Out From Under the Umbrella

playing in the rain

Rotten Apples

33 Comments

image

Good girls don’t fall.

If you fall you’re rotten. You’re damaged goods. Temporary. And no one will really want you.

And please do not forget, your value is wrapped up in whether or not a boy wants you.

Don’t give up your chastity. One day one of those boys who has been partaking of the damaged goods will tire of that and suddenly desire your virtue.

He’s not damaged goods. You will be happy to have him. He is a gift.

Advertisements

33 thoughts on “Rotten Apples

  1. Just. Gah! Off to find my sick bucket. Where on earth did you uncover that ‘priceless gem’?

    Liked by 3 people

  2. Oh, gawd. I apologise on behalf of Christianity (sincerely: I do not intend irony here). I go and debate these things, and do what I can against them.

    Oddly enough, the first place I saw this gem was the blog “Word of a Woman”, a Christian woman delving into the more revolting parts of US Evangelicalism, and attacking them.

    Liked by 6 people

    • This keeps popping up on my Facebook news feed. Over and over I’ve seen this plastered with captions of how important this message is to impart to young girls.

      There is so much wrong with this graphic I could have gone on with a very long post about it.

      I’ve been holding my piece on that particular form of social media but if I see this one again I may not be able to.

      What an absolutely horrible horrible message to any young girl. First that ALL their value and worth is tied to their virginity and then that if they’ve lost there’s no getting it back and they’re worthless. Awful. Just awful.

      Thus kind of message is in large part what kept me in an abusive relationship for 20+ years.

      Ugh!

      Liked by 9 people

      • Most of my fbfnds are lefties, so I don’t see this sort of stuff. I wondered if Jono- Hello, Jono!- is English too, cos of the word “effing”.

        Onywye. Yes. Intelligence, achievement, even homemaking skills!!! are valueless without an intact hymen. The most prized girl would be the one her father had kept in a cellar, and never let out.

        Liked by 2 people

        • Never let out except to learn to cook, clean, and keep the household. Then immediately locked back up in the cellar.

          Liked by 3 people

        • Hello Clare Me mum was a Brit, but she died when I was 3. My father was Norwegian. They met here, in the U.S. after WW2. All my close relatives are in those countries.
          I know these ideas exist and I am happy not to see them very often. I tend to fight them with ridicule. The value of any woman is certainly not the condition of her hymen.

          Liked by 1 person

          • And how would the woman, a virgin at her wedding night, a housewife till her children graduated university, who had to ignore her husband’s serial adultery and who was dumped for someone younger when she was fifty, feel about this image?

            I love your use of language. “Me mum,” indeed. You must be good at absorbing a broad range of influences. I got some of my love of language from one grandparent’s cockney rhyming slang and another’s Scots dialect. Varying registers for fun is a gift.

            Liked by 1 person

  3. Blecch! How many women are psychologically damaged by being likened to low hanging fruit? Or any fruit for that matter. Not so sure I want to be someone’s “gift” either. Wrap me up and put a ribbon around me. I’m an effin’ gift!

    Liked by 2 people

    • It is a very damaging message. Once a girl or woman has given up her virginity she’s damaged goods. And she can’t change that, either. An apple can’t climb back up on the tree.

      But no matter how many apples that boy/man has sampled he’s the good girl’s hero. He’s not rotten. He’s not damaged.

      I’m so glad to hear this from a man’s point of view.

      Liked by 3 people

  4. 😦 This touches me personally and quite rawly Ruth — my daughter and how she was ‘raised‘. You probably have a very accurate idea. 😦

    Liked by 3 people

  5. The apples are a metaphor for eggs.

    A healthy fresh apple means a young fertile woman who is not riddled with STDs from having lots of promiscuous sex. She is also not carrying another man’s child. She has nice young healthy eggs and a well maintained incubator (womb).

    The rotten apples represent women who have had lots of sex and generally not looked after their health (their eggs and incubator). For most of history promiscuity was synonymous with pregnancy (no decent contraception) as well as STD’s (no decent sexual health clinics) as well as bastard children (no abortion clinics).

    Obviously a man looking for a wife is not going to want a woman already pregnant by another man, or a woman with bastard children to feed (who take resources away from his own future offspring), who might also be infertile due to STDs and has such a wide promiscuous streak she is likely to be unfaithful after they marry. What sensible man is going to choose all that over a woman who is sensible and mature enough to not get pregnant out of wedlock – and all the more fit and healthy as a result?

