If women would just wear snowsuits at all times, we wouldn’t have so many problems

Wednesday, March 15th, 2006 · 53 Comments »

Yesterday we looked at Focus on the Family’s advice to teenage boys on how to battle the Dark Lord of Lust and win. Out of curiosity, I decided to see what advice Focus was offering to teenage girls on winning their personal battle with lust.

Answer: girls don’t have a personal battle with lust. It’s boys who experience lust, and it’s the Christian duty of girls not to incite those lustful thoughts.

Travel with me now, as we step back hundreds of years to medieval Europe (or just thousands of miles across the globe to the Islamic Middle East, or anywhere else women have to wear giant Hefty bags whenever they leave the house so as not to cause men to think sinful thoughts).

Focus has a magazine for girls that is the pink bubblegum counterpart to its X-treme macho Matrix-style mag for boys. See if you can tell which is which:

Daddy Truck Mommy Truck

Jesus H. Christ with a plastic pony, could the thing be more pink? It’s like the Victorian era, when people were apparently afraid that unless men and women wore radically different clothing silhouettes, they wouldn’t be able to tell each other apart.

Anyway, I searched this godawful pink thing for advice on how girls should deal with their lustful feelings. There are precisely zero articles on this topic — zero, zip, nada. But there’s plenty of stuff on how girls are responsible for boys’ lustful feelings:

Just as a lion would be tempted to attack someone wearing sausages, it’s the same to guys when girls wear things designed to arouse certain instincts and attentions in males…

So often girls wear clothing that’s tight, low-necked or short-skirted and expect guys not to react the way God designed them. Listen, Brio Sisses, when you wear revealing clothes that show a little extra this or a little extra that, it brings one thing and one thing only to a guy’s mind. Sex. That’s how God wired us…

I’m telling you — guys are wired like sexual time bombs. That’s simply how God created men. And, yes, it’s our responsibility to be wise and to stay out of stupid situations where we’re alone and will battle temptation, but we guys need your help!

So how can the godly Christian girl help keep boys from raping her? Well, a burqa would be nice, but they’re so damned unfashionable. Not to worry — you can be stylish and modest at the same time, though you’ll have to work at it:

The thing is, if you’re a girl living for God, it takes effort to find appropriate, stylish clothes, especially at this time of year… The type of clothes a girl wears can instantly distract a guy from what he has on his mind to thoughts bordering on or diving in to lust.

See, it’s not just the possibility of causing a guy to rape her that a girl has to worry about. She also bears heavy responsibility for his thoughts. The wrong outfit and she could imperil his mortal soul! For example, consider the poignant tale of Brad and the tight T-shirt:

Say your friend Brad is standing before your youth group because your youth pastor asked him to read a passage from the Bible. Brad pauses as he’s reading to make eye contact with the group, just as his speech teacher taught him to do.

The moment Brad looks up, he sees a girl wearing a tight T-shirt. Immediately, Brad’s mind is distracted from the Lord and the Bible — two things he’s truly interested in.

Brad’s able to keep going. He doesn’t let on that he’s no longer concentrating on the words coming from his mouth. But in fact, for the rest of the evening, Brad feels uncomfortable around the girl he spotted, struggling between sinful thoughts and wanting to treat her as a sister in Christ.

Goddamn that girl to hell. She probably deserves to be raped.

You know, is it really any wonder that juries tend to find rapists not-guilty if the victim was wearing something other than sackcloth and ashes? Female responsibility for male behavior isn’t some old lingering prejudice in the back of people’s minds. It’s a fresh, up-to-date prejudice, being churned out regularly by fundamentalist Christian asshats.

In the whole idiot magazine I found only one reference to lust from a girl’s perspective, and that’s in a letter to the advice columnist. The writer — obviously a freak of nature — asks for help in coping with her sexual thoughts about guys. The columnist tells her to memorize some verses from Corinthians, and then moves on briskly to the next question.

Look, I’m all for freedom of religion. People have the right to believe whatever the fuck they want. But I do think there comes a time when we have to recognize that some thought systems are just incredibly fucking pernicious. I support people’s right to believe Nazism if they want to, but I also know damn well that it’s some evil shit that needs to be countered at every turn.

