a JAWM rant about the M word

[SadieMarie]

Anyone who is truly serious needs to adopt the burka asap.  It is the ultimate in modesty and based on your logic will prevent all sexual assault forever(well maybe except within the family and I suppose that doesn't count anyway).  So, if you aren't willing to do that you should STFU.  Because you can prattle on forever in that baggy excuse for a skirt but we all know you aren't really willing to go all the way, I mean in terms of modesty of course.  So clearly you don't care about protecting your daughters from rape or your sons' minds from impure thoughts and random erections (which apparently they are unable to manage without raping someone).  

 

And that would be my response OP, so I have to say that I admire your restraint.

[Forget-Me-Not]

I very much JAWY, OP!

[eternalsummer]

It's just that the argument goes too far, right?

 

I mean, if I wore a shirt around with a swastika on it that said "Black people are monkeys," or something similarly offensive, I can't expect people not to be angry, and while I (in theory) have the right to wear the shirt, I at least have to admit that I'm either deliberately angering people or being unnecessarily callous.  Similarly, if I wear super revealing/immodest clothing, I have to admit that I'm either deliberately causing lust or at least being careless about it.  If I believe either (in the first instance) that offending people without cause is bad or (in the second instance) that lust is a sin and encouraging sin is wrong, then wearing revealing clothing is more or less on par with wearing a racist shirt, and both are stupid.

 

However, the argument goes too far, and I agree with you here, when you say that if a black person sees the racist shirt and beats you up or shoots you, it's your fault for wearing the shirt.  That's insane (but it does make sense not to wear racist shirts in black neighborhoods, because after all, you don't want to get beaten up).  Similarly, when you say that if a man rapes you because you're wearing a short skirt, it's your fault for wearing the skirt, that's insane too (but also similarly, it makes sense to avoid putting yourself in that position if you can).

[Melissa in Australia]

It's just that the argument goes too far, right?

 

I mean, if I wore a shirt around with a swastika on it that said "Black people are monkeys," or something similarly offensive, I can't expect people not to be angry, and while I (in theory) have the right to wear the shirt, I at least have to admit that I'm either deliberately angering people or being unnecessarily callous.  Similarly, if I wear super revealing/immodest clothing, I have to admit that I'm either deliberately causing lust or at least being careless about it.  If I believe either (in the first instance) that offending people without cause is bad or (in the second instance) that lust is a sin and encouraging sin is wrong, then wearing revealing clothing is more or less on par with wearing a racist shirt, and both are stupid.

 

However, the argument goes too far, and I agree with you here, when you say that if a black person sees the racist shirt and beats you up or shoots you, it's your fault for wearing the shirt.  That's insane (but it does make sense not to wear racist shirts in black neighborhoods, because after all, you don't want to get beaten up).  Similarly, when you say that if a man rapes you because you're wearing a short skirt, it's your fault for wearing the skirt, that's insane too (but also similarly, it makes sense to avoid putting yourself in that position if you can).

 

Well said

[Elfknitter.#]

And the argument for victim blaming is raised...

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

My head just exploded.

[bolt.]

It's impossible to "cause lust" -- lust is a sin of the will, not a sin of reaction.

Lust is "a sin of the will" because it is the sin of being willing to fornicate/adulterate while lacking either the ability or the "courage" to do so. As such it is a very serious sin. It's an "I would if I could" sin -- thus people are responsible for what they "would" do, even though "it happens that they couldn't" follow through that intent.

Having a sexual thought, a sexual reaction, a sensual experience or an involving "crush" is not lust. Those things don't come even within the same sphere as "I would if I could, but I can't, so I won't."

Therefore it is as impossible to "cause lust" as it is to "cause" any other sin. A person can not be caused to sin unwillingly. All sins involve the will.

[Snickerdoodle]

then wearing revealing clothing is more or less on par with wearing a racist shirt

 

Offensive or vulgar language is a wrong action.

 

Amount of fabric is neither a right or a wrong action.

[SadieMarie]

It's just that the argument goes too far, right?

I mean, if I wore a shirt around with a swastika on it that said "Black people are monkeys," or something similarly offensive, I can't expect people not to be angry, and while I (in theory) have the right to wear the shirt, I at least have to admit that I'm either deliberately angering people or being unnecessarily callous. Similarly, if I wear super revealing/immodest clothing, I have to admit that I'm either deliberately causing lust or at least being careless about it. If I believe either (in the first instance) that offending people without cause is bad or (in the second instance) that lust is a sin and encouraging sin is wrong, then wearing revealing clothing is more or less on par with wearing a racist shirt, and both are stupid.

