | July 30, 2010 8:57 PM

Caine -

#264 was Jadehawk. I haven't been nice at all. ;)

I might have meant 624, John may be right. It is also possible that the alien mind probe last night left some psychic residue...yep, going with that.

P.S. sparkly vampires!

Posted by: Anomic Entropy | July 30, 2010 9:14 PM

@OurDeadSelves #633

While I am at work, I wear a polo-shirt, jeans, and sneakers. The shirt isn't tight, the jeans aren't tight, and I'm showing no more skin than any of the guys I work with.
So, what happened today? You guessed it: my boobs got ogled at least twice.
My point: "modesty" is bullshit.