Immodesty and Divorce

[CreedIsChrist]

What geographic differences do exist in
divorce rates?

Perhaps the easiest way to answer this question is to think not of baseball,
but of another warm weather accompaniment - bathing suits. Strangely enough,
the divorce rate of any place in the continental United States can be reliably
predicted by knowing the number of days out of the year that women there can
wear swimsuits. Generally, the more warm weather days suitable for bathing
attire, the higher the divorce rate; the more cold weather days unsuitable for
swimwear, the lower the divorce rate.

To illustrate, draw a line across the midsection of the continental United
States (along the northern borders of North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas,
Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Arizona, and continuing through southern Nevada and
central California). More than 60 percent of the total U.S. population lives
above what might be called "the tan line." Yet less than half of all divorces
occur here, and all 10 states with the lowest divorce rates are above the tan
line.


In the sun states women tend to wear much less clothing and thus incite lust in men more often, increasing the chance of both partys acting out on their desires.

 

[Sitswithamouse]

So it's the womans fault then that marriages in that section have a higher rate of divorce and not the mans for not being able to control his lust?

Is this what you are suggesting?

 

[cantata]

If one or both parties is not able to be sexually satisfied with their partner (and this is an issue for them) than that is their problem and not the fault of anyone outside their relationship who happens to be showing a bit of skin.

You know, if only this sexual jealousy nonsense was a non-issue, I'm sure divorce rates would plummet. But can you imagine CIC recommending polyamory as a solution to marital strife?

 

[CreedIsChrist]

If one or both parties is not able to be sexually satisfied with their partner (and this is an issue for them) than that is their problem and not the fault of anyone outside their relationship who happens to be showing a bit of skin.

You know, if only this sexual jealousy nonsense was a non-issue, I'm sure divorce rates would plummet. But can you imagine CIC recommending polyamory as a solution to marital strife?

A young hormone crazed man could sleep with hundreds of females and still not be totally satisfied. So going out finding other partners is not going to help except provide a temporary release. And like cocaine the short pleasure tends to be very small compared to the consequences.


Im not saying its all the womans fault. But lets face it, skimpy bathing suits entice lust in men and a mans lust is carnal which sometimes overpowers his common sense which increases the chance to act out on those desires. Bring alcohol and partying into the mix and you have a recipie for adultry. Is it fair that people have to be bombarded with sexualized clothing all around then whenever they go out?

 

[Sitswithamouse]

Im not saying its all the womans fault. But lets face it, skimpy bathing suits entice lust in men which increases the chance to act out on those desires. Bring alcohol and partying into the mix and you have a recipie for adultry.

Let's face it CIC it is not all mens fault for parading around in tight shorts and speedos and showing off their tanned and toned upper bodies this can entice women to act out their desires. Bring alcohol and partying into the mix and you have a recipe for adultery.

It is a two way street my friend.
Just saying...

 

[cantata]

If you can't keep it in your pants, it's 100% your problem, CIC.

I know a woman who works in a nudist spa, and she manages not to fling herself at every customer (and they manage not to fling themselves at her), so I don't think seeing naked flesh is any excuse at all.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

If you can't keep it in your pants, it's 100% your problem, CIC.

I know a woman who works in a nudist spa, and she manages not to fling herself at every customer (and they manage not to fling themselves at her), so I don't think seeing naked flesh is any excuse at all.

Ok, so lets say you have a normal married man going out with his friend somewhere. And like most men he's naturally attracted to women,, does he honestly have to be bombared with women all around him in skimpy clothing and bathingsuits? Is that fair to him as a married man and fair to his wife also considering sometimes that a carnal mind cannot be controled?

 

[cantata]

Ok, so lets say you have a normal married man going out with his friend somewhere. And like most men he's naturally attracted to women,, does he honestly have to be bombared with women all around him in skimpy clothing and bathingsuits? Is that fair to him as a married man and fair to his wife also?

If he doesn't want to see women in skimpy clothing then he shouldn't frequent those kinds of clubs.

