Post: #76

(09-02-2016 11:34 AM)Ivanis Wrote:  Good to see some hot anti-feminists fighting the good fight.

http://www.rooshv.com/why-the-female-ant...n-disguise

Post: #77

(10-13-2016 11:05 PM)Penta Sahi Wrote:  Bump.

I was catching up on news on my phone last night in bed. Lauren Southern was attacked again by some SJW types. I know, it's her shtick. But anons have been talking about it and they started sharing her pics. This is apparently a younger Lauren Southern before she got the blond hair.



And this was me the rest of the night before I fell asleep.

Is that pic verified by Lauren Southern? I've seen that face before, but I wasn't even in Canada yet anyways when Lauren Southern took her pre-blonde hair selfies.

Dat smile though.

Lauren Southern got "thicker" I heard, & how some tranny fishfucka from Uof T kicked her at a free speech rally on that campus.

If I were Lauren Southern's hubby, I would teach her some self defence tactics that will definitely put dat fishboy transexual faggot lying on the ground grimacing in pain without even laying a punch.

Lauren Southern staying in Toronto now doing work for Rebel Media fighting the SJW beast in Toronto, which IMO is way better than visiting hellhole refugee camps where even the local cat ladies in Europe are benefiting from those Refugee camps when they find some 12-year-old Arab refugee to use as a sex toy.

European Union got their own problems with lefties voting for sausage fest Refugees so they can have sex with Haram 12-year-old Arab cock, so best for Rebel Media to deal with North American issues, which Lauren Southern is a pro at trolling.

Still not sure about that pic if it's Lauren Southern...Her eyes thoe...

Post: #78

So much for Lauren Southern being a "good conservative chick."

I once heard her on an interview with Steven Crowder in which Crowder made a joke about photoshopping cleavage on her, and she replied that she had never shown cleavage in a video because she is a "good conservative girl" and "the internet would go crazy."

So much for that. She is clearly showing off dat ass in this video.

Post: #79

(10-14-2016 03:58 PM)Enoch Wrote:  She's a Canadian 8. Made-up pretty heavy most times I see her. You don't really know what a girl looks like until you see her without makeup.

Are fucking crazy. You must have never seen a french canadian feature stripper or mixed italian/finnish loggers daughter.

She is above "cute" but below "hot" a solid "pretty"

Post: #80

Rob Banks,

In Toronto, where Kathleen Wynne, a leader for the Province of Ontario wants to force 5-year-old kids to know about penis, vagina, vulva and genitals, and about anal sex at age 11, there is way more sexual degeneracy than a hot 21-year-old chick wearing shorts to "blend in" a Slutwalk demonstration.

There are female teachers and summer camp instructors who dress more provocative than Lauren Southern's shorts.

Even in the USA, some states got teacher union who would condone dress codes for students, but for female teachers, they even want to forbid school boards from even banning teachers showing ass cheeks & see through clothing citing "First Amendment", the right to dress even naked inside a classroom of minors they say.

Lauren Southern shorts is considered "modest" compared to what female teachers in Canada wear these days when teaching during the Summer weather. Plus, a horny 13-year-old boy isn't going to complain if he gets to see his teacher's boobies and bare legs while his female classmates are forced to cover up like wearing burkas because "dress code".

Post: #81

Weak jawline and a pointy chin. Does not squat. Basic white bitch; 7.

Post: #82

(10-14-2016 08:47 PM)RBerkley Wrote:  Rob Banks,

In Toronto, where Kathleen Wynne, a leader for the Province of Ontario wants to force 5-year-old kids to know about penis, vagina, vulva and genitals, and about anal sex at age 11, there is way more sexual degeneracy than a hot 21-year-old chick wearing shorts to "blend in" a Slutwalk demonstration.

There are female teachers and summer camp instructors who dress more provocative than Lauren Southern's shorts.

Even in the USA, some states got teacher union who would condone dress codes for students, but for female teachers, they even want to forbid school boards from even banning teachers showing ass cheeks & see through clothing citing "First Amendment", the right to dress even naked inside a classroom of minors they say.

Lauren Southern shorts is considered "modest" compared to what female teachers in Canada wear these days when teaching during the Summer weather. Plus, a horny 13-year-old boy isn't going to complain if he gets to see his teacher's boobies and bare legs while his female classmates are forced to cover up like wearing burkas because "dress code".

