"A Teenage Rebellion Against Low Expectations"

The Modesty Survey is out. It's a poll of Christian youngsters, mostly young men, conducted under the auspices of The Rebelution: A teenage rebellion against low expectations. The soft bigotry of low expectations is everywhere, apparently. The browsable results of the survey contain gems like this bar graph:

A girl's underwear should never show:

The bars show 18 "guys" strongly disagree and 621 strongly agree with the statement that girls' underwear shouldn't be on display.

The survey also allowed text responses, including this one from a beleaguered Christian gentleman, age 24: "Sisters in Christ, you really have no concept of the struggles that guys face on a daily basis. Please, please, please take a higher standard in the ways you dress."

What would this poll have been like if conducted on Reason readers?

Via Andrew Sullivan

Comments

mk | March 26, 2007, 1:47pm | #

My underwear is so nice, it's shame that I have to wear it underneath my pants.

brotherben | March 26, 2007, 1:49pm | #

...far away across the field,
the tolling of the iron bell,
draws the faithful to their knees,
to hear the softly spoken magic spell.


The thought is this, "It is sin for me to have erotic thoughts about you and showing the top of your thong is causing me to get a semi. My sin is your fault."

gl | March 26, 2007, 1:49pm | #

So now it's the girls' fault that some guys have no self control...where have I heard that reasoning before? Just utterly ridiculous.

Warren | March 26, 2007, 1:51pm | #

You don't want my response.

The Wine Commonsewer | March 26, 2007, 1:51pm | #

...no concept of the struggles that guys face...

Well, he's right, girls, er, ah, womyn, (still) have no idea of the daily struggle guys face with temptation......

Okay, some do, and they seem to work it well. :-)

Warty | March 26, 2007, 1:51pm | #

What a bunch of fags.

Bubba Zanetti | March 26, 2007, 1:53pm | #

My first thought is: The fact that she's wearing underwear sucks.

VM | March 26, 2007, 1:54pm | #

mk - I suggest you try a day with it the other way around. Same thing: put your shoes and socks on in that order.

Whale Tail? (NSFW for most places)

The Wine Commonsewer | March 26, 2007, 1:57pm | #

The thing is, and I'll bet Ron Bailey can back me up on this (being that he was raised Baptist), those prissy, prudish, fundie teen age church girls were the most likely to, ah, do what you wanted every girl to do when you were 16.

The more strict and repressive the home life the more likely that they would sign on for Girls Gone Wild.

Grotius | March 26, 2007, 1:59pm | #

The Wine Commonsewer,

Of course it could be that individuals not living up to the, hmm, "ideal," skews our appreciation of what is actually happening.

NoStar | March 26, 2007, 2:00pm | #

Butt-Floss, aka thongs, are not sexy, just poop stained. Women started wearing them in order to rid themselves of panty lines showing through their pants. Somehow butt-floss became way cool, even more so than no undies at all. Therefore it is only logical in this weird world that to show how cool they are, women wear low rise pants in order to show off the thongs they wear so they don't show panty lines.

The Wine Commonsewer | March 26, 2007, 2:02pm | #

The bars show 18 "guys" strongly disagree and 621 strongly agree with the statement that girls' underwear shouldn't be on display.

WRONG,

The bars show 621 guys who are lying. Or parroting the party line because they know what they're supposed to say. But, like Jimah Carter, they have lusted in their hearts, every time some chick bends over........

The Wine Commonsewer | March 26, 2007, 2:03pm | #

Grotius, not sure what you mean??

Ken Shultz | March 26, 2007, 2:03pm | #

"Sisters in Christ, you really have no concept of the struggles that guys face on a daily basis. Please, please, please take a higher standard in the ways you dress."

I don't know how Reason readers would respond, but I suspect commenters here at Hit & Run would probably respond likewise, just in their own way.

I'm not convinced that encouraging women to dress so as not to inspire temptation is fundamentally worse than encouraging women to dress provocatively to inspire it.

Either way, women should dress with men in mind only if they want to. ...No one should dictate to women how they should dress.

MassHole | March 26, 2007, 2:04pm | #

This is nothing a hijab won't fix! Onward Musl..I mean Christian soldiers!!!

The Wine Commonsewer | March 26, 2007, 2:05pm | #

NoStar, thanks for THAT visual......I'm going back to work now.

NoStar | March 26, 2007, 2:05pm | #

Personally, I'd rather see the vertical smile rather than the butt-floss.

brotherben | March 26, 2007, 2:06pm | #

the whole "not casting your pearls before swine" scripture seems apropo.


cue the ZZTop

The Wine Commonsewer | March 26, 2007, 2:08pm | #

Schultzy, now that we're done with the fun, you come along and say something that is absolutely sensible, realistic, accurate, and on the mark.

JLM | March 26, 2007, 2:09pm | #

How about "A plumber's crack should never show"?

Grotius | March 26, 2007, 2:09pm | #

The Wine Commonsewer,

Well, just like really dramatic catastrophes can skew our appreciation of the safety of a particular thing, area, etc. some dramatic episodes of individuals not living up to the "ideal" may skew our appreciation of how many people actually do live up to that "ideal."

NoStar | March 26, 2007, 2:09pm | #

Thanks VM, I'll file whale tail along side cameltoe in my list of fashion faux pas.

Xmas | March 26, 2007, 2:11pm | #

NoStar FTW!

I'm going to blatantly rip that comment off...

Nopan | March 26, 2007, 2:12pm | #

Britney Spears doesn't show her underwear! She just doesn't wear any, is that what they want?

brotherben | March 26, 2007, 2:15pm | #

but seriously

In a christian function, do females have a responsibility to dress with some "modesty" in mind. Scripture does tell us not to be a stumbling block to others.

TLB | March 26, 2007, 2:17pm | #

Thanks for the survey, that was a hoot!