ETA:

also considering sometimes that a carnal mind cannot be controled?

If he can't control himself then the problem lies with him, not with the women around him.

It is his responsibility to ensure that he abides by his marriage vows, and no one else's.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

If he doesn't want to see women in skimpy clothing then he shouldn't frequent those kinds of clubs.

But its all around us. Work, School, Even in church. Granted it is not as bad as where I live. But living in say California, Florida, Texas it is all around. ANd then when you come home its all over the TV.

 

[cantata]

But its all around us. Work, School, Even in church. Granted it is not as bad as where I live. But living in say California, Florida, Texas it is all around. ANd then when you come home its all over the TV.

I repeat: if your marriage can't weather a bit of third-party nudity, it's in trouble anyway. It is not my responsibility or anyone else's to shield you from breasts just because you can't control yourself.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

What geographic differences do exist in
divorce rates?

Perhaps the easiest way to answer this question is to think not of baseball,
but of another warm weather accompaniment - bathing suits. Strangely enough,
the divorce rate of any place in the continental United States can be reliably
predicted by knowing the number of days out of the year that women there can
wear swimsuits. Generally, the more warm weather days suitable for bathing
attire, the higher the divorce rate; the more cold weather days unsuitable for
swimwear, the lower the divorce rate.

To illustrate, draw a line across the midsection of the continental United
States (along the northern borders of North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas,
Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Arizona, and continuing through southern Nevada and
central California). More than 60 percent of the total U.S. population lives
above what might be called "the tan line." Yet less than half of all divorces
occur here, and all 10 states with the lowest divorce rates are above the tan
line.


In the sun states women tend to wear much less clothing and thus incite lust in men more often, increasing the chance of both partys acting out on their desires.

Is this assertion of yours based solely on the map or maybe per-capita data which of course would make it a baseless assertion right off the bat or is this just a guess because you have no evidence whatsoever to back up any part of the OP other than a) there are divorces and b) people wear skimpy outfits but there is no empirical evidence that the two are remotely correlated.

 

[quatona]

What geographic differences do exist in
divorce rates?

Perhaps the easiest way to answer this question is to think not of baseball,
but of another warm weather accompaniment - bathing suits. Strangely enough,
the divorce rate of any place in the continental United States can be reliably
predicted by knowing the number of days out of the year that women there can
wear swimsuits. Generally, the more warm weather days suitable for bathing
attire, the higher the divorce rate; the more cold weather days unsuitable for
swimwear, the lower the divorce rate.

Got a link to back to those stats?
Anyway - if there appears to be a correlation, you just have to show that there is a causation. Like, if your theory is that the divorce rates have an effect on the weather, you would have to find evidence for that.

In the sun states women tend to wear much less clothing and thus incite lust in men more often, increasing the chance of both partys acting out on their desires.

I don´t think that nudity is per se inciting lust. But maybe that´s different if you have a restrictive and inhibited view upon nudity and sexuality.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

I repeat: if your marriage can't weather a bit of third-party nudity, it's in trouble anyway. It is not my responsibility or anyone else's to shield you from breasts just because you can't control yourself.

+1

Heck my gf points out attractive women to me all of the time but she also knows that I am not going to cheat on her and vice versa.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

I think the whole premise of the OP is wrong anyway.

I live in the north west of Engalnd. It's cold and if it's not cold, it's raining and if it's not raining it's overcast. There might be a few hot and sunny days scattered through a summer. People tend not to wear bathing suits that much.
The divorce rate here is 2.7 per 1000 population.

Now I like to holiday in the south of Spain. Beautiful mediterranean sunlight most of the year round. Plenty of beaches and some of the most beautiful women in the world dressing the way people do when it's 40 degrees.
The divorce rate there is 0.9 per 1000 population.

 

[Aten's Apostle]

As a pasty white guy who never ventures outside on warmer days due to the glare of the sun, I can attest my contentedness with the conclusion of this thread, that I will never be single or some rubbish like that. Life is good.