You're missing my point. I know that Lauren's short-shorts are nothing compared to some of the degeneracy going on out there. I'm not worried because I think some 13-year-old boy is going to see her and get turned on. With all the sexual imagery out there, I doubt Lauren's skimpy shorts are going to be shocking to anyone.

However, that is like saying a girl with 3 previous partners is wife material just because most other girls have way more than 3. Except that in a sane world, a woman with 3 previous partners would be considered an unmarriageable slut.

And in a sane world, Lauren's shorts would be considered skimpy and degenerate.

My point was simply that Lauren claims to be a "good conservative girl" who doesn't even show a little cleavage in her videos, but then posts this video in which she is revealing a lot more than just a little cleavage.

Again, read Roosh's article about female anti-feminists. I posted a link in one of my previous comments, just above.

P.S. I'm not sure she is trying to blend in with the Slut Walk. She seems to be alone, and is pretty clearly an opponent of the Slut Walk based on her questions. Even if I am wrong and she is trying to blend in, that doesn't change the fact that she is revealing her body. I would not want my woman to go outside dressed like that and then post it online for guys like us to ogle and comment on. It wouldn't matter if she was doing it to blend in with the protesters, to make a point, or for any other reason.

Post: #83

Rob Banks,

That video isn't even on her official Channels. If you noticed that YouTube channel filmed the video, and it isn't an official Lauren Southern Channel. The YT channel is like a Roosh V fan channel.

Therefore, the video was filmed because of a Roosh fan who wanted to gather some content for a story, and while he was at the Slutwalk, he saw Lauren Southern and filmed her.

Lauren Southern didn't film her own ass.

Lauren Southern did dress skimpy, but she's 21 like a college chick. She most likely wore that shorts to make some political statement, but she doesn't usually dress like this too much on her official YouTube channels.

You should be happy that you got to see her ass on video though. The next thing to develop if for Roosh to get a notch with her.

Post: #84

(10-14-2016 09:39 PM)RBerkley Wrote:  Lauren Southern did dress skimpy, but she's 21 like a college chick.

This is something i've gotten from a lot of people and I don't really understand it. Whenever I make a comment to friends or family about some young girl who is either dressed too skimpy, or has had more than one boyfriend, or whatever, a response I often get is "She's still young. She's only 19. You can't really blame her."

My response to that is, "so are you saying if she was 13, it would be even more acceptable to do what she's doing?"

In my opinion, it is actually a lot more off-putting when I see a young teenage (or early 20s) girl dressed skimpily than an older woman in her 30s. The woman in her 30s I assume has been damaged for a long time, but the younger girl I feel bad for.

(10-14-2016 09:39 PM)RBerkley Wrote:  She most likely wore that shorts to make some political statement

What kind of political statement? I thought she was opposed to the "slut walk."

(10-14-2016 09:39 PM)RBerkley Wrote:  she doesn't usually dress like this too much on her official YouTube channels.

That's my point. She doesn't dress like that, and she even pointed out one (while being interviewed by Steven Crowder) time that if she showed any cleavage in her videos "the internet would go crazy."

(10-14-2016 09:39 PM)RBerkley Wrote:  The next thing to develop if for Roosh to get a notch with her.

I hope so. I'm not sure Roosh would ever want to go back to Canada, though.

Post: #85

Depressing, really.

In international no-fattie world she's a 5.5 at best.

In the west she's a 7.

Post: #86

I've met Lauren Southern IRL. Pretty hot, easily an 8 by Toronto standards. I suppose I could see her being a 6 in LA but I'm guessing most of the dudes rating her a 6 are just trying to make it look like they slay models on the reg.

Post: #87

....Did you bang

Post: #88

Her political views, pleasant character and good looks makes a very desirable woman in my book.

Post: #89

(10-21-2016 05:05 PM)redbeard Wrote:  ....Did you bang

No. Didn't try. She must have like several hundred thousand right-leaning men to choose from, I can't imagine I'd have much to bring to the table.