I think we libertarians can do even better. Let's join with our progressive brethren and make fun of these Xians every chance we get. Let's mock those repressed religious freaks mercilessly and really piss them off!

Maybe Reason could put together a flyer making fun of them, and the rest of us could print it out and pass it out at churches. Maybe even buy some ads or something!

What say you, my fellow libertarians?

Greg | March 26, 2007, 2:24pm | #

"Sisters in Christ, you really have no concept of the struggles that guys face on a daily basis. Like how your brother can track down a pair of those slutty sling-backs you're wearing in a mens 13 wide."

Anonymous | March 26, 2007, 2:25pm | #

I have really mixed emotions about AS, H&R and others publicizing this site. It is indeed useful to shine the bright light of inquiry into areas that apologists for the christiam right would rather remain unilluminated. However, the publicity also gives them a form of legitimacy.

Agree with The Wine Commonsewer that their survey numbers are unreliable -- even more so after the inevitable post-publicity pranksters get ahold of the site.

Yes, many of those boys may be closet cases, as was covered eloquently on Feministe. I pity them all, both gay and straight.

JasonL | March 26, 2007, 2:27pm | #

I'm sorry, but the thong hanging out just shouldn't be done. This is not moralizing, it is insisting that that there is a place in the English language for the word "tacky".

FinFangFoom | March 26, 2007, 2:28pm | #

There are many dumb things about this "survey." Chief among them that covering up will reduce lustful thoughts. It wouldn't. It would just make young men become excited at whatever lesser level of skin is shown. A burkha might work, but then guys might be thinking "I know there's a vagina in there somewhere!"

The other thing is that the "stumbling blocks" remind me of what it was like when I was thirteen. "Oh my God, look at Susan, she's so sexy when she blinks."

Grotius | March 26, 2007, 2:31pm | #

JasonL,

No more tacky than a stuffed codpiece. ;)

VM | March 26, 2007, 2:31pm | #

Tacky = issue of individual taste, of course.

josephdietrich | March 26, 2007, 2:32pm | #

I, for one, would like to welcome our thong-showing overlords.

Grotius | March 26, 2007, 2:33pm | #

VM,

Humans have been figuring out ways to demonstrate their individual superior sexual traits since we came down from the trees. All those pointy bras in the 1940s is enough to demonstrate this fact.

JimmyDaGeek | March 26, 2007, 2:35pm | #

TLB | March 26, 2007, 2:17pm | #
Thanks for the survey, that was a hoot!

I think we libertarians can do even better. Let's join with our progressive brethren and make fun of these Xians every chance we get. Let's mock those repressed religious freaks mercilessly and really piss them off!

Maybe Reason could put together a flyer making fun of them, and the rest of us could print it out and pass it out at churches. Maybe even buy some ads or something!

What say you, my fellow libertarians?

If only I wasn't at work right now, I'd Photoshop it just for you! Picture poster with whale tail showing...inscription: To ogle is to sin...banner on top: Whale Tails for Jesus - Exposing Sinners Since 2002

Trevor | March 26, 2007, 2:35pm | #

This is easy. Hot chicks, okay. Fat chicks, no way!

VM | March 26, 2007, 2:38pm | #

Good call, Gro!

and how each expression of ISST and sets of standards are culture bound.

And think of the ancient world. Minoans, Greeks, etc - you know much, much more about that than I do, so you can hopefully decipher my garbled speak :)

Ken Shultz | March 26, 2007, 2:41pm | #

"What say you, my fellow libertarians?"

I say relegating ourselves to atheists is foolish.

Your Good Buddy Johnny Clarke | March 26, 2007, 2:43pm | #

I would hope that libertarians would respond to that survey with "Mind your own business you nosy bastard."

Madog | March 26, 2007, 2:44pm | #

I'd have to agree with those 621 who said that a girl's underwear should never show. Because if she's not wearing underwear then there's nothing to see...

Grotius | March 26, 2007, 2:45pm | #

VM,

Well, scenes from Homer's Iliad on pottery show the individuals involved in those events fighting naked. In the ancient world people would also wear jewelry shaped like sexual organs. Of course in Aristophanes' Lysistrata much of the play features guys running around with huge engorged cocks because their wives won't have sex with them until the war ends.

Grotius | March 26, 2007, 2:48pm | #

VM,

And of course early modern playwrights used swords as a means to demonstrate the, hmm, masculinity of male characters.

Grotius | March 26, 2007, 2:50pm | #

VM,

Remember the South Park episode that featured Al Gore? In the caves they go into the various featured cave formations look like, well, dicks. When I saw that I thought, man those look like sculptures often found in classical locales. ;)

Grotius | March 26, 2007, 2:53pm | #

Anyway, in some ways ancient Greeks and Romans weren't remotely as prudish as those of us in the modern West can be. Then again, we also don't generally urinate and defecate in the street (or throw our pots full of urine and feces in the street).

Grotius | March 26, 2007, 2:55pm | #

Or tie our unwanted children up to a tree in the "wilderness" and leave them for wild animals or slave dealers to get.

Stevo Darkly | March 26, 2007, 2:58pm | #

The bars show 18 "guys" strongly disagree and 621 strongly agree with the statement that girls' underwear shouldn't be on display.

621 out of 639 guys are gay?

NoStar | March 26, 2007, 2:00pm | #

Butt-Floss, aka thongs, are not sexy,

NoStar is gay???

JasonL | March 26, 2007, 2:27pm | #

I'm sorry, but the thong hanging out just shouldn't be done.

JasonL is gay?????????

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

"And I shall make you fishers of whale tails."

Lamar | March 26, 2007, 2:59pm | #

So what else is new. Reason proves that guys want girls to be sluts, except for their own girl.

VM | March 26, 2007, 3:03pm | #

Excellent points, Gro!

Stevo!

don't make us send her to dispense with proper discipline... (oh my! mercy!)
:)

Ken Shultz | March 26, 2007, 3:03pm | #

"All those pointy bras in the 1940s is enough to demonstrate this fact."

