Moist and Twisted

As far as I can tell, all of the Western world is in denial about the temptation of women to lust. We are the proverbial fish, and female lust is the feel of wet. For women still under the pull of the red tide, they are tempted to view everything from a sexual perspective. Ev-er-y-thing. Those beyond it are sympathetic, even wistful.

Every piece of clothing is measured on its sex appeal. Every purchase is made either in congruence with, or in opposition to, its sexual connotation. Every interaction with a man is investigated and dissected for sexual content. If it’s there and desired that’s good to that woman. All other combinations disappoint in some way.

Everybody understands that sex sells, and everybody understands that women are the target audience for the great majority of advertising, but nobody puts the two together.

It is the same among Christians, but we add a twist: When women dress, behave, or speak lewdly, we blame men for noticing the lewdness. We accuse those men of lust. But it is at least the second act of lust, because the desire to attract illicit sexual attention in the first place just is lust.

Advertisements

Escaping Androgyny by Mimicking the Brothel

Today, after the Sexual Revolution, the way we can tell a woman is wearing women’s clothes  and not men’s, is that there are designs on her ass.

But the most common way [for conservative women] of affecting a difference in dress from their male conservative counterparts was for women to wear jeans with rhinestones pasted on the seat. There were as many sparkly designs on butts as there are women, and more available in booths. It must be said that there can be no reason for sparkles on an ass except to call attention to the ass; which is immodest, exhibitionist, and ungodly.

Yet one of the common sparkly ass designs were rhinestone crosses.

Take a look at dress patterns from any period you like before ours. What you won’t find are patterns on the ass alone.

Said another way: The way we can tell a woman is wearing women’s clothes, and not men’s, is that she asks us to make designs on her ass. That is the cost of failure to keep women from men’s clothes.

Why Everyone is Married to a Peppermint Patty

In a follow-up comment to my post “But Pants Aren’t in the Bible!” I asked a simple question: “Blue jeans, tee shirt, ball cap, sneakers. Whose outfit is this?”

Derek didn’t get it. Instead of answering the question he tried to be cute:

Wool socks, snow boots, heavy winter coat.

Who’s outfit is this?

But I pressed him back to the question and he explained why he can’t answer it:

@Cane Caldo – “It is a simple question. Why can’t you answer it?”

Because it’s a loaded question, just like mine is. If I change your question to this: “Blue jeans, t-shirt, pink bra, cap, sneakers, hair bow. Whose outfit is this?”, then the answer is immediately different.

It is obvious that what constitutes women’s or men’s garb is subjective to a society. It is also subjective to both the situation and intention. The latter two are more important than the former because they are more specific.

If both my wife and I wear jeans, t-shirt, baseball cap, and sneakers to a baseball game, there isn’t anyone who would ever mistake me for a woman or her for a man.

Ah…the old “But My Wife” trick; coupled to the old “But everyone’s doing it!” gag.

Well, we wouldn’t dare to impede upon a woman’s desire to dress like a man while at a baseball game. After all: watching baseball is strenuous! Every woman in a stadium needs to look like a baseball player, wear brush resistant pants, and strip down to her undershirt to avoid sweat-stains on her blouse.

That’s what baseball caps were for: Men and boys who played baseball, and who identified with their favorite ball players. Blue jeans were invented as hard-wearing pants for men contending with the rugged terrain of the American West. Tee shirts are men’s undergarments. I’ll grant that there have always been athletic shoes for men and women, but even there I bet the trend went: Boys wore them casually first, then girls invaded. Sneakers aside: Ball caps, jeans, and tee shirts are all men’s clothing, and were intended to be so from the beginning.

Unlike those items: Wool socks were invented for both sexes. Snow boots were invented for both sexes. Heavy winter coats were invented for both sexes. Derek thought he was comparing apples to apples. He wasn’t. A ball cap, jeans, tee shirts, and sneakers used to be the casual uniform of the American Working Class Man until the Boomers ruined it with the Sexual Revolution. Now no one knows what women should not wear, and if they do, they won’t say it.

