Old vintage photo camera

In the memetime…

Undoubtedly this will be treated like slut shaming, but probably by a bunch of really stupid sluts, so who cares….



Please help AVFM continue to spread the message that Men’s Rights are Human Rights by contributing to our quarterly fundraiser. Thank you.

About VFM News and Commentary

VFM News and Commentary is part of the news service for A Voice for Men, allowing news stories, commentary and opinion pieces to be published on the site from outside sources.

Main Website
View All Posts
  • http://www.CanadaCourtWatch.com Attila L. Vinczer

    These girls will then turn into prostitots, thanks to moms who exploit their little girls. Then they scream bloody murder when the prostitot they moulded gets into trouble sexually.

    • Strange


      Great word – says it all!

  • greg

    On topic via @jamestaranto. Difficult to watch. Gave me a migraine.


  • http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com Robert St. Estephe

    To live in a culture of 24/7 sleaze, — with children maliciously denied access to their fathers, with boys denied necessary physical exercise and male-appropriate competitive activities, and force-drugged for the convenience of semi-educated public servants (euphemistically called “educators”) — is to have a low standard of living.

    This is how the term “standard of living” ought to be properly regarded, not as a quantitative measure of consumption, but qualitatively, as the ability to exercise voluntary association, especially when it comes to the natural family.

    The industrialized west has a low standard of living in comparison with many low-consumption cultures.

    And the deluded parasites who actively engineer this folly still chant, like brainwashed munchkins, with their moronic and unchecked glee: “progress, progress, progress!”

    • MGTOW-man

      Tell them like it is, Robert. Don’t worry about how it looks. Just be honest. Our movement needs more like you. Btw, I think your take on things looks great. I appreciate you.

  • http://whatcosttruth.wordpress.com Jesse Folsom

    This actually is somewhat hateful and hardly advocating for men, per se. It seems to have a very traditionalist view of terms like “whore”. There is nothing wrong, or at least, nothing wrong in terms of unambiguous harm to men, with prostitution, so using the term as a pejorative does seem like slut-shaming. Which is disappointing to me, since I thought I was on this site to see the interests of men represented, not traditionalism, which is anti-male, reinforced.

    Now, the childhood beauty pageant thing is pretty disgusting, but you’re really gonna pile on the Miley hate train? Really? Girl’s a grown-ass adult, and she’s not the one telling you not to think of women in a sexual way.

    I, for one, am capable of both caring about someone mostly as a sexual “object”, while at the same time realizing that they have a full humanity. We can, for one, simply discard most complaints of “objectification”, but this idea that women have to dress or not dress a certain way to have any respect is pretty gross. Our emphasis should not be on restricting women (after all, really nudity is the natural state of humans, just like any other animal, as expressed in several warm-weather cultures), but expanding the options for men.

    • http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com Robert St. Estephe

      Certainly “traditionalism” as we MHRAs very specifically use the term is justifiably regarded as anti-male. Yet the freedom to respect actual traditions (customs handed down from respected ancestry) and freedom of association, including individually elected “traditional marriage,” or monogamy, or free-from State-contamination natural family units is just as crucial to the human rights position of MHRA as respect for MGTOW.

      Ideological rigidity and doctrinaire posturing are the tools of authoritarians and busybodies — such as feminist ideologues. MGTOW is elective choice at its best and deserves respect. So does elective traditional morality as long as it does not use coercive devices on those who do not choose to adhere to it.

      I am never disappointed to see MHRAs take a position that tends towards liberty, including one’s personal distaste for the commodification of sexual intercourse. To each his own. I embrace and support the honorable married (or “monogamous”) man and the honorable MGHOW equally. Personally I do not recognize the feminist term “slut shaming” as having much value. Yet I am open to discussions of the significance of prostitution and its pro’s and con’s.

      The “man-up and take it like a workhorse” style of thinking — as it is imposed coercively — is the type of thing we talk about when we criticize the “-ism” of “traditionalism.” It is the coercion, the exploitation and the slavery that is objectionable, not the elective personal choice to go with the millenia-old way of life practiced by multitudinous diverse actual traditions of the world.