Fundamentalist Christianity is some evil shit. It’s toxic. It’s a poison in our society, a cancer in our body politic. I’m sick of pretending that Christians are nice, or that belief in their bloodthirsty woman-hating slavery-loving homosexual-killing God is some kind of moral virtue. Screw these fuckers. Just screw ‘em.

Filed under: Godbags · Tags:

53 Responses to “If women would just wear snowsuits at all times, we wouldn’t have so many problems”

  1. Janeen says:

    But Violet! Girls don’t have lustful thoughts. I’ve never had a lustful thought in my entire life, and no, lustful is NOT the first adjective I use to describe myself on my ‘about’ page. You feminists sure are weird.

  2. will says:

    DARN IT!!*!*!*!*!**!!

  3. Violet says:

    You don’t like snowsuits?

    Janeen, I’ve never had a lustful thought either. Never ever ever ever. But as a student of human nature I am aware (in a purely clinical sense) that some females may occasionally, under certain circumstances, experience something remotely approaching sexual desire.

  4. will says:

    I was so happy when I finally realized that women wanted the same things I wanted. It really was a revelation.

    All those years, I just assumed they were toleranting my purient desires.

  5. Al E Pistle says:

    Socks, I live in an interesting state. Girls don’t wear sackcloth and ashes here. They wear almost nothing and what they DO wear is painted on. But they don’t get raped very often. I’m not saying NEVER, ’cause it must happen, but not very often.

    So back to my original statement. If you don’t want men to rape women (except after a battle where the spoils belong to the victors), you must impose severe enough punishments to deter the randy little perv bastards.

    There is a breaking story here:

    27 Accused of Running Child Pornography Web Site

    Will ANYONE dare argue that these people, ALL OF THEM, should not be taken forthwith out behind the barn and shot? Will even the most lieberal of you demoncrats suggest that any of these animals has the least redeeming quality?

  6. Violet says:

    It’s interesting you should bring that up, Pastor.

    The story you link to cites an 18-month-old child as one of the rape victims on the porn videos. I think it’s fair to say the baby didn’t bring it on by wearing provocative clothes. Yet the myth perdures that women cause rape by the way they dress.

    The fact is that rape is something that happens to 8-month old babies, 8-year old girls, and 80-year-old grandmothers. It’s not about sex, but about power. Men who rape aren’t responding to sexy enticement; they’re acting out a vicious need to dominate and degrade.

  7. BAC says:

    In “The Education of Shelby Knox” it opens with a quote that says: “Life in Lubbock, Texas taught me two things: One is that God loves you and you’re going to burn in hell. The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth and you should save it for someone you love.”

  8. Kimberly says:

    My name is Kimberly, and I am obviously a freak of nature. And it’s far too late for some verses from Corinthians to do me a bit of good.

  9. Al E Pistle says:

    To 6: OK. So what is wrong with a cure rather than years of jail time? Is castration REALLY so bad for people like this? I think not. Many men have been stricken with prostate cancer. The solution, either a radical prostatectomy or radiation treatment followed by Lupron injections, renders the man unable to rape and degrade a woman no matter how much I might……..errr… I mean no matter how much the disgusting pervert might want to. Is treating criminals to the same courtesy any different? Is it cruel and unusual to mandate via surgery that a man cannot rape a woman, or child, or another man?

  10. Dr Marco says:

    The question goes deeper. Why is sex negative for Christians? It is clear that for Christians, males have the instinct for lust and women the responsability for inciting it. So are women intrinsically wicked for Christians?

    I wrote a post titled “Why is sex so negative for Christians” in my blog looking for answers. Maybe I get some answers from the discussion here

  11. Violet says:

    Kimberly, maybe if we — I mean you — get started now, God will still have mercy on our souls.

  12. Violet says:

    Dr. Marco, did you read yesterday’s post about the Christian advice to boys? Suiting up in their metaphorical armor for battle with Satan? I know you how much you enjoy history; isn’t it amazing how this shit has not changed? Echoes of the Gnostics, of Aquinas, of all the medieval contemplatives — unbelievable.

