[Basil Ransom]

(09-18-2012 09:07 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

(09-18-2012 07:40 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

Elizabeth Hurley has designed a line of swimwear for little girls - bikinis. Jessica Simpson, who actually had a somewhat chaste persona, showed up on tv with her newborn daughter outfitted in a crocheted bikini. It's like we can't even wait until they actually have bodies to fill out bikinis before we want to slut-up children. And it's dumb adult bitches that think this is cute. It's like they want to cling to their youth and live through 8 year-olds?

And this is the same culture where we infantilize teenagers and throw older (25+) men under the bus for even looking at the 15-16 or even 18 year old girls we insist on slutting up. Then, at the same time, we insist on near puritanical standards of conduct for the programming these kids consume and almost everything else we do (ex: god help you if a boob shows up on super bowl sunday and your 15 year old sees it, or if you 13 year old daughter displays any knowledge of sex), while still sexually objectifying them and putting them in thongs. We want them to look and act like adults, but still be kids?

I'd be happier if Americans could just pick a side and stay on it rather than trying to have their cake and eat it too. Either the kids are kids and they need to dress/act/be treated accordingly (and be left alone/protected as well by adults), or they are adults who dress, act and LOOK like adults and have sex like them too.

You can't have it both ways.

Lawrence Auster* had a great take on this.

Quote:

I have previously written:

• The way many women dress today, with half their breasts exposed, is an expression of total disrespect for men. Men are left with three possible responses. To grab the woman, which is illegal; to ogle the woman, which is socially unacceptable; or to affect not to notice the woman at all, which is emasculating. A culture that normalizes such female behavior—i.e. not only not noticing or objecting to it, but prohibiting any objection to it—is extremely sick.

To expand on this idea, let us consider a situation we see constantly on television today, particularly on the cable news stations, in which a male guest or host is speaking with a female guest or host (though more often the woman is the host or interviewer) on a political talk show or news program. The man is dressed properly in jacket and tie. The woman is wearing a top with an absurdly plunging neckline revealing half her upper chest and often more besides. It is highly revealing, highly provocative, and totally inappropriate for any forum in which serious matters—war, economic recession, constitutional crises—are supposedly being seriously discussed. Yet, though the woman is exposing her body in a way that is impossible not to notice, and though her exposed body undercuts the very idea that this is a serious news program, the man is not supposed to notice it, or to appear as if he notices it. And, I believe, so profoundly acclimated are contemporary men to feminist mores and liberal expectations generally that the man in fact doesn’t notice it and is entirely cool with the whole set-up. And so the man in sober jacket and tie and the woman with ludicrous acres and declivities of flesh revealed go on talking about terrorism, or the economy, or the next president’s cabinet appointees, with the man’s eyes never even for a micro-second wandering below the woman’s face. Not only does the situation emasculate the man, but the man, by submitting to it instead of telling the woman that she is not dressed appropriately and ought to cover herself (as, I’ve heard, Muslim guests on TV shows have occasionally told female hosts) emasculates himself. He emasculates himself sexually and as a male figure deserving of respect, because he is suppressing his normal reactions both as a man and as an authority figure. Thus have contemporary men turned themselves into passive drones, eunuchs of the gyneocracy.
Carol Iannone speculates that this ubiquitous self-emasculation of men, this psychological turning off and suppression of their normal reactions to women, has affected them to such a degree that when it’s actually time for them to release their normal sexual response, the response is not there, they can’t do it, they need help. And thus the Viagra craze.

...
I’ve never heard your theory before and it makes a lot of sense. Professional women—and women in general in our feminist, uprooted society—are living a life unnatural to their sex, a life that that de-sexes them. So to compensate for this de-sexualization and to win back a feeling of femininity, they opt for a perverted excess of femininity in the form of whorish dress. Further, when the whorish dress is the fashion in stores and it’s hard to find other options, that only increases the tendency.

The last bit is very on point, IMO - women have become defeminized, and have lost the ability to charm and win the favor of men except through aggressively showing off their bodies. Inevitably, this wins them unwelcome, even lecherous attention. Society of course has sanctioned their dressing like a whore for as long as they can remember, so it can't possibly be the fact that they dress like whores that's responsible. No, the man who deigns to notice her decolletage must be suppressed and punished.

The ensuing discussion in the link is also very interesting. For the reasons stated there, I think women wearing skimpy attire en masse can actually be a hindrance to seducing women in general - women get more attention from low quality men, and the men make approaches that raise the girls' bitch shields. Women then see strange men as lecherous and low value by default, which is a fair approximation of an American girl's mindset when she's in a bar. When girls are less scantily clad, men are more respectful, and thus bitch shields don't go up as much.

*He's a traditionalist conservative.