But Pants Aren’t in the Bible!

Repurposed from my comment under Dalrock’s post “Cross Dressing Snuck Up in Our Blind Spot”.

The fundamental issue of restricting men’s clothes from women is about whether or not it is acceptable for men (the heads of society) to exclude women. And the answer from everyone (but most egregiously from Christians) is: “No.”

These comments about women’s pants in Asia, or Roman men’s robes, are totally wrongheaded. Whether legs are wrapped versus draped, and which for whom, is a subjective decision of a society. However, subjective does not mean irrelevant, or unimportant. It means we should use our freedom to orient towards the good, the true, and the beautiful. That orientation is more important than whether or not we can suss out the Natural Law of Pants and Robes.[1] The search for the science of pants is a silly distraction used by the perverse and libertine to discredit and mock sound cultural standards and further the destruction of good order. They are like so-called environmentalists who uproot gardens so that weeds may flourish “naturally”.

The importance of holding subjective standards and symbols which (while themselves not objective truths) do point to objective truths and reality needs to be considered much more thoroughly than it is; even by men who think themselves as “seeing”, “woke” or “Red-Pilled”…including myself.

[1] Probably the natural law of human clothing is, “Be sinless and naked”.

A Trebling Delay

Novaseeker’s comment here reminded me of something I said recently, and I need to get a post out.

I noted to a friend recently that as a society we look totally wrong at the delay in marriage. If a woman is biologically capable of bearing children around 15, and if her fertility and ability to complete pregnancy starts to fall off around 30, then they only have about 15 reliable years.

We aren’t pushing marriage out a few years as if it was a fraction of time, but increasing it by orders of magnitude. For millennia, until the modern era, women often first married[1] in their teens. In the later 20th Century, marriage after college became the prescription. That is a delay of 7 years already: almost half of the 15 available. A woman who waits until 30 may be out of time. If she wants multiple children she takes a great risk. Delaying just a few years after age of majority (18) is not a great idea. It is a terrible idea to delay it to 25. A determined pause until 30 is insane.

Unless, of course, your goals are short-term pleasure, dishonoring your (future) husband, and the self-satisfaction of telling everyone, “They don’t know you”–which is the dominant message everyone signals to women.

[1] Widowhood was common.

Examining Crime with a Speculum

The other day Zippy Catholic wrote:

The most primal power of men is violence. Therefore the besetting sins of incontinent men tend to be sins of violence primarily, and to involve sex only circumstantially/accidentally.  A violent man will use violence to get sex that he desires, but he will also use violence to get other things that he desires: money, drugs, prestige, etc.  This decreases as individual power decreases: the besetting sins of incontinent men with diminished capacity for violence will tend to be more effeminate or androgynous sins.

[…]

This is reflected in prison populations, which are mostly men, because our society is willing to punish crimes of violence but is not willing to punish crimes of sex.

This is, basically, what I believed for years and it is what I was taught. However, it is a false–but seductive–dichotomy which is not actually true. And is not actually reflected in prison populations; 66.7% of which are non-violent criminals and only 33.3% are.

Criminals Imprisoned for Crimes of Violence

g Homicide, Aggravated Assault, and Kidnapping Offenses 5,596 3.20%
k Robbery 6,565 3.80%
l Sex Offenses 15,873 9.10%
m Weapons, Explosives, Arson 29,881 17.20%
33.30%

Criminals Imprisoned for Non-Violent Crimes

a Banking and Insurance, Counterfeit, Embezzlement 517 0.30%
b Burglary, Larceny, Property Offenses 8,171 4.70%
c Continuing Criminal Enterprise 387 0.20%
d Courts or Corrections 802 0.50%
e Drug Offenses 80,585 46.30%
f Extortion, Fraud, Bribery 11,231 6.40%
h Immigration 13,227 7.60%
i Miscellaneous 1,305 0.70%
j National Security 68 0.00%
66.70%

In fact, the most primal power of men is the ability to produce work, and the besetting sin of incontinent men is avoidance of productive work.  Here are the same stats grouped to reflect that.