When the male/female ratio was lower, like during and after World War II, women competed with each other more aggressively, I think.

But as recent trends have played out, say hip huggers, for example, it seems to me like women are competing with media images. If so, then I'm not so sure Christian groups and others who target the media are necessarily barking up the wrong tree. ...It's just their methods that I have a problem with.

...but let me reemphasize, I can't think of how anybody could suggest that women in general--women who aren't even in a religious group, that is--have an obligation to consider how the way they dress affects men... I can't see how someone can suggest that and not have some kind of an issue, subconscious or otherwise, with women and freedom.

VM | March 26, 2007, 3:06pm | #

"Either way, women should dress with men in mind only if they want to. ...No one should dictate to women how they should dress."
QFT!

The Wine Commonsewer | March 26, 2007, 3:08pm | #

Grotius, thanks for the elaboration.

TLB, pissing off Christians is a libertarian avocation. I think there is a chromosome somewhere with a drug addled and slightly altered gene that's responsible. :-)

In reality, although I enjoy beating up on the religious from time to time, I think that libertarians (et al) use an awfully broad brush to paint these guys evil. Most of the religious people I know look and act pretty normal. My kids play with Adventists who don't eat meat, Catholics who eat meat on Fridays, and other assorted trendy fundies who make church easy and fun. Then my kids ask why they can't go too.

We are beating on these guys up for trying to live up to their own standards of morality and behavior. And yes, when they begin to impose that morality by force of law, they deserve it. But a simple attempt to live by your own freely chosen morals is of value.

It's analgous to your buddy telling you how stupid you are for not doing that little drunk hottie that has been coming on to you all night. It's not that the thought doesn't cross you mind, but you said I won't when you said I Do.

D.A. Ridgely | March 26, 2007, 3:10pm | #

As Tom Lehrer once sang, "Properly construed, everything is lewd." Since we're dealing with straight lines and circles, it isn't hard to read Freudian implications into anything. So, also, the survey just goes to prove that these Christian kids have sex on their minds. I'm shocked.

Oh, TWC, I'll take that bet. Giving odds?

And VM, I found the "Worst Family Photo Ever" after a bit more digging and posted it here.

Grotius | March 26, 2007, 3:10pm | #

...have an obligation to consider how the way they dress affects men...

Men and women (gay, bi or straight) dress particular ways in part because of our biology. I don't know if that is an "obligation," but it is an aspect of our nature.

The Wine Commonsewer | March 26, 2007, 3:13pm | #

"And I shall make you fishers of whale tails."

Threadwinner.

Grotius | March 26, 2007, 3:13pm | #

By "particular ways" I mean in ways that attract. The particular fashion of the day is as variable as the sands on the beach.

The Wine Commonsewer | March 26, 2007, 3:16pm | #

DA, are thinking that Ron Bailey will or won't back me up on my theory?

Nice family photo, I liked VM's better though.

Grotius | March 26, 2007, 3:17pm | #

The Wine Commonsewer,

Given the general public rhetoric that comes out of the mouths of many religious persons (though not all certainly) stuff like this as a rule is fair game as much as what the members of any ideology say is fair game.

Grotius | March 26, 2007, 3:19pm | #

I also don't think that it matters whether a group of people advocate government meddling or not. The marketplace of ideas should mean at the very least that one should expect a certain amount of competition.

The Wine Commonsewer | March 26, 2007, 3:21pm | #

Gro, I think we tend to equate mouthy people like Dobbs and Falwell with the run of the mill religious person.

Then again, I do live in progressive and sometimes sunny Californicate, so maybe my perspective is skewed.

Grotius | March 26, 2007, 3:26pm | #

Do you mean Dobson?

Grotius | March 26, 2007, 3:28pm | #

Anyway, just as an example of what I mean, enough religious people put videos online that responses by Atheists seem perfectly appropriate.

D.A. Ridgely | March 26, 2007, 3:29pm | #

TWC, I'm guessing he would, as Bertie Wooster was wont to do, enter a nulli prosequi in the matter. I haven't seen VM's pic.

The Wine Commonsewer | March 26, 2007, 3:35pm | #

DA,

Your pix was funnier but VM's was interesting-er

Gro, yes I did mean Dobson, apologies to Lou Dobbs. :-)

TWC

VM | March 26, 2007, 3:41pm | #

DAR - terrific!

When looking for that on Images.google.com, I came across a pic of a lady in a burqa. Only a burqa. mercy!

TWC - :) I don't have the guts to post the pic named above!

Eric the .5b | March 26, 2007, 3:51pm | #

I think that libertarians (et al) use an awfully broad brush to paint these guys evil.

Not many people are calling them evil. I just think they're whiny.

Goldwater Conservative | March 26, 2007, 3:51pm | #

I'm not religious, but understand. It's fun to mock the religious, but women can't have it both ways. So many women dress like sluts and then complain that they are treated that way. If I put on a police officer uniform, I can't get angry with the assumption that I am a cop.

I'm a man and get aroused and that is my issue. However, many women dress as if that is their goal. Are many women so stupid to think that their low rise jeans, and cleavage are simply fashion statements?

If you dress/act like a whore, don't complain when you are treated like one.

I workout a lot and wear tight shirts. Why? Because my body is fucking hot, but I don't complain when gay guys give me a look, because I dress like a gay gym whore.

Jennifer | March 26, 2007, 3:56pm | #

If you dress/act like a whore, don't complain when you are treated like one.

Tell that to some Saudi tart who's getting lashed for showing her sexy ankles in public.

VM | March 26, 2007, 3:57pm | #

goddamn! I thought that was you, AuH2O! cool!

Your ride is pretty sweet, too!

