Who was it who wrote about pants being like a giant arrow...

[gardenvarietycitizen]

I remember that as well. But apparently the pants are only an arrow on a woman. For some unaccountable reason, the arrow fails to point to the big lump in a man's pants and force us to think unwholesome thoughts about the throbbing love missile lurking beneath. (sorry)

I don't know their reason for certain (this is the first I'm seeing this particular picture) but I suspect it might be due to the usual cliche that men are aroused by images (so women have to cover up and be hypermodest) but women are supposedly "wired differently" and so aren't aroused by images like that.

Only men have the tempting sex drive, you see. It's only the men who are cursed with the temptation to bone anything that shows an inch of flesh.

...which is, I'm fairly certain, complete bovine feces, but you'll see that justification again and again in fundie rhetoric across the Abrahamic religions, at least.

This is one of the reasons women are supposedly inherently holier, too, so the idea that they have to cover up but men don't isn't a BAD thing, no, it's recognizing their greater holiness... :roll:

[MamaJunebug]

Here we go, need I say more?

Lapels join to make a definite arrow to the .... that region. :(

Front panels open to seductively reveal .... those parts! :?

Somebody with better photoshop skilz than I -- please make free with the circles and arrows explaining how patriarchy defrauds the poor womenfolk (and teh gheys) every Sunday!

ETA: ooh! ooh! While we're at it -- down with zippers! No, wait, I mean -- no more zippers! They so obviously make obvious what's behind them! I really think if patriarses were gonna do it right, they'd go back to broadfall pants. Image to come unless somebody else gets there first. ;)

ETA: Broadfall pants. Mountain man imagery = no extra charge. :whistle:

[quinoa mama]

Are you all thinking of momof9splace.com? She was one of my intro fundies. I thought the arrow picture was there, but I can't find it on her site. I suppose it's possible she might have moved it, or maybe I'm just remembering wrong.

[Eclipse]

I don't know their reason for certain (this is the first I'm seeing this particular picture) but I suspect it might be due to the usual cliche that men are aroused by images (so women have to cover up and be hypermodest) but women are supposedly "wired differently" and so aren't aroused by images like that.

Only men have the tempting sex drive, you see. It's only the men who are cursed with the temptation to bone anything that shows an inch of flesh.

...which is, I'm fairly certain, complete bovine feces, but you'll see that justification again and again in fundie rhetoric across the Abrahamic religions, at least.

Like so many fundie beliefs, it does not hold up to scientific scrutiny. Women are turned on by images like men. Someone I know conducted a study about what images aroused women during points in their menstrual cycle. And yup, a women's brain shows arousal while watching sexual images too.

But of course that wouldn't fit into their Victorian ideals that women are thinking, feeling, sexual beings too.

[Aurora]

I remember that as well. But apparently the pants are only an arrow on a woman. For some unaccountable reason, the arrow fails to point to the big lump in a man's pants and force us to think unwholesome thoughts about the throbbing love missile lurking beneath. (sorry)