Post: #90

(10-21-2016 06:22 PM)Andy_B Wrote:  

(10-21-2016 05:05 PM)redbeard Wrote:  ....Did you bang

No. Didn't try. She must have like several hundred thousand right-leaning men to choose from, I can't imagine I'd have much to bring to the table.

I appreciate the honest response but I do not appreciate the poverty mindset. What do you bring to the table....you've got the forum on your side!

Post: #91

Please stay on topic.



Was her bumpa nice or not?

Post: #92

(10-17-2016 08:46 AM)Rob Banks Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 09:39 PM)RBerkley Wrote:  Lauren Southern did dress skimpy, but she's 21 like a college chick.

This is something i've gotten from a lot of people and I don't really understand it. Whenever I make a comment to friends or family about some young girl who is either dressed too skimpy, or has had more than one boyfriend, or whatever, a response I often get is "She's still young. She's only 19. You can't really blame her."

My response to that is, "so are you saying if she was 13, it would be even more acceptable to do what she's doing?"

In my opinion, it is actually a lot more off-putting when I see a young teenage (or early 20s) girl dressed skimpily than an older woman in her 30s. The woman in her 30s I assume has been damaged for a long time, but the younger girl I feel bad for.

This is just the reality of female group psychology. All women, but especially young women, care about their appearance in two primary contexts: social acceptability (etiquette) and signaling to potential mates. There's also status signaling but that's not very relevant here. Lauren is not a religious fundamentalist nor does she appear seeking a fundamentalist husband so it doesn't make sense to apply extreme conservative standards to her behavior.

Social acceptability is exclusively about "not giving offense." If you spend much time around women, you'll hear them frequently talking about what some women "can get away with" or not get away with, and it almost always has to do with their physical appearance. A fit woman with excellent skin "can" go out running in a major coastal city wearing nothing but a sports bra and will only offend a tiny category of marginalized conservatives. However, a woman with a flabby stomach will face greater pressure to cover up, since her fleshy cellulite will offend onlookers. This is just one example. it's unlikely that any man has the time or patience to fully understand all the various rules that women enforce on each other with regards to their appearance and what is appropriate when and where, especially since it changes every few months. I really don't recommend trying to applying too much logic or reason to it. They're women, they're emotional. Ultimately they'll do with whatever feels right to them and they'll use language to reinforce and validate those feelings.

The last important thing to realize about "social acceptability" is that what you're doing, where you're going matters, as does your relationship status. The standards for a young professional working an office job is different from the standard expected for a college girl going to class. Single women are expected to be trying harder to attract men than married women. This another place where the "it's young so it's OK" comes from. Younger women tend to be more likely to be engaged in activities with a lower standard of dress than older women.

The other fundamental category that all women care about is mate signaling. While social acceptance is about not giving offense, mate signaling is about balancing sexual attraction with long-term mate worth. A girl wants to be as sexy as possible to attract as many high-quality men as possible. But she also wants signal good moral character so that those high-quality men will see her as a potential long-term mate, not a mere slut.

The main way women signal good character with their clothing is by conforming to the socially acceptable standards I mentioned above, not the traditional notion of conservative attire. When Lauren Southern is talking about being a good conservative girl, she's still talking within the general overton window of acceptable fashion defined by the women in her circle. She is not talking about your particular notion of conservative dress.

Now remember that the acceptable standards change with the winds of fashion. Women engage in a perpetual arms race with other women with regards to the sexiness of current fashion. Young and sexy women will push for tighter and more revealing clothing while the plainer will tend to pull for more modesty or eccentricity. Sometimes, they they all agree on something that becomes a standard (see: Yoga Pants). Currently, the young&sexy faction has successfully established shorts that reveal the curve of ass cheeks to be inside the far left wing of socially acceptable attire.

So Lauren's jean shorts, which may seem overly revealing to you, are nevertheless rather moderate by the standards of her social sphere. She's also young, single, and undoubtedly trying to attract high-value men. She wants to be as revealing as possible without going too far. If she was trying to attract a Christian fundamentalist husband, she might be dressed more modestly, but that seems unlikely. Most likely she wants the most successful and masculine man she can find to commit to her, preferably someone within her social class or higher.

