Newsbusters occassionally highlights the drivel from Kosskiddies, diving into the fever swamps born of “Screw ’em” Markos’ low character so we don’t have to.
Here is an example of how the Left treats people and ideas that are blasphemous to Leftwinger dogma — The Values Voters Summit — as “sexist and white supremacist.”
No surprise, but what gave me a giggle is the spittle-flecked invective spewed by Hunter towards a pamphlet called “Modesty Matters” that was merely on display at the Summit. Hunter goes off the rails, not from actually reading it, but based on ‘excerpts’ offered by another LeftEmo site, Think Progress. Basically, the Left has dialed to eleven to equate someone offering opinion on Christian modesty to Islamist governments enforcing Sharia. Hunter:
For a group so concerned about sharia coming to America, telling the womenfolk how to dress in order to make things easier on the menfolk does indeed kinda sound like sharia coming to America.
The stupid, it burns!
However, this is the bit from Hunter that really demonstrates the cognitive dissonance that marks the whole of the Left and its wholly owned subsidiaries such as Feminism.
Just your garden-variety movement to point out that you slutty sluts in your revealing slutty church clothes are riling up the godfearing but lustful menfolk, so stop it already. So what’s in the (multiple) brochures?
– From the “Modesty: It’s nothing to be ashamed of” pamphlet: “Since men are particularly visual, immodesty in church can trigger lustful thoughts.”
Ah. The old “if I’m having impure thoughts, it’s must be because you women are sluts” argument. The favorite argument of anti-women religious movements everywhere, including in such lovely places as Afghanistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Women owe it to men to dress in accordance to men’s needs, and if they don’t, women deserve the blame for it. So cover up!
“My men’s bible study group talks frequently about controlling our lust, thoughts, and eyes. Yes the problem and responsibility are ours, but is it really reasonable for the women of the church to make it THIS difficult for us?”
No insult intended (sic), but it sounds like your men’s bible study group consists of a bunch of perverts. Really?
As I’ve said before, the whole history of civilization are stories of human beings overcoming their nature. And such amelioration of the baser aspects of that nature come only after acknowledging they actually exist.
So what is it that Hunter is attempting to say here? That men do not react visually to scantily-clad women? Maybe he could then explain the significant portion of our economy based on such a reaction. Or is he saying that a man actually acknowledging his nature and wishing to not be a pig about it is the problem? Or is he saying that women are so superior in their status that men are only allowed to react to them based on a woman’s whim and any unintended, natural reaction is “perversion”?
e.g. Proud “slut walks” but don’t ever, ever call a woman a slut.
The Left is anti-civilization, and no where is it more evident than in their perverse policing of male/female natures and relationships.
the VVS is as sad an exercise in prostrate ring-kissing as it gets in American politics I think, and that’s saying something
We need Federal mandated dress codes and codes of decency, obviously.
– I’m enjoying my Sunday watching feetsball and dropping loads in the cult of the cave bears over at HuffPoop.
– Its like dropping a cheery bomb in a bathtub of cockroaches. Hilarious.
The Vikings have screwed up two opportunities to get the Colts off the field by getting personal fouls. Sigh.
Uh…we already got them.
Not that that’s what is being discussed, but OT is usually OK.
Speaking of off topic, everybody seen this?
That’s pretty cool, Lee. It does look like it might have limited utility since it has so many moving parts. One broken leg and then what?
sure hf because those bitter clingers are just plain embarrassing talking amongst themselves about principles and behavior where all the hipsters might hear them and be offended.
bingo
Darleen, forgive me, but I am unclear what your point is here.
I get that the lefties are outraged! (what else is new?) that they can’t run around with their naughty bits hanging out and be respected for it. However, I’m a little bothered about dress codes. We’re around the same age and I’m sure you can remember having your skirt measured in high school.
Where are we going with this?
I was going to write something here, but screw it.
Leigh, to draw an analogy, don’t dress like a gang banger and act surprised if people think you’re a gang banger. It ain’t about mandated dress codes. It’s about common sense.
Aw, come on cranky, tell us what you really think.
leigh
why are you bothered about Christians discussing/preaching/offering opinions about modesty? Are those pamphlets asking for Government to institute sworn modesty officers to run around and beat/arrest people for their dress?
And my point is that the Left seems to try and have it all ways … they demand THEIR way of dressing be accepted without comment, even to bits hanging out .. they want to mock anyone that believes differently, sneer that men actually are aroused by lady bits, but also believe that any kind of sexual expression is a-ok even if intended TO arouse others.
and leigh
I really think this is just a continuation of the 1970’s “the personal is political” left-feminist movement. Absolutely everything, including sex, has to be within Social Justice parameters.
