[I]n our house, there are no second chances, ladies. If you want to stay friendly with the Hall men, you’ll have to keep your clothes on, and your posts decent. If you try to post a sexy selfie, or an inappropriate YouTube video – even once – you’ll be booted off our on-line island.She's right. We men of integrity prefer scantily clad women who are hard at work putting themselves through college through artistically rendered interpretive dance routines of 80's classics such as Girls, Girls, Girls and Pour Some Sugar on Me.
I know that sounds harsh and old-school, but that’s just the way it is under this roof for a while. We hope to raise men with a strong moral compass, and men of integrity don’t linger over pictures of scantily clad high-school girls.
Seriously, though, this is precisely the sort of shaming behavior in which women are going to have to increasingly engage if they don't wish to see the average standard of female behavior continue to decline into naked advertising displays. And as for the idiot commenters complaining about photos of the woman's sons on the beach, I will simply point out that the state of attire is not the issue. Sexual provocation and titillation is the issue.
There are naked pictures that are entirely non-sexual. And there are fully-clothed pictures whose sole intent is to titillate. I used to keep a naked picture of my roommate framed on my bookshelf and not a single woman or homosexual man found it even slightly sexually enticing, as it happened to be one of the funniest and most disturbing pictures ever taken in the history of photography.
26 comments:
"I used to keep a naked picture of my roommate framed on my bookshelf and not a single woman or homosexual man found it even slightly sexually enticing, as it happened to be one of the funniest and most disturbing pictures ever taken in the history of photography."
A from-the-back view of a tuck job, I'm guessing. There's $100 says I'm right.
Of course sexual provocation is the issue. How else is a girl going to compete against better looking girls if she can't advertise higher availability?
did everyone note the churchian moron moms in the comments outraged at the topless pictures of her boys?
Their rage was delicious. It made my nipples explode with delight.
did everyone note the churchian moron moms in the comments outraged at the topless pictures of her boys?
Yup. The whole post went right over their heads.
That's because women. just. don't. get. it.
Take their aural porn (love songs, love ballads, hip hop, pop music, teen idol concerts).
Take their love literature (not just romance novels, but many pieces of literature).
Take their visual porn (men being men).
Roll them all together in it's effects on the female libido. And it still doesn't equal the effect pictures and videos of naked or sexy women have on the male libido.
It's not hypocritical nor self-righteous to have those pictures of her boys on there with this post. Once again the poison of equalism rears its ugly head. Girls and boys are not equal, they are not the same, their attraction and hormonal triggers are quite different. Deal with it.
OTOH, Mrs Hall is being very effective in protecting her sons from the depredations of alpha-chasing sluts. Not by convincing the sluts to change their behavior. Frankly none of them are going to give a fig what some woman with wrinkles and mom-hair thinks. But they will probalby lose interest in her sons because they come off as weaklings under their mother's thumb.
Unless of course she's playing a deeper game and giving the boys something to rebel against in front of their female admirers.
But I get the impression she's raising monks, not men. She strikes me as another churchian when it comes right down to it.
My wife was getting interested in the modesty movement, because as a mother of two daughters, she doesn't want our girls to dress like sluts, but the churchian moronic mothers are horrible. There was a post about some beauty queen who was homeschooled, and most of the comments came from these busybody nosepicking mothers who had nothing better to do than to criticize the beauty queen for wearing a bikini.
Yes, there are those who do not understand the difference between 'nude' and 'naked'.
There should be a contest where you have to fight naked. That will help mend the mental state of many poor souls.
We hope to raise men with a strong moral compass, and men of integrity don’t linger over pictures of scantily clad high-school girls.
What a peculiar thing to say. If I had sons, I'd have put it this way: "We hope to raise men with strong moral compasses, and men of integrity don’t date or marry girls who post scantily clad pictures of themselves. You want to advertise yourself as a warm place to put it? Fine. But our boys won't have anything to do with you."
did everyone note the churchian moron moms in the comments outraged at the topless pictures of her boys?
I didn't get far enough through the comments to see any outrage, but I did see some concern-clucking. Easily the stupidest thing I've seen all day, and that's after reading the news. You get the sense these same moms would find photos of naked baby bottoms provocative.
I like how the rules were given to the girls, but the reasoning / condoning was all on the males, because only men of integrity..blablabla.
Nothing to do with female integrity for not acting like sluts in the first place? Amusing that even when a woman is trying to have a dig and lay down the law at girls, it still resorts to poking at the blokes heh.
Good for that mom. Tell girls to act like a lady. If they don't, it's "next." Consequences for actions. Who woulda thunk it?
Of course, Jezebel has taken up the topic with the typical feminist, female-apologist slant.
http://jezebel.com/concerned-mom-slutty-girls-selfies-are-tempting-my-pe-1251831479
The article condemns the mom's "slut shaming" but then shames the family as religious fundamentalists that "stone impure women." Obviously there is only one type of acceptable shaming: that which is done by the feminists.
Nothing to do with female integrity for not acting like sluts in the first place?
Why bother? Appealing to integrity with females is not effective, because females are not generally motivated by abstract principles. Principles are more of a male thing. With females, the concrete realities of shame and other consequences -- like losing out on the attention of high-quality males -- for certain behaviors are far more effective.
Show us your wears! Or lack thereof.