Post: #93

Legs not tits is the general accepted modesty code around the world. In Asia for example, booty shorts and skirts that show everything are fully acceptable while just a hint of cleavage is considered very slutty. Eastern Euro countries also have short skirts and short shorts but not much cleavage. Likewise Brazilians will not think twice about a mini-thong but will frown at topless bathing.

Post: #94

(10-24-2016 01:24 PM)Blaster Wrote:  

(10-17-2016 08:46 AM)Rob Banks Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 09:39 PM)RBerkley Wrote:  Lauren Southern did dress skimpy, but she's 21 like a college chick.

This is something i've gotten from a lot of people and I don't really understand it. Whenever I make a comment to friends or family about some young girl who is either dressed too skimpy, or has had more than one boyfriend, or whatever, a response I often get is "She's still young. She's only 19. You can't really blame her."

My response to that is, "so are you saying if she was 13, it would be even more acceptable to do what she's doing?"

In my opinion, it is actually a lot more off-putting when I see a young teenage (or early 20s) girl dressed skimpily than an older woman in her 30s. The woman in her 30s I assume has been damaged for a long time, but the younger girl I feel bad for.

This is just the reality of female group psychology. All women, but especially young women, care about their appearance in two primary contexts: social acceptability (etiquette) and signaling to potential mates. There's also status signaling but that's not very relevant here. Lauren is not a religious fundamentalist nor does she appear seeking a fundamentalist husband so it doesn't make sense to apply extreme conservative standards to her behavior.

Social acceptability is exclusively about "not giving offense." If you spend much time around women, you'll hear them frequently talking about what some women "can get away with" or not get away with, and it almost always has to do with their physical appearance. A fit woman with excellent skin "can" go out running in a major coastal city wearing nothing but a sports bra and will only offend a tiny category of marginalized conservatives. However, a woman with a flabby stomach will face greater pressure to cover up, since her fleshy cellulite will offend onlookers. This is just one example. it's unlikely that any man has the time or patience to fully understand all the various rules that women enforce on each other with regards to their appearance and what is appropriate when and where, especially since it changes every few months. I really don't recommend trying to applying too much logic or reason to it. They're women, they're emotional. Ultimately they'll do with whatever feels right to them and they'll use language to reinforce and validate those feelings.

The last important thing to realize about "social acceptability" is that what you're doing, where you're going matters, as does your relationship status. The standards for a young professional working an office job is different from the standard expected for a college girl going to class. Single women are expected to be trying harder to attract men than married women. This another place where the "it's young so it's OK" comes from. Younger women tend to be more likely to be engaged in activities with a lower standard of dress than older women.

The other fundamental category that all women care about is mate signaling. While social acceptance is about not giving offense, mate signaling is about balancing sexual attraction with long-term mate worth. A girl wants to be as sexy as possible to attract as many high-quality men as possible. But she also wants signal good moral character so that those high-quality men will see her as a potential long-term mate, not a mere slut.

The main way women signal good character with their clothing is by conforming to the socially acceptable standards I mentioned above, not the traditional notion of conservative attire. When Lauren Southern is talking about being a good conservative girl, she's still talking within the general overton window of acceptable fashion defined by the women in her circle. She is not talking about your particular notion of conservative dress.

Now remember that the acceptable standards change with the winds of fashion. Women engage in a perpetual arms race with other women with regards to the sexiness of current fashion. Young and sexy women will push for tighter and more revealing clothing while the plainer will tend to pull for more modesty or eccentricity. Sometimes, they they all agree on something that becomes a standard (see: Yoga Pants). Currently, the young&sexy faction has successfully established shorts that reveal the curve of ass cheeks to be inside the far left wing of socially acceptable attire.

So Lauren's jean shorts, which may seem overly revealing to you, are nevertheless rather moderate by the standards of her social sphere. She's also young, single, and undoubtedly trying to attract high-value men. She wants to be as revealing as possible without going too far. If she was trying to attract a Christian fundamentalist husband, she might be dressed more modestly, but that seems unlikely. Most likely she wants the most successful and masculine man she can find to commit to her, preferably someone within her social class or higher.

I get what you're saying, and you're right. I guess I just can't help but notice these things since I am aware of how much the notion of "acceptable clothing" has changed over the last century.