    So if a young woman wanted to compete for a decent husband – and most women did because living a single life was no fun in an age before electricity, phones, central heating, office jobs, roads, or wifi – she would have to compete with other women to attract the most dutiful, strong, capable, loyal man who was most able to provide her (and their future children) with resources and protection in such a brutal and unforgiving environment.

    Naturally, men about to sign a legal contract obligating them to provide for a woman for life would rather she NOT already be preggers with another man’s child or full of STDs which could make his own wiener turn green, and which also might make her infertile. Men looking for a long term relationship and mother to their children naturally desire young attractive, fertile, fit, healthy women as brides for this reason. So this is how women have always made themselves attractive to men – by either being that kind of woman, or at least presenting the facade of being that kind of woman.

    Women just looking for casual sex might go for a guy who is devastatingly handsome and thrillingly unpredictable/ unreliable… but when looking for a husband they tend to go for a more sensible and loyal man – even if he is more conservative and boring in bed

    Likewise men just looking for casual sex might go for for a sexy, slutty, licentious woman…. but when looking for a wife to settle down with they tend to go for a faithful, sensible, modest, fertile, healthy woman – even if she is more conservative and boring in bed.

    So yeah, both sexes need to prove they are not sluts/ scoundrels if they want to be considered viable husband/ wife material, and are worth more than just a one night stand. WOmen generally must present themselves as good apples (healthy eggs, good potential mothers) and men must present themselves as good tree climbers (good hard workers able to put food on the table and protect the family from harm).

    Women who are able to promote a youthful, fertile, untainted image (ie free from STD’s) have ALWAYS commanded a great deal of power in the sexual marketplace. They have always been able to choose from the very cream of men as a result. The more hostile the environment (lack of technology etc) the more women generally need to rely on men to survive, and naturally the more women compete for men … which is why a lack of technology almost always results in lots of woman wearing dresses and shawls acting demurely and conforming to traditional feminine gender roles…… all looking for the men who best conform to their traditional patriarchal/ paternalistic male gender roles. And these traditional roles are largely instilled in the next generation (both boys AND girls) by the mothers…. not least because the fathers tend to be out at work all day long ploughing the fields or mining the coal.

    This is why even today in the developed world so many women still go to such extraordinary lengths to make themselves appear to be the epitome of youth, innocence, health, fertility, naivety and wholesomeness…. often feigning a disinterest in matters of sex (implying they are virgins or at least haven’t had very much sex). They are trying to out-compete other women to attract the most desirable men.

    But in the modern age a lot of women are just too lazy to maintain this facade, and so they demand men judge their slutty behaviour as equally attractive as modest, chaste behaviour.

    The equivalent would be men demanding women value lazy, basement dwelling, computer gaming men who earn minimum wage as being equally attractive as rich, successful, driven men with a decent income and a nice house. Because to judge the first type of man as less desirable than the second is setting unreasonable standards for men to live up to!!!! LOL

    Like

    • OK, I’ll bite.

      The equivalent would be women educated to their potential getting good careers, then seeking an equal partner who was sexually compatible, to have children together; and a partner who trusted her because s/he loved her and knew her, rather than because her virginity could be proved by others.

      Liked by 5 people

    • The apples are a metaphor for eggs.

      That makes all the difference in the world! To know that women’s worth is tied up in her fertility rather than her virginity, what a relief!

      A healthy fresh apple means a young fertile woman who is not riddled with STDs from having lots of promiscuous sex. She is also not carrying another man’s child. She has nice young healthy eggs and a well maintained incubator (womb).

      Now young girls are reduced to incubators and the quality thereof.

      The rotten apples represent women who have had lots of sex and generally not looked after their health (their eggs and incubator). For most of history promiscuity was synonymous with pregnancy (no decent contraception) as well as STD’s (no decent sexual health clinics) as well as bastard children (no abortion clinics).

      For most of what history? American? I’m aware of the history. It was mostly about preserving property. Both women and children were viewed as property. I will tell you, though, knowing something of history, in Judaism children born out of wedlock are not bastards and there is no stigma associated with them. They are not looked down upon. Children born as the result of a forbidden marriage are called bastards or illegitimate. As for whether a man would want to marry, what in your words is a slut, that’s another matter altogether. Though I see no difference in that and marrying a widow who has children. But, clearly, children born out of wedlock are not worth anything, either, according to the logic of the above.

      Furthermore we are talking about here and now. In western civilization, at least, most women are familiar with safe sex options available to her and take precautions against STD’s. Heaven forbid she fuck up her incubator. She wouldn’t be worth a thing then! But, you know, there are things called tests for STD’s and most STD’s don’t affect fertility if treated appropriately. And heaven forbid a woman be in control of her own body and enjoy sex. What a crime!