  13. Al E Pistle says:

    To 8: Kimberly, perk up! Even rodents like yourself can dip a pinch of the snuff of GOD at Landover Baptist. We have the faith! We have the love of GOD! All we need from you is a small monthly tithe. We like to start people out easy….32 or 33% of your gross monthly income will do, and we can work up from there.

  14. Al E Pistle says:

    to 10: Pal, NOTHING goes deeper than a radical prostatectomy. Read some Christian history. Start with the Bible (which you have never read) and then work up to Flavius Josephus’ ‘The war of the Jews’.

    If sex were ‘negative’ for Christians, there wouldn’t be any Christians. Read that old pedo Sigmund Freud (joke) or Dr. Benjamin Rush.

  15. Steve says:

    “Say your friend Brad is standing before your youth group because your youth pastor asked him to read a passage from the Bible. Brad pauses as he’s reading to make eye contact with the group, just as his speech teacher taught him to do.

    The moment Brad looks up, he sees a girl wearing a tight T-shirt. Immediately, Brad’s mind is distracted from the Lord and the Bible — two things he’s truly interested in.”

    These guys have done it again. It’s getting so I start heating up in the afternoon just contemplating Vi’s nightly selection from porn’s newest genre – cautionary Christian tales that actually make you want to do the nasty.

    In fact, it got me so hot last night that I am contemplating a new career creating titilating “Shtup and Your Schvantz Will Rot” cautionary nookie tales.

    “Jason looked out at the seventh grade Sunday school class. He was trying to concentrate on the parable of the loaves, the word of God but Pastor Huckaby’s daughter kept shifting her legs, revealing…………….”

    Seriously, the only reason I don’t worry about this hilarious crap is that any strategy — political, moral, social, or economic — that flies in the face of any powerful human instinct, will simply die the natural death it deserves.

  16. Al E Pistle says:

    To 11: Socks, NOWHERE in either the Bible or the heretical Quran is it suggested that women have souls. The Bible specifically states that only 144,000 ~men~ (total, from day one) will go to heaven. Everyone else is going to shake and bake. You might as well get out on a steetcorner in Dakota for all the good it will do you.

    Here it is in Revelation:

    Four angels, with an army of 200 million, killed a third of the earth’s population. 9:15-19

    Anyone that messes with God’s two olive trees and two candlesticks (God’s witnesses) will be burned to death by fire that comes out of their mouths. 11:3-5

    God’s witnesses have special powers. They can shut up heaven so that it cannot rain, turn rivers into blood, and smite the earth with plagues “as often as they will.” 11:6

    When the witnesses ascend into heaven, an earthquake kills 7000 men. This was the second woe. “The third woe cometh quickly.” 11:13-14

    The devil, after he is expelled from heaven, is sent down to earth to wreak havoc on its inhabitants. 12:12

    Only 144,000 celibate men will be saved. (Those who were not “defiled with women.”) 14:1-4

    And a word from John.

    1 John

    Every non-Christian is liar and an antichrist. 2:22, 4:2-3

    Christians are alive; non-Christians are dead. 5:12

    Christians are “of God;” everyone else is wicked. 5:19

  17. Violet says:

    Steve, I see a bright future for you in cautionary shtupping tales. But I think you might want to try working in some more hugely obvious Freudian slips, to wit:

    “Immediately, Brad’s mind is distracted from the Lord and the Bible — two things he’s truly interested in.”

    It seems to me that there are two other things that Brad’s also truly interested in, don’t you?

  18. Al E Pistle says:

    All of you must either have been homeskooled or matriculated from an ivy league university. Listen, children. Religion has nothing to do with God. Religion is big business. Bigger than Ford. Bigger than GM. If women were ‘equal’, they wouldn’t pay ten bucks for a tube of red wax to make their mouths look like vaginas. If you want equality, stop buying makeup amd frilly crap and start buying guns. Then learn how to use them. Then join your local police reserve so you can carry your firearm legally. Then when someone comes to rape and murder you, kill them.

