Post: #1

   

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?

Post: #2

That reminds me of this:

   

Post: #3

Consider this: in Croatia, they let the little girls (under 8) go topless on beaches. They just wear the bottoms. Croatia is not a slutty culture, or nearly sex obsessed as we are.

It's when the intent is sexualization that things go bad.

Post: #4

It's only a matter of time encouraging little boys to wear bikinis and get "ironic" slut stamps in the US.

Post: #5

Next up: crotchless panties.

Post: #6

Post: #7

Why do women put their daughters up to it?

We're not talking about 12 year old girls opting for slutty clothes and the moms permitting it - this is women draping girls too young to pick their own clothing in slutwear.

My suspicion is that these women are gluttons for sexual attention, and they want to transmit that attribute to their daughter. Some of the mothers are unable to get sexual attention, or feel awkward soliciting it because they're married, so they opt to live vicariously through their daughters.

Post: #8

(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.

Post: #9

(09-18-2012 08:02 PM)Roosh Wrote:  Consider this: in Croatia, they let the little girls (under 8) go topless on beaches. They just wear the bottoms. Croatia is not a slutty culture, or nearly sex obsessed as we are.

It's when the intent is sexualization that things go bad.

That's true Roosh, but you made the main point with regards to intent. I've seen the same thing here plenty of times - very young girls at the beach or a pool without a top. One of my former lovers is Spanish, and throughout her children's lives they've returned to Spain in the summers to visit family. They've been going to topless beaches there all their lives. She herself would go topless in front of her kids, and it wasn't a big deal. But as her sons got older, they would ask, "Hey mom, are you going to go topless this summer?" That's when she stopped going topless. They never asked that before, but her kids are more American than Spanish - they were all born here, and went to school here. They began to view nudity the way Americans do, not the way Europeans do.

Post: #10

From infants to prosti-tots.

Only in America.

Post: #11

One of the more hilarious takes on sexuality in the US is the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue. EVERY year since it has been published SI would get letters of complaint from parents about it. Many years ago SI gave subscribers the ability to opt-out of that particular issue. Yes, over the years it had gotten more risque (more topless shots of models cupping their breasts, etc.), and less about the suits (which it originally was all about - they did and still provide information about who makes the suit, etc.). The fact is it is the highest selling issue of the year, because WOMEN buy it to see the newest swimwear. While it's true that it really isn't a "sports" issue, SO WHAT. Prudish parents are worried about little Bobby seeing an actual adult (or late teen) wearing a bikini? When they may actually go to the beach or pool in real life? And frankly, the kid has probably already seen hardcore porn on his computer right under your roof. He's seen bikini-clad women on tv. Gimme a break...

Post: #12

As I step back and take a look at the bigger picture, the only purpose this serves is to keep the population growing.
It funny though because the US has such a huge divide between the haves and the have-nots. And we're moving all
the labor and manufacturing overseas to China, India and South America. So where does that leave us? A country full
of millionaires and jobless people. The only jobs left to fill in that scenario are soulless service positions... waiters, drivers,
strippers, hookers, random food service and mall jobs.

To quote Fight Club ...We're working jobs that we hate in order to buy things that we don't need.

The upper class need slaves to serve them, all at the rate of ....Minimum Wage!! That's the end result of all of this.

Honestly fellas ...why should we care? Unless some of us here want to have daughters and raise them in the US.
I highly doubt it though.

Let the dumb bitches slut up their kids. It will keep the slut supply high for years to come. As for me I've had the one kid that
I wanted to have. Thank god he's a boy. Lucky for him he's got me to teach him the ways of the warrior The only things
left for me to do is to achieve financial security so he can have a greater life, get a vasectomy to prevent having any daughters
and bang as many bitches as I can before I die.

I'm Pro-Slutification of the West

Post: #13

(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.

Post: #14

(09-18-2012 09:37 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

(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.