      • Odin

        “Man up and take is like a workhorse” – good one, though I’ll change the horse to “slave” for my own use.
        I’ll have to agree with Folsom: What did whores ever do to this meme?
        And yeah, it’s fine if people here wants to oppose prostitution, as well as oppose that opposition. I’m sorry not to really have anything new to really contribute, but I think everything that needed be said is already said, and I still wanted to voice my position.

    • Partridge

      Jesse, regarding your comment about the term ‘whore’, and your opinion on the harm done by prostitution, with which others of both sexes may agree or disagree (I happen to disagree), most of us would agree that men and women should be able to dress however they want, within the confines agreed and imposed by society generally relating to indecency and offensiveness.

      The way a person dresses in various situations usually indicates something of that person’s character, if not their immediate occupation or physical activity, and if that person is entitled to wear what they want, then we are entitled to draw conclusions from whatever attire is presented to the world. When women wear clothes which are decorative, as opposed to functional, and when they also wear make-up and jewellery in order to accentuate their sexual attributes rather than to simply appear well-groomed, then most of us would say they are objectifying themselves.

      And when they dress and decorate their young daughters in the same manner, most of us would say they are not only sexually objectifying their daughters, but engaging in a form of child abuse.

    • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

      I think the point of the language is something you pretty much missed. First, whether Cyrus is a “grown-ass adult” isn’t relevant, and I don”t take issue with her at all. Spare me the lame attempt to jump on a bandwagon of hate.

      But I do take issue with parents handing out tickets to children who are dressed just like her, in a highly sexualized way, right smack on the middle of a supposed crisis in how women are perceived.in this culture.

      And I do think there is a a problem with how women are perceived, though unlike feminists I don’t think it stems from misogyny, but is rather a direct reaction to how so many women in this culture present themselves; how they view themselves; how they go about securing sexual power, etc.

      The point is that you can’t have it all. If women want to be perceived as independent, capable human beings, social physics absolutely demands that they cannot get there tits first. Call that hateful if you will, but doing so just makes you a chump in my book. And not a very bright chump at that.

      • comslave

        But with larger amounts of men opting out of marriage, those women who insist on “having it all”, or at least the appearance of it, which requires marriage, will have to try harder for it. Those few remaining men willing to put that noose around their neck are going to have to have one really attractive looking noose to go for.

        It does bother me that they’re starting at such a young age, but since my family starts teaching the boys to hunt at around age 9, I suppose it’s all the same sort of thing: Learning to provision.

        Finding man willing to marry will be difficult in the next ten years. So these girls have to go in tits-first, or they’ll just be relegated to the position of “fuck buddy”, and wind up alone.

        And if that doesn’t work, at least they’ll make decent strippers.

        Or they could accept that they can’t have marriage and just do what the rest of us are doing, going to work every day and putting everything you’ve got into it.

        Gloria S. said a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle, and I for one am willing to put them to that test.

        But I can see the position of the anxious mother worried her daughter won’t find a mate. I think they are honestly trying to do what they think is best for their little girl.

        But I don’t think we really have anything to worry about. Once they enter college, they’ll be indoctrinated into the cult of all men are evil, they’ll gain a hundred pounds, cut their hair short and dress like they work at a construction site, and no one will objectify them at all.

      • http://whatcosttruth.wordpress.com Jesse Folsom

        From this very site, I have learned how the traditional roles of and rules for women have been both restrictive to them and harmful to men. Modesty is among these rules, but is it harmful to men? Almost certainly.

        Look at the indigenous peoples of the South American jungles, how they walk about dressed in little but jewelry. Do you think the glimpse of a breast matters so very much to someone who has seen them every day of their lives? It is the very mystique of these secret parts that gives them such power, and certainly that power is being reduced, over time, but the cheap sexploitation of modern media. What mysteries remain?