  19. Al E Pistle says:

    To Socks:
    (1) Never say “Jesus H. Christ with a plastic pony” or we will send the Department of Faith to take you away.
    (2) Never say this either “Fundamentalist Christianity is some evil shit. It’s toxic. It’s a poison in our society, a cancer in our body politic. I’m sick of pretending that Christians are nice, or that belief in their bloodthirsty woman-hating slavery-loving homosexual-killing God is some kind of moral virtue. Screw these fuckers. Just screw ‘em.” (same reason)
    (3) Never mention the two things Brad is REALLY interested in.
    (4) Remamber ladies, there is a .50 cent bullet, a can of Capsaicin spray or a can of Raid House and Garden Wasp Spray between you and rape/mutilation. If you are good with a knife (no one is anymore), it might work if you had the balls to use it and had it open in your hand. PLEASE kill the guy BEFORE he rapes and mutilates you. What could be a better discouragement?

    The old days of ‘don’t fight it’ are over. Kill or be killed. It’s the American way.

  20. Burrow says:

    I wonder all the time when I see ehit like this as to why guys aren’t up in arms about shit like this making them out to be uncontrollable zombies who are ruled by their nuts.

    And of course all the feminist type patriarchy blaming things.

  21. Alon Levy says:

    I wonder all the time when I see ehit like this as to why guys aren’t up in arms about shit like this making them out to be uncontrollable zombies who are ruled by their nuts.

    Because I had to study for a very important test tomorrow.

    It’s not particularly controversial, at least among thinking people, that Christian fundamentalism is bad for everyone, males included. Often concentration on oppressed groups distracts from the fact that totalitarianism hurts everyone under it, except a tiny ruling elite. Nazism murdered millions of Jews, but it didn’t create a paradise on Earth for the Aryans.

    Now, I think that the portrayal of men as sex maniacs is downright idiotic. However, portrayals in a fairly fringe organization don’t bother me that much – I prefer to be bothered by things like the overall totalitarianism that Dominionists promote.

    On the other hand, mainstream cultural portrayals of (non-Asian) men as penile zombies irk me more. Still, I prefer to concentrate on things that are more real than media portrayals, largely because I think stopping TV shows from making all men sex- and looks-crazed will change exactly nothing.

  22. gordo says:

    Violent–

    Did you notice that the girls’ magazine infantilizes its readers? It’s as if the boy’s magazine is preparing its readers to be young men, while the girl’s magazine is preparing them for…what?

    Also, if you visit my blog in the future, please make sure that you’re wearing something appropriate. I wouldn’t want to, y’know, doyoyoyoyoing!

    Pastor–

    I can remember being pretty convinced of the McMartins’ guilt. Perhaps we should have a trial before executing these people. Also, I don’t think that castration would work on the sickos who do this sort of thing. They could and would use objects.

    And Landover Baptist was one of the first sites I discovered on the net. It’s still the best Christian site going, except for Betty Bowers, who makes me, y’know, doyoyoyoyoing!

  23. Alon Levy says:

    Did you notice that the girls’ magazine infantilizes its readers? It’s as if the boy’s magazine is preparing its readers to be young men, while the girl’s magazine is preparing them for…what?

    It’s not a particularly new thing – Nazi Germany differentiated the genders in a fairly similar way.

  24. Lily Bleu says:

    I found your blog through Janeen’s blog.

    I was extremely involved in the Church for most of my childhood and so know the brainwashing well. Girls were taught that they should not make boys stumble by wearing provocative clothing, which even then I thought “Bullsh*#”. A man in my church actually said aloud that women “asked for it” if they were raped and had been wearing something provocative. At 15 I knew that was bullsh&$ and let him have it before my mother shushed me for speaking up.

    The idea that women cause men to lust is even prevalent in Disney movies – have you seen The Hunchback of Notre Dame? The villain has a song in that movie where he blames the gypsy girl for his lust after her. Give me a freakin’ break!

  25. Burrow says:

    It’s everywhere Lily Blue.