So people who move outside of the political in their personal relationships – be it one with God, spouse or children, need to be marginalized.
That Christian men and women should discuss openly their relationships in terms of propriety, exclusivity and responsibility CANNOT BE TOLERATED!
The State is god, there shall be no other before it.
Lee, you and Darleen covered what I was going to say just fine, and used better language.
I didn’t name myself cranky-d without cause.
I’m sure you can remember having your skirt measured in high school.
Yep and I remember my mom swearing (once our dress code allowed pants for girls) that she would never see me wearing jeans to school.
Which lasted all of one semester. I wore my skirts fingertip length and got some groovy hiphugger bellbottoms at Jeans West
BTW, not only do I think dress codes are fine at school, but I think the kids should wear uniforms.
I have a dress code at my work too. If I don’t like it, I can find another job.
why are you bothered about Christians discussing/preaching/offering opinions about modesty?
I’m not bothered by that discussion. It just seemed glaringly obvious to me that this is a common sense issue.
Kind of like school uniforms seem like common sense but people get outraged! about it.
Very generous…thank you.
Still, somehow, I just think I could have said it better…clearer.
It’s hard to convey such nuances as the difference between petitioning a representative government, and vaporizing a representative population.
You’d THINK it would be easy, but it turns out…not so much.
Are those pamphlets asking for Government to institute sworn modesty officers to run around and beat/arrest people for their dress?
I don’t know. You tell me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bZkp7q19f0
Oppan Gangnam style!
Which lasted all of one semester. I wore my skirts fingertip length and got some groovy hiphugger bellbottoms at Jeans West
Fucking whore.
We live in a world where parents are trying to fight off thongs and tramps stamps by 8th grade.
It’s not hard to fight them off, just say no. I have three neices, all thought my brother was a demon from hell when they were in school, five years later they worship the ground he walks on.
He isn’t afraid to be a man.
I’m just saying that we are a ways past bellbottoms being the focus of youth rebellion.
And bellbottoms were a ways past raccoon skinned coats and flapper dresses…
yadda … yadda… yadda…
You Kids Get Offa My Lawn!
I think kids should be forced to wear high tech clean suits in school. It’d be more THX-1138 that way. And supposedly they are all training for high tech semi-conductor manufacturing/lab jobs anyway. (In China).
Yeah, and look how that movie ended.
Doubleplus ungood.
Because he wasn’t afraid of talking about decency?
You seem to argue against your position.
There’s not a small bit of irony in the fact that the Kos kiddies who sneer at the modesty prescription are those we’d most hope would take up the cause of modesty – fif only for purely aesthetic reasons.
Because he didn’t depend on the government or the school or the churches to teach his kids decency. He did it himself.
*really*
Bop-bop, shoo-bee, doo-ahh.
Although, Sunset Red polka-dot red rouge.
And our elected representatives should have the decency to respect your brothers values, not work against them.
Did he vote for a guy that wanted to keep your underage nieces potential abortion away from her fathers knowledge? Is that at all important to him?
Does it matter to you?
I wonder what’s going to be left of us after the election.
He is a hard core union Democrat. Thinks Obama is just fine.
I don’t try to figure this shit out, you see. I just want to be left alone.
“Yeah, and look how that movie ended.”
What? If they can make it past the robot cops and climb the ladder that leads the surface then they graduate. And they don’t have to worry about creepy Robert Pleasance screwing up their room mate assignments anymore.
Sorry, Donald Pleasance. Anyway once they get the surface they can enter college which will be modeled on Tender Mercies where they wake up drunk in front of a gas station in North Texas run a by a widow and her young son. It’ll be great.
Robert Duval has so much to offer education.
Duvall? I think it’s Duvall.
Yes, “Tender Mercies” was Duvall.
De Niro as Harry Tuttle.
Slut walks and Islamophilia (as opposed to Islamophobia) cannot co-exist.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/321066/hearts-and-minds-mark-steyn
I’m just saying that we are a ways past bellbottoms being the focus of youth rebellion.
In my day (elementary school), the absolute worst fashion faux pas was to wear peg-leg jeans, especially if they didn’t touch the top of your shoes.
Because then they were FLOODS, and any kid wearing floods was marked for eternal shame.
Sure they could touch the tops of your shoes, but were you wearing the right kind of shoes? No cheapo sneakers from K-Mart, they’d better be Wallabees.
I think it’s weird how rape is it’s own magical crime with it’s own rules.
When you suggest that a woman should be able to dress and say and act how she wants in a biker bar and that all blame falls on the rapist and anything else even phrased as common sense safety tips is blaming the victim .
