During an interview with right-wing pastor Carl Gallups on his radio show last week, writer Mike Shoesmith claimed that women “assault” men when they dress provocatively
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2017/10/26/christian-pastor...
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
"expressing outrage and confusion that women can wear whatever they want and expect to be treated like human beings."
>>So much for theistic moral ascendancy.
--------------------------------
"“Men are visually stimulated and unwanted stimulation should meet the basic definition of assault,”
verb
make a physical attack on.
Do some theists have their own dictionary I am unaware of?
--------------------------------
"women who dress in a suggestive manner are “guilty of indecent visual assault on a man’s imagination, which does cause mental anguish and torment.”
>>I've never suffered mental anguish or torment, and have no problem with women having complete autonomy over how they dress. He sounds like a bronze age bigot, and it's hard not see the causal link.
-----------------------------------
"“When a man sees a naked or partially dressed woman, a chemical reaction happens in his brain,” he continued. “Neurotransmitters like dopamine and serotonin are released, giving him an involuntary surge of pleasure."
>>When I hear apologists make senseless and moronic claims I suffer a surge of mental anguish and torment, but I generally get over it, and realise that if I want I can laugh ot off and walk away.
-------------------------------------
"Even a woman in a burqa can accidentally arouse a man if she flashes a bit of ankle."
>>>Well in many theocracies that have strict sharia law they have religious police to beat and whip women and girls who dare to fall foul of misogynistic religious dress codes. Perhaps he'd be more comfortable living in such countries? We could run some sort of exchange programme in western democracies where we unload misogynistic religious bigots, and in exchange take in women and girls who want more from life than being chattel and slaves to men's bigoted religious chauvinism.
----------------------------------------
"“We are just discussing what should be obvious,” Gallups insisted. “The science supports us in it.”
>>>Why must these religious morons always malign science?
--------------------------------------
"Good luck finding a citation for that paper."
>>>Well quite...
---------------------------------------
"These men don’t need scientific justification. They need psychological help."
>>Amen to that..
In a world where there's a god who forbids dirty thoughts and punishes people who have them with eternal torture, this guy's view makes total sense.
Just another example of religious evil impact on some poor minds.
I mean scripture says if your eye causes you to lust pluck it out. It doesn't say if the woman causes you to lust accuse her of assault.
Both solutions equally disastrous.
Debatable, but the object lesson being don't blame others for your own sins.
That only works if you believe lust is a sin. I would argue that you wouldn't be here if it wasn't for lust
"Debatable, but the object lesson being don't blame others for your own sins."
Isn't that the whole point of christianity, passing your sins onto future generations who've done nothing to deserve them, then torturing someone to death to pay for them.
This reminds me of the provocation defense in rape trials. Rapists and their lawyers would try to destroy the victim's reputation and suggest that she had brought the rape on herself by dressing or acting provocatively. Thankfully that stupid cruelty has been banned in civilized countries, but it seems to linger on in the minds of these pathetic bible-bashing farts.
Please tell us where this is happening... please
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/spain/12188773/Spain-rape-vict...
Spain, 2016.
And in my personal experience... When I was 16, a guy j*** off in front of me on the subway. The next day, I told my "boyfriend" at the time, and he got mad at me! and said that it was all my fault because I dressed a skirt that day.
Flamencabot,
Guys that do that are weak minded assholes! They have no self confidence so they fear everyone around them. I had a friend once( not very long) I was talking with his wife at a work Christmas party with my wife standing right next to me, she was laughing and he called her over and started getting mad "why the fuck are you laughing?!? Do you want to leave me for him" it was insane... I just met her that night and we were talking about how crazy kids can be. Some men are assholes.
Now personally I think women are beautiful and dressing provocative is an expression of that beauty, I find nothing wrong with sex at all so maybe I am an outsider here in America. I also see how men could be attractive as well, now I am straight but my wife has seen a good looking guy running by with no shirt on and she looks at him, I am not mad beauty is beauty I even said wow that's a good looking guy haha.
Once people stop the demonization of sex then and only then can we be free as humans to express natural thoughts and feelings.
The guy from your story on the subway 100% has a mental disorder, your boyfriend was an asshole.
Well said, @Burny. And yes indeed he was. Even though I was pretty young, luckily I knew he wasn't right at that time.
No. Where is it happening now. There are millions if not billions of horny teenager males who deserve to know where the action is.
No. Where is it happening now. There are millions if not billions of horny teenager males who deserve to know where the action is.
If a woman dresses provocatively does she do so obliviously or completely aware of her choice of clothing? It's a legitimate question. The answer will be avoided, the question itself deflected by accusing the inquirer of bigotry and all because the honesty of the possible answers are too uncomfortable to utter.
Here they are from my narrow view of such an outward display of behavior -
1. If she is incapable of understanding what provocation entails we can give her the high sign for innocence, but she necessarily gets badged as an air head. No one is that dumb.
2. If she is indeed aware of the nature of her intent then we have someone who wants to be provocative to men and be ogled for it. She will probably not complain about it.