  26. belledame222 says:

    It’s no wonder they tend to have a hate-on for traditional psychology as well, even whilst cribbing as much of the “secular” theories as they find suitable for their own purposes. You take responsibility for your own actions and feelings; this is part of being a functioning adult member of human society.

    That magazine infantilizes women, but in a way it infantilizes the men just as much; as Burrow points out, the notion that one is either led around by one’s dick/Satan-derived lustful cravings/whatever, or else spending the majority of one’s life battling these “sinful” urges, (one’s inherent badness, in other words) is really disempowering.

    It’s also very Victorian, which in itself is curious; the even older form of misogyny, of course, is that women are *lustier* than men, by far; that their sexual urge is all-devouring and deadly. So as a kind of “undoing” of this fearsome projection of a black widow-like maneater, the zeitgeist comes up with the pure, sexless, “angel in the house.” Oh, the virgin fetishization has been around for far longer than that, of course; but yeah, the extremely exaggerated masculine and feminine roles, and particularly the idea that men are beasts and the women, their saviors, mainly has its roots in Victoriana.

    Anyway, now I’m off to find a nice sausage-embroidered blazer; I understand it’s the latest fashion amongst the damn’d…

  27. belledame222 says:

    At any rate, the medieval Church used to have a place for castrati; you’d think that if the current crop of Prod godbags were so concerned by the problem of rampant male lust, they’d start considering more ah permanent solutions…

  28. Steve says:

    Yo Socks Baby:

    It’s about time for today’s fundamentalist cautionary pornographic shtupping tale. I’m waiting. Or am I now going to have to switch to http://www.itsasintotouchhotchristianjugs.com?

  29. Violet says:

    Steve, just for you: This is an except from
    “Every Man’s Battle: Winning the War on Sexual Temptation One Victory at a Time” –

    Your sexual purity will also mean regaining your relationship to your friends. Our friends don’t have to worry about us “undressing their wives” in our minds or daydreaming of what it might be like to be making love to one of them…

    And this:

    When your son questions what he should watch, what he should do with the pornography other boys show him, or what he should do when that cute girl gets him alone and starts unbuttoning her blouse, will anyone be speaking against it?

  30. jo says:

    http://www.briomag.com/briomagazine/toofunny/a0005050.html

    They are tempting their readers with a halfnaked guy! Immoral!

  31. Burrow says:

    ACK! My eyes hurt from looking at just that page. Ugh, so bubbly and pink.

  32. Al E Pistle says:

    22:”I can remember being pretty convinced of the McMartins’ guilt.”

    I am pretty convinced that you cannot think for yourself.

    “Perhaps we should have a trial before executing these people.:”

    And do what? SHOW THE VIDEOS OF THEM DOING IT? If it were a question of he said/she said a trial is fine. If there are videos of some savage bastard molesting an 18 month old girl, see if you still want a trial if it’s YOUR DAUGHTER. Who is going to testify, the infant? Is your train of thought derailed somewhere?

    “Also, I don’t think”

    Yeah. that is the crux of the problem here.

    “that castration would work on the sickos who do this sort of thing. They could and would use objects.”

    You are a middle-school student, right? No biology classes yet?

  33. gordo says:

    Pastor–

    Sure. Because it’s not rape if you use a bottle, right?

  34. pudge says:

    Yeah, how dare people recognize the fact that male humans are easily distracted by females, especially when dressed in certain ways. And speaking of evil, I suppose it is not evil to accuse people of justifying rape when, in fact, they are doing no such thing, hmmmm?

  35. Violet says:

    pudge, maybe if you pray to Jeebus for our souls, we’ll see the light.

  36. pudge says:

    Your sophomoric sneering aside, what does religion have to do with this? Do you really, honestly, think that the overwhelming majority of men are not, by their very nature, extraordinarily prone to being distracted by attractive females?

    If so, you need to get out more.

    Regardless, it’s got nothing to do with religion.

  37. Alon Levy says:

    Do you really, honestly, think that the overwhelming majority of men are not, by their very nature, extraordinarily prone to being distracted by attractive females?