        As many have pointed out, slut-shaming is hardly new, and hardly an exclusively or even mostly male practice. No, it is a practice of women, throwing vicious insults at both rivals and attempting to limit the availability of their most valuable and powerful assets for manipulating men. What if these were not scarce, but abundant? Why, all such power would be gone! Who, then, frees men more than sluts?

        It is certainly true, certainly true, what you say, that in the current social environment, dressing scantily and wearing garish makeup is no way to get respect. Certainly, there is value in pointing this out. But then, the problem is not that you acknowledge current truths, but that it seems almost as if you think that is how it should be.

        With unqualified statements such as, “The point is that you can’t have it all. If women want to be perceived as independent, capable human beings, social physics absolutely demands that they cannot get there tits first,” and the last line of the graphic, it almost seems you are saying you yourself won’t respect an immodest woman, nor that you should.

        But, of course, they are individuals, and arguably have worth. Certainly, you can’t evaluate it simply by initial presentation. You, of course, have every right to make assumptions about them, but having a right doesn’t make you right.

        Likewise, with the bitterness that seems to drip from this posting. You have every right to be bitter, but it’s hardly likely to do any good. It seems to me we ought to be in the business of changing society, as the status quo, with men suffering as we are, is clearly unacceptable. The place where that starts is in ourselves. While certainly, MGTOW have every right to be MGTOW, it doesn’t seem to me that a divisive mindset is likely to get far.

        I don’t mean to put on kid gloves. Blast away, when you’re actually making a point! Say uncomfortable things, when you’re actually making a point. But just refusing to do reasonable things because, why? Because it’s not fair? It’s silly.

        Yes, view women as individuals and all that when they are dressed like whores. Matter of fact, view whores as individuals. They are, and to view them as otherwise is self-deception. Excusing men for not doing so is no more valid than excusing repulsive pageant moms from their vicarious, exploitative attempts at glory. This doesn’t mean their value to you won’t be sexual, but you care about a waiter because they bring you food while still realizing he is a human being who you should not treat like offal.

        Besides, as I said, why discourage it? It helps us. Once, a woman merely had to flash an ankle to be scandalously seductive. Now, what is so impactful? “Sluts” are doing precisely what traditionalist women hate them for, decreasing the value of female sexuality. I think that, once thus weakened, we will have a much more truthful view of it. Surely, we will still have desire, but it will not be the bizarre, fetishized lust that, up until now, has accompanied female nudity and sexual activity in our culture.

        • impelluso

          Jesse, with all due respect to ingidgenous people, they did not put a man on the moon or a robot on mars.

          Male testoronic (I like that word, I think I will keep it) energy did.

          Yes, a certain modesty is a form of power that women have. And men react to that power with energy.

          Is it possible that the two are related? I am never one to praise native cultures too much. Every culture has problems. And while one might say we have created problems through dominating the earth, I think men, in time, will find ways to address this, too.

          As for Miley Cyrus, I have noticed one thing about the shaming of her. Women did it. I do not care. I do know one thing. That performance made me aware of Robin Thicke and the song Blurred Lines. And man, do I love that song.

          • http://whatcosttruth.wordpress.com Jesse Folsom

            I do not mean to idolize them in general, simply to point out that they show how people can exist without perpetually traumatized children and constantly uncontrolled sexual frenzy in the presence of widespread nudity. And, indeed, different cultures, including Japan until relatively recently, thought little of exposed breasts, for instance.

        • sammich heist

          The effectiveness of the message is not that being a whore is offensive, its that the message’s target thinks that being a whore is a bad thing.

          We don’t consider whores to be bad, but they do.

          If you want to piss off someone, use words that pisses them off.

          It’s not a concept that should be this fucking hard to understand.

        • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

          I think you are talking circles around the point, which you don’t seem equipped to deal with, over a meme you don’t fully understand.

          The indictment here is not of Miley Cyrus, or of scantily clad women, just for that sake. You keep coming back to the point of near nudity, as though that fact itself was what I am talking about.

