Religion Vs The Miniskirt

Mexico church assailed for maligning miniskirt
Women's rights advocates criticize church's stance on skimpy outfit ban
The Associated Press
updated 2:44 p.m. PT, Tues., Aug. 19, 2008
MEXICO CITY - Miniskirts made some Mexicans livid with indignation.

The outrage was directed at the Roman Catholic Church for warning women that the skimpy clothing could provoke sexual violence.

Rev. Sergio G. Roman sounded the alarm against miniskirts in an online publication to prepare Catholics for a church family-values forum next year in Mexico City.

"When we show our body without prudence, without modesty, we are prostituting ourselves," wrote Roman, a Mexico City priest.

Mexican newspaper columnists lampooned the article, and women's rights advocates have assailed it.

Women dressed in miniskirts and low-cut shirts have rallied at the doors of Mexico City's Cathedral during Sunday Mass, carrying signs that read: "Clothed and naked, I am the same."

Guadalupe Loaeza, a renowned Mexican social commentator, said she worried the priest's statements would be taken seriously.

"It gives rapists permission to say, 'Well, she had on a miniskirt,'" Loaeza said. "What the church says has credibility — that's why this type of statement is so dangerous."

The archdiocese said the news media twisted Roman's words and that the article was meant only to provide "moral guidance for the Catholic community."

Skimpy outfits are a common sight on national TV broadcasts in Mexico, but are still frowned upon in most social settings.

Roman's statements echoed recent comments by government authorities elsewhere in Latin America and the Caribbean.

A police superintendent in Jamaica called on women last week to dress with greater modestly to curb rapes on the island.

After an 8-year-old girl was gang-raped by five men at a market in Montego Bay, Steve McGregor blamed rapes this summer partly on girls wearing short shorts and tiny bathing suits.

McGregor was criticized by a Jamaican group that monitored the portrayal of women in the media.

"It's time we stop penalizing the victims," said Afola Shade, the director of Women's Media Watch. "There are men raping babies. Can babies dress skimpily? I think it's time we stop this foolishness now."

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26295141/

This reminds me a sign on the door of my local cathedral. The are just pictures, but I think is funny that can be resumed in: "No shoes, no shirts, no salvation"

A feminist group on the neighboring state protested about some government billboards that also acussed women in skimpy clothes for provoking men to rape them... of course, this is also the briliant idea of a man who consider burping on national television as a good public relations move...

Unless you strip yourself down and scream "Rape me now!" you are never inviting anyone to rape you. Men simply use it as an excuse for not being able to control their penis.

KittyKat wrote:

Unless you strip yourself down and scream "Rape me now!" you are never inviting anyone to rape you. Men simply use it as an excuse for not being able to control their penis.

Seriously, WHERE is the clapping smiley when you need it? Exactly Kat -- couldn't have said it better myself..

This is ridiculous. And that little bit about the 8 year old gang raping made my stomach do a backflip. How horrendously disgusting.

Seriously. THey take a horribly awful experience and make light of it by using it as an example of how it's the woman's fault? What about condemning the men for their actions? I didn't see them shaming men for their behavior at all.

Wow, this all makes me sound like a man hater. I don't hate men, just assholes that are a poor excuse for men.

As the father of a teenage girl, I would like to observe that there is both a moral and a practical issue here.

Rape is rape. There is no excuse.
Rapists should be punished to the full extent of the law, and in my opinion, also have their nuts crushed for the crime. If they can't control their genitals, then they don't deserve to have them.
That, to me, is the end of the moral argument.

But if I were to walk through any city at night wearing an ostentatious display of wealth, then I would be more likely to be mugged than if I was in my normal state of stylish poverty.
This does not make the mugging any less of a crime, nor any less reprehensible; it is just stating a fact. No one deserves to be mugged, but those who display wealth are more likely to be mugged than those who appear poor.

We do not live in an ideal world. Rape is inexcusable, but that doesn't stop it happening; and a sexually attractive woman is at more risk than an unappealing one.

Well said, EHE. I was about to post something similar, but less coherent.

