I have an opinion on his opinion. It stinks.
He opens by saying that some men's conduct in the regard of women who have suffered from the sexual assaults of men is deplorable. "Some men"? So - there are men whose conduct in regard of sexually assaulting women isn't deplorable?
"it is also true that the conduct of some women is deplorable as well"
That sounds very much like you are blaming the victim of the assault... not cool. But, let's hear what you have to say. I fully acknowledge that there are women who sexually assault men and men who are victims of sexual assault, and none of that is OK. The conduct of EVERY SINGLE PERSON sexually assaulting another person is deplorable.
AND THERE ARE NO EXCUSES.
Really, the only "excuse" is "I am sorry, I misunderstood. Yes, it was incredibly stupid and wrong, you did nothing to deserve it, it was all my bad, and I will not do it again. I am seriously very sorry, how can I compensate for my deplorable conduct."
But, no, he is not talking about female sexual predators. He is talking about ordinary, normal, modern women. He thinks the deplorable conduct of women in case of being the object of a sexual assault is:
- dressing immodestly
- putting themselves in public room
- interacting with men
He proceeds to talk about women's fashion. I don't know where he got his ideas from, but it doesn't have much to do with the actual fashion.
"Never in the history of women’s dress, up to about 1918, did women wear skirts above their ankles."
Elbows, Ankles and Décolletage: Myths of 18th Century Women’s Fashion Part 1
"To show one’s bare arms was a sign of a prostitute."
This woman is not a prostitute.
"By the 1920s women’s clothing had undergone a radical transformation. So did their behavior. With the advent of the cinema, and especially that of Hollywood, the “glamor girl” look became fashionable, as well as the flirtatious activity which accompanied it."
Well... if you actually knew anything about fashion, you would know there was never anything radical about any of it. Every change was firmly anchored to what was going on.
The hemline started to rise when women were expected to work. In the peasant society, women always wore short skirts. You can't work well with a skirt that covers your feet. Long sleeves get caught up with everything and get wet and so on. Women who work have always rolled up their sleeves and (oh, immodesty!) revealed their elbows. So with the industrialisation and wars and all that going on in the end of 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, women's fashion responded to the times by becoming more practical. The men's fashion became more practical as well.
With industrialisation, ordinary, common people could get wealthy, even rich. Together with that, there were more young people who didn't need to work, and with the invention and popularisation of cars, the dresses become more free.
In the 20th century, the hemline covered the knees. It wasn't before WWII and lack of material, when the hemline started to rise again.
The 50s fashion is a reaction to the 40s "unfeminine fashion". In the 40s nobody wore a corset. In the 50s everybody did. In the 40s, fashion was very practical. In the 50s, it was all about looks.
In the 60s, the corset was gone, once again, and the clothes weren't tight. Yes, miniskirt was invented, but the fashion icon was Twiggy, who had very straight body. 60s dress was basically a sack with holes for head and arms. Then in the 70s we were back to covering everything.
When it comes to sexual revolution, one only needs to read erotic literature to know that the women of 20s weren't more flirtatious than their mothers and grandmothers, nor more liberal with their sexuality. The 60s sexual revolution was basically two things.
1) the development of contraceptives and women's healthcare
2) the radical idea of women being human beings
Women's sexuality is not in any way different from men's. We all have sexual desires, we all get attracted, we all enjoy sex. Women are not more virtuous or fidelitous than men, men are not more slaves to their animal urges and desires.
The temptation is the same.
The difficulty to withstand the temptation is the same.
The sin is the same.
The moral standard should be the same.
A man who has slept with 10 women is not less a slut than a woman who has slept with 10 men. (The average sexual partners normal people, men and women, have IN THEIR LIFETIME is 4.)
Virginity is a myth that has absolutely NOTHING to do with reality.
"But the 1960’s saw the miniskirt, something that the human race had never seen on decent women since the dawn of mankind. "
"Hollywood became extremely immodest in both dress and behavior in the 1950s. It was the prelude of the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Marilyn Monroe was a typical example of this degenerate tendency."