          It will help you to unfasten yourself from the rudimentary moral judgments (to which I am not in the least attached) and understand this from the perspective of sexual power. We are not, after all, in a South American jungle or in turn of the century America.

          Like it or not, the culture that we live in is one in which scant clothing, makeup, etc, signal sexual availability and sexual personae. In that kind of milieu they also confer sexual power, more or less depending on the sexual attractiveness of the person in question.

          Women that overtly rely on these tools are gaining and asserting power in the world through sexuality. That sexuality is a trigger for men to instinctively view them in exclusively sexual terms. Women, too, given that this particular manner of dress and behavior puts them at the forefront of sexual competition with other women.

          The expectation that anyone is going to cast all that biological programming aside, look past their prominently displayed tits and all the other ways they have chosen to push their sexual power to center of stage, and instead investigate and consider them as intellectual or even moral specimens of humanity is just ridiculous. Well, maybe not for you. :)

          What that means is that while I may respect this kind of women as a human being, in that I would not go out of my way to insult her personally, she indeed will not warrant my investigation of her qualities in other aspects of her humanity. She has already advertised to me she bases her worth in her sexual appeal, and I am happy to grant her that wish since she is the one making that choice.

          While you have a valid point about the fact that sluts decrease the value of vagina as a commodity, that was not the point of the meme.

          The point is the hypocrisy in the indignation over refusal to see sexually preoccupied, narcissistic women in other than sexual, narcissistic terms.

          I certainly respect any woman’s right to be a slut. It just does not mean I have to view her like she is an Einstein hidden behind the facade of a porn queen.

          As to this:

          But then, the problem is not that you acknowledge current truths, but that it seems almost as if you think that is how it should be.

          And you would be quite correct. To put it more simply, if I engage in a conversation with a man and all he can talk about is sports, pussy and his favorite political party, then I don’t have much time or interest in digging through the rest of him to see if there is anything else. I am taking him on his word that he is dumbed-down not very interesting to me. I don’t expect him to be a fountain of intellect or awareness, and, most important to this discussion, I don’t see any reason in why anyone, man or woman, would not write him off unless they are just as shallow as he is.

          What I hear from you is that all this judgement is wrong. I don’t think it is, and even if I did it would not change the fact that these judgments are made by thinking people for very good reasons.

          • MGTOW-man

            “To put it more simply, if I engage in a conversation with a man and all he can talk about is sports, pussy and his favorite political party, then I don’t have much time or interest in digging through the rest of him to see if there is anything else. I am taking him on his word that he is dumbed-down not very interesting to me.”

            —Just thought your words here needed repeating.

            When we change men, we change the world…make them care about the same stuff we do—and should!

    • Chibiabos

      “I thought I was on this site to see the interests of men represented, not traditionalism, which is anti-male, reinforced.” Do you include Men who are traditionalist. You argue that nudity is the natural state of humans but your agents traditionalism….witch is the natural state of humans. Jesse my friend who is oppressing you by forcing you to wear pants religion,women,sociality?

      • Shrek6

        “Jesse my friend who is oppressing you by forcing you to wear pants religion,women,sociality?”

        Or maybe your nudity might just scare the crap out of all the innocent children who are forced to view more than just your countenance!

        • sammich heist

          If a kid really is innocent, then he/she wont be scared by nudity as they are unaware of any supposed meaning of nakedness.

      • http://whatcosttruth.wordpress.com Jesse Folsom

        Funny how it can be the natural state of humans and yet vary so greatly from place to place and time to time. No particular tradition is, man. Maybe traditions in general are, but in that case we need new ones.

        • Bewildered

          Do you think evolution has bypassed human sexuality?
          Well crafted traditions take into account the biological realities and their social consequences.

          • http://whatcosttruth.wordpress.com Jesse Folsom

            Traditions, in general, aren’t crafted, they’re grown. To the degree they are crafted, it is for the benefit of those in power, not society in general.