The Wine Commonsewer | March 26, 2007, 4:03pm | #

Eric.5

Whiney, yes. Today, we're just having fun. But, oh, Eric, sometimes it gets pretty intense. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd say that generally speaking libertarians think the religious range from nutty to pathetic and are mostly evil. There is no doubt that the Randian faction sees evil.

As Mrs TWC says, it isn't like they don't deserve a good mocking now and again.

LarryA | March 26, 2007, 4:03pm | #

When I was a teenager (1960-1967) women did not show underwear. It was unusual to find photos of women's underwear unless you were searching for them.

I don't recall any resulting lull in horniness.

Grotius | March 26, 2007, 4:05pm | #

TWC,

Yeah, but we mock Randians here too. ;)

D.A. Ridgely | March 26, 2007, 4:08pm | #

When I was a teenager (1960-1967) women did not show underwear. It was unusual to find photos of women's underwear unless you were searching for them.

Which was as easy as picking up the Sears, Wards or J.C. Penny's catalogs that came in the mail. Alas, Victoria's Secret was still a secret.

brotherben | March 26, 2007, 4:18pm | #

I retaliate at church by wearing a thong and letting it ride high. I am middle age, fat hairy, bald (I dont want to hear a single woof)and it seems to have gotten the point across to the young Lewinskis in training. They are being more modest. Mysterious phone pics on the bulletin board in their parents sunday school class works pretty good too.

Boyd | March 26, 2007, 4:23pm | #

get a grip on your lives. Underwear are you joking? They have polls about this now?..and since when does being christian make you a fag,,i didn't know jesus or god didn't approve of the undergarments of females. Last time i checked Adam and Eve were both pretty much naked all the time..Stop sheltering yourselves and everyone around you and grow up. If 90% of the male world had their way all you christian radicals would never leave your house because of the evil that is underwear.

Karen | March 26, 2007, 4:27pm | #

I read the survey. The guys responding are teenaged boys. They get erections from viewing tomatoes in the produce aisle. (One of the commenters at Feministe quoted Buffy the Vampire Slayer: "I'm sixteen!! Linoleum makes me think about sex!") The only thing that could keep them from thinking about sex would be heavy sedation, and I'm not really certain about that. (Guys, any tips here? My older son is eight, so I need to start studying this.) Thus, my problem with the survey at all is that no one has apparently discussed the fact with these poor kids that they're just going to think this sort of thing, so learn to deal until the hormone years pass, and also, until that magic day when stacks of tires or watermelons don't cause boners, avoid doing something stupid. Instead, we have 600+ comments about whether swimsuits cause them to stumble.

I say this as an actual religious person. The fruits of the spirit as listed in Galatians 5:22-23 include self-control, so one could argue that these boys haven't been saved since that lack that essential manifestation of the Holy Spirit. I wouldn't argue that, since I'm not a fundamentalist, but from the perspective of the survey guys it's probably a valid position.

Finally, they probably wouldn't consider my church orthodox, since we're nice to gay people and all. Also, we were a SXSW venue. Playing the Devil's Music in our sanctuary disqualifies us from heaven, you know.

Boyd | March 26, 2007, 4:29pm | #

Furthermore, if they dress like sluts, obviously they have to be able to deal with the slander that may come afterwards. Those who can't deal with it shouldnt do it. But I firmly believe that they know they are dressing slutty and therefore can and do deal with it. They may not like to be called sluts, but who would. Obviously they aren't just gonna take it, so expect backlash. Agian, just because you dress like a skank doesn't mean they act like them, its fashion and it seems to me everyone is looking way to far into the issue.

jimmydageek | March 26, 2007, 4:34pm | #

I read the survey. The guys responding are teenaged boys. They get erections from viewing tomatoes in the produce aisle...

...so learn to deal until the hormone years pass, and also, until that magic day when stacks of tires or watermelons don't cause boners...

And, at what age does this 'magic' occur?? I'm 28 and still get boners outta nowhere...

brotherben | March 26, 2007, 4:34pm | #

Karen,
Brilliant point about self-control.

jimmydageek | March 26, 2007, 4:37pm | #

I say this as an actual religious person. The fruits of the spirit as listed in Galatians 5:22-23 include self-control, so one could argue that these boys haven't been saved since that lack that essential manifestation of the Holy Spirit. I wouldn't argue that, since I'm not a fundamentalist, but from the perspective of the survey guys it's probably a valid position.

Ma'am, you try being a guy for one day, and you try controlling your boners!

Karen | March 26, 2007, 4:38pm | #

brotherben, thanks. I grew up in rural East Texas and went to a very conservative church. A good grounding in religion can be very useful.

Boyd | March 26, 2007, 4:41pm | #

this debate is going nowhere, fundamentaly religious people are crazy. That's it. That's all. To believe that God or Jesus even gives a flying fuck about this issue is insane. You would think all the other shit he might have to deal with would be a bit more pressing than whether or not undergarmentss are shown. Just think about it for a second. Its mind blowing. There must be a lack of hope in your lives if religion plays this much of a roll. I mean everyone needs something to believe in but the notion of religion is basically a widely accepted cult. So eat your bread and drink your wine and pray that everyone can be saved.

dhex | March 26, 2007, 4:49pm | #

"If you dress/act like a whore, don't complain when you are treated like one."

it's good to know that clothing gives others license to abuse.

hooray for the tyranny of the majority, eh?

Pepe | March 26, 2007, 4:50pm | #

"slutty" and "skanky" is a matter of opinion, isn't it. If a large enough percentage of young women are wearing their underwear this way to the point that it has become normal than I don't think you can really say they are dressing like a slut. What's thought of as modest today would have been scandalous 50 years ago.

Ken Shultz | March 26, 2007, 4:50pm | #

"There must be a lack of hope in your lives if religion plays this much of a roll. I mean everyone needs something to believe in but the notion of religion is basically a widely accepted cult. So eat your bread and drink your wine and pray that everyone can be saved."

Nevermind thousands of years of culture and tradition. Forget the comfort religion may have brought you. Don't mind the existential panic of your youth, and your reaction thereto.