Criminals Imprisoned for Unlawful Gain

a Banking and Insurance, Counterfeit, Embezzlement 517 0.30%
b Burglary, Larceny, Property Offenses 8,171 4.70%
c Continuing Criminal Enterprise 387 0.20%
e Drug Offenses 80,585 46.30%
f Extortion, Fraud, Bribery 11,231 6.40%
h Immigration 13,227 7.60%
i Miscellaneous 1,305 0.70%
k Robbery 6,565 3.80%
70.00%

Criminals Imprisoned for Gainless Crimes

d Courts or Corrections 802 0.50%
g Homicide, Aggravated Assault, and Kidnapping Offenses 5,596 3.20%
l Sex Offenses 15,873 9.10%
j National Security 68 0.00%
m Weapons, Explosives, Arson 29,881 17.20%
30.00%

It would be even more skewed than that if we could tease out from “gainless crimes” those crimes which were committed en route to unlawful gain; murder for hire, murder for drug turf control, assault for intimidation, kidnapping for ransom, sale of weapons or explosives, arson for fraud, prostitution, pimping, etc. The split is probably closer to 80/20 unlawful gain/gainless crime and possibly even 90/10.

What Zippy, tough-on-crime politicians, and my younger self were noticing was not “the most primal power of men”, but the most sensational. Violence can be scary to everyone, but it really scares the hell out of women. And the West is one giant gynecology office where every problem is a pussy problem.

 

When Women Will Loom Large

Yesterday I went to watch Blade Runner 2049.

There will be no spoilers in this post, but I can’t guarantee the same for the comments.

I liked it a lot, and if you liked the original then I will guess you’ll like the new one too. It is a beautiful and legitimate science fiction film. It is not message fiction dressed up in sci-fi garb, but a long (164 minutes) visual question of, “What does it mean to be human?”

One of the themes of the film is that women are big players in this vision of the future (both figuratively and literally), but they are not at the very top. At the top is Niander Wallace, a handsome and white man of science who saves the world from starvation. But the lives of everyone under the very top are ruled, tempted, and overwhelmingly influenced by females, or their form.

I thought it quite probable.

A Caned Response to the Nashville Statements

Such is the case with the Nashville Statement, and the Nashville Statement Fortified. Read them and then come back.

The first says, basically, that:

  • men are men
  • women are women
  • marriage is only between one man and one woman
  • sex is only to be in marriage
  • homosexuality and transgenderism are not valid expressions of sexuality

I agree.

The second say basically the same things, but with addition declarations against effeminacy. I agree with that also. It is good to be against effeminacy, but a fortified version of a statement on marital and sexual relations is incomplete if it does not speak on how half of only two sexes are to behave! I have searched the NSF and it does say this under Article 3:

Explanation of changes: The original statement affirms the ontological equality of man and woman without also confessing man’s headship. The order in which God created man and woman has ongoing application for the relationship between the sexes, as taught in 1 Corinthians 11:1–9. In an egalitarian age it is not faithful to confess the equality of Adam and Eve without also confessing Adam’s headship.

But where is the directive that wives must choose to obey their heads? Where is the article in which they deny that wives should be irreverent, rebellious, or usurpers? Where do they affirm that wives are to be sexually available to their husbands except for agreement of a limited time? What is more important to marriage than that the wife be submissive to her husband? These are serious and timely issues of marriage worthy of writing in these statements; more so than sodomy and transgenderism.  All the more so because they make us uncomfortable.

Until I see some evidence to the contrary, I am convinced that this current generation of church leaders will always refuse to allow women to be held to account in any way real. And as far as I can tell, this leadership believes that women can only really be guilty of bad feelings and regret.

Real Men Don’t Impede Her Desires

Men will set expectations for other men. They will say things like, “You’re not a real man if you don’t know how to change your own oil.”, or,  “A real man knows how to harvest game from the field.”, or, “Real men help women first.” They will hold such expectations on a regular basis, and they will invent new ones as needed to make a point about the importance of this thing or the other.