        • Chibiabos

          So your wearing pants to support the government. And indigenous people are wearing loin cloths to support there chief…
          I think clothing is not a conspiracy to oppress X group of people and is a extension of the biological reinforced behavioral conditioning that is responsible for the evolution of the spices.
          But good luck trying to reinvent a five million years old tradition.

          • http://whatcosttruth.wordpress.com Jesse Folsom

            What an immensely simplistic interpretation! Wearing clothes is functional for cold weather people, or people trying to shield themselves from the sun. Making clothes mandatory, however, absolutely does serve power structures of various sorts. For instance, Abrahamic religions have long used these and other strictures as tools of social control, and they remain tools as various people seize the reins. Insofar as our traditions serve no meaningful function, and even lead to laws that cause people to be jailed for harmless nudity, put on sex offender lists, etc., we ought to be concerned. Culture can and does change, sometimes deliberately. Feminists have done it. MHRAs are trying to do it.

            Or, as another put it:

          • Chibiabos

            “What an immensely simplistic interpretation!” Thanks.
            So let me simplify your view. Tradition create religion that creates law. That is pretty close to my view witch is People create traditions religions and law. I call this the “Human condition” That is why “Thats just the way it is and some things will never change.”
            Let’s take a little look at what happens wen you mess with traditions that are biologically reinforced.
            Jesse culture can and do change. But people don’t. Are you really ok with destroying the nuclear family just like the feminist did.
            Did you conceder what effect clothing has had on human pheromones or the possibility of clothing being designed to stop fighting between prospective mates. Before you throw away a tradition you might want to find out if there is a reason behind it.

    • SlantyJaws

      I think what Paul is trying to say was expressed by, if you care to google her, Jenna Marbles “Girls That Piss Me Off” video. I watch that video sometimes just to remind myself that there are still sane, rational people in the world.

      Prostitution is by its nature a sexualised activity, so teaching prebuscent girls to mimic the trappings of a sexualised activity is very much sending them the wrong message. I’m not saying it’s the equivalent to dressing them up in lingerie but it’s not far off.

      Although I agree that “whores” was needlessly abrasive, that’s just the way he rolls. I read it as “prostitutes dress like this” not “all women who dress like this are prostitutes”.

    • impelluso

      Hi Jesse

      May I respectfully make a suggestion? But first the background for it…

      I am very fortunate. Very late in life after many mistakes I found a woman who respects men. She loves me and I love her. With her, I have created two beautiful children. Oddly, we have stumbled on traditional roles. I work as an engineer, she teaches music. I am extremely happy with my home life.

      But I hate feminism and want to see this bowel movement flushed down the toilet with all other forms of toxic human excrement.

      There are men here who have not been so fortunate. They are my brothers and some are in pain. MRActivismhas only begun. And when such a force commences, it needs energy.

      I think Ghandi once said something to the effect that to really change something, you must get angry.

      Yes, there are things said here that are excessive in my opinion. And if I do criticize what I read here, I will take on the onus of tact and not challenge directly. For it is my brothers here who are driving this with the energy of their anger. And, in most cases, that anger comes from direct pain. For me, to challenge their expression of anger is to make their pain secondary to a political statement.

      Consider the following rewrite of your last sentence…

      Couldn’t our emphasis be in supporting women (after all, really nudity is the natural state of humans, just like any other animal, as expressed in several warm-weather cultures), and also in expanding the options for men?

      This phrasing raises the same point, but in a more rhetorical and less combative way, I think. And mostly, it steps back in respect to all the men who are suffering from the excessess of feminism.

      In one sense, I will respect the men here, more than my own desire to make a point, even if it means I get trashed for being too respectful of women in their eyes.

    • sybil

      “I, for one, am capable of both caring about someone mostly as a sexual “object”, while at the same time realizing that they have a full humanity.”

      Absolutely. Objectification (a scary-sounding word that just means sexual attraction) was invented by feminists to demonize male sexuality. Its proponents want us to believe that male sexual desire is fundamentally destructive and violent. It’s a lie.