However, the argument goes too far, and I agree with you here, when you say that if a black person sees the racist shirt and beats you up or shoots you, it's your fault for wearing the shirt. That's insane (but it does make sense not to wear racist shirts in black neighborhoods, because after all, you don't want to get beaten up). Similarly, when you say that if a man rapes you because you're wearing a short skirt, it's your fault for wearing the skirt, that's insane too (but also similarly, it makes sense to avoid putting yourself in that position if you can).

And it doesn't matter how short your skirt is if you have on a burka. You could be naked under one of those things if you wanted and nobody would know. Except, what if the sight of a burka makes some hapless male start thinking, "hmmm, I wonder what's under that burka?" Then they really start to imagine the possibilities and it causes THOSE thoughts, we all know the ones. It isn't really his fault because that burka is kind of the cause of them and that could happen to anybody, even nice boys from good Christian families. So then he has that physical response in his trousers, we all know the one, and he can't really help that. It was all that imagining CAUSED by that scintillating burka. So he can't stop himself and sadly another rape happens all because some woman went out of her house in a burka and put herself in that position. I mean, geez, she might as well have been wearing leggings.

[Hikin' Mama]

It's just that the argument goes too far, right?

I mean, if I wore a shirt around with a swastika on it that said "Black people are monkeys," or something similarly offensive, I can't expect people not to be angry, and while I (in theory) have the right to wear the shirt, I at least have to admit that I'm either deliberately angering people or being unnecessarily callous. Similarly, if I wear super revealing/immodest clothing, I have to admit that I'm either deliberately causing lust or at least being careless about it. If I believe either (in the first instance) that offending people without cause is bad or (in the second instance) that lust is a sin and encouraging sin is wrong, then wearing revealing clothing is more or less on par with wearing a racist shirt, and both are stupid.

However, the argument goes too far, and I agree with you here, when you say that if a black person sees the racist shirt and beats you up or shoots you, it's your fault for wearing the shirt. That's insane (but it does make sense not to wear racist shirts in black neighborhoods, because after all, you don't want to get beaten up). Similarly, when you say that if a man rapes you because you're wearing a short skirt, it's your fault for wearing the skirt, that's insane too (but also similarly, it makes sense to avoid putting yourself in that position if you can).

Except where this argument breaks down, in my opinion, is that wearing a racist shirt is a hateful action. Wearing a bikini or a v-neck shirt in which some cleavage is exposed is not.

Also, your argument assumes that wearing immodest clothes (how is that defined?) will incite lust and maybe even rape. Rape is not a result of lust gone awry; it is violence against women. It is another form of hate. It is a result of some mental or emotional sickness. The men I know have all been around women dressed inappropriately, yet they have never raped anyone.

Saying that women should not wear immodest clothes (again, how do we define that?) so that men won't lust is like saying that others shouldn't have too nice of homes or cars so that I won't covet. I am responsible for what goes on in my heart.

[OneStepAtATime]

I've been thinking about this thread.  Instead of worrying so much about "appropriate" attire (and as pps said who is going to define that?), it seems to me that maybe if society worked harder on teaching respect for others, respect for self, impulse control, recognition of ones own physical and emotional responses and knowing when to act and when not to act on those responses. etc. that maybe there would be a lot fewer issues.   Perhaps if we put a lot more effort into helping people from the time they are young accept that we, as human beings, have many feelings and desires and thoughts inside of us, not all of which are the best ones in any given moment, and that's o.k. but that those feelings don't have to define who you are or control your actions.  If we can acknowledge our feelings and learn to deal with them, control them instead of them controlling us,  and we are guided in how to do that from early on, then maybe people on all sides of this coin (20 sided dice?) would be in a better place?

 

 

[I.Dup.]

Saying that women should not wear immodest clothes (again, how do we define that?) so that men won't lust is like saying that others shouldn't have too nice of homes or cars so that I won't covet. I am responsible for what goes on in my heart.

 

I do tend to believe that wearing certain clothes encourages lust, but this is a really good point.

[I.Dup.]