Men will also set limitations for other men. They might say, “A real men would never wear a dress.”, or, “Real men don’t play video games for hours.”, or, “A real man never hits a woman.” I trust you understand the dynamic of expectations and limitations to which I refer. They know that a man is a man. What they mean by real is good; good men will do these things and won’t do those things.

Now, once in a great while a man will set a very general expectation on women. If he is a bold Christian he might say, “The Bible says wives should submit to their husbands.” It’s hard to imagine a safer statement than that. The man himself hasn’t actually placed any expectation on women.  Yet even then he will surround it with quibbles and bromides and caveats and exceptions so that the plain and unoffensive statement has no practical meaning whatsoever; lest some man out there start to actually believe what the Bible says. But at least he made some vague attempt at something that might look like an expectation if it is seen at some distance in a dark alley on a moonless night.

What he will never, ever, do is say, “Women shouldn’t  _________.” You can fill in the blank as you like. It doesn’t matter because whatever it is that you think women shouldn’t do won’t actually be said. You can think of the manliest activity, and ultimately a modern man will reason that a woman must not be forbid to do it because she wants to, and because he refuses to stand in her way. Only jerks do that, they say; only a jerks makes a women forgo something she wants to do. He will marshal all forces of technology or rule available to ensure that she gets to try whatever she wants. Worse: He can’t explain why.

He can explain that he doesn’t allow his son to wear skirts even just once a year because it is unseemly for a man to wear women’s clothes. But he cannot explain why he lets his daughter wear a ballcap, jeans, and sneakers as routine. If his son is given a doll he will throw it out, but if his daughter is given a football then the municipal Pee-Wee league needs to give her a shot on the field. If his son picks up knitting needles his father will sneer and deride, but if his daughter picks up a gun then she will be able to defend herself. If his son puts on shorts he will be corrected to dress respectfully. If his daughter dresses like a slut she is merely expressing herself, and what man would dare to make a concrete pronouncement on modesty anyway? Who does he think he is?

They can’t draw a line anywhere around women; what women are, what women aren’t;  what women are to do, what women are not to do.Any man who can find a reason to let her have her way (any reason will do) is an enlightened hero. But any man who forgets himself and tries to put real material expectations and limitations on a woman is scorned as a misogynist and belittled as a wimp who can’t handle women. He will be told it’s not his place to say what his wife or daughter–or wives and daughters in general–are to do or not do.

This is one of the themes which I have come back to over and over. I talked about it with modest dress in sports, cowgirl crossdressing, pioneer women, women roaming malls and churches in various states of disrobe… Modern Christian men simply will not stomach the idea of actual, real, discriminating expectations and limitations on women; of telling them, “No.”

 

Go to the Mattresses, Female Edition

New commenter Joe was kind enough to drop some hilarious history here which does not speak well for the shield maiden trope.

During the late stages of the [American Civil] War, the town of LaGrange, Georgia, had an armed all-female militia unit which drilled with weapons and which mustered in the street apparently ready to fight when the Federals arrived. The Yank in command, a gentleman and a diplomat, sent a messenger under a white flag to tell them that their homes would not be burned and that (as I recall) “they could surely do more damage with their eyes than with their old squirrel-rifles”.) Reassured, they stood down. LaGrange was not burned, but in a touch suitable for the worst of novels, the Federal in command later married one of the members of the “Nancy Harts” girl militia unit.

Otherwise: They would have been slaughtered. The Union force was strong enough that the Confederate cavalry fled them; according to a link provided by Dalrock.

In mid-April 1865 Major General James H. Wilson led a Union raid on west Georgia. As the Union troops approached LaGrange from West Point, the local Confederate cavalrymen fled, and the Nancy Harts stepped in to protect the town.

…which was accomplished by entreating the Union soldiers to spare the town, and then surrendering to the strong handsome Union soldiers; even unto the mattress.