      (The objectification racket also hurts women, because it portrays us as so fragile that we’re damaged by merely being sexually desired by a man.)

      • Shrek6

        Agree with you Sybil. Feminists want to demonise anything and everything about men and boys.
        Well, they can do this if they wish, to their eventual downfall!

        If it were not for male sexual attraction of women, there would never be any procreation.

        There is nothing that a woman has to offer a man, other than procreation. Other than that, men have zero need of a woman, because there is nothing a woman has left to offer.

        Men already do everything else on this planet. This means we can house, clothe, feed and care for our health needs. That’s it. There is really nothing else needed. Putting up with the emotional roller coaster of having a female in your midst, is absolutely too painful and unnecessary for pretty much all men.

        The overwhelming majority of women in society simply cannot control themselves, which is why men are now bowing out of permanent relationships.

        Women however have shown throughout the history of the human race to be inept and not capable of caring for their every need. And the bull that they have been oppressed and never given a chance, will never hold water. There have been opportunities and always will be, but women never rise to the occasion.
        I am talking in very generalised terms, because I know there are some (but few) women who are creative in some things, but are still incapable of many others.

        Once the men in the general population finally get jack of what the feminists are doing and the arrogant and demanding attitudes of the majority of women in our world, they will then pull the pin and stop bowing to the childish demands of women.

        When that occurs, many women will perish, because they are incapable of fending for themselves. And the rest of the female population, IF they have any brains, which I seriously doubt, will then see feminism for what it truly is and discard this ideology as evil. Then, hopefully women will come to the table of negotiation with men, being prepared to get off the fat lazy backsides and ready to meet men in the middle where true equality exists.

        Aaaaand Pigs will fly on that same day too!

  • Mr. J

    Another guilty culprit are grocery and big box stores parents take their children to, where they are captive to the vile filth on magazine covers in the checkout lanes.
    I stack other magazines in front of those every chance I get and there is nothing they can do about it but move them after I’m done WHEN they discover it sometimes days later.


  • Seele

    Like some of my fellow correspondents, I am not sure if grouping Miley Cyrus and “hookers” into the text is helpful. Attila, I also cannot say that this turns these girls into prostitutes, but I do feel that the fostering of a self-value system in this manner would stand a greater chance of making them shallow, materialistic, narcissistic, and with a lop-sided idea of the true worth of a person.

    • Bewildered

      …the fostering of a self-value system in this manner would stand a greater chance of making them shallow, materialistic, narcissistic, and with a lop-sided idea of the true worth of a person.

      Which is why it’s such a harmful social construct.The ramifications of this go much beyond sex.
      This monomaniacal obsession with looks and the ridiculously high expectations it engenders is what ensures a steady supply of skanks IMO.

      The irony is that the ‘creators’ of this ‘progressive’ social experiment will be the first people to complain about ‘sexual objectification’

      FFS why do people have problems with letting kids be kids?

      Why is pedophilia not OK but this premature sexualization of kids OK ?

      • sammich heist

        To me, this *IS* pedophilia, it is the same level of child abuse.
        Taking a prepubescent child and giving her all the markers of sexual availability is completely sick.

        “But it’s women who do it so its okay.” -our fucked up society.

      • Partridge

        Absolutely agree. If she looks like a slut, dresses like a slut, walks like a slut, and shouts like a slut, then she is almost certainly a slut. And, thanks to the influence of feminism, she will no doubt blame men for her voluntarily self-imposed sexual objectification and for her own narcissism.

        But when a mother dresses and decorates her young daughter in the same way, and raises her in the expectation that this way of presenting herself to the world is the desirable norm, then she is sexually objectifying her child and engaging in a form of child abuse which is especially sick because, coming from a mother, it is regarded by many as an acceptable social activity.