      Lastly, about that, men get STD’s, too. And STD’s can cause infertility in men just the same as in women if left untreated. Are we assuming that because he’s a man, he’s used safe sex and she hasn’t? Or are we assuming he’s been saving himself for his wife? Can you not see the flaw in this logic?

      According to the Mayo Clinic:

      The reasons for infertility can involve one or both partners. In general:
      •In about one-third of cases, the cause of infertility involves only the male.
      •In about one-third of cases, the cause of infertility involves only the female.
      •In the remaining cases, the cause of infertility involves both the male and female, or no cause can be identified.

      Obviously a man looking for a wife is not going to want a woman already pregnant by another man, or a woman with bastard children to feed (who take resources away from his own future offspring), who might also be infertile due to STDs and has such a wide promiscuous streak she is likely to be unfaithful after they marry. What sensible man is going to choose all that over a woman who is sensible and mature enough to not get pregnant out of wedlock – and all the more fit and healthy as a result?

      You’ve clearly established the concept that a man wants his own property. No matter that he has quite possibly sired and entire litter out of wedlock. Oh, no, it’s only women who can do that. But let’s talk about this infertility business. More women are infertile due to other conditions such Thyroid disorders, Poly Cystic Ovary Syndrome, and other medical issues have nothing whatsoever to do with STD’s or promiscuity. Men have an equal number of health issues than can cause infertility having nothing whatsoever to do with STD’s or promiscuity.

      Enjoyment of sex and having multiple sexual partners before marriage is no indicator of faithfulness within a marriage. Prior to marriage no one, of either sex, has made any vow nor entered into any agreement. An indicator of faithfulness would be one’s ability to hold up the terms of a contract.

      Women just looking for casual sex might go for a guy who is devastatingly handsome and thrillingly unpredictable/ unreliable… but when looking for a husband they tend to go for a more sensible and loyal man – even if he is more conservative and boring in bed

      Likewise men just looking for casual sex might go for for a sexy, slutty, licentious woman…. but when looking for a wife to settle down with they tend to go for a faithful, sensible, modest, fertile, healthy woman – even if she is more conservative and boring in bed.

      Men are not called sluts for having multiple sexual partners. It is not looked down upon. In fact, he gets a big ol’ slap on the back and an attaboy. This is the double standard to which I am referring.

      Do you not see what you said here? A guy might be devastatingly handsome and thrillingly unpredictable. A woman is slutty and licentious.

      Now, when seeking a marriage partner it is definitely up to each individual to seek out those traits that make them compatible with one another. I have no problem with a man or woman who is conservative seeking out the same traits in a mate, whether that be financially or otherwise, but to not just insinuate, but come right out and say, that a woman who is in charge of her own sexuality and has enjoyed it is rotten, or less than, is absolutely insulting.

      So yeah, both sexes need to prove they are not sluts/ scoundrels if they want to be considered viable husband/ wife material, and are worth more than just a one night stand. WOmen generally must present themselves as good apples (healthy eggs, good potential mothers) and men must present themselves as good tree climbers (good hard workers able to put food on the table and protect the family from harm).

      Women need to be chaste. Men need to be hard workers. Got it.

      You do realize that most women do not need a man to provide for them, no? And do you see what you did here, again? Women shouldn’t be promiscuous as that has been your definition of what would make her a bad potential mother and ruin her incubator. Men need to hold down a job and carry a big club. His sexual promiscuity plays no part in either.

      Women who are able to promote a youthful, fertile, untainted image (ie free from STD’s) have ALWAYS commanded a great deal of power in the sexual marketplace. They have always been able to choose from the very cream of men as a result. The more hostile the environment (lack of technology etc) the more women generally need to rely on men to survive, and naturally the more women compete for men … which is why a lack of technology almost always results in lots of woman wearing dresses and shawls acting demurely and conforming to traditional feminine gender roles…… all looking for the men who best conform to their traditional patriarchal/ paternalistic male gender roles. And these traditional roles are largely instilled in the next generation (both boys AND girls) by the mothers…. not least because the fathers tend to be out at work all day long ploughing the fields or mining the coal.

      Women in societies where they are wearing dresses and shawls and acting demurely to conform to traditional gender roles to attract men who also conform to theirs do so largely because they are not allowed by the traditional men in their societies to get an education, drive a car, have a job. They try to allure a man because that is their very survival and they teach their daughters to do the same because it is their survival.

