Seriously Steve 2: She Was a Woman, So She Probably F*cked Up Somewhere

[Ozlsn]

On 6/20/2019 at 2:27 AM, SPHASH said:

Coward Steve why don't you take yourself and your little cult and move to the country and you won't have any slutty neighbors to look at.  Problem solved.

Better yet, move to somewhere cold. No outdoor pools, problem solved! OK, maybe not Finland given the whole sauna/dash naked into the lake thing but Alaska should be OK.

That whole anecdote reminded me of reading a memoir written by a woman who worked in Saudi Arabia as a nurse in the 80s/90s (forget which). The compound where the foreign workers were had an empty pool (used in their marketing to attract staff), and the workers were quite keen to use it so they approached the relevant authority. "Impossible" was the response, "there can be no mixed bathing." So they came up with a roster for men and women to use the pool on different days. "Impossible" was the response, "you can look into the pool from the roof." So they organised for screens to be put up around the pool so the view was blocked. "Impossible" came the response, "if you are on the roof and hang on to this railing and lean into space you can still catch a potential glimpse of the pool. And besides they would be able to hear you." That was the point they gave up - even the knowledge that there were women wearing less than full coverings splashing around in water was apparently too controversial. Steve would fit right in.

Edited June 23, 2019 by Ozlsn

[Hane]

@Ozlsn, I’m reminded of a book I read that was set in Saudi Arabia. In it, some women were working as lab techs. One male tech complained that their shoes were “too loud” and “distracting,” and wanted them to wear quieter shoes so the sound of their footsteps wouldn’t get him all horny.

[Ozlsn]

@Hane I kind of feel that if the sound of women walking is making you horny then you possibly need to work on some issues. Or wear earplugs. Or stay indoors at all times.

Edited June 23, 2019 by Ozlsn

[danvillebelle]

I just got around to watching The Handmaid's Tale this past week.  I binge-watched the first two seasons.

I cannot TELL you how many times I thought of Steve Maxwell.  He would make a PERFECT Commander.

Hell, he fucking IS a Commander.

[kpmom]

7 hours ago, danvillebelle said:

I just got around to watching The Handmaid's Tale this past week.  I binge-watched the first two seasons.

I cannot TELL you how many times I thought of Steve Maxwell.  He would make a PERFECT Commander.

Hell, he fucking IS a Commander.

Yes!

And so many of our female fundies (thinking of Lori Alexander in particular) would make perfect "aunts".

OT, but I recently read that the author is coming out with a prequel to THT. 

 

ETA, I just re-read Steve's post about the neighbor who has the audacity to swim wearing a swimsuit in her own backyard.

I had a question about something Steve wrote at the end of the post.

He writes, "Most sin is private but immodesty is in-your-face to those near"

To those of you who know the bible better than I do, is immodesty a sin in the bible?  I know men lusting after a woman is considered sin, but a is a woman's immodesty specifically mentioned as a sin?

Edited June 23, 2019 by kpmom
adding

[thoughtful]

On 6/19/2019 at 12:27 PM, SPHASH said:

Coward Steve why don't you take yourself and your little cult and move to the country and you won't have any slutty neighbors to look at. 

Nah, the country is full of harlots who show their big, full boobs:

Spoiler

On 6/19/2019 at 4:25 PM, Cat Damon said:

He always makes phrases like this sound ominous, it's so creepy to me. The phrase "summer is here" should be exciting but with him it sounds like the apocalypse is upon us (but maybe that's what he'd prefer).

Steve's been secretly watching Game of Thrones. He just switched the seasons around.

Spoiler

 

 

[fellowunfundie]

On 6/23/2019 at 1:26 PM, kpmom said:

I had a question about something Steve wrote at the end of the post.

He writes, "Most sin is private but immodesty is in-your-face to those near"

To those of you who know the bible better than I do, is immodesty a sin in the bible?  I know men lusting after a woman is considered sin, but a is a woman's immodesty specifically mentioned as a sin?

