Posts by Jolisa
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I sit here in my kilt (Gunn tartan). The question for you all is:
What have I got on underneath?
Oh but a true Scotsman will never tell you what's under his kilt.
He'll show you, quick as a flash. But he'll never tell you.[line poached from BBC4 News Quiz but probably as old as the kilts themselves]
-
After further perusing the Modesty Survey, I have concluded that some sort of veiling is, alas, necessary.
There are enough attacks the devil launches at us in the area of lust as it is without having to, as often in my experience, stare at the floor the duration of Sunday School.
Blindfolds for the lads. It's a kindness.
-
I misread that as “extreme dangling”. I just can’t even.
In the face of all this rampant female immodesty, any kind of dangling is surely a victory for prayer and self-distraction. And extreme dangling will get you straight to heaven.
This is of course the hateful flip side of tagging all girls as the S word (or in constant danger of becoming one). All boys become, ipso facto, the other S word: stupid.
And convinced they are possessed of a troublesome stumbling block in their trousers.
-
‘Extremely damaging to my thought life’.
So sincere, and so universally applicable, that I am crying tears of laughter.
If only there was some way I could pretend to be the voice of god and say to them ‘honestly, just have a wank: you’ll feel better for it’.
It should be the Eleventh Commandment.
-
The more I look, the more I see that there is little that is not a stumbling block for these guys.
Seeing a girl stretching (e.g. arching the back, reaching the arms back, and sticking out the chest) is a stumbling block.
So 56% of these guys need to stay out of the library, for their own safety and everyone else's.
Lifting a long skirt any higher than the knee in order to step over something is a stumbling block
Even avoiding a stumbling block is a stumbling block. It's so... meta.
-
as I walk, young fundamentalist Christian men have to be very careful they don’t trip over and hurt themselves
The streets of Christchurch -- indeed, the world -- must be littered with earnest chaps, all toppled by a rush of blood from the brain.
-
That Modesty Survey is fascinating, and for all the wrong reasons. The distractingly gorgeous veiled spokesgal on the front page might be part of why the boys couldn't focus hard enough to come to a unanimous opinion one way or another about such statements as:
An ankle-length skirt with a knee-high slit is more modest than a knee-length skirt.
Not to mention:
A skirt that is tight around the hips, but loose below the hips, is a stumbling block, regardless of length.
Form-fitting skirts are a stumbling block, regardless of length.
Sparkly, shiny skirts are a stumbling block, regardless of length.
I do not think that stumbling block means what they think it means.
But I do like the proto-fashionista fellow who opined: "It if is part of the outfit, I don't see a problem with it. If it is the only thing sparkling and shining, I'm pretty sure everyone will look at the skirt first, rather than at the wearer." Girlfriend: if the skirt's wearing you, instead of you wearing the skirt, take it off.
Am I hoping in vain that there is an equivalent site where modest girls dish on exactly what kind of boy-clothes let the devil in, and how?
-
The Modesty Survey, in which several hundred teenage Christian boys get kind of freaky about what their female counterparts are wearing. (Example: over 50% of them think a shrug draws too much attention to the chestal region.)
A quote from the front page:
Dress for the glory of God
Well, duh. Who do you think gave me this magnificent chestal region?
-
My mother vividly remembers being tucked into bed by nuns when she was prepubescent, and the edict that her arms should stay outside the blankets, even in winter – of course she had no idea why.
If the dorm was an unheated one, perhaps it was the nun equivalent of Billy Connolly's suggestion of sitting on your hand till it falls asleep?
-
Obviously pondering how best to repress all teenagers makes everything so much hotter!
Not just hotter, but as Lucy points out, way more philosophically exciting.
I reckon most, if not all, of the moral panic over teen sexuality and its expression is pinned on girls simply because they're the ones who bear the risk of pregnancy.
Cotton frocks of whatever length are clearly an inadequate contraceptive (ditto hats, gloves, trousers, patent-leather shoes, the average level of hygiene of the average teenage boy, etc) and will, as this thread has shown, inevitably become fetishized beyond the point of reason. A different policy approach is needed.
How about if, instead of dickering fruitlessly about hemlines, we just lowered the age of same-sex consent to, say, 13, while simultaneously raising the age of heterosexual consent to, arbitrarily, first year at university?
Struggling to see the flaw in my cunning plan...