  • onca747

    Sorry to generalize.. but no matter how much the ideologues yell and moan about it, women will never give up being sexual objects, because there is enormous power in it. It’s undoubtedly the oldest and greatest power one segment of the population has ever had over another. You’ll know it as the “pussy pass”, and it beats the hell out of physical domination. This is why, deep down, the femilogues are not at all interested in stopping the sexual objectification of women — it’s the only real power they have. God knows they don’t have truth and rationality on their side. It also works great for continually beating men over the head with the shame stick, and for keeping their pack of white knights of a firm leash. It really is the greatest scam feminism has got running.

    Ok then, if the femilogues were really interested in stopping women being treated like sexual objects, then you’d think they’d put their money where their mouth is.. go back to the 2nd wave counterculture of looking like crap. No makeup, no being pretty and alluring, no acting the poor damsel on youtube. Yeah right, like that’s gonna happen.

    • Partridge

      “Ok then, if the femilogues were really interested in stopping women being treated like sexual objects, then you’d think they’d put their money where their mouth is.. go back to the 2nd wave counterculture of looking like crap. No makeup, no being pretty and alluring, no acting the poor damsel on youtube.”

      This is a feature of feminist ideology; feminists always seem willing to change their ideological stance to match their ‘feelings’ at any particular time or between one generation and the next. As society changes to meet their never-ending demands, so they are always prepared to move the goalposts if they feel this will advance their man-hating cause.

  • Shrek6

    I support Attila to some degree. But I would say that these girls will turn out to be just like their mothers.

    Obviously it’s okay to exploit children or little girls sexually, by turning them into these little dolls that are dressed up like prostitutes. Society’s moral values are down in the toilet now anyway, so who cares hey!

    In support of that, you only need to look at young women going out clubbing and compare them to real prostitutes, and you will find little difference in the way they look or behave.

    You can always see the modest female, because she will be dressed in an appropriate manner and not like a whore. However, these women are almost a rarity today.

    Let me put it another way. If you show films of violence to children enough, like allowing them to play violent video games, they become desensitised to violence. The emotion of shock and horror, is profoundly reduced to such an extent, that they don’t react or recoil when they see violence in real life.

    Similarly, if you have the world of children sexualised enough, then eventually they will become desensitised to this and what was once determined by community held moral standards as utterly offensive and illegal, has now turned into a free for all, which is determined by the individual and how they feel. It’s all about me, me, me!

    The ones to blame here are the mothers. Mostly because they have the rule of law behind them and in the majority of cases, there is no father present to correct the mother’s behaviour.
    They dress the girls up like sex objects at such a young age. When these girls grow up, the chances of them being morally upright are very slim. It is highly likely they will end up selfish rotten women who use sex to get what they want.

    Sorry, but if you want to keep playing with fire, eventually someone is going to get burnt. And in this world today, it is usually a male who gets burnt!

  • http://www.CanadaCourtWatch.com Attila L. Vinczer

    In my view, I see nothing wrong with dressing up young girls in the privacy of their homes for fun and for private family photos. To me it is clear that child beauty pageants cross a line. I am no expert, but I am a father, a father who step parented a girl and would have serious issue allowing my daughter to be dolled up this way for public competition. Common sense tells me, it is wrong.

    It is disturbing to me that mothers would do this with their little girls. I have seen behind the scenes footage of how cut throat these mothers are. This can not be a good environment for children who’s minds are developing and will telegraph what they sponge up at this young age later on in life. I recall reading that the first five years are crucial in the development of the child’s mind emulating what they see.

    The children are innocent and I place blame with the parents, in most cases the mother as they drive this activity, usually for the monetary reward. I would not allow my daughter to do this. Does child beauty pageants produce prostitots? I think it can. Not only that, it can have other negative psychological effects.

    Princess syndrome, leading to narcissism, child commodification and sexualization. The manner in which these children are dressed is conducive to an adult woman sexually attracting adult men. Flushed cheeks, simulates and represents sexual arousal. Full red lips represents an engorged vagina flushed with blood signalling a desire and readiness to copulate. I used to own a lingerie business, Whispers Lingerie and was cognizant of female sexuality, how they dress and why they apply cosmetics. Everything matters. Texture and color of clothing and cosmetics it all matters with purpose in mind, To attracted men.