Most Christians who believe that a woman should dress "modestly" (however they happen to define that) point to 1 Timothy 2:9-10...

Quote

9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

...and is coupled with 1 Peter 3 (which is specifically directed at wives but extrapolated to all women because of course that is the ultimate womanly role).

Quote

1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.

3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:

 

6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

Of course, there's varying levels of interpretation as to what "modest apparel" and "outward adorning" are holy and acceptable, and occupies a wide range. In fundiedom, we see everything from Mennonite communities who have a specific style of approved dress and follow Old Testament laws about the types of fabric they can use, to some Pentecostals and Independent Baptists who take the verses very literally and don't braid their hair or wear any jewelry, including wedding bands, to old-school homeschoolers who wear Maxwell frumpers and sweaters year-round, to fundie-lights who wear "modern modest," which typically means no cleavage and skirts at least to the knee. 

...Anyway, the point is, "modest apparel" is never defined in the Bible, and similarly, neither is "immodest apparel," except for curses to be cast on women who use their bodies and manner of dress to lead men astray (I'm thinking of the foreign woman in Proverbs 1-9). No matter the standard of modesty, though, modest-dressers often quote Romans 14 as their justification for imposing their standard of dress on women (...despite the fact that the passage is talking about eating meat):

Quote

12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother'sgr way.

14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.

16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of:

17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.

19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.

So the question of whether dressing immodestly is a sin is a tricky one. Is it directly stated as such? No, not really. But the above logic is what a fundie would use to claim that yes, dressing immodestly is a sin because it leads a brother (yes, even literally ?) to stumble.

[Syriana]

The woman Steve was criticising happened to be wearing a bathing costume while on her own property, using her private pool - the only reasonable part of the post was the observation that this woman likely considered her attire appropriate (no reason why it wouldn't be).  Irrespective of the uncharitable connotations Steve can apply to this, in all likelihood there was no desire or intention to garner attention or inspire lust - and she probably never imagined her neighbours to have the maturity of a 12yo!  Immodesty is about dressing with the intention of attracting the 'wrong' kind of attention (for want of a better way to phrase it) or with the reasonable awareness that you will trigger a sexual response in others.  Swimming at home doesn't meet those points in any (reasonable) mind and therefore wouldn't/shouldn't be considered immodist in any way.

Lust isn't just a sin, it's a serious sin.  The onus is on each individual person to maintain discipline; blaming others for your own failings demonstrates a lack of the moral courage to be honest with yourself, lying to yourself is also a sin!

I sometimes wonder how Steve would cope with a proper, guided examination of conscience of the type Catholics are encouraged to use when preparing for the Sacrament of Reconciliation...I suspect if he really looked at himself clearly he'd find it an uncomfortable experience.

Edited June 27, 2019 by Curious
member request with formatting help

[Lgirlrocks]

I wonder if Steve actually takes the time to read what he post? It never seems thought out

 

Edited June 27, 2019 by Lgirlrocks

[kpmom]

Yes, I think the worst part of that awful post was Steve thinking he could look into that person's mind and heart and assume she was "purposely" trying to get lustful attention.

Maybe she was, maybe she just wanted to swim in her own backyard.  Either way, why does Steve assume he knows what she is thinking?

I'm tempted to send him an email regarding that post, but don't want to share my name and email with him.

[Syriana]

On 6/27/2019 at 12:35 PM, kpmom said:

Yes, I think the worst part of that awful post was Steve thinking he could look into that person's mind and heart and assume she was "purposely" trying to get lustful attention.

Maybe she was, maybe she just wanted to swim in her own backyard.  Either way, why does Steve assume he knows what she is thinking?

 

I'm tempted to send him an email regarding that post, but don't want to share my name and email with him.

That's where a throwaway email address via google or yahoo using a pseudonym can be useful ?

 

 

Edited June 28, 2019 by samurai_sarah
Things got a bit confusing, but are now sorted.

[Palimpsest]

Eh, emailing Steve whether you use a throwaway addy or not is a waste of time.  It just encourages him in his delusions of persecution.  I know.  I tried it a few years ago.