I've been thinking about this thread.  Instead of worrying so much about "appropriate" attire (and as pps said who is going to define that?), it seems to me that maybe if society worked harder on teaching respect for others, respect for self, impulse control, recognition of ones own physical and emotional responses and knowing when to act and when not to act on those responses. etc. that maybe there would be a lot fewer issues.   Perhaps if we put a lot more effort into helping people from the time they are young accept that we, as human beings, have many feelings and desires and thoughts inside of us, not all of which are the best ones in any given moment, and that's o.k. but that those feelings don't have to define who you are or control your actions.  If we can acknowledge our feelings and learn to deal with them, control them instead of them controlling us,  and we are guided in how to do that from early on, then maybe people on all sides of this coin (20 sided dice?) would be in a better place?

 

Agreed! I have 6 boys and this is the approach I plan to take.

[Joanne]

It's just that the argument goes too far, right?

 

I mean, if I wore a shirt around with a swastika on it that said "Black people are monkeys," or something similarly offensive, I can't expect people not to be angry, and while I (in theory) have the right to wear the shirt, I at least have to admit that I'm either deliberately angering people or being unnecessarily callous.  Similarly, if I wear super revealing/immodest clothing, I have to admit that I'm either deliberately causing lust or at least being careless about it.  If I believe either (in the first instance) that offending people without cause is bad or (in the second instance) that lust is a sin and encouraging sin is wrong, then wearing revealing clothing is more or less on par with wearing a racist shirt, and both are stupid.

 

However, the argument goes too far, and I agree with you here, when you say that if a black person sees the racist shirt and beats you up or shoots you, it's your fault for wearing the shirt.  That's insane (but it does make sense not to wear racist shirts in black neighborhoods, because after all, you don't want to get beaten up).  Similarly, when you say that if a man rapes you because you're wearing a short skirt, it's your fault for wearing the skirt, that's insane too (but also similarly, it makes sense to avoid putting yourself in that position if you can).

 

Wow! That is incredibly under-informed about "lust", women, "power", self-control and sexual inappropriateness or sexual predator or sexually aggressive behavior.

 

If embraced, it would set society - not just women and children - back by more than 100 years.

 

[lovemykids]

My head just exploded.

So did mine. I mean, I can’t even reply to that post. Well, I could, but I am not going there. Seriously, OMG! :svengo: 

:leaving: 

[lovemykids]

I've been thinking about this thread.  Instead of worrying so much about "appropriate" attire (and as pps said who is going to define that?), it seems to me that maybe if society worked harder on teaching respect for others, respect for self, impulse control, recognition of ones own physical and emotional responses and knowing when to act and when not to act on those responses. etc. that maybe there would be a lot fewer issues.   Perhaps if we put a lot more effort into helping people from the time they are young accept that we, as human beings, have many feelings and desires and thoughts inside of us, not all of which are the best ones in any given moment, and that's o.k. but that those feelings don't have to define who you are or control your actions.  If we can acknowledge our feelings and learn to deal with them, control them instead of them controlling us,  and we are guided in how to do that from early on, then maybe people on all sides of this coin (20 sided dice?) would be in a better place?

This is nice. It would be nice…but I think we have been working on ourselves, and we have had minimal success, at best. It certainly wouldn’t hurt to try harder though.

[Joanne]

I am coming back to this thread. Because recent posts and "likes" seem so egregious that I am disturbed. The idea that a human is ever, ever, ever responsible for sexual assault based on clothing or location is alarming.

[lovemykids]

I am coming back to this thread. Because recent posts and "likes" seem so egregious that I am disturbed. The idea that a human is ever, ever, ever responsible for sexual assault based on clothing or location is alarming.

 I agree.

[SadieMarie]

I think I would be doing an even greater disservice to my teen daughter if told her that dressing modestly provides any protection against rape, than if I told her dressing to show off her beautiful self would incite rape.

[Mrs Mungo]

It's just that the argument goes too far, right?
 
I mean, if I wore a shirt around with a swastika on it that said "Black people are monkeys," or something similarly offensive, I can't expect people not to be angry, and while I (in theory) have the right to wear the shirt, I at least have to admit that I'm either deliberately angering people or being unnecessarily callous.  Similarly, if I wear super revealing/immodest clothing, I have to admit that I'm either deliberately causing lust or at least being careless about it.  If I believe either (in the first instance) that offending people without cause is bad or (in the second instance) that lust is a sin and encouraging sin is wrong, then wearing revealing clothing is more or less on par with wearing a racist shirt, and both are stupid.
 
However, the argument goes too far, and I agree with you here, when you say that if a black person sees the racist shirt and beats you up or shoots you, it's your fault for wearing the shirt.  That's insane (but it does make sense not to wear racist shirts in black neighborhoods, because after all, you don't want to get beaten up).  Similarly, when you say that if a man rapes you because you're wearing a short skirt, it's your fault for wearing the skirt, that's insane too (but also similarly, it makes sense to avoid putting yourself in that position if you can).