But on the side of the downtown municipal police headquarters on 10th street in Austin there is a huge banner that says that if you don’t take precautions to protect your car from Auto theft that you are helping the auto thieves. That sentiment is not blaming the victim. And therefore leaving merchandise on the front seat, the keys in the ignition, the doors unlocked, and the windows rolled down in a high traffic neighborhood it is NOT reasonable to say that car theft is still entirely the fault of the thief.
Now I’m not proposing dress codes or conduct codes or mandatory chaperones or any other scary patriarchal Saudi Arabia type crap. But I think it is kind of weird that we handle the two crimes so differently with no objection. If the rape victim can’t be accountable even as a matter of cautionary advice for any risky behavior then why should the victim of car theft be any different?
“In my day (elementary school), the absolute worst fashion faux pas was to wear peg-leg jeans, especially if they didn’t touch the top of your shoes.”
We were always going back and forth between boot cut (hick)and faded straight leg (sooo alternative!) until Morrisey brought us those stupid black jeans. But then I’m a guy and we wore C3PO t-shirts with no irony long before women shamed their feet with Crocks.
Oh wait, I forgot about the age of OP. Shorts (or highwaters in the fall), vans, and those stupid ‘hide your dick’ length t-shirts. And a comb in the pocket.
And the whole ‘Miami Vice’ thing when I was a sophomore in high school….uuggh. Jolt Cola doesn’t begin to excuse that.
The OP suit combs were those bright primary colored plastic combs with the beveled spike for a handle.
I remember when I was informed in third grade that Tuff Skins were uncool and I should get some Jordache or Calvin Klein jeans. Those stupid pants didn’t even have room for a little boy’s junk. And those Izod shirts and all the me-too competitors (including the sad Fox shirts) were just sad.
I don’t have a problem saying it’s all the thief’s fault. What one element do you remove and have the car not stolen?
A criminal can be a monster and a victim can be an idiot, both at the same time! Dunno why that’s so hard for some people to understand.
palaeomerus, you know what’s hilarious? My 15 year old wears Levi 501 jeans, Converse hightops or Sperry boat shoes, plain white t-shirts and slogan tees, and a leather bomber jacket and avatar sunglasses most of the time.
In other words, he dresses nearly exactly like my brothers did back in the 70s, but without the long hair and wispy fauxstache.
“I don’t have a problem saying it’s all the thief’s fault. What one element do you remove and have the car not stolen?”
You don’t have a problem but the point I”m trying to make is the poster hangs on the side of the Police HQ. If it was about rape and maintaining the same principle that risk is manageable by the victim and ignoring risk aids the perpetrator would it STILL hang on the side of the Police HQ? I think it would not. I think Outrage would have it down in two days.
It’s okay to publicly blame a potential car theft victim for not mitigating risk. It is not okay to blame a potential rape victim for not mitigating risk, probably even privately.
I hope fringy sleeveless blue jean vests don’t come back. I’d like to see the old half sleeve baseball jersey’s back though. I think.
You can get baseball jerseys with three-quarter length sleeves at the Gap. Also knock-off Vans in solid colors.
” Dunno why that’s so hard for some people to understand.”
Probably because if they put that on the side of the police headquarters for one crime people would have a huge fit and and when they put it up for another crime they just shrug.
For what it’s worth, palaeo — if my daughter’s car stereo got ripped off, I’d probably just shrug. If my daughter were raped, I’d have a huge fit. Even the most rational among us get a little irrational about certain things.
That being said, I wouldn’t be past saying “You’re asking for it” if she made a habit of leaving her iPhone on the dash, or hanging around the Legislature in a CFM skirt. But that’s before the fact. Afterwards, I’d probably punch anyone making such observations. Again — irrational!
If the rape victim can’t be accountable even as a matter of cautionary advice for any risky behavior then why should the victim of car theft be any different?
Is dressing like a slut always risky behavior vis-à-vis rape?
What’s riskier: Dressing like slut and walking down the street in broad daylight, or dressing like the Church Lady and getting smashed at a frat party?
I’d also like to point out that among many Muslims there’s the belief that Allah made men naturally upright and righteous, but then Shaitan came along and conspired with women to make men sin. Ergo, women are by nature evil seductresses who are going to hell unless they obey their husbands (and all the other men in their lives).
Whereas sane Christians figure that sexual attraction is a necessary part of our lives that we all need to exercise mature control of.
Furthermore, among most mammals, the female signals that she’s ready to mate by emitting pheromones, but among humans, she bares her skin. That’s hard-wired into the male brain as a sign that she wants it.
Well-raised men know that some women bare their skin because they’re as stupid as a box of rocks, NOT because ready to mate. Well-raised women know that it’s foolish and sometimes cruel to send mixed signals.
And to save it for the boudoir if you want it to be worth anything.