Seriously, who are the Catholic Church to wag their fingers in the faces of others about rape when this is the same church that has consciously and with considerable effort covered up up the sexual assaults of thousands of children by their clergy?

I'll leave it to our Catholic members to defend their church on that score.

As a rape survivor I will admit after the incident I found myself dressing down. Trying to look less than appealing in any way. As I began getting through what had happened I began to find my power again. Now-a-days I admit to dressing 'sexy' but agreeing fullheartedly with KitKats' sentiment......I should be able to walk around naked if I wanted to, that does not mean rape me. Unfortunately the operative word there is 'should'. Agreeing with EHEs' sentiment being that that is not the world we live in unfortunately. Using religion to warrant a ban on 'skimpy' clothing is wrong, using the simple fact that there are real dangers to what we (men and women) wear is absolutely what should be brought to light so that we as individuals are aware and prepared, hopefully.

Well, skimpy clothes do send off unwanted signals. It's like when a woman dresses like a prostitute and then gets angry when a man propositions her.

Kasmira wrote:

Ginger_Snaps wrote:

Well, skimpy clothes do send off unwanted signals. It's like when a woman dresses like a prostitute and then gets angry when a man propositions her.

So thats what I'm doing wrong. All this time i have been wearing my church clothes to go hookin....

Yeah, but you got plenty of trade in that Nun's habit you were wearing.

Probably helped that it was PVC...

EvilHippyEmperor wrote:

Yeah, but you got plenty of trade in that Nun's habit you were wearing.

Probably helped that it was PVC...

True, PVC does add a certain something to a Nun's habit.

Kasmira wrote:

EvilHippyEmperor wrote:

Yeah, but you got plenty of trade in that Nun's habit you were wearing.

Probably helped that it was PVC...

True, PVC does add a certain something to a Nun's habit.

*Refrains from posting that Cradle of Filth shirt. Metal folks, you know which one*

Kasmira wrote:

Ginger_Snaps wrote:

Well, skimpy clothes do send off unwanted signals. It's like when a woman dresses like a prostitute and then gets angry when a man propositions her.

So thats what I'm doing wrong. All this time i have been wearing my church clothes to go hookin....

Isn't that special?

Morella wrote:

Kasmira wrote:

EvilHippyEmperor wrote:

Yeah, but you got plenty of trade in that Nun's habit you were wearing.

Probably helped that it was PVC...

True, PVC does add a certain something to a Nun's habit.

*Refrains from posting that Cradle of Filth shirt. Metal folks, you know which one*

I know exactly which tshirt!


I agree with EHE's earlier statement...



And I think that most of the problems of this sort could be solved if they gave all the girls easily-concealable handguns/other such weapons and taught them how to use them. The guys might not test their luck if they think all the girls are armed. It wouldn't solve everything since guns and such things can be wrestled away from you, but it might help a little...
(Though, I'm not quite sure if the culture there would allow for such a thing...)

I read a cyber-punk book awhile ago, Snowcrash, where there was a vaginal protection device implanted that if penetrated would inject a large poisoned spike into a man's penis...I really like the idea.

I have little to add beyond EHE's comments. Rape is reprehensible, but exactly what kind of response do you think you're eliciting if you're showing your body off to men? What do you think goes through a guys mind when a miniskirt goes by? You can't possibly be naive enough to not know you're making him think about you that way. In a random crowd, on the street, in any unsafe setting, that can't be a good thing.

Regarding Catholicism:
Basically, as I understand the argument against it, you're saying that since the Church, as an establishment, has committed human error, that the doctrines of Catholicism are therefore untrue.
If that's the argument, I'd call it shoddy at best, but I'll argue it if you like.

Gomez wrote:

Regarding Catholicism:
Basically, as I understand the argument against it, you're saying that since the Church, as an establishment, has committed human error, that the doctrines of Catholicism are therefore untrue.

That seems to me to an almost wilfully misleading interpretation of the statement:

Morella wrote:

Seriously, who are the Catholic Church to wag their fingers in the faces of others about rape when this is the same church that has consciously and with considerable effort covered up up the sexual assaults of thousands of children by their clergy?