Boyd has spoken.

val | March 26, 2007, 4:59pm | #

Not in themselves, but they make calves more sexually appealing and can be a stumbling block with even a knee-length skirt.

I thought this one was funny. Its a response by a 26 year old, to the question: Are heels 2" and taller imodest?. Calf fetish...

The Wine Commonsewer | March 26, 2007, 5:02pm | #

Not into tall shoes myself, don't much like cattle either. Both are cultural, all chicks ran around barefoot in my day and I lived near a dairy.

rich | March 26, 2007, 5:07pm | #

well hell, when was the last time you saw paris hilton's underwear?

D.A. Ridgely | March 26, 2007, 5:23pm | #

The fruits of the spirit ... we're nice to gay people and all.

[Insert homophobic punch line here.]

Calf fetish...

We're having veal for dinner, Portnoy.

NoStar | March 26, 2007, 6:06pm | #

Just to set the record straight, I'll let this story speak for itself:

In 1967, I was 12 when my mother asked me what I thought about miniskirts.
"Uh, I'm not sure." I replied.

"That surprises me," She said, "Being your father's son, I thought you'd like them."

I answered, "Oh, I like them alright, but sometimes they make me awfully nervous."

I can tell you that nothing has changed in 40 years.

frank | March 26, 2007, 6:33pm | #

And uh, I happen to look over at a certain point during the meal and see a waitress taking an order, and I found myself wondering what color her underpants might be. Her panties. Uh, odds are they are probably basic white, cotton, underpants. But I sort of think well maybe they're silk panties, maybe it's a thong. Maybe it's something really cool that I don't even know about.

Goldwater Conservative | March 26, 2007, 6:57pm | #

hooray for the tyranny of the majority, eh?

It's got nothing to do with tyranny. I am not advocating government involvement. I am saying that a woman should be aware of what her clothes say. The whole point of tight/short clothing is to titillate. Being nude is another matter, there is nothing inherently sexual about nudity. Nudity is about as natural as you can get.

It's sick that young girls are dressing like whores in training. Women doing it is another matter. Thankfully, my womanfriend and soon to be fiance dresses like a respectable woman. She does dress sexy, but that is just for me and not everyman in the city. It may sound old-school but feminism seemed to forget that feminism was really about equality and choice, not just taking on the worst behaviors possible.

Does any boy want their mother dressing like a whore?

D.A. Ridgely | March 26, 2007, 7:00pm | #

Does any boy want their mother dressing like a whore?

Like Mama used to say, it takes a heap o' steady customers to make a home a house.

The Wine Commonsewer | March 26, 2007, 7:18pm | #

DAR, you are on a roll.....the Portnoy crack was priceless.

Not sure that all girls are dressing like whores in training although some probably are.

I nearly failed 9th grade algebra because of the mini skirt.

The Wine Commonsewer | March 26, 2007, 7:19pm | #

Does any boy want their mother dressing like a whore?

Vice is nice, but incest is best.

Whoa, that's really bad.

J Golden Rockwell | March 26, 2007, 8:01pm | #

I would have gone with the "shouldn't show" group. It's trashy. I much prefer women who attract and hold my attention without resorting to vulgarity, and have passed by several relationship opportunities in the decade since my divorce due to a simple lack of class on the part of the women.

I call this the "Lenny Bruce Conundrum." If you look at Bruce's act, he really wasn't very good. He covered that up with a layer of profanity, like covering last month's meat with today's chili sauce. Today, most comics sound just like him, and the language is just plain worthless. The more profanity, generally the less imagination in their acts. It sometimes seems like they use those words in place of "Duh" -- they want to make some kind of sound while they try to find something else to say.

There are exceptions, such as Robin Williams, where the language just seems to fall out, but I'll walk past a free Williams show to pay to see Bill Cosby.

Likewise, I would much rather see a lady who doesn't think that the only thing attractive about her is her underwear.

highnumber | March 26, 2007, 8:08pm | #

I call this the "Lenny Bruce Conundrum." If you look at Bruce's act, he really wasn't very good. He covered that up with a layer of profanity, like covering last month's meat with today's chili sauce.

What Lenny Bruce are you talking about? Not the insanely insightful social satirist.

Goldwater Conservative | March 26, 2007, 8:24pm | #

Not the insanely insightful social satirist.

Insightful doesn't mean funny as a stand-up. To be honest, I think he would have been better in a different medium (a la H.L. Mencken, Ambrose Bierce). Social satirists need time and thought and the pace of a stand-up act is not conducive to that. Lenny Bruce was a martyr but he was he really "funny"?

Is Seinfeld really funny? Or is he one of those people who just gets "it" before we got "it" and we think, "Oh shit, he gets it!!!"

D.A. Ridgely | March 26, 2007, 8:36pm | #

Lenny Bruce wrote quite possibly the best joke ever:

"My mother-in-law broke up my marriage...

my wife caught us in bed together...

she yelled "Pervert!"...

"Pervert?" I said, "What do you mean? ...

She's not my mother!"

Confederate Railroad | March 26, 2007, 8:37pm | #

I like my women just a little on the trashy side,
When they wear their clothes too tight and their hair is dyed.
Too much lipstick an' er too much rouge,
Gets me excited, leaves me feeling confused.
An' I like my women just a little on the trashy side.

Shoulda seen the looks on the faces of my Dad and Mom,
When I showed up at the door with a date for the senior prom.
They said: "Well, pardon us son, she ain't no kid.
"That's a cocktail waitress in a Dolly Parton wig.
I said: "I know it dad, ain't she cool, that's the kind I dig."

The Wine Commonsewer | March 26, 2007, 8:38pm | #

DAR, until right now, I did not think Lenny Bruce was funny.