    Yes. Apparently it’s just a Western thing, so while it may be a normal thing, it definitely isn’t “by their very nature.”

  38. Violet says:

    Pudge, you’re embarrassing yourself. You’ve clearly demonstrated your subpar reading comprehension skills and given us a dismal peek into your delusional psyche. What more do you hope to accomplish here? I think you need to find a blog more on your level.

  39. pudge says:

    Alon: no, it is not remotely a Western thing. It’s true that what is considered to be attractive varies by culture, but that’s beside the point.

    Violet: again with the juvenile insults. Say something substantive, or don’t.

  40. Violet says:

    Say something substantive? Okay: FUCK OFF. Read the comments policy. I don’t entertain sexist trolls.

  41. pudge says:

    So in other words, you have no actual argument. Gotcha.

  42. Violet says:

    Did you just now discover the internet, or are you channeling every troll who’s ever existed? “You refuse to engage me, ergo that means you have no argument and I win!” I’m not engaging you because you’re a troll, and I have better things to do than argue with morons. Other topics I’m not interested in debating include the historicity of the Holocaust and whether people come from evolution or magic. Do you want me to ban your IP?

  43. pudge says:

    Where did I say I “win”? I merely asserted you had no argument to offer; nowhere did I imply this means I “win” anything.

    I merely wonder how anyone can think that the notion that men are easily distracted by attractive females — for whatever “attractive” happens to mean to them — can be disputed, let alone called “evil.” Let alone how this can be extended into a justification for rape.

    And I merely wondered why, rather than answering these perfectly legitimate questions, for which a clear answer is subobvious, you chose instead to simply attack me personally.

    If you choose not to explain yourself, fine. I won’t say that therefore I “win.” I will, however, count it as additional evidence that people on the far extremes of the political spectrum lack the ability to reason with people whom they disagree with.

    Of course, your nonsensical accusation that the quotes you referenced could reasonably be used to justify rape, let alone were being used to justify rape, was probably evidence enough for that hypothesis.

    Cheers …

  44. Violet says:

    I’m going to take that as a yes.

  45. Alon Levy says:

    I merely wonder how anyone can think that the notion that men are easily distracted by attractive females — for whatever “attractive” happens to mean to them — can be disputed, let alone called “evil.”

    It can be disputed because it’s not true. Some men are distracted by attractive women. Others are distracted largely because they choose to – because of a media that portrays men as sex-crazed maniacs and being distracted by women as a perfectly normal thing. Most others function very well without distraction: for example, it’s known that many (male) businessmen hire attractive women as eye-candy, without ever being distracted from work by them.

    Let alone how this can be extended into a justification for rape.

    There’s a line that goes that since men are by their nature easily distracted by attractive women, it’s the women’s responsibility not to do anything that might distract men, and hence things like sexual assault or hollering are the victim’s fault.

    And even if you don’t agree with that line – which I don’t think I do – there’s the fact that this view demeans men. It’s demeaning to be told that like everyone with a Y chromosome, I can’t ever have an attractive woman in my line of sight without turning into a drooling zombie, and that if I don’t then something is wrong with me.

    And I merely wondered why, rather than answering these perfectly legitimate questions, for which a clear answer is subobvious, you chose instead to simply attack me personally.

    Because you’re advancing idiotic arguments.

    I merely asserted you had no argument to offer; nowhere did I imply this means I “win” anything.

    In related news, Scott McClellan didn’t say the Democrats were unpatriotic; he merely asserted that they weren’t thinking about the country’s best interest.

  46. BAC says:

    Alon, I think you have addressed the fundamental question of whether it’s “nature” or “nurture” that leads some men to sexual violence. Historically men seem to be more violent in nature than women, but there are indicators that some women are becoming as violent as some men. So the question remains, are men just “naturally” more violent than women, or is it a learned behavior?

    I think a strong argument can be made for the cultural influences of media (and Madison Avenue specifically) playing an important role in “nurturing” a culture of violence against women. Particularly when women are portrayed as needing to be protected or taken care of.