    I have issue with sexualizing young girls which risks having a profoundly negative effect on the girl later on in life. The way some girls dress is akin to a prostitute. They are tiny tots, children. Why do we need to allow and why would anyone encourage sexualizing young girls?

    • Shrek6

      Upvoted 1,000 times. Couldn’t have said it better myself.

      I have a daughter who is 15 and she has never been allowed to dress like that. I am divorced, but raise her 50/50 with her mother. Thankfully the mother has at least got some brains and doesn’t believe in turning her daughter into a prostitute.

      I consider this behaviour by (pretty much only mothers) these mothers, to be nothing but child abuse. And it is child sexual abuse or sexual exploitation.

      Everything the filthy feminists scream out about men objectifying women/girls, is nothing but utter projection, because the only people who in most cases are responsible for the objectification and sexualisation of both little girls and females of all ages, are the bloody mothers and women themselves.
      It’s bullshit to suggest that men are behind it.

      The women are the only ones driving this and it’s time we start publicly pointing the finger at them, calling them out as child abusers and liars.

  • Billybobownway

    I think the is some confusion as to what the issue is here.
    I have nothing against sluts or whores. I would view an honest whore as better than a dishonest wife. Maybe we need more sluts and whores. That is not what the meme is about.

    It is about young children taught to present themselves in a lewd way. Let them find ther own way to present themselves later when they are more mature.

    I enjoy seeing the female form but seeing a young teen shopping with her mother in a skimpy top and shorts that show half of her cheeks is disturbing. Am I supposed to ask her how much??? Why does the young check out clerk bend over and let me look down her low cut blouse? Does she want to call me a creep?
    Young girls don’t need to be sending sexual signals to the world that they don’t understand.
    Women control the sexualization of media and fashion. They are the market and they get what they want and blame it on men. Male executives will produce whatever the market demands. They want to make money not politics.

  • josephrobertson

    The most important part for me is the line, “And then we chastise boys for treating them like objects.”

    Probably most people who see this will not think too deeply about this part, beyond thinking, “Yeah what do these women expect men to do when they’re walking around looking all pretty and sexy…?”

    But most people will not think about what it feels like, as a boy, to be chastised all your life for so much as looking at girls. Probably even most men don’t really care about it, but some guys like myself take it pretty hard. I was instilled at a very young age with a deep sense of guilt related to anything sexual; this continued on through my young life, as there was always a woman around–mom, aunts, sister, friend–to tell me I was dirty any time they saw me “checking out” a woman.

    Just yesterday, I was at work discussing things with an older female colleague (in her 50s, out of the age range I’m attracted to) and I was looking at something on the floor; as I tilted my head back up my eyes happened to pass her crossed legs coming out of her skirt. I can guarantee you there was no sexual thought whatsoever in my mind, but she somehow noticed this and tensed up, became very uncomfortable, and surreptitiously tried to adjust her skirt down. Whereas we had been having a free-flowing conversation, it suddenly became awkward and she ended up finding an excuse to leave the room. I was left feeling guilty again, like I had harmed her just by having eyes.

    There’s something wrong with the term objectification in our culture. If I am chastised for seeing an attractive woman on the beach, for instance, the women chastising me are technically “objectifying” her, because in order to assume what I’m thinking when I see her, they must be perceiving only her physical attributes. And they “objectify” me by assuming I only want or care about one thing.

    But I don’t think objectification is a real thing. I think “objectification” is a con-job, a meme used to damsel women and further stigmatize normal male behavior.

    • sybil

      “But I don’t think objectification is a real thing. I think “objectification” is a con-job, a meme used to damsel women and further stigmatize normal male behavior.”

      Yes! Of all the lies feminists have concocted, ‘objectification’ has to be one of the most ludicrous.