3. If she is indeed aware of her intent but claims that she isn't interested in provoking lust in men, but rather in women, then we have a double standard insofar as she wants the attention from women but loathes it from men and thinks her manner of dress should not provoke men. She can openly complain loud and long about men ogling her at that point, with a convincing honesty in her accusations, and get an entire army of same-sex preference people behind her.
4. If she dresses in a manner that provokes men, but simply enjoys the style of clothing and dress, then she also gets an air head badge if she thinks men should not be provoked by her.
Provocative dress in one culture is matronly in another so without defining provocative relative to a culture we're shooting at paper targets.
I think the answer to that initial question is totally irrelevant.
I don't care if a woman is dressed bundled up in a robe, in a skimpy bikini, or completely naked. None of them give a man the "right" to force himself on her.
Well, I think that bird with the colorful fancy feathers is dressing provocatively and should be plucked!
Fear fuck sake, what is wrong with lust in the first place? It is normal, natural, and experienced by everyone who is not asexual. How or if one expresses that lust is what can result in inappropriate behavior. Apparently the pastor in this story is and knows only men who likely grew up hiding in the closet with the pictures in a National Geographic, mixing guilt and pleasure to the point at which they became inseparable.
That depends on what you call lust. I don't equate it with attraction, which is often physical. Lust has a certain negative connotation. You typically don't say you lust after your girlfriend or wife, no matter how sexually attracted you are to them, unless you're being poetic. But you can say you lust after someone else's girlfriend or wife; you can lust after people you know it would be inappropriate to pursue, or that would be disturbed if they knew how you felt.. Lust also has a rape-vibe to it, since its typically directed at people that don't want anything with you.
Apparently we have very different definitions of lust.
The negative connotations and "rape vibe" of lust are religious in origin, especially its inclusion in the so-called Deadly Sins by a bunch of twisted, frustrated celibates.
How like religion to devalue a powerful old word for a healthy, vigorous emotion. And yes, lust does belong in marriage/long-term relationships. In fact, those relationships start to die without it.
When was the last time you heard someone say "I lust after my wife?" The phrase just doesn't roll off the tongue naturally; its simply not used that way in common parlance. Not to mention that in all my studies of human behavior, not once have we discussed lust in marriage. Intimacy, yes; passion, yes; sexual attraction and satisfaction, yes. Lust, no. In fact, I just did a quick search through a few of my textbooks, the only example I found was a description of Freud's Oedipus complex, in which the son lusts after his mother. I'll quote it: "Furthermore, strong fears develop that the father may punish that lust by removing the son’s penis—thus, the phenomenon of castration anxiety."
You would think the word would get more attention, given that as you suggested, relationships start to die without it.
@John 61X Breezy: "When was the last time you heard someone say "I lust after my wife?" "
Well where I live people don't talk too much about intimate aspects of their relationships with strangers.
In all your studies of human behavior, have you not come across husband-wife friction that appears on the surface to relate to money worries or work problems, but in fact stems from deeply hidden sexual frustration?
You seem fixated on the word "lust". I'm talking about the emotion. If people don't use the word much today, it's probably because of the negative baggage piled on it by religions.
Finances can be a huge cause of friction among couples, as I'm sure sexuality can be as well.
However, there's no way to research sexual problems if they are hiding behind financial problems. That's the whole reason why Freudian psychology was abandoned. Because deeply hidden sexual frustrations are impossible to observe.
That's the whole reason why Freudian psychology was abandoned. @JohnB.
That, and that better theories came along. Also Freud, by today's standards, was a complete misogynist.
Frustrations may be as hard to observe as any other intimate human emotion and their causes and results, such as annoyance, sadness or phobias. I don't see no reason to think sexual frustration would be any different. Yet I can find several reasons to think why Freud was abandoned in most part, but remember that he wasn't abandoned at all. For instance, in the Frankfurt School, some influential philosophers kept and developed his legacy, such as Erich Fromm.
"When was the last time you heard someone say "I lust after my wife?" The phrase just doesn't roll off the tongue naturally;"
Does it have to be stated to be true? Lust means having a strong physical attraction to someone, I'd say that's a given for the vast majority of couples. Though I can see why adherents of a religion that arbitrarily claims the word is representative of a "sin" would be uncomfortable with it,, but then that is the real problem here, is a religious belief that makes no rational sense and demonises a perfectly natural sexual desire.
Notice that "natural sexual desire" has no negative connotation. Neither does "strong physical attraction." You need to account for the reason why religion would consider "lust" a sin, but not its alleged synonyms.
"You need to account for the reason why religion would consider "lust" a sin, but not its alleged synonyms."
Are we looking for something more complex than it being derived from a bronze age superstition that viewed men's sexual desire with suspicion, and women's with complete denial?
Who said lust was a sin? I certainly don't agree this statement is true
The bible.
Matthew 5:28 ESV
But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
James 1:14-15 ESV
But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.
@MCD: "Who said lust was a sin?"
Jimmy Carter:
"I looked on a lot of women with lust" and "committed adultery in my heart many times."
Pages