If it were my girl in those shorts, I would think to myself "why do I have to be okay with other men staring at my girl's ass when most civilized men throughout history did not have to deal with that. Am I just supposed to accept it because 'times have changed'?"

There is a reason why throughout most of civilized European history, women had to cover up, and they were not even allowed to wear pants. Wearing pants means that the outline of the girl's legs and ass are visible.

I do understand what you're saying, though. Most women won't really see a problem with dressing in skimpy shorts because in today's world, it is not perceived as being slutty.

Lastly, just to clarify, I am not "offended" by Lauren's shorts. Quite the opposite. Lauren is hot and I have no problem seeing as much of her body as I did in that video. It just makes me sad that this is what is considered "good conservative dress" these days. I hope I end up having only sons and no daughters.

Post: #95

(10-24-2016 01:36 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  Legs not tits is the general accepted modesty code around the world. In Asia for example, booty shorts and skirts that show everything are fully acceptable while just a hint of cleavage is considered very slutty. Eastern Euro countries also have short skirts and short shorts but not much cleavage. Likewise Brazilians will not think twice about a mini-thong but will frown at topless bathing.

I just noticed, if you watch the last few seconds of the video, when Lauren turns around, she is showing cleavage too!

Post: #96

(10-24-2016 02:13 PM)Rob Banks Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 01:36 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  Legs not tits is the general accepted modesty code around the world. In Asia for example, booty shorts and skirts that show everything are fully acceptable while just a hint of cleavage is considered very slutty. Eastern Euro countries also have short skirts and short shorts but not much cleavage. Likewise Brazilians will not think twice about a mini-thong but will frown at topless bathing.

I just noticed, if you watch the last few seconds of the video, when Lauren turns around, she is showing cleavage too!

Get a grip Rob.

Post: #97

In general, Laura Southern a elicit three responses from manosphere:
1.) Admiration for being a female with conservative values and being good look.
2.) Pedestalization and oneitis for being a good looking girl with conservative bent that guys dream of.
3.) An object of virtue signaling by another men to stop pedestalization and oneitis of anti-feminist bent.

Every single time she is mention, we get combine of those three responses. Then we Rob calling her to cover up since showing to much skin. That a new response.

I had to watch the video again, since its been so long. Rob, I see no problem with her clothing. Her boobs and ass is not showing, so there won't be question by little ones about her dress. Its something I expect to see any 20's something girl wear during a hot day.

Post: #98

Quote:If it were my girl in those shorts, I would think to myself "why do I have to be okay with other men staring at my girl's ass when most civilized men throughout history did not have to deal with that. Am I just supposed to accept it because 'times have changed'?"

Total nonsense. Most civilized men throughout history also didn't allow their women out of the house at all without their escorting them. Women and men also wore all manner of heavier clothing in general. It was a high of 27 Celsius (80 Fahrenheit) that day in Toronto and the summers tend to be fairly humid, so while her clothes might not be real modest, they are not real immodest either, especially considering the weather. If her shorts actually showed ass I could understand your stance, but this is a little silly.

That's bikini weather around here and that includes church girls who are a bit prudish (they'll wear a shirt over their bikini at most).

If you don't want your girl to wear shorts that short, that has little to do with Lauren Southern or society in Toronto. That should have to do with your girl and your frame. With your commentary above, though, I wonder that you could handle just about any guy looking at your girl, regardless of the reason.

Guys look at my girl all the time, but she's looking at me not them, so I care not.

Post: #99

The anti feminist unicorn will always bring the incels out of the woodwork to shower her with admiration.

She's cute. Not ugly, but not hot.

What's next, ShoeOnHead appreciation thread?

Post: #100

(10-24-2016 02:19 PM)GlobalMan Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 02:13 PM)Rob Banks Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 01:36 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  Legs not tits is the general accepted modesty code around the world. In Asia for example, booty shorts and skirts that show everything are fully acceptable while just a hint of cleavage is considered very slutty. Eastern Euro countries also have short skirts and short shorts but not much cleavage. Likewise Brazilians will not think twice about a mini-thong but will frown at topless bathing.

I just noticed, if you watch the last few seconds of the video, when Lauren turns around, she is showing cleavage too!

Get a grip Rob.

I don't actually give a fuck. Sorry if it came off like I did. I was just responding to his comment about "legs, not tits."