But as for Steve's Curse Of Summer:

Quote

Dear Mrs Modesty,

Asking for a friend.  A family I know has backyard neighbors who have a swimming pool. The view is close and unrestricted when washing dishes or in the backyard. The problem is that neighbor chooses to wear swimming attire that is hardly noticeable. 

Even if the dad is able to avoid looking and lusting, will his wife be concerned for her husband’s heart? What about sons in their home? It takes great maturity and self-control to avoid such visual temptation for men, but adolescent sons probably don’t have that. 

How can I force this woman to be properly deferential and make her swim fully clothed so that I do not lust after her.  I'm sure her goal is to get my attention and that of my son.

Defrauded in Leavenworth.

 

Dear Defrauded,

Gentle reader, I do not believe this fiction that you are asking for a friend.  However, you are describing some significant problems here.

First, why are you volunteering to do the dishes (that is women's work) at times when she is using the pool she owns?  Let alone why are you  leering out of the kitchen window at this poor women?  If the sight of her turns you on, do the dishes at other times or get some bloody curtains.

If she is swimming at times when you want to garden or tend to spurting brats on the outdoor grill, then turn your back if you cannot control your loins.  Or put up a privacy fence so that she can swim in peace free from your ogling.

This is just common sense.  Your neighbor is well within her rights and has no need  or responsibility to show you deference.  You cannot and may not forbid her swimming in her own backyard.  Nor can you make her wear a burka in the pool.

With you as a father, I am also very concerned for the adolescent sons in the home, although I thought Jesse was well into his 20s.  It is never too soon to teach children to respect women and refrain from Peeping Tom behavior.  That is illegal by the way.

So tell Jesse your adolescent son to stop leaning out of his bedroom window to catch a glimpse of a woman in a bikini.  And recommend strongly he use his binoculars solely to watch birds of the avian type and not your neighbor.  

Also please refrain from deceiving others with your twisted version of Christianity.  I pity your wife.  I doubt she is concerned for your heart.  She's too busy submitting to your dictatorial chauvinistic pig ways.

Blessings,

Mrs Modesty.

"Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.  Little children, let no man Steve deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous."  1 John 3:6-7 KJV. 

 

Edited June 27, 2019 by Palimpsest

[Ozlsn]

12 hours ago, kpmom said:

Yes, I think the worst part of that awful post was Steve thinking he could look into that person's mind and heart and assume she was "purposely" trying to get lustful attention.

Maybe she was, maybe she just wanted to swim in her own backyard.  Either way, why does Steve assume he knows what she is thinking?

I'm tempted to send him an email regarding that post, but don't want to share my name and email with him.

I have to admit if I had Steve as a neighbour and knew it bugged him... well let's just say I'd be tempted to swim often just to annoy him. And have pool parties. With alcohol and music. Heh.

[Palimpsest]

1 hour ago, Ozlsn said:

I have to admit if I had Steve as a neighbour and knew it bugged him... well let's just say I'd be tempted to swim often just to annoy him. And have pool parties. With alcohol and music. Heh.

I'd skinny dip in my own back yard pool just to annoy the shit out of Stevehovah!

I would check the nakedness laws in Kansas first (I am sure they are archaic) to make sure I wasn't breaking them, but it wouldn't be the first time that I have skinny dipped or been to a clothing optional beach.

Not my favorite thing by the way.  Clothing optional beaches are fine because no-one leers or ogles your nekkidness.  It just isn't relevant.  And semi-clothed is far sexier than full on naked.  IMO.  Honest.

But the risk of nasty sunburn on your butt and breasts is huge.  There isn't enough SPF sunscreen in the world to make me want to expose those parts to the sun for long.

Sarongs are good for sunburn protection.  Steve would probably orgasm at the sight of a woman in a sarong.

 

 

Edited June 28, 2019 by Palimpsest

[Don'tlikekoolaid]

This is what I would do if I was Pool Lady!