In fact, I’m so contented right now that I think I shall start a thread on a random topic in this very self-same forum, I think I shall call it, “Is it ethical to make threads that are so transparently about your own personal problems?”

Like I said, random topic.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

As a pasty white guy who never ventures outside on warmer days due to the glare of the sun, I can attest my contentedness with the conclusion of this thread, that I will never be single or some rubbish like that. Life is good.

In fact, I’m so contented right now that I think I shall start a thread on a random topic in this very self-same forum, I think I shall call it, “Is it ethical to make threads that are so transparently about your own personal problems?”

Like I said, random topic.

Sounds like a worthy thread.

 

[Athene]

I think the whole premise of the OP is wrong anyway.

I live in the north west of Engalnd. It's cold and if it's not cold, it's raining and if it's not raining it's overcast. There might be a few hot and sunny days scattered through a summer. People tend not to wear bathing suits that much.
The divorce rate here is 2.7 per 1000 population.

Now I like to holiday in the south of Spain. Beautiful mediterranean sunlight most of the year round. Plenty of beaches and some of the most beautiful women in the world dressing the way people do when it's 40 degrees.
The divorce rate there is 0.9 per 1000 population.

True that, the North West of England is reputed to be the region with the highest divorce rate.

When I read the OP the first thing that jumped in to my mind was Iceland. Iceland has one of the highest, if not the highest divorce rate in Europe, climate wise it's cooler then England but warmer then most countries at the same latitude.

I am always tickled by the inconsistencies in the conservative evangelical view of gender. On the one hand men are portrayed as the strong leaders who God has given the ability to make all the hard decisions, they are to be the rock the family is built upon, the stability of the family, the protector etc. But at the same time we have John Piper et al telling us that men need women to be meek and submissive so that men can feel like they are strong. A man is a leader or he is not, and if his ability to be a leader depends on the women around him constantly buffering up his ego then he isn't much of a leader to begin with, just a spoilt pampered baby.

We also hear that men were given the responsibility to make the decisions because women are weak and are prone to temptation, but then we go on to hear how men are prone to temptation in the form of a partially unclothed female form, so much so that they will abandon the family and run off with the first bit of short skirt that crosses his path....

The only conclusion left to us is that conservative evangelical male supremacy is a facade and can not survive unless women play along and exert most their efforts into plumping up their ego and over inflated sense of masculinity.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

True that, the North West of England is reputed to be the region with the highest divorce rate.

When I read the OP the first thing that jumped in to my mind was Iceland. Iceland has one of the highest, if not the highest divorce rate in Europe, climate wise it's cooler then England but warmer then most countries at the same latitude.

I am always tickled by the inconsistencies in the conservative evangelical view of gender. On the one hand men are portrayed as the strong leaders who God has given the ability to make all the hard decisions, they are to be the rock the family is built upon, the stability of the family, the protector etc. But at the same time we have John Piper et al telling us that men need women to be meek and submissive so that men can feel like they are strong. A man is a leader or he is not, and if his ability to be a leader depends on the women around him constantly buffering up his ego then he isn't much of a leader to begin with, just a spoilt pampered baby.

We also hear that men were given the responsibility to make the decisions because women are weak and are prone to temptation, but then we go on to hear how men are prone to temptation in the form of a partially unclothed female form, so much so that they will abandon the family and run off with the first bit of short skirt that crosses his path....

The only conclusion left to us is that conservative evangelical male supremacy is a facade and can not survive unless women play along and exert most their efforts into plumping up their ego and over inflated sense of masculinity.

+1

I honestly do not grasp how the men that think in this bronze age manner ever get a woman that will stay with them once they get to know them, the only conclusion I can come up with is that the women in question have very low self esteem and do not think they can do any better because the men in their lives have always treated them as inferior so therefore it will always be a vicious circle that creates the participants for these unhealthy relationships.