      Even here in America, yes, there are women who conform to that standard(dresses, shawls, headcoverings) because they are told that’s what their god expects from them. They are taught and indoctrinated that their only worth is having babies for their husbands, being a good wife and mother, pleasing their husbands with whatever he wants. As if that is all she is. She isn’t a human being, she is, as your so lovingly referred to her, an incubator and a helper. She has no dreams and aspirations of her own.

      This is why even today in the developed world so many women still go to such extraordinary lengths to make themselves appear to be the epitome of youth, innocence, health, fertility, naivety and wholesomeness…. often feigning a disinterest in matters of sex (implying they are virgins or at least haven’t had very much sex). They are trying to out-compete other women to attract the most desirable men.

      I will agree that the patriarchy is strong, women conforming to the desires of men, because it’s been drilled into them since they were children that they were worthless without men and that it was somehow their job to please them.

      But in the modern age a lot of women are just too lazy to maintain this facade, and so they demand men judge their slutty behaviour as equally attractive as modest, chaste behaviour.

      No, they aren’t too lazy to maintain this façade. They are exhausted from trying to maintain it. They aren’t demanding men judge their behavior as anything other than that of a human being. They want to be able to be themselves without judgment, yes. If a man is so narrow minded and intimidated by the thought of being with a woman who is sexually aware she likely wouldn’t want to be with him anyway. Each individual should make their own decisions with regard to that, but society shouldn’t be classifying women as less-than and rotten fruit because she has a mind of her own. She’s likely to find a compatible mate without the likes of you calling her a slut. If a man wants a woman who is chaste, that is his prerogative. It is not his prerogative to slut-shame a woman because she’s not up to his discriminating tastes. To each their own.

      The equivalent would be men demanding women value lazy, basement dwelling, computer gaming men who earn minimum wage as being equally attractive as rich, successful, driven men with a decent income and a nice house. Because to judge the first type of man as less desirable than the second is setting unreasonable standards for men to live up to!!!!

      I don’t think promiscuity and laziness are even remotely comparable. They.are.not.the.same.thing. Not all women, not even most women, are looking for a rich, successful, driven men with a decent income and a nice house. Most modern western women are looking for a partner; an equal partnership, both financially and sexually. Women want to get an education, are driven, and have a decent income and a nice house in their own right. Many male egos just cannot handle that.

      So, in summary, thank you for proving the gist of my entire point. In everything you said, women are only worth as much as their, preferably unused, incubator. Intelligence, loyalty, ambition, passion, and humanity are worthless.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Also, if you take this argument to its logical extreme, you have to conclude that with current technology, the optimal arrangement is for all women to be in sexual relationships with women only, and use men only as pre-screened sperm donors. Men spread disease far more easily than women do; female on female sex is far less likely to transmit STDs than heterosexual intercourse. It also has no chance of causing unintended pregnancies. This wouldn’t necessarily prevent straight partnerships. Men and women could still raise children jointly. The men would just have to, erm, take care of their needs privately. You know, to keep those apples shiny.

        Like

    • I can’t add anything to Ruth’s fine response, but yes the two largest flaws in all you’ve said here, are that you hold women to different standards than you do men. That is revealed in the language you use to describe woman who want to have a lot of sex and the words you use to describe men who like to have a lot of sex. And this leads to the overall bigger problem that you don’t see such memes or graphics being produced about men and their value related to fertility as you do about women.

      And yes you don’t want a woman to have STD’s. But where did that woman get her STD? Probably from a man? And he got it from a woman, and then that woman got it from a man. It spreads and both sexes are responsible and by your standards should be considered equally reprehensible and slutty. Yet you do not treat both genders equally.

      But here is something worth considering. What if this analogy is actually terrible because girls aren’t like apples at all. What if we instead treated women like they had value in of themselves without needing a boy at all. What if we focused on educating women and teaching them to be strong and moral and that they can live their lives how they want. There is nothing wrong with liking sex. It causes no harm to have sex with multiple partners as long as you do it responsibly. And if there is no harm, there is no immorality. What if a woman or a man wants to experiment in your youth with different people who have different sexual styles and preferences, and wants to settle down and have a committed relationship later? What if there is actually nothing wrong with someone who has a high sex drive, just like there is nothing wrong with someone who has a low sex drive?

      And what if, and I know this might surprise you, what if a guy climbs all the way to the top of the tree to get that better apple, but he lies to her, and throws her to the ground so she is now a single mother and considered “damaged goods” by people with your attitude?