As hateful and racist as I would find someone wearing a shirt that said, "black people are monkeys," I would absolutely defend their right to wear it without getting shot. In fact, I lived in a town that was about half and half black and white. I knew someone with this bumper sticker:

 

They never got shot or beat up. I guess people manage to practice self-restraint, even in the face of racism and true offense? 

 

Wearing a bikini doesn't hurt anyone. It's not offensive.

 

And *not* wearing a bikini? Doesn't protect you from being raped. Nuns have been raped. Old ladies have been raped. Rape isn't about lust. It's about power over women (OR other men, which this argument entirely ignores). Claiming that rape has something to do with the woman's action is 100% offensive, wrong and victim blaming.

 

 

[regentrude]

And *not* wearing a bikini? Doesn't protect you from being raped. Nuns have been raped. Old ladies have been raped. Rape isn't about lust. It's about power over women (OR other men, which this argument entirely ignores). Claiming that rape has something to do with the woman's action is 100% offensive, wrong and victim blaming.

 

I completely agree.

 

I am also appalled by the view people seem to have of men as weak creatures who are not able to exercise free will and reason, but cannot help succumb to their animal instincts at the sight of any female skin, from which they must be protected. I feel insulted on behalf of all the wonderful men I know. The same attitude that blames female victims for their attire also debases every decent male.

 

ETA: I am not aware of any violence against women happening on the public, city run, nude beaches in my European home town. Maybe men there are a different species...

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

As hateful and racist as I would find someone wearing a shirt that said, "black people are monkeys," I would absolutely defend their right to wear it without getting shot. In fact, I lived in a town that was about half and half black and white. I knew someone with this bumper sticker:

 

They never got shot or beat up. I guess people manage to practice self-restraint, even in the face of racism and true offense? 

 

Wearing a bikini doesn't hurt anyone. It's not offensive.

 

And *not* wearing a bikini? Doesn't protect you from being raped. Nuns have been raped. Old ladies have been raped. Rape isn't about lust. It's about power over women (OR other men, which this argument entirely ignores). Claiming that rape has something to do with the woman's action is 100% offensive, wrong and victim blaming.

 

I completely agree.

 

I am also appalled by the view people seem to have of men as weak creatures who are not able to exercise free will and reason, but cannot help succumb to their animal instincts at the sight of any female skin, from which they must be protected. I feel insulted on behalf of all the wonderful men I know. The same attitude that blames female victims for their attire also debases every decent male.

 

ETA: I am not aware of any violence against women happening on the public, city run, nude beaches in my European home town. Maybe men there are a different species...

 

:hurray:  :hurray:  :hurray:

[busymama7]

As someone from a very conservative religion that teaches modesty and as someone who both lives it and teaches it to my children, these discussions always confuse me.

It has never been taught to me nor have I ever believed that we dress modestly to prevent rape?!? I mean I guess from what is always said here some people must beleive that. But I dress modestly and teach my children to because of respect. Respect for our own bodies and parts of them that are sacred and private. And respect for other people who do not wish to see private areas of someone else. As a heterosexual female, I do not wish is see women's cleavage etc. it's not a lust thing or anything. I just wish they would respect those around them enough to keep private parts covered. And the men i know feel the same way. They dont wish to see the breasts of a woman to whom they arent married. So would prefer that the women around them kept them covered. Sure they look away and choose not to think lustful thoughts as is their duty. But they tire of it being in their face every where they go. It is all about dignity and respect and nothing to do with rape.

ETA: I used breasts as an example but would apply to other "areas" ;)

[busymama7]

Double post

[Mrs Mungo]

As someone from a very conservative religion that teaches modesty and as someone who both lives it and teaches it to my children, these discussions always confuse me.

It has never been taught to me nor have I ever believed that we dress modestly to prevent rape?!? I mean I guess from what is always said here some people must beleive that. But I dress modestly and teach my children to because of respect. Respect for our own bodies and parts of them that are sacred and private. And respect for other people who do not wish to see private areas of someone else. As a heterosexual female, I do not wish is see women's cleavage etc. it's not a lust thing or anything. I just wish they would respect those around them enough to keep private parts covered. And the men i know feel the same way. They dont wish to see the breasts of a woman to whom they arent married. So would prefer that the women around them kept them covered. Sure they look away and choose not to think lustful thoughts as is their duty. But they tire of it being in their face every where they go. It is all about dignity and respect and nothing to do with rape.