Thankfully the women in my my life have always been intelligent and strong willed and would not put up with the type of treatment advocated by these modern day Neanderthals.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

If CICs hypothesis were correct the divorce rate per capita would be increasing and would also be highest again per capita in those states that tend to be more liberal in ideology and lower in those that tend to the right side of the pendulum in ideology. But we know that the divorce rate has been declining steadily since 1970 and those states with the highest divorce rates per capita tend to be the ones on the right which in this case means wrong side of the political spectrum. The state with the lowest is actually one of the most liberal and one that *gasp* legalized gay marriage, Massachusetts. So I think that CIC will have to go back to the proverbial drawing board and come up with an assertion that is actually supported by evidence.

Divorce Rates by State, 1990–2005

The following table shows the divorce rate per 1,000 people in the United States according to each state from 1990 to 2005.
Rates per 1,000 population1, 2 1990 2000 2004 2005 United States3 4.7 4.2 3.7 3.6 Alabama 6.1 5.4 4.7 4.9 Alaska 5.5 4.4 4.8 5.8 Arizona 6.9 4.4 4.2 4.1 Arkansas 6.9 6.9 6.3 6.0 California 4.3 n.a. n.a. n.a. Colorado 5.5 n.a. 4.4 4.4 Connecticut 3.2 2.0 2.9 2.7 Delaware 4.4 4.2 3.7 3.9 District of Columbia 4.5 3.0 1.7 2.0 Florida 6.3 5.3 4.8 4.6 Georgia 5.5 3.9 n.a. n.a. Hawaii 4.6 3.9 n.a. n.a. Idaho 6.5 5.4 5.1 4.9 Illinois 3.8 3.2 2.6 2.5 Indiana n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Iowa 3.9 3.3 2.8 2.7 Kansas 5.0 4.0 3.3 3.1 Kentucky 5.8 5.4 4.9 4.5 Louisiana n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Maine 4.3 4.6 3.6 3.5 Maryland 3.4 3.3 3.1 3.1 Massachusetts 2.8 3.0 2.2 2.2 Michigan 4.3 4.0 3.5 3.4 Minnesota 3.5 3.1 2.8 n.a. Mississippi 5.5 5.2 4.5 4.5 Missouri 5.1 4.8 3.8 3.6 Montana 5.1 2.4 3.8 3.8 Nebraska 4.0 3.8 3.6 3.4 Nevada 11.4 9.6 6.4 7.7 New Hampshire 4.7 5.8 3.9 3.3 New Jersey 3.0 3.1 3.0 2.9 New Mexico 4.9 5.3 4.6 4.6 New York 3.2 3.4 3.0 2.8 North Carolina 5.1 4.8 4.4 3.8 North Dakota 3.6 3.2 2.8 2.4 Ohio 4.7 4.4 3.7 3.6 Oklahoma 7.7 3.7 n.a. 5.6 Oregon 5.5 5.0 4.1 4.3 Pennsylvania 3.3 3.2 2.5 2.3 Rhode Island 3.7 3.1 3.0 2.9 South Carolina 4.5 3.7 3.2 2.9 South Dakota 3.7 3.6 3.2 3.0 Tennessee 6.5 6.1 5.0 4.6 Texas 5.5 4.2 3.6 3.2 Utah 5.1 4.5 3.9 4.0 Vermont 4.5 8.6 3.9 3.3 Virginia 4.4 4.3 4.0 3.9 Washington 5.9 4.7 4.1 4.0 West Virginia 5.3 5.2 4.7 5.1 Wisconsin 3.6 3.3 3.1 3.0 Wyoming 6.6 5.9 5.3 5.3 n.a. = not available

 

[geekgirlkelli]

That New Testament verse that contains the list of all the sins that God says condemns you? You know the one... You guys are intimately familiar with it, since you use it all the time to condemn gays.

Well funny enough, wearing a skimpy bathing suit ain't in there. Adulterers are though, and Jesus said that if you look at a woman lustfully it's the same as committing adultery with her.

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."(1 Cor. 6:9-10)

Jesus said, "But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matthew 5:28).

Seems most of the male population is heyalllllll bound.