TWC

The Wine Commonsewer | March 26, 2007, 8:42pm | #

The Man In Black on Lenny Bruce

TWC

D.A. Ridgely | March 26, 2007, 8:42pm | #

Bruce was very funny early in his career, though it was a hip, cool sort of humor, and unfortunately much less funny toward the end of his life by which point he became obsessed with his trials. If you listen to the early recorded routines (available on CD, btw), you'll note he didn't use all that much profanity even by 60s standards in much of his material. And when he was vulgar or profane, which he certainly was on occasion, the routine usually called for the words in question. The point is, he didn't "work blue" as did, for example, Redd Foxx, and as altogether too many lesser talents today.

highnumber | March 26, 2007, 8:43pm | #

I'll grant you that Bruce was not funny in the sense that stand-up comedians are funny, but he was good. His act was good. The pace of his act was an integral part of that.
And he was funny:

"If Jesus had been killed twenty years ago, Catholic school children would be wearing little electric chairs around their necks instead of crosses."

"I sort of felt sorry for the damn flies. They never hurt anybody. Even though they were supposed to carry disease, I never heard anybody say he caught anything from a fly. My cousin gave two guys the clap, and nobody ever whacked her with a newspaper."

Funny.

D.A. Ridgely | March 26, 2007, 8:52pm | #

Yeah, I think Mr. Gillespie is wrong in his appraisal, but it is ultimately a matter of taste. Bruce was never uproariously funny the way, say, Prior at the top of his game could be. But there are culture shift problems here that warp our own ability to appreciate him in his generation. Listen to cutting edge jazz from Louie Armstrong's Hot Fives and it doesn't sound so revolutionary today, but it was then and anyone hearing it back then knew it. Same with Bruce for his era, and he got a big reaction, too.

But Bruce started taking himself way too seriously eventually, plus he was, in fact, persecuted by the police and courts. (Persecution aside, the same sort of argument can be made about Hitchcock after the French critics declared him a genius and his work went downhill after that.)

I'm not saying Bruce was the funniest comedian ever or even that he was the most influential (though he is certainly among the most influential, sometimes for all the wrong reasons). But anyone who contends he wasn't funny at all is, in my opinion, simply wrong.

highnumber | March 26, 2007, 8:54pm | #

DAR,
Yeah, the later Lenny recordings are very interesting, but as he speaks more and more about his trials, he's less and less funny. I'd still listen to his trial stories over Jello Biafra's (and I enjoy Jello).

A lot of Lenny Bruce is also available on eMusic.

Goldwater Conservative | March 26, 2007, 9:28pm | #

Bruce was influential, in fact, his direct descendant is George Carlin and it shows. The persecution of Carlin(the 7 words you can't say) was far milder than Bruce's. I give Bruce his respect as a free-speech martyr and recognize he was a godfather of a line of comedians so wide that Jon Stewart and Lewis Black can be traced to him.

The Wine Commonsewer | March 26, 2007, 9:42pm | #

Hey Karen, Mrs TWC is in your home town and she says it's raining cats and pigs. I sent her off to the airport early this morning without a fresh cup of coffee, which relegated her to some dreadfully bad airport coffee, laced with sugar and white paint. That is nigh on unforgivable and I have felt guilty all day.

Karen | March 26, 2007, 10:07pm | #

TWC, she'll be lucky to get home tonight. It's been raining for nigh on five hours and likely to continue for about that long again. On the bright side, Bergstrom Airport does have some really good restaurants, including, I think, an Austin Java, which serves actual freshly-ground coffee. Still won't make up for your failure this morning. I think you'll have to provide jewelry to fix that problem. At least a good bottle of wine.

Seriously, hope she gets home at something remotely resembling reasonable. Bergstrom isn't quite Gitmo -- the one in Atlanta, however, is another story -- but it's still an airport, with all the charm that implies. I'll send good thoughts.

dhex, masochistic liberal | March 26, 2007, 10:20pm | #

"It's got nothing to do with tyranny. I am not advocating government involvement. I am saying that a woman should be aware of what her clothes say."

previously:

"If you dress/act like a whore, don't complain when you are treated like one."

let me underscore "don't complain" in reference to when someone else decides to push their will upon you.

do i disagree that people should know what the score is? of course not. people are fucked and men don't respect the sovereignty of women. (which is far less important than whether one approves of how someone else dresses)

do i accept the premise? no, because it is bullshit. men heckle and catcall; this is partly class-based and partly safety in numbers. it is bullshit, and it is underscored by two somewhat complementary memes.

1) men cannot control themselves sexually or emotionally.

2) the only way women can avoid problems is by submitting to the implicit threat of violence and dressing as inconspicuously as possible.

way to make dworkin's point for her, dude.

dhex, masochistic liberal | March 26, 2007, 10:23pm | #

or in simpler terms:

sovereignty for women ends when a man's will begins!

Goldwater Conservative | March 26, 2007, 10:54pm | #

let me underscore "don't complain" in reference to when someone else decides to push their will upon you.

People push their will upon me all the time. Doesn't bother me, it only bothers me when the government, for which I pay taxes, decides to get involved.

The Wine Commonsewer | March 26, 2007, 11:27pm | #

Karen, thanks for the good wishes, fortunately she's going to be there another day talking to the legislature about school choice. In this case on behalf of virtual charter schools, which she thinks may become a viable option in Texas.

She is enjoying the rain and the green. Being we live in the Everbrown hills of So Cal and it hasn't rained this year, it is a treat for her to see some.

The Wine Commonsewer | March 26, 2007, 11:39pm | #

dhex, I see it a little differently. You ought to be able to walk through the bad part of town late at night and not get mugged. Women ought to be able to dress however they want without getting harassed, raped, fondled, or otherwise hassled. In both cases, prudence dictates being careful.

The reality is this: There are some men who are jerks, some who are dangerous, and some who will mistake freedom for an invitation. Taking that into account has nothing to do with being oppressed, it's more like using good sense.