The Inez Sainz "controversy" involving the New York Jets last year really touches on this. Sainz is a "journalist" that mostly does interviews at Mexican soccer games, but comes up to "cover" major sports events in the US, namely the SuperBowl. She's less journalist than personality, and she's known for dressing provocatively. When she covered the Jets in preseason, she was wearing her usual uniform of tight, midriff-baring top, or super-tight sweater and painted on jeans wedged up her ass crack. She was in the locker room to interview Mark Sanchez, who has Mexican ancestry and kind of speaks some Spanish. Naturally, being in a locker room, she got some whistles and stares being dressed that way around jocks. When she was on the field, guys were purposely throwing footballs in her direction to get the excuse to get a closer look at her. Anyway, she supposedly was a little embarrassed by some of the attention the Jets were showing her, but didn't want to make a big deal of it (she stated that no player made any overt sexual comments, nor did anyone touch her). Another female journalist witnessed the shenanigans, and "came to her aid," even though she said she was fine, just a little embarrassed. Naturally, some "Organization of Bitches that Cover Sports" had to wade in to defend her, when nothing really happened. There's no reason for this organization to exist if they don't speak up for her, even though A) She isn't a journalist - she's a bimbo with a microphone that gets attention for dressing like a whore, and B) No female journalist in the US dresses that way expecting to be taken seriously. The other bitch in the locker room jumped in mainly because she was jealous that she was being ignored - after all, she had to fight for credibility and had to be the anti-bimbo to get her job, but this chick can walk in here and get attention for doing EVERYTHING we aren't supposed to do to be taken seriously. Which is part of the problem - no one takes Sainz seriously. She showed up at a SuperBowl dressed in a wedding dress, asking Tom Brady if he would marry her. She's a very hot looking clown. What this organization SHOULD have done was pull her aside and lectured her on her attire and professionalism. They should have told her about how they had to bitch and moan to get access to these very locker rooms, and how they had to dress like and act like professionals to get that access. They needed to tell her that this isn't Mexico - if you want to cover events here and be taken seriously, dress like you're going to the office, not the club or the street corner. But of course, they'd rather complain about lecherous jocks behaving like men in THEIR locker room. Dumb bitches. The greater joke is that for all of these supposed journalists covering sports, most are really only there because of their looks (there are a few true writer/journalists, but most are just pretty faces), not their knowledge of sports. The sideline reporter position was invented to get a hot woman on tv, because the audience is mostly men. Yeah, it's nice that there's more inclusiveness, but most of them aren't real journalists. They're bimbos with microphones. They just aren't dressed like whores like Sainz is.

   
   

Post: #15

(09-18-2012 08:02 PM)Roosh Wrote:  Consider this: in Croatia, they let the little girls (under 8) go topless on beaches. They just wear the bottoms. Croatia is not a slutty culture, or nearly sex obsessed as we are.

It's when the intent is sexualization that things go bad.

I definitely agree with this. I tried to explain to my old main girl from EE that when she wore super tight, short dresses or very revealing clothing she was sending a message to dudes when she went out that she was down to fuck or looking for lots of attention. She just didn't get it really until a big group of guys started catcalling her on the street one night. She would always look confused and say "im just trying to look good/like a woman" She was also raised very traditionally when it comes to sex.

Post: #16

(09-18-2012 09:37 PM)basilransom Wrote:  *He's a traditionalist conservative.

And, having perused his site and some of those he links to, I don't think I like him (nor would he be a fan of someone with my genetic heritage).
What he said in that particular instance you quoted, however, was useful, as was the comment thread.

Post: #17

Inez Sainz is the ultimate butterface. In fact, apart from her (admittedly epic) ass, she's pretty unremarkable. Her fake tits are unimpressive.

Post: #18

Next up: Dora the Explorer Thongs. With "Swiper No Swiping" Text.

Welcome to USA!

Post: #19

Not Slutification....... Pedophilia.

It is a not so well known secret that the "elites" of our society are comlpete perverts....
- into deviant sex of all kinds and they want the rest of society to share their predelictions so that they can degrade the rest of us and not feel so wierd.

Sexing up a child is not SLUTIFICATION, but PEDOPHILIA,......

all part of the slow push to make sex with children "normal".

its a sign of the decadence and decay of Western society -

after Gay sex is "normal", then will come Sex with children is "normal", then Incest will be "normal", and then Sex with animals" will be "normal".............

Post: #20

(09-19-2012 04:42 PM)kdolo Wrote:  Not Slutification....... Pedophilia.

It is a not so well known secret that the "elites" of our society are comlpete perverts....
- into deviant sex of all kinds and they want the rest of society to share their predelictions so that they can degrade the rest of us and not feel so wierd.

Sexing up a child is not SLUTIFICATION, but PEDOPHILIA,......

all part of the slow push to make sex with children "normal".

its a sign of the decadence and decay of Western society -

after Gay sex is "normal", then will come Sex with children is "normal", then Incest will be "normal", and then Sex with animals" will be "normal".............

If you have seen some of the girls I have taken down you would think sex with animals is legal in Canada

Post: #21