ETA: I used breasts as an example but would apply to other "areas" ;)

And some men prefer not to see women's legs or ankle or skin or eyes. They think covering everything is about dignity and respect. This is *purely* cultural, not inherent in any way.

[Slartibartfast]

 

 

 

 

If they had known what?

 

Am I just dumb? I don't get it. 

[Mrs Mungo]

If they had known what?

Am I just dumb? I don't get it.

I assume it is anti-Obama? Although, he is not descended from slaves, so... *shrug?*

I think it is redneck for "I am a racist."

[Slartibartfast]

I assume it is anti-Obama? Although, he is not descended from slaves, so... *shrug?*

I think it is redneck for "I am a racist."

 

I see.

 

Maybe redneck for "I am a dumbass and a racist"

[Joanne]

 But I dress modestly and teach my children to because of respect. Respect for our own bodies and parts of them that are sacred and private. And respect for other people who do not wish to see private areas of someone else. As a heterosexual female, I do not wish is see women's cleavage etc. it's not a lust thing or anything. I just wish they would respect those around them enough to keep private parts covered. And the men i know feel the same way. They dont wish to see the breasts of a woman to whom they arent married. So would prefer that the women around them kept them covered. Sure they look away and choose not to think lustful thoughts as is their duty. But they tire of it being in their face every where they go. It is all about dignity and respect and nothing to do with rape.

ETA: I used breasts as an example but would apply to other "areas" ;)

 

But this is a social and cultural construct. There is nothing *inherently* suggesting that "breasts are private". You've accepted that as a part of your worldview, but it is not an intrinsic, absolute truth.

 

I hear you on the "confusion" because it's not about rape or sexual aggression. I respect that, and I respect that you've chosen to view sexuality in a way that reserves even imagination for married, intimate, heterosexual (I assume) partners.

 

I *do* wish to view and enjoy a hint of cleavage on a woman or the shapely legs of a man. Neither perspective is inherently *right*.

 

The earlier comparison to racism is absurd - HATE and fear is inherently evil.

[MFG]

I assume it is anti-Obama? Although, he is not descended from slaves, so... *shrug?*

I think it is redneck for "I am a racist."

I do not see it as specifically anti-Obama. I read it, "If I had known the problems 'those people' would cause..."

[Mrs Mungo]

I do not see it as specifically anti-Obama. I read it, "If I had known the problems 'those people' would cause..."

Note: I actually knew the person with this bumper sticker. I am basing my assumption on more than what is present in the sticker. ;)

[Slartibartfast]

Note: I actually knew the person with this bumper sticker. I am basing my assumption on more than what is present in the sticker. ;)

 

Did you ask them why they think they would be in a position to have others pick cotton for them?

Did you also ask who is currently picking the cotton since they seem to have some sort of timeline problem?

[Mrs Mungo]

Did you ask them why they think they would be in a position to have others pick cotton for them?
Did you also ask who is currently picking the cotton since they seem to have some sort of timeline problem?

I tried to avoid having conversations with the person(s) in question.

[Catwoman]

I tried to avoid having conversations with the person(s) in question.

Sounds like a wise decision to me. :)

[LucyStoner]

It's just that the argument goes too far, right?

I mean, if I wore a shirt around with a swastika on it that said "Black people are monkeys," or something similarly offensive, I can't expect people not to be angry, and while I (in theory) have the right to wear the shirt, I at least have to admit that I'm either deliberately angering people or being unnecessarily callous. Similarly, if I wear super revealing/immodest clothing, I have to admit that I'm either deliberately causing lust or at least being careless about it. If I believe either (in the first instance) that offending people without cause is bad or (in the second instance) that lust is a sin and encouraging sin is wrong, then wearing revealing clothing is more or less on par with wearing a racist shirt, and both are stupid.

However, the argument goes too far, and I agree with you here, when you say that if a black person sees the racist shirt and beats you up or shoots you, it's your fault for wearing the shirt. That's insane (but it does make sense not to wear racist shirts in black neighborhoods, because after all, you don't want to get beaten up). Similarly, when you say that if a man rapes you because you're wearing a short skirt, it's your fault for wearing the skirt, that's insane too (but also similarly, it makes sense to avoid putting yourself in that position if you can).

Oh, nm. Some things just don't need a response.

[MFG]

Note: I actually knew the person with this bumper sticker. I am basing my assumption on more than what is present in the sticker. ;)

I defer to your greater knowledge of the situation.