Add to the mix that some women enjoy that kind of attention (catcalls, hoots, howls, gawking) and the argument falls apart.

Aside from that, with premises such as

1) men cannot control themselves sexually or emotionally.

2) the only way women can avoid problems is by submitting to the implicit threat of violence and dressing as inconspicuously as possible.

it is you who have made Dworkin's point.

Obviously most men can control themselves emotionally and sexually or every woman would be a victim. To think otherwise is, as you say, bullshit.

thoreau | March 27, 2007, 12:18am | #

Guys, we're missing the most important point of all:

Lonewacko posted here without saying a single word about immigration.

So here's the real question: What if a Mexican immigrant displays her underwear in a suggestive manner? Is she assimilating into American culture and hence no longer a threat to our sovereignty?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Goldwater Conservative | March 27, 2007, 12:19am | #

Women ought to be able to dress however they want without getting harassed, raped, fondled, or otherwise hassled

Everyone should be free of the initiation of force, but not everyone agrees with this. Clothes say something. It is how humans must operate by nature. If someone is alone and approached by someone who looks like a gangbanger they will behave differently than if he was dressed like a cowboy. Clothes are a statement, and sometimes that statement says "slut" and I see nothing wrong with someone using their right to free-speech to point it out.

Obviously most men can control themselves emotionally and sexually or every woman would be a victim. To think otherwise is, as you say, bullshit.

What is with emotion? If you think people can control themselves emotionally are depressed people making a lifestyle choice or something? Emotions are involuntary or else humanity has been dealing with sadness incorrectly since the beginning of time.

It isn't an issue of control. People have a right to have bowel movements, but don't complain if doing it in public or discussing it with a non-fetishist isn't disgusting. People don't control feelings of disgust.

The Wine Commonsewer | March 27, 2007, 12:50am | #

Gold, of course people can control their emotions. Or, more precisely, absent mental illness they can control how they respond to their emotions. Let me assure you that if I was unable to control my emotions I'd be on death row at San Quentin for killing some jack ass who desperately needed killing. And, I'm so pyscho that after the deed was done, I'd feel really guilty. So, maybe you're right.

I'm not clear where you're going with that line of reasoning but my response was to the Dhex claim that men cannot control themselves sexually or emotionally. His words, not mine, and I disagree with his premise. Not sure, but maybe you missed that.

Thow-row, thanks for a little levity. I missed Lone Whacko's post that wasn't immigration related.

Now, I've got to boot my kids into bed.

thoreau | March 27, 2007, 12:55am | #

TWC-

He's not posting as "Lonewacko" these days. He now posts as "TLB". Check out the 2:17 pm post.

LarryA | March 27, 2007, 2:20am | #

Ma'am, you try being a guy for one day, and you try controlling your boners!

My father set me straight on that excuse fifty years ago. You can't control getting boners, but you can control what you do with them.

Stevo Darkly | March 27, 2007, 2:46am | #

So here's the real question: What if a Mexican immigrant displays her underwear in a suggestive manner? Is she assimilating into American culture and hence no longer a threat to our sovereignty?

Give me your tired, your poor, your hot, hot Latina hootchie mamas.

thoreau | March 27, 2007, 8:05am | #

Nicely done, Stevo!

Todd Frye | March 27, 2007, 8:41am | #

One day a little girl came home and showed her mother a dime. "Where did you get that?" her mother demanded.

"A man game it to me, to stand on my head."

The mother was horrified. "Oh, you rat. Don't you know he just wanted to see your underwear?"

The next day the little girl came home with another dime. "What did I tell you yesterday?" demanded her mother.
"Don't worry," the girl assured her. "I wasn't wearing any underwear!"

The Wine Commonsewer | March 27, 2007, 9:41am | #

Thanks Thow-row and I even responded to his comment, not knowing. Of course, I would have commented anyway.

Stevo, that was excellent.

Todd, you could go to jail for posting that.

Man, we had a storm blow in here this morning, it just flipped the table over on the deck and slammed it into the wall. Sounded like a truck drove through the wall.

dhex | March 27, 2007, 9:55am | #

"Add to the mix that some women enjoy that kind of attention (catcalls, hoots, howls, gawking) and the argument falls apart."

most do not, however.

i may have mis-written - i don't buy the idea that men cannot control themselves. but i think that's what's being reinforced by the "don't dress like a whore" thing (outside of the inherent sexism of reducing someone to semi-human status as an object).

that's part of life, obviously. but i also don't buy that clothing gives license to inherently abusive behavior. if you've ever watched a group of men yell at an attractive woman - dressed conservatively or otherwise - it's first and foremost a group bonding thing. (what the academic types might call "homosocial bonding") a "god damn" under the breath is one thing; "hey purple pants! purple pants where you goin'!" is another; the stereotypical construction worker "hey sweetie suck my dick" is of course, something else entirely.

keep in mind we also see a tiny bit of this phenomenon on this blog any time - and seemingly absolutely any time - a female author, pundit, etc is featured. their appearance is always factored into one, if not several comments, and often weighted as a further negative if the commenter disagrees with their position/cause/etc.

anyhoo, peep this:

http://www.hollabacknyc.blogspot.com/

how many of them were asking for it?