    And finally, rape isn’t about sexual attraction, or the idea of some women being a “distraction” for some men. It’s about power. And the only surgical solution to sexual violence wouldn’t be castration, it would be lobotomy.

  47. Alon Levy says:

    Historically men seem to be more violent in nature than women, but there are indicators that some women are becoming as violent as some men. So the question remains, are men just “naturally” more violent than women, or is it a learned behavior?

    I think it’s learned behavior. In fact I predict that as the level of gender inequality in a society decreases, the rate of male-on-female violence will remain constant, while the rate of female-on-male violence will rise to male-on-female levels. My semi-educated guess is that a big part of the reason women are less likely to be criminal than men is that they’re reared to be more passive, quiet, and polite; as that starts fading, they commit crime in greater numbers.

    On the other hand, unlike the rape rate, the overall battery rate responds to feminist policies. Women’s shelters, legal recourses for abused women, and an economic system that makes women less dependent on their partners have all contributed to a lower battery rate. Interestingly, the female-on-male battery rate has decreased much more markedly, apparently because 30 years ago an abused woman’s sole option was often to kill the abuser.

    I think a strong argument can be made for the cultural influences of media (and Madison Avenue specifically) playing an important role in “nurturing” a culture of violence against women. Particularly when women are portrayed as needing to be protected or taken care of.

    I’m not so sure the media sets attitudes so much as it reflects them. Every time there’s a publicized act of violence, some segments of the American population immediately blame TV violence, always without any real evidence connecting it to the act (“they played DOOM” doesn’t constitute real evidence). After all, there were plenty of murders and rapes before the mass media, and even before misogynistic folk stories.

    And finally, rape isn’t about sexual attraction, or the idea of some women being a “distraction” for some men. It’s about power. And the only surgical solution to sexual violence wouldn’t be castration, it would be lobotomy.

    I know… I think if boys everywhere are made to read, memorize, and chant Dobson’s asinine comment, it won’t cause a single additional rape. As you say, it’s about power, not sex, which is probably the root of the disconnect between rape fantasies, which are always voluptuous and idyllic, and real rape, which is nothing like those.

  48. Lance Landall says:

    Hi, Just read through your blog. I have written some poems about such topics. You may be interested in taking a look at them. My web address is http://www.poetrywithamission.co.nz
    Regards, Lance Landall

  49. strawberrysnog says:

    Hi!

    I only recently discovered this blog, but I have to say I’m loving it – lots of great frank, opinionated people writing and reading :). Also, big fan of the “profile” pic, Dr. Socks.

    I did want to respectfully submit for debate the possibility that perhaps it is just the crazy people over in the fundementalist/evangelical/born-again-Christian camps that really go in for all the crazy warped sexuality (not to mention so much else) bullshit, and not just ALL people who choose to go to a Christian church. Same for the Muslims, Jews, Hindis, Buddhists, Wiccans, Nihilists, et cetera, I’m sure you get my point already . . . Basically, that maybe overgeneralization should be avoided.

  50. simply wondered says:

    nonsense! overgeneralisation is always good.

  51. Kiuku says:

    of course WOMEN bear the responsibility for the sexual objectification of their body, and body PARTS. They bear ALL the responsibility of fashion which dictates that women enhance the sexually objectified parts in sexually objectified ways..and SMILE.

    Most women are raped in jeans. In Italy, recently, a rapist was acquitted because, allegedly, you can’t rape someone if they are wearing jeans. It’s just too damn hard to get those jeans off. It must have been consensual! At the same time, a rapist was acquitted because the victim was wearing a skirt with high heels!

  52. The Ghost of Violet says:

    I remember that! The Italian case. I posted about it here: http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/?p=128

    (Comments are closed on that entry, no doubt because of repeated cialis/poker/mortgage loan spam from Richard’s British friends. Swear to God, half my spam is from the UK.)

  53. Natasha says:

    ‘nonsense! overgeneralisation is always good.”

    [sarcasm]

    now now now everyone, your xenophobic and racist side is showing, against Brits, Italians, Spaniards and French…

    its just

    culture.

    and its imperialist for us to criticize it. or Haven’t you heard????