I think there’s a difference between dressing suitably for hot weather, and dressing provocatively, and it’s usually pretty obvious which is which. If your church is telling you that you can’t wear shorts when it’s 100 degrees out, I’d find a new church, especially if the rule only applies to women. Who are you hanging out with anyway - the Amish?
What would you change? And how?
There is dressing to be cool and dressing to be a turn-on. The difference is pretty marginal and mostly exists between the woman’s ears. A lot of female skin on display turns men on, regardless of why it is on display. That’s like saying “gravity pulls” obviously true and not something that is going to change. Disliking the fact that your skin on display will turn a guy on regardless of whether that was your intent seems like bitching at biology. Besides, assuming the guy doesn’t try to do something about it, there is nothing to be “responsible” for. No harm no foul.
I am curious though. If the church doesn’t make the announcement would there be lots of women running around in short-shorts and halter tops? This may cause me to re-think my opposition to religion! 
Regards
Testy
I don’t think theres any real argument here - only half assed generalisations coming from all angles.
I’ll do the decent thing and quit while I still have my limbs intact.
Testy,
Shorts are okay, but not short shorts.
Sure, I assume women would wear the coolest outfits they could if ot censured.
But then they would be assumed to be leadig into sin, as it were.
Amish?
nah
I don’t think you ever answered my question. Are you saying you think women should wear provocative clothing at church functions? What does “coolest” have to do with it? Are men allowed to wear provocative clothing, but not women? How are women being “censured”?
No. But then, I don’t think short shorts are provocative, myself.
My problem is it makes it the womans fault, even if most don’t think she is dressing provocatively.
Its the blame.
Its NOT her fault if a straight man finds her attractive!
Men wearing skimpy clothing would not be considered a problem, as most women aren’t turned on by a body only, not to mention most church guys don’t resemble Brad Pitt.
Really? I think those ones where you can see the bottom fold of the butt are pretty provocative. You’re arguing dishonestly - first you were trying to make it sound like women are just wearing appropriate clothes for hot weather, but now you’re defending “short shorts”. Is that extra one or two inches in the pant leg really that crucial to mitigate the effects of the sun? How is it that I, as a man, can fumble throught the summer quite well wearing regular shorts, and life seems to continue?
Well if she’s not dressing provocatively, then there’s no problem, is there? I think you’re deliberately trying to blur the distinction between simply wearing appropriate clothing for hot weather, and dressing provocatively, just so you can’t be pinned down on the argument.
Who said it was?
Dunno about that. I don’t think it’s ONLY gay men who go to Chippendale’s.
Well most church women don’t resemble Pamela Anderson, either. What’s your point?
Besides, your argument seems to be that the church doesn’t allowanyone to wear inappropriate clothing, but because of your self-proclaimed statement that women aren’t turned on by men’s bodies, that it somehow makes it sexist. That’s circular reasoning.
So what? Most church women don’t resemble Angelina Jolie or Halle Berry.
I think that attributing “fault” is going overboard—whether fault is actually being assigned by the church/society or whether people infer fault because we are such a finger-pointing culture.
If I act the way I usually do, three weeks out of four my (putative) girlfriend is just peachy. One week out of four, my normal behavior makes her irritable, moody, snappish, angry, tearful, backbiting. Is her reaction my fault? No—though I could try to be more understanding in that situation to keep it from happening.
The situation simply is. Fault-finding, I think, is unproductive. If someone is blaming you or making you feel guilty or responsible, don’t let him.
I think I know what vanilla is talking about. I see this a lot in your fundamentalist sites and such. The idea that a woman has an obligation to be “modest” and cover herself (long skirts, blouses, no low-cut shirts or skirts), because she could “lead men into temptation”. In other words, just looking at a woman wearing shorts will drive men into a frenzy of lust.
In fact, I read on one “modest clothing” site a woman who had once been assaulted by a man at her church. She blamed it on the fact that she had been wearing a body-skimming black sheath dress with heels and pantyhose (it didn’t even sound provacative-think Audrey Hepburn in Breakfast at Tiffanys!).
And that disturbed me. No mention of what a pig the guy was for daring to touch her-she was “horrified that she lead a brother in Christ to sin.”
That’s wrong.
No argument here, Guinistasia. I don’t think anybody here is blaming the man’s actions on what the woman was wearing. Yes, of course that’s repellent behavior and out of line. It is not, sadly, all that uncommon.
Thanks, Guin.
Its just not the womans fault, its not like she’s wearing a thong or anything.
And I doubt I’ve caused any lust lately.
Not that I wear shorts; I don’t.
I used to never wear them, even in 85 degrees.
I used to be so thi, I felt my legs looked too bad.
Well of course that’s wrong. But why the rush to judge all men by the words of one fundamentalist asshole? There are also millions or maybe billions of men who don’t blame women for leading men into temptation. If we’re just making the point that there are a few religious whackos out there with stupid ideas, yeah - I’ll agree with that.
Of course it’s not the fault of all men.
I’m certainly not judging ALL men by one jerk.
Just pointing out that the fundy set had a tendency to blame women for men “lusting after them” and even for rape.
I’m about as far from a fundamentalist Christian as you can get, but do you really think it’s fair to generalize that they “have a tendency” to blame women for being raped? 100 years ago, maybe.
And even if that were true, what’s the point? That some nutballs have some nutball ideas? Then we’re talking about a nutball vs. non-nutball issue, not a men vs. women issue.
What vanilla said was that the churches she’s been in make announcements not to wear skimpy clothes, and that it “has to be directed to the women, as most of us women would ot be lust-filled looking at these guys in skimpy clothes”, and then got from there to saying “Its always seemed to be the woman’s fault”. Sorry, but I don’t follow the logic there, and there was nothing about blaming women for being raped in there at all.
I vehemently agree that it’s not a woman’s fault if she is raped. VEHEMENTLY! I just don’t see how having a dress code for everyone in the church gets us to that leap in logic.
I’ll look up the articles later.
They may not do it directly, but it’s implied in that “women lead men to sinful thoughts by dressing skimpy” and that if you just dress modestly, you shouldn’t have a problem with being harassed.
Where did you get the sexist idea that women don’t have "perverted lusts’ just like men? I’ll give you a clue- they do. There are just as many female “perverts who need a dominant male to force them to do depraved sexual acts” as there are males. It is “representative” of the whole HUMAN attitude, not just males. To think that females don’t enjoy perverted & depraved sexual acts as much as men, is completely sexist.
Oh, and wrong. :wally
The religious attitude? That impresses me as a rather bizarre phrase in this context. Rape is prohibited by every religion I’ve ever seen. Why do you attribute to religion what is obviously a psychosis? In doing so, you merely validate what you say they do themselves.
The fundy set around here uses the same logic to justify the prohibitions on women working, driving, and wearing anything other than a black sack. Men are assumed to be incapable of controlling themselves in the presence of a woman’s skin.
Regards
Testy
Of course they do, as the ideal. However, with some people, a little religion is a dangerous thing.
Some of these so-called religious individuals will place the blame on the woman. She was dressed in a skimpy outfit, or she flirted, or whatever, so she deserves it.
Especially in that last paragraph. Tell me that’s not disgusting.
I dunno, Guin - I’m not convinced that site isn’t a joke, like the Landover Baptist site. It’s pretty over-the-top.