I think Morella's criticism is aimed firmly at the Catholic Church rather than Catholicism, at the church itself rather than the doctrine. Whilst priests individually may be guilty of 'human error' (which is in itself a rather euphemistic way of referring to child abuse) It is the 'establishment' of the church which has failed to live up to the standards of its own doctrine, and been repellently hypocritical in it's efforts to cover up the failings of it's representatives.

I am sure that the Catholic interpretation of the bible finds child sex abuse utterly abhorrent, and that the vast majority of Catholics feel the same. Why then has the Catholic Church acted in a manner so contrary to it's own teachings?

KittyKat wrote:

I read a cyber-punk book awhile ago, Snowcrash, where there was a vaginal protection device implanted that if penetrated would inject a large poisoned spike into a man's penis...I really like the idea.

Not so far from the truth, actually... they have toothed female condoms, that do have spikes that latch onto the rapist's... err... "member", and can only be removed with surgical intervention. So basically, the Rapist has no choice but to turn themselves in, to get the thing off their "member".

http://news.softpedia.com/news/A-Toothed-Anti-Rape-Condom-for-Women-49893.shtml

Akasha'sMistake wrote:

KittyKat wrote:

I read a cyber-punk book awhile ago, Snowcrash, where there was a vaginal protection device implanted that if penetrated would inject a large poisoned spike into a man's penis...I really like the idea.

Not so far from the truth, actually... they have toothed female condoms, that do have spikes that latch onto the rapist's... err... "member", and can only be removed with surgical intervention. So basically, the Rapist has no choice but to turn themselves in, to get the thing off their "member".

http://news.softpedia.com/news/A-Toothed-Anti-Rape-Condom-for-Women-49893.shtml

From the abbove article:
"The controversy was provoked by the fact that the device, which presents fish-like teeth bound to the head and shaft of the penis, is a medieval barbaric one, based on a hatred of men or that it is an easy-to-use invention that could protect millions of South African women from rape."

It seems to me that rape is a "medieval barbaric" act, and any man who decides to stick his tackle where it hasn't been invited is deserving of hatred.
My only fear is that a rapist who finds himself entrapped in such a device may turn even more violent towards his victim than he originally intended to. To return to the core of this discussion: he would not, in my opinion, be justified in doing so, but rapists are hardly known for their sense of fair play.

Ginger_Snaps wrote:

Well, skimpy clothes do send off unwanted signals. It's like when a woman dresses like a prostitute and then gets angry when a man propositions her.

What signals exactly? I wear a suit for work for five days a week, I don't get to go to gigs often as we have two children, if I want to dress myself up in "skimpy" clothes and be flamboyant when I go out, it's my business and has nothing to do with anybody else. I don't dress up for any man (even Himself), I do it for ME and because it makes me feel bloody good!

Btw does wearing a backless PVC bondage dress with fishnets and thigh high boots constitute the prostitute look?

helen damnation wrote:

Ginger_Snaps wrote:

Well, skimpy clothes do send off unwanted signals. It's like when a woman dresses like a prostitute and then gets angry when a man propositions her.

What signals exactly? I wear a suit for work for five days a week, I don't get to go to gigs often as we have two children, if I want to dress myself up in "skimpy" clothes and be flamboyant when I go out, it's my business and has nothing to do with anybody else. I don't dress up for any man (even Himself), I do it for ME and because it makes me feel bloody good!

Btw does wearing a backless PVC bondage dress with fishnets and thigh high boots constitute the prostitute look?

Exactly Mrs. D... I (and others here I suspect) am just the same way. Going to a Catholic Prep school, with a very strict and hideous uniform.... I barely, if ever, get to wear my own clothes. So when I DO have something, like a show or concert, or another soiree... I make it count.

helen damnation wrote:

Btw does wearing a backless PVC bondage dress with fishnets and thigh high boots constitute the prostitute look?

Only if you're prepared to pay out for really good, high-end prostitutes...

...um...

...so I've heard.