Opinions apparently differ.
[QUOTE=Age 21]
If the jeans aren’t tight, then I’d have to look pretty hard and intently. At that point, no type of clothing is going to help.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Age 30-34]
I don’t think they as feminine as dress/ skirts. All jeans are snug around the crotch. I think they should be worn for necessity and for non-social reasons (most practical when hiking).
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Age 13]
Usually they aren’t, but it’s a little disconcerting to see girls in jeans since that is generally what a guy wears.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Age 26]
Pants with visible button fly up the crotch should be avoided - as with anything that draws attention to the crotch. It almost seems to draw on top an image of what’s underneath, or at least follow or recreate those lines. That’s bad.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Age 21]
There is an attitude change that follows wearing jeans for women, You may not notice until you try wearing skirts for a while. I cannot put it into words exactly, but I am far more relaxed and comfortable when a girl wears a skirt.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Age 23]
The main problem with jeans, if they aren’t tight, is that underwear and often more is exposed whenever you bed over unless something is covering the waist area.
[/QUOTE]
(Great typo!)
My initial reaction to reading that blog post was “These guys reeeealllly need to get laid.”
If they can’t be around a woman who walks, runs, bends over, or stretches without getting all hot and bothered, that’s a serious problem, and not for the women. Saying that they actually can’t cope (or can barely cope) with being in the presence of a woman who is just going about her business screams “deep mental health issues” to me. And sorry, their issues are not my problem. If he can’t deal with it, I invite him to stay home so he doesn’t have to.
Pretty much. It’s a complete abdication of personal responsibility and I find that offensive. If there were a god, I’d be allowed to smack the stupid out of these people.
Are you guys reading the results correctly? The questions are just positively-phrased statements that the respondent agrees or disagrees with. A lot of the offensive statements are stongly disagreed with and quite a few could be called “no conclusion”. The jeans one was soundly rejected, for instance. As were other silly ones like “It is a stumbling block for a girl wearing pants to sit cross-legged (i.e. Indian style).”
Even some of the ones where they agreed didn’t necessarily abdicate responsibility. They were just like “It’s hard to think pure thoughts when women do that.”
And then there’s this:
I’m still looking for a truly offensive result. Anyone see any?
No. It is offensive for him to decide it’s a stumbling block or that women shouldn’t wear it if they don’t want to tempt men into sinful thoughts, or whatever it is. If men believe they’re acting sinfully, they should take responsibility for their actions instead of deciding that it’s miniskirts or a woman stretching her arms out a certain way or a bare midriff.
That’s so what I was thinking. It’s one thing to care about modesty. It’s another to be so incapacitated by women that you can’t look at them without thinking sex. I don’t like girls running around with boobs falling out of bikini tops at the grocery store (though I do like boobs and them falling out of bikini tops at the beach!), but I’m not going to be so aroused by it that I can’t finish my shopping.
True. But even the “silly ones” had some people agreeing with them and/or saying silly things in the text responses to them. For example, one of the responses to your example says
[QUOTE=Chessic Sense]
Even some of the ones where they agreed didn’t necessarily abdicate responsibility. They were just like “It’s hard to think pure thoughts when women do that.”
[/QUOTE]
Again, true, to some extent. I think many of the respondents were just giving truthful responses to “Can it inspire lustful thoughts in you when women wear/do such-and-such?” And, since it doesn’t take much to inspire lustful thoughts in young men in their teens and twenties, the answer is often “yep, it sure can.”
But some of the text responses seem more willing to take that responsibility than others.
Yes, of course men should take responsibility for their actions. But if I understand the website correctly, Christian women/girls specifically asked how they could best make it easier for men in that, and Christian men answered.
If you’re not a “Christian guy or girl who cares about modesty,” this isn’t really for or about you—don’t take it personally.
It’s kind of like, a recovering alcoholic should take responsibility for not drinking. A diabetic should take responsibility for not eating things that are going to cause them trouble. But the people who care about them, their friends and family members, may very well want to be sensitive to them and not do things that would tempt them unnecessarily. And so they’d ask things like, “Would it bother you if I drank this beer/ate this Twinkie in front of you?”
None of this is to deny that some of the responses to that survey really make me want to shake the guys and tell them to get real! :dubious:
Alcoholism is a disease. So’s diabetes. Sensitivity to them is an individual thing from person to person. This website is asking women to conduct themselves in certain ways on behalf of allegedly healthy and regular men in general.
Well, ok, I can see where they are sort of taking responsibility for their reactions, but I don’t think that’s the whole story. If I catch a view, my reaction is “oh, hey. That was nice.” and then get on with my non-sexual daily activity. I get the impression that these guys spend significant time fighting off their unclean, un-Godly thoughts up to the point of constant distraction. Meanwhile, I may get distracted, but because I accept that I’m going to get distracted and because I have a completely non-sexual purpose for interacting with a woman, I can get past the distraction rather easily. IOW, because I’m not obsessing over impropriety and the reaction it creates in me, I can focus on a completely non-sexual reason for noticing or interacting with women.
This begs the question of who is the more obsessed with sex: the guy who casually notices or the guy who complains? This whole business of men defining female immodesty reinforces a personal maxim that says that the more you define yourself by what you’re not, the more strongly you are connected to it (and what you try to reject). To me, these guys are spending spend so much time rejecting the unclean thoughts realized through female immodesty that they can never get away from those unclean thoughts. Do they really want to admit that they’re mentally and spiritually impotent? The concern over immodesty also speaks of a fear of a world where women can be independent, self-directing and capable of making choices that don’t involve a man’s desire to have a dutiful wife. As skewed as the questionnaire might be, it further shows where the front lies in the culture war over female autonomy that includes birth control, access to abortion, social expectations, education, available career choices, respect and earned authority.
OK, let me get this straight: Purses worn across the body can be immodest, since they draw attention to the breasts. Shirts with pockets can be immodest, since they also draw attention to the breasts. In fact, we’re told that any article of clothing at all can be immodest. The solution is obvious: Good modest girls should wear nothing at all, to ensure that they don’t draw undue attention to their bodies.
While I think these results are indicative of an unfortunate belief in “thoughtcrime”, I don’t think this is anything to worry about. Preferring to spend time around people who don’t do something because you don’t like how it makes you feel is fine, as long as that’s as far as it goes. If they start blaming rape victims for attracting men like cats to meat, then we’ve got a problem.
“Nudity: If it’s good enough for Eve, it’s good enough for you.”
)