It’s a pretty simple property-based relationship, it seems:
Dad’s own their daughters (and therefore their sexuality).
And it’s gross.
6 Likes
Pretty much. Parents must be protective of their children, and at a certain age children must be protective of their parents.
But ya gotta have boundaries 
2 Likes
My daughter wouldn’t even be in the same county as me dancing if she could possibly help it 
7 Likes
I think they’re using defrauding in the sense that women, by dressing provocatively, are promising something they have no intention of giving. Much like Lucy defrauds Charlie Brown of the opportunity to kick the football.
It’s still batshit crazy, mind you. But the definition makes sense if you look at it from their warped world view.
1 Like
Well, your definition of slut shaming is not the commonly accepted one. Slut shaming is when you tell a woman that she got raped, or groped on the subway, or catcalled on the street, or had men hit on her aggressively because she was dressed in a way that was deemed “too slutty”.
Oh, and to address your strawman - I’m teaching my children that their bodies are nothing to be ashamed of, and to dress whatever what they please (in fact, toplessness is legal for women here in Ontario, so if my daughter wants to go around topless when she grows up, more power to her). Of course I’ll inform them that there are certain elements of society that may judge their character based on the way that they dress, but I’ll also inform them that those people are, to put it bluntly, idiots, and for the most part that their opinions can be quite handily ignored (with the exceptions of things like bosses, etc). I’m also teaching my son that just because a woman is dressed in a way that shows off a bit of skin, that doesn’t give him any excuse to treat her with anything other than the utmost respect. You know, that whole “teach boys how not to rape” instead of “teach girls how not to get raped” thing.
But hey, that’s just me.
Hrmm, it would appear that you have been eaten by a luckdragon, but my response still stands for anybody else that feels like coming in to further your ridiculous viewpoint.
12 Likes
My FIL danced to Groove is in the Heart at the wedding. It was cute 
1 Like
Besides that by his own created of ignorance-definition he’s participating in slut-shaming.
I wouldn’t expect to receive much insight here.
2 Likes
It kind of was, you’re so right… we’ve had little changes here and there since then, but the 20s, on the heels of women getting the vote and the rise of mass media as an organizing principle in American life, was where social relationships really began to change. On top of that, the depression in the 30s sped things along, too. That really was the nail in the coffin for older sorts of social relations.
1 Like
GAH… I can’t even…
7 Likes
Wow, I didn’t know the Duggars made laws. I guess you learn something new every day!
As for the rest of your comment, I guess you missed the point of my post.
Yes, I am saying it’s okay for some groups to use “the inducement” argument even though I don’t agree with it. And it’s not “reasoning,” it’s called tolerance.
I’m not seeing much of a difference between criticizing people for covering up and criticizing people for showing lots of skin. I’ll refer you to your own last sentence in this case: “Dress how you want to dress,and don’t judge.” If you decide to criticize the Duggars (or any other group with ideas dissimilar to yours) then what makes you better than the people you’re criticizing?
I am not criticizing the way they dress. I made that clear. I am criticizing the thought process behind it.
that is tolerance. I don’t have to like or agree with their values. Which leads to civil conversations (hopefully) about why, and in the best case an amicable resolution.
7 Likes
I think they prefer to buy them.
9 Likes
You may be unaware that the rapist Duggar was a member of a prominent lobbying organization, the most influential against gay rights in America.
Educate yourself!
7 Likes
Well, if we’re talking about the article, then I have to point out that neither the excerpt nor the bigger chapter in the book criticizes others. It mostly just sums up the rationale behind the belief/suggestion re: dressing to minimize physical sexuality and maximize attention to the face. It doesn’t talk about people who don’t do this. There is no “shaming” here. I’m not saying “slut-shaming” doesn’t exist as a practice, only that there’s no evidence of it here. I think this is an example of shutting the barn door when there was never even a cow inside. In other words, it’s trendy to pounce on the Duggars now that we’re pretending we didn’t know they were human and fallible.
What does his lobbying against gay rights have to do with this excerpt? Educate me.
Again, I have not said shaming. Others have, and I purposely didn’t engage in that line of thought.
My argument is that I don’t agree with the following line of thought: it is the responsibility of women to prevent men from doing sexual things to them. I.e., inducement.
And that argument is absolutely in the excerpt and article.
6 Likes
It’s a direct response to
they’d have no problem at all with instituting still more laws that reflect their own beliefs, thereby imposing them on people who don’t share those beliefs.
and your snarky
Wow, I didn’t know the Duggars made laws. I guess you learn something new every day!
Yes, the Duggars are influential among lawmakers (hence the many photos of politicians with Jim Bob, seeking his endorsement.) Yes, the FRC holds power over lawmakers. Your sarcasm is confusingly unwarranted.
9 Likes
Sorry, japhroaig. I’m replying to another poster here and sadly the UI is confusing. That “shaming” comment wasn’t directed at you.
Yes, but you didn’t answer my question. What does his lobbying against gay rights have to do with this article? He didn’t write it and it isn’t about homosexuality.