Jean Harlow was the first "blonde bombshell" in the 30s. It was actually the sexual liberation of 60s and feminism that killed this "trend". All the sex bomb movies were created by men. It was a male fantasy. All the pinups and "men's magazines" and sexy bimbos is male fantasy and a male image of what women should be. Marilyn Monroe didn't dress up as she did and didn't behave as we is typical for her when she was in control of her clothes and behavior. She was playing a role, given to her by men. All the "degenerate tendency" of Hollywood you lament is 100% men's responsibility. All the sexual abuse and exploitation in Hollywood is 100% men's responsibility. Men have the power, men are responsible.
"Most of the “victim” ladies in these cases look like lascivious women, and probably did much to cause the assault."
They probably did nothing to cause the assault.
People don't generally want to offend their employer, and definitely not a person they want to employ them. Most of the Hollywood sexual assaults happened to young women by a man in power. A man who was taking advantage of her innocence, her uncertainty, her ignorance and her wishes and dreams. She was trying to get a job and to play the role she thought he wanted he to play, so she was doing her best to look as pretty and sexy as the society keeps still telling women we have to be. (Come on, just look around. How many ads for makeup, cosmetics, clothes, diets and exercise do you see? How many of them are directed to women and how many to men? What other ads do you see directed to women? Are you aware of that the advertisement industry uses only 40% of resources to ads directed to women, even though 80% of purchases are done by women? And half of all the high-tech and cars where all the ads are directed to men?)
So, when women manage to be what is expected of them, you sexually assault them and tell them it's their own fault. Evil.
Women left their homes and went to work, not because of the birth control pill, but because the world wars taught women that they can do the job just as well as men, and because the wars decimated the amount of future husbands. After the wars, there were a lot more women than men who could marry. If you didn't get a husband, who would support you? One has to live somehow. So, women went to work. Their daughters and nieces found out that there are other options for a girl than becoming a housewife or an old maid needing to live on someone else's charity. One could actually earn one's own money, get one's own apartment and support oneself.
Especially, when the moral environment was what it was. The "French Postcards" existed long before the 50s. Nude calendars were produced in the 19th century. Pin-up picture was coined in the 40s. The Playboy magazine was founded 1953. The Apartment came out 1960.
Prostitution has been legal in Europe since forever. It was only after WWII when it became illegal and brothels were forced shut. This was mostly done by women. One could assume, the 50s ultrasexualism in USA was a reaction to this. Men who had been at war were used to have loose relationships, and wanted to keep getting the milk without buying a cow, and as it has always been possible to say to a girl who got pregnant "it's not mine" and not take any responsibility of the child, they wouldn't marry. Now, when the men weren't doing their part in raising children, why would the women stay at home?
No, we have always had - and still have - women who want to be moms and take care of the home and children. If they find husbands and their husbands find jobs good enough to support their families, wonderful. If not - you would want them to become a burden to their families, and if they had no families, what then? Go live on the street and die? Become a prostitute? Have 5-6 children or more and no roof over their heads, no food on their plates, no clothes on their bodies...?
No. Birth contol pills and other contraceptives were developed because they were needed, because the men forced the women out into the work life.
And when you have been independent, you don't want to go back to slavery.
When you are freed from the responsibility of having and raising children - A FREEDOM MEN HAVE HAD SINCE THE BEGINNING OF MANKIND - you only have children you know you can raise.
"Little by little decent people were asked to tolerate more and more immodesty."
By whom? Men. Men were film producers, television producers, advertisers, men owned the companies, men hired the people, men wrote the manuscripts, men chose how to portray the women, men designed the fashion, men set the expectations on women. Men created the nude calenders and pin-up pictures and men's magazines, men wrote the books, men made women into objects of their sexual lusts. Men created the sex objects, not women.
"men and women have been thrown together into situations which are very dangerous. Women are daily interacting with men in the workplace. In many cases they are dressed in such a way as to be immodestly attractive to men. The inevitable result is that, unless the men in the office are very vigilant about the virtue of chastity and fidelity to their wives, some very bad things take place."
Interacting with people in the workplace shouldn't be in any way dangerous. If you can interact with a man without trying to rape him or without thinking nasty thoughts, you can interact with a woman without seeing her as a sex object. It's not what she is wearing or that she's a woman, it's your own mind, it's the thoughts you allow yourself to think. It is your own programming that makes you think that it's OK to look at another human being and reduce her into an object.
I confront you, Donald, and Saint John Chrysostom with Jesus's words.
“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her (covets a woman) has already committed adultery with her in his heart.SHE hasn't committed adultery with you. YOU are the only guilty one here.
Also, THIS is normal work clothes for women today. There's nothing immodest there. Nothing everyone doesn't see all the time. Nothing not one adult today hasn't seen every day of his life. You are not saying you have a hard-on 24/7 because you have to interact with women dressed up like this. If you do, you need to see a doctor. And a psychiatrist.
Also, "unless the men in the office are very vigilant about the virtue of chastity and fidelity to their wives, some very bad things take place."
You don't steal everything you lay your eyes on, even if you want it, because you know it's wrong. There are situations when this can be hard, but in most situation you don't even need to think about it.
You don't do a lot of things you might want to, because you know it is wrong, and it doesn't take much extra vigilancy or effort. I do it every day quite effortlessly.
GET INTO YOUR THICK HEAD THAT SEXUALLY ASSAULTING WOMEN IS WRONG.
You might need to "steal" food because otherwise you would die of hunger.
You might need to hurt another person, even kill them, in self-defense.
BUT YOU DO NOT NEED TO SEXUALLY ASSAULT ANYONE FOR ANY REASON.
If you need to be "very vigilant about the virtue of chastity and fidelity to their wives" to not do things you know are wrong, there's something very, very wrong going on.
"The reason why there was, in past times, so much modesty in women’s dress, and the reason why women stayed mostly in the home, is precisely that men have a very hard time controlling their sexual desires."
No. That's just a very bad excuse.
And a man sexually assaulting a woman is more like a dog biting a human. When this dog bites the people and refuses to obey, it's not enough to keep it on a leash and putting a muzzle on it. No, this dog is put down. And you are telling me a man has less self-control than a dog and I am supposed to see him as a respectable human being? Seriously?
"Although men are principally guilty, the women are partially if not equally guilty. In many if not most cases their dress is sexually enticing, and their conduct with men often invites sexual advances."
Temptation and Sin
If you cannot resist the temptation, if you cannot avert your eyes and flee the temptation, then you are not a man.
"Most of the “victim” ladies in these cases look like lascivious women, and probably did much to cause the assault."
It's like saying "most of the "victim" gentlemen in these cases look like wealthy men, and probably did much to cause the mugging". "Most of the "victim" homes in these cases look like wealthy homes, and probably did much to cause the burglary". "Most of the "victim" gentlemen in these cases look like... what? what do people look like to warrant them being beaten and murdered?
Also, "victim"? You are practically questioning their story. You are saying they weren't sexually assaulted. You are saying they are lying.
"Other cases of assault occur in situations in which men enjoy much power and influence. Sports figures are often guilty of this as well as politicians. There seems to be an aggression that occurs in men as they advance in power and/or fame. Women should not be close to any environments such as these."
No. If there is an aggression that occurs in men as they advance in power and/or fame, they should then be extra careful as not to hurt others. One could even question why would any man want to advance in power and/or fame, as it seems to make them all sexual predators. No. Men are still 100% responsible of their own choices and actions and sins and crimes. The solution is not for women to stay clear of these men, but for the men to CONTROL THEMSELVES.
While women should not look odd by returning the mode of dress in 1912, they should nonetheless take all the steps necessary, even difficult, expensive, and inconvenient, in order to avoid being an occasion of sin to men, and thereby inviting upon themselves outrages by unscrupulous males.
No. It is not women's duty to try to stop men from sinning, IT IS EVERYONE'S PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY TO NOT DO BAD THINGS.
God will not ask you if you were tempted. God knows you were. God will ask you why you gave in to the temptation. Why you didn't resist. God knows you knew it was wrong and you still did it, and even accused the victim of your sin for it. And God will not be happy. No, sir, God will not be happy with you.