"Clothes are a statement, and sometimes that statement says "slut" and I see nothing wrong with someone using their right to free-speech to point it out."

see, the issue is that the person who decides to interject unsolicited opinions of this kind of nature - to insult or harass - is a fuckface. now, i'm decidedly racist against fuckfaces, so this may just be an issue with me.

dhex | March 27, 2007, 9:57am | #

"People push their will upon me all the time. Doesn't bother me, it only bothers me when the government, for which I pay taxes, decides to get involved."

somehow i don't think you get a lot of random strangers asking you for sexual favors or treating you like a piece of furniture - i may be wrong on this, so feel free to correct me.

dhex | March 27, 2007, 10:30am | #

ok, storytime:

i was riding the f train back from my mma class in queens on a rather cold and foggy hallow's eve when we hit 23rd and ely by queens plaza. there were five people on the train; an older black woman (mid 50s) who had gotten on a few stops before, presumably after getting off of work from some medical type joint - she had scrubs on under her long coat - was sitting across from me. down the way were two guys chatting in spanish, and one older dude reading a post down on the end. at this stop, a very drunk 30-ish something guy gets on, sits down and starts doing the drunk guy talking to himself routine.

at some point between that stop and 63rd/lex (five minutes?) he turns to the woman, who is minding her own business, and starts yelling at her. he gets to a choice line - "can you hear me? no one wants your wrinkled old smelly pussy, you fucking bitch." that's when i got up in his face and, luckily for both of us, he got off the train at the next stop.

maybe she was asking for it too?

and you should hear some of the vendors at fundraisers i work at; anything under the age of 30 will invariably get deeply inappropriate comments with utterly no provocation. why? because they can't fight back against guests. i watched some old fucking waste of space follow one co-worker back to our taxi promising to bring her to paris that evening. he'd been following her around all day.

because women aren't fully human in the eyes of everyone, unfortunately; and due to the general disinterest of others in getting involved, relatively non-violent harassment gets a free pass, and perhaps even worse is born from that.

to blame this on skimpy clothing seems impossibly ignorant of history. it's far deeper than that. (bloom on the beach comes to mind, actually...)

ellipsis | March 27, 2007, 6:41pm | #

Holy shit! I actually know the two dweebs that did this web site. Off the rails is putting it mildly. They seem to hold the belief that any male/female interaction before marriage is wrong. Which kind of makes it hard to get married.

They've been spared the wedgie they deserve because they were homeschooled. But I can give out addresses to rectify that situation.

ellipsis | March 27, 2007, 6:58pm | #

Also notice the woman with the veil at the top. That's not by accident. We're talking about the mullah wing of the fundamentalist theology.

I can't rule out secretly gay. When you're 35 and still not married, something is definitely going on.

Shem | March 27, 2007, 7:18pm | #

Humans have been figuring out ways to demonstrate their individual superior sexual traits since we came down from the trees. All those pointy bras in the 1940s is enough to demonstrate this fact.

Please don't mention those. I get a bad image of Santa and an elf chanting "You'll shoot your eye out..."

Shem | March 27, 2007, 7:24pm | #

Guys, any tips here? My older son is eight, so I need to start studying this.

Just hope he discovers the joys of "alone time" fairly quickly, otherwise he's going to spend several years in a very...high-strung state. Even then, he probably won't calm down until his first serious girlfriend. The best thing you can do is gently advise him on how to keep from looking like a freak in front of the girls that he interacts with, since you were there on the other side and you know how they'll react and what'll send them running in the other direction. I'm still thankful to my parents for telling me all the creepy behaviors to avoid while dating.

bachelor | March 28, 2007, 3:20am | #

ellipsis:

"When you're 35 and still not married, something is definitely going on."

Does that apply to anyone, or just to people who oppose any interaction between the sexes prior to marriage?

Manchester | March 28, 2007, 4:13am | #

ellipsis:

How the heck did you manage to know these guys?

And I thought they were 17 or something. 35?

ellipsis | March 28, 2007, 1:58pm | #

bachelor: Option 2

Manchester: Sorry, I was referring to their oldest brother, who's my age. How I know them is a long story, but let's summarize by saying they live near me.

Manchester | March 29, 2007, 4:14am | #

ellipsis:

Oh, got it. You mean this dude? Says on his website he got married like 9 years ago. Whatever.

Hehe, if you ever feel like sharing the story about how you know these modesty guys, shoot me an email. I've been looking at their site some more and it's... Sheesh.

WOWGOLDS | April 6, 2007, 4:20am | #

Welcome to our website for you World of Warcraft Gold,Wow Gold,Cheap World of Warcraft Gold,cheap wow gold,buy cheap wow gold,real wow gold,sell wow gold, ...Here wow gold of 1000 gold at $68.99-$80.99 ,World Of Warcraft Gold,world of warcraft gold buy wow gold,sell world of warcraft gold(wow gold),buy euro gold wow Cheap wow gold,cheapest wow gold store ... buy euro gold wow wow gold--buy cheap wow gold,sell wow gold.welcome to buy cheap wow gold--cheap, easy,world of warcraft gold wow gold purchasing.World of Warcraft,wow gold Super ...
We can have your wow gold,buy wow gold,wow gold game,world of warcraft gold, wow Gold Cheap wow, Cheap wow gold,world of warcraft gold deal,Cheap WOW Gold ...

Welcome to our website for you World of Warcraft Gold,Wow Gold,Cheap World of Warcraft Gold,wow gold,buy cheap wow gold,real wow gold,sell wow gold, ...
Here wow gold of 1000 gold at $68.99-$80.99,World Of Warcraft Gold,gold wow buy wow gold,sell world of warcraft gold(wow gold),buy gold wow lightninghoof instock Cheap wow gold,cheapest wow gold store ...
wow gold--buy cheap wow gold,sell wow gold.welcome to buy cheap wow gold--cheap, easy, wow gold purchasing.World of Warcraft,wow gold Super ...
Wow gold- Gold for buy gold wow lightninghoof instock EU-Server: ...wow Gold EU: starting from 84,99?; 3000 WoW Gold EU: starting from 119,99?. wow Gold- Leveling Services: ...
We can have your wow Gold,buy wow Gold,gold wow wow Gold game,wow gold, Cheap wow Gold, Cheap World of Warcraft Gold,world of warcraft gold deal,buy cheap wow gold,Cheap WOW Gold ...

Here wow Gold of 1000 gold at $68.99-$80.99,World Of Warcraft Gold,buy wow Gold,sell world of warcraft gold(wow gold),Cheap wow gold,cheapest World of Warcraft Gold store