      And here is a more insane possibility. What if ALL girls are apples at the top of the tree, but because they are treated as only worth something if a man finds them to be a good mate because they are “faithful, sensible, modest, fertile, healthy” so that any deviation from what religious fundamentalists see as virtuous immediately judges them harshly and puts them on the bottom, so that their whole feeling of self worth is so low now, that they are willing to take that shitty guy for a moment of sexual intimacy because their parents and community has made them feel like that is all they are? What if what they really want to do naturally is learn and grow to be intelligent? What if they want to have sex with men even without the socially constructed institution of marriage, which is not natural in any way and not be judged for their choices, and what they really need is to have someone teach them how to have sex responsibly, but instead they are failed by a conservative school system and conservative parents who are in denial about natural human sexual behavior and really just want to control women’s bodies?

      Liked by 2 people

  6. The tree/apple analogy, and the comment from curiosetta, has rendered me speechless.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Yep, you said exactly what I was going to say.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I was for a while. I wondered if curiosetta is male or female. As I read and this person seemed to be giving us a history (of sorts) I kept waiting for the “but now…” and it never came. Then I wondered if we’d been transported back to 1950. No one told me. I checked the date to see if it was,April 1st. No, that wasn’t it, either. Then I looked for the punchline to the obvious joke which never came. Hopefully this was some really good satire and I’ve been Poed.

        Liked by 1 person

  7. This might just be a sign of how tired I am, but I didn’t even first think of “fallen/top of the tree” as a virginity metaphor. I just thought generally about the message that there are inferior girls who the cowardly boys go after and superior women who the real men pursue. I heard that message a lot growing up, and it sounded affirming, but you know, in the long run it wasn’t healthy either. It taught me to deal with rejection by looking down on the people who rejected me, and the people who they chose instead. It taught me to look down on people who were simply looking for something else or interested in a kind of relationship that wasn’t what I was looking for. It taught me to look for a “superior breed” rather than seek out a person who was just more right for me.

    It’s funny how I used to think the secular world was so shallow, superficial and materialistic, but its only when I left the fundamentalists that I learned healthy attitudes towards relationships and dating.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Sorry, Lane, I disagree. My reasoning is because we do not see boys and men referenced in the way girls/young women are portrayed in this apple tree illustration.

      Like

      • Thanks for your response. I am not sure which part of my statement you disagree with, but rereading it after a long night’s sleep and some coffee that may be because I myself was not very clear.

        To give you some background, I had some troubles with pronouns here because I’m trans male, so I grew up hearing these speeches from a girl’s perspective but now I’m in a queer circle where gender rules have gone delightfully topsy turvy. So I defaulted to gender neutral language to contrast how I was raised with how things are now in my life. I realize also that the straight secular world does often follow a lot of the same gross ideas about male vs female sexuality that fundamentalist religions tout. And not that everyone who is gay or trans is totally enlightened and free of that by a long shot, but when you can no longer assume that the relationships are between men or women, or even that those are the only two genders in play, it gets a lot easier to just see everyone involved as a person looking for other people.

        Hopefully that cleared things up. If not, and you were objecting to some other part of what I said, please let me know. Thanks!

        Like

    • Well, now, I see what you’re saying here, but I have to question what makes the girls you referred to inferior. And what made the boys who went after them cowardly? What was it that made you, in your mind(I think that’s what you were thinking at the time, not now), superior? Why were those males who pursued “superior(again, what made them superior?) “real men”? What were the qualifications that made that up?

      Like

      • Good point. I see now that a lot of it was sexuality/virginity in disguise, but a lot of it was cleverly hidden. For example, if you were a woman who dressed very nicely (like Susan Pevensie and her interest in nylons and lipstick) you were inferior, but the same applied if you dyed your hair, ripped your shirts and pierced anywhere besides the earlobes. Both of those I now know were stigmatized because they were associated with a so called loose sexuality, but as a child all I knew was that they weren’t one of the “approved” ways to be.

        I also notice, looking back, that none of the times when I was rejected by religious, upright young men counted as part of this metaphor. I was in a close knit homeschooling circle so most of the people I knew were actually supposed to be either virgins or brave young men who knew to climb to the top of the tree… and yet I could never find someone who was interested in me and who I liked back.* It’s a funny double standard, of the sort you find throughout religious fundamentalism. People who reject you from outside the circle of approved religiosity are inferior and looking for rotten apples. People who reject you from inside just aren’t part of God’s plan.