Men of integrity - assuming they aren't taking megadoses of Depo Provera - will linger over scantily clad girls (assuming a reasonable BMI).
That is what male limbic systems causes under the influence of testosterone, and is what corresponds to hypergamy. We're wired to find women with an easy delivery and lots of milk and healthy (I'm not quite sure which specifically "long hair" comes under).
The Man from Glad meets the woman saran wrap clad.
"this is precisely the sort of shaming behavior in which women are going to have to increasingly engage if they don't wish to see the average standard of female behavior continue to decline into naked advertising displays"
No Vox, you're wrong. The key word here being "women." Women should not be in charge of anything, including shaming. That idea started in the garden of eden and things have gone to hell ever since.
Byteme,
It works either way. Shaming or denying women hypergamous access to the most desirable men (her sons).
tz:
From wikipedia:
"An evolutionary psychology explanation for this attraction is that hair length and quality can act as a cue to youth and health, signifying a woman's reproductive potential. As hair grows slowly, long hair may reveal 2–3 years of a person's health status, nutrition, age and reproductive fitness. Malnutrition and deficiencies in minerals and vitamins due to starvation causes loss of hair or changes in hair color (dark hair turns reddish)."
No Vox, you're wrong. The key word here being "women." Women should not be in charge of anything, including shaming. That idea started in the garden of eden and things have gone to hell ever since.
That was what I was thinking. Someone mentioned Churchians. Mrs Hall came off like a preacher giving a sermon. A female preacher giving a sermon. Nothing more churchian than that. And all the women complaining about her posting "topless" photos of her sons, well, contra everybodyhatesscott, I don't think the message went over those women's heads. I think they just ignored it.
Which is one of the reasons female preachers don't work out all that well. Nobody but scalzied gammas listen to them. Other women, especially younger, hotter women, certain don't. Not if the message isn't something they already wanted to hear anyway.
And then there's my reaction - it makes her sons look like wimpy momma's boys. At least two of them, maybe three, appearl old enough that it's a little unseemly for Mom to be reading their private communications.
Mr. Hall is the one that needs to be delivering this sermon.
Women shaming women doesn't work from the pulpit; as you guys say, that's the straightforward, male way of doing things. When women do it, it's done with whispers and looks and stuff that most guys wouldn't even see happening, but it's effective. A bunch of women get together and nothing direct is said out loud about the offender, but she goes home crying anyway.
What this woman's doing isn't even shaming, because she doesn't say it's wrong to post selfies; she just says it's unprofitable for a woman who desires one of her perfect little boys.
It works either way. Shaming or denying women hypergamous access to the most desirable men (her sons).
Alphas don't let their mothers tell them who they can date.
The story here is truly in the comments: the catty, ignorant assertions of hypocrisy from the other mothers who claim a sexual equivalence between emergent teen girl sexualization in the boudoir, and a boy in swim trunks at the beach.
Even some of the conservative religious moms are devoted to slut-culture, and defending it through the side door by indulging in tu quoque argument. That's got to be the worst form of slut-culture defense imaginable. What a carney fun-house it must be to live with a woman like that.
"That was what I was thinking. Someone mentioned Churchians. Mrs Hall came off like a preacher giving a sermon. A female preacher giving a sermon. Nothing more churchian than that."
Don't be stupid. Biblically speaking there is no problem with women being in charge of teaching other women.
There is nothing churchian about it.
It came across badly to you as a male... because you're a male.
It wasn't intended for you.
You aren't the audience.
Women are far mor effective at shaming women than men are.
"this is precisely the sort of shaming behavior in which women are going to have to increasingly engage if they don't wish to see the average standard of female behavior continue to decline into naked advertising displays"
'No Vox, you're wrong. The key word here being "women." Women should not be in charge of anything, including shaming. That idea started in the garden of eden and things have gone to hell ever since'
If you read what Vox wrote, he isn't advocating that women be in "charge" of shaming behavior. He only says that women are going to have to engage in shaming to correct the bad behavior of young women. And he's correct.
Like it or not, women care about the opinions of other women. If Mr. Hall wrote that post, the outcry would be substantially less. Think about how great it would be if thin women were vocal about shaming fat women. Or if married women started shaming single mothers.
Put that type of dangerous behavior on blast and get rid of it once and for all. Good females are a necessity to curb bad females.
I disagree with you guys. The young girls she's trying to teach aren't listening to her, & the shrieking seems to be mostly coming from other moms. Maybe I didn't read far enough down the comments, but that's the impression I got.
Women are far mor effective at shaming women than men are.
Indeed. And the same goes for men. Using that sort of histrionic language on a boy is absolutely pointless. A father's way to handle this, *if* he has brought his sons up with integrity and self-discipline is simply "Son, she may look appealing, but is this what you would want to marry?"
If the kid shrugs, say "Imagine your wife posting pics like that. If she's that eager for the attention of random men now, are you willing to take the chance a wedding ring will cure it? Or is it time to say "Next!"
Obviously, if you are raising a son to be a rooster who leaves no hen untouched, then there's no point in even discussing it. Just give him a bro-Dad high five.
"I disagree with you guys."
Me too. Women shaming women is more like a dare then a correction. It is women that have shamed other women right into massive single parenthood, divorce, slutwalks. I'd go so far as to blame most of our cultural ills on women shaming other women and creating a backlash.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.