If you go out camping in bear territory and keep rashers of raw bacon in the tent while you sleep, is it really the bear’s fault that you’re dead?
Camping in Mr. Bear’s yard is always a bad idea. Ask (well you can’t a-cause he’s dead) Tim Whatshisname, the Grizzly Guy.
“and getting smashed at a frat party”
Isn’t that just another risky behavior?
“If you go out camping in bear territory and keep rashers of raw bacon in the tent while you sleep, is it really the bear’s fault that you’re dead?”
Do bears get lawyers and cop pleas for shorter sentences?
The bear doesn’t care if you blame him or not. The Forest Service will probably destroy him anyway though…
…is it really the bear’s fault that you’re dead?
So you’re saying that rapists, given a whiff of something tasty, should be expected to rape, and held blameless for acting according to their nature? Or are you saying that decent Muslim women can’t get raped, because they never carry bacon?
Like Pooh, I am confuzzled.
What’s riskier: Dressing like slut and walking down the street in broad daylight, or dressing like the Church Lady and getting smashed at a frat party?
That depends. Does the Church Lady outfit include the sexy glasses? Regardless, I think I’d recommend that my daughter not engage in either behavior. Assuming that ‘none of the above’ is an option.
“So you’re saying that rapists, given a whiff of something tasty, should be expected to rape,”
Or muslims who see an offensive movie should be expected, in some proportion, to riot and kill as matter of inevitable instinct and not human volition and responsibility ?
You know who’s at fault is people that put out bird feeders. They cause 95% of all problem bears is what I heard.
I have no statistics for bacon rashers…
Well-raised women know that it’s foolish and sometimes cruel to send mixed signals.
Pretty much this.
If we were all on the same wavelength (i.e., the “if men were angels” argument) it wouldn’t matter what women wear, no guy would take it as an invitation toward sexual behavior unless she said to him, “hey, let’s do it!”. Unfortunately since we’re part of a culture that likes to use the “hey, let’s do it!” signals of either sex as fodder for advertisements, casualwear, and just about anything in the mass media, as well as just getting the opposite sex’s attention without any intent to have sex, we’ve put ourselves in a serious bind. There’s no one clear interpretation of those signals anymore, so when you have somebody from the “I feel pretty the more skin I show” camp walking past someone from the “that much skin means she’s trolling for sex” camp, you get into serious trouble.
Slammed our collective naughty bits in the door of a car, you might say.
I think it’s probably stupid to generalize rapists (specifically those who rape by force or violent coercion) and their psychology and impulse too tightly until we get those mind reading helmets working.
BUT I doubt most rapists are really all that obedient to signals or care much what their target wants. They might target people who look slutty or who are impaired or drunk for reasons of opportunism or facility but the act is not a mistaking of signals. If it were “sorry you’re not invited” would be the end of the unwanted attention and contact.
I think the rapist feels free to disregard signals and override the victim’s intent through threat or force when they perceive a low likelihood of there being an unpleasant consequences (like jail, or a family member or friend with a loaded hog leg taking care of the threat). The signals might be an attractor or a marker of victims but they aren’t the cause of anything. I think being at risk contributes but “shouldn’t” for what that is worth.
But like I said earlier the no ‘responsibility’ principle does not apply to grand theft auto. I guess it does with murder/manslaughter/homicide though since Trayvon can’t be held partially responsible for noticing someone was following him, confronting him, and knocking the guy down and banging his head off the concrete till he bled. Apparently he had the right to do that to Zimmerman because Zimmerman may have followed him.
Oh, I concur, paleo. I suppose my musing above works more for the very common leftist/SJwank idea that we live in a “rape culture” because sexual contact with a woman who “doesn’t want it” (but really does u guise!) is portrayed as desirable and so men will be pigs. Whereas the more reasonable explanation is that we’re a heterogeneous culture that’s trying to undergo a forced revolution of sexual mores and so no one’s on the same page as anyone else about what constitutes sexualized dress and behavior, leading to a slew of miscommunications of intent.
The former idea of the world is what leads some women to be horribly offended/scandalized/feel threatened when a man remarks on or compliments their appearance, or–Big Brother forfend!–flirts with them while they’re dressed in a sexually provocative way. Even though you have no way to know it because you come from an entirely different background and can’t read minds, you male pig, she’s dressed like that for herself, not because she wants your attention!! As opposed to all the other girls who do dress like that because they want attention.
Beyond that, though, I believe we had a discussion ’round the time of the last Slutwalk about presenting oneself as a soft or hard target when it came to those who’d forcibly assault you, for sex or otherwise. You can make the point that dressing as a soft target makes you more vulnerable to attack, so it’s a matter of risk assessment when dealing with situations where one’s likely to be attacked, without saying “and that’s why you were raped”.