        *I now know that’s because I was trans and I only liked guys who treated me like I was one of the guys.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Yes, perhaps you were a bit younger than I thought when you had these thoughts. Ah, yes, lipstick and nylons. Those are for older, more mature women. Experienced women. Not girls curious about what made them so attractive on those more mature women. Chastised for experimenting with mom’s lipstick. You’re too young for that! Why? Because that shit is designed to attract men and be sexy and little girls aren’t supposed to do that. And I agree that men shouldn’t be attracted to them. But the message that we’re sending from the time boys and girls are tots is that girls should be making themselves attractive to boys/men. Then we chastise them when they try to “grow up too fast”.

          What great observation about the dynamics of relationships between those who are not members of the club vs. those who are. Those outside the club who reject those inside the club are inferior and shouldn’t be desirable by club members in the first place. It’s strange how many people/things which are scripturally acceptable and even encouraged by God that just aren’t part of his plan. Anytime we prayed for something that was “within his will” and didn’t get it, which was more often than the number of times we did(Yahweh’s batting average sucks), it just wasn’t his plan for our lives. He had it all mapped out, you know.

          Liked by 1 person

  8. Ugh, Ruth! What makes me even more nauseous is the highly likelihood of the author being a woman. I’ve said it a thousand times and I’ll say it again, a female misogynist will give a male mysogynist a run for his money any day! Just walk into any church and see who gives you the dirtiest looks and the most word vomit.

    I remember my CFNI Dallas days all too well. As single women in the early 90s at the Bible school we were often given talks about purity, morality and holiness. All the while having our shoulders, cleavage and knees covered in big skirts and dresses. I remember during one of our meetings they passed out this two page letter that a former student wrote. It was to be from god to all of us girls. It was about making Jesus our top priority and giving him our all. Until we were right with him, he would not bring “the one” to us.

    Recently, I heard a talk that comedian Anjelah Johnson gave to my alma mater in front of the entire student body a couple of years ago. She went on and on about how her dating life was a mess for years. She then said that god told her to stop dating for a while, to commit to just him. And guess what? She did and wouldn’t you know it, the man that she began to date (a Christian singer) after her fast ended up being her husband.

    Seriously, society/church very rarely talk about this crap specifically to boys/men. Instead of speaking to men about being “pure” themselves, they tell them to stay away from girls who aren’t. Some older men even tell the younger ones which girls are for fooling around. They tell them not to marry those girls, just use them for a good time. Male role models point them to marry the virtuous wall flowers instead.

    Why must a woman be a virgin or a whore? Why can’t we be something altogether different? Why do we talk about men regarding their hobbies, riches, jobs/careers, and authority, but reduce women to labels regarding their morality that we find lacking in our pretentious judgements?

    So glad to be out of the blood cult for over three and a half years now! I will never miss church women yelling at me to be quiet and submit to leadership. I certainly don’t miss twenty-something year old church ladies fixing my skirt to cover my knees. And I absolutely don’t miss glares for showing something so scandalous on my body…collar bones!

    Liked by 3 people

    • Indeed, the most judgmental people with regards to modesty and chastity can be other women. I think that might be a two-fold issue.

      First, it’s been drilled into them that “good girls” don’t show their collar bones, especially not at church. Purity and modesty are two of the things that any female youth leader/Sunday School teacher drills into her female pupils. “Modest is hottest,” they say. They make the females responsible for the thoughts and actions of the males. We are nothing more than potential temptresses. Keep everything covered. Knees, elbows, collar bones, and even necks. What that doesn’t account for is that males are still going to imagine what all that looks like under there. I’m surprised they haven’t introduced us to burkas. After all, eyes, lips, ears, hair….they can all be sensuous, too. What if males become aroused by any of those? Is that our fault, too?

      Second, if you’re dressed that way their husband might look. They might like it. They might lust. Little does the wife know that it isn’t your collar bones that caused him to lust. Not really. If he’s lusting over your collar bones he’s probably already been lusting over things wife doesn’t even know about that are only in his imagination about what your collar bones looked like without him even being able to see them. Or the red head of hair in the pew in front of him. Or that secret porn he’s been watching. If he’s a luster he’s likely one whether he actually sees the genuine article or not.

      Instead of speaking to men about being “pure” themselves, they tell them to stay away from girls who aren’t.

      Exactly. As if they can’t control their own thoughts and actions. Men are tempted, women are the tempters, and if sexual thoughts or acts happen it’s the fault of women. Women are sluts. Men are victims.

      My eyes hurt from all this rolling.

      Liked by 3 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s