Spoiler

 

[Black Aliss]

4 hours ago, Ozlsn said:

I have to admit if I had Steve as a neighbour and knew it bugged him... well let's just say I'd be tempted to swim often just to annoy him. And have pool parties. With alcohol and music. Heh.

I'd return to active pagan practice and conduct rituals skyclad under every full moon.

 

Edited June 28, 2019 by Black Aliss

[PennySycamore]

@Palimpsest, about 20 years ago, some of the nincompoops we have/had in the SC legislature tried to get a bill passed that would have outlawed skinny dipping in your own back yard, among many other asininities.  Little boys would not be permitted to lower the waistband of their shorts and pee outside.  (You'd better not consider potty training by letting your tot go naked either.)  Man and boys would not be permitted to walk down the streets with their genitals "in a notable state of turbidity" so no tight jeans.  (Yep, that was the language of the proposed bill.)  It was crazy and did not get out of committee.   We do have some nut jobs in SC.

[Rosie]

On 6/23/2019 at 1:26 PM, kpmom said:

 

OT, but I recently read that the author is coming out with a prequel to THT. 

We are living the prequel to THT in 2019, right here in the United States.

[thoughtful]

On 6/27/2019 at 8:58 PM, Palimpsest said:

  Steve would probably orgasm at the sight of a woman in a sarong.

He'd probably get aroused and then weep with guilt if you said the name Dorothy Lamour.

 

[livinglongerthanyou]

Steve is fortunate he doesn't live near me. When it's hot and sunny here (anything above 70), I don't wear a shirt and my girls are free, free, free. Our neighbor and his wife have a fence on their property and there are several trees. In theory he could see me, but he's a decent man and doesn't ogle. In truth, I am fairly certain I could be seen from space because Alaskans aren't exactly known for their tans. 

[Black Aliss]

20 hours ago, PennySycamore said:

@Palimpsest, about 20 years ago, some of the nincompoops we have/had in the SC legislature tried to get a bill passed that would have outlawed skinny dipping in your own back yard, among many other asininities.  Little boys would not be permitted to lower the waistband of their shorts and pee outside.  (You'd better not consider potty training by letting your tot go naked either.)  Man and boys would not be permitted to walk down the streets with their genitals "in a notable state of turbidity" so no tight jeans.  (Yep, that was the language of the proposed bill.)  

I'm guessing that's not your typo and the leg. were concerned about genitals that were in a notable state of being "cloudy, opaque, or thick with suspended matter" or "More confused or obscure in meaning", as opposed to genitals in a state of turgidity, i.e., swollen and distended.  Because South Carolina.

[PennySycamore]

Ye, @Black Aliss, you are correct.  I meant turgidity.  

I really really hate it when I make a typo and it's not noticed by me -or anyone else- till it's too late to fix it.

[Hane]

@PennySycamore, I’m just sitting here wondering how the SC legislature expected to apprehend everyone who might pop a boner while out in public. I mean, fundie mentality posits that poor, poor men and boys have absolutely zero control over their penises when the mere presence of a female person is even hinted at.

[grandmadugger]

It is legal to walk around Kansas naked. https://www.ksn.com/news/local/why-its-legal-to-walk-around-naked-in-kansas/

We are in our third day of heat indexes in the 105-108 range. 

[MamaJunebug]

On 6/19/2019 at 9:38 AM, johnhugh said:

Stevie has been looking at boobs again. He states that his telling us ‘for a friend’...

You need a good wank Stevie... and put your binoculars away.

Edited This is a MEN only email quote.

I almost fell off my chair !!!!

8 hours ago, grandmadugger said:

It is legal to walk around Kansas naked. https://www.ksn.com/news/local/why-its-legal-to-walk-around-naked-in-kansas/

We are in our third day of heat indexes in the 105-108 range. 

Oh you poor things. Srsly.  In Kansas? Is it heading Illinois-way? I must look. I will look. You save your strength for getting more ice. 

Before I read another word, I got to “Gentle Reader” and I have to say, @Palimpsest, I love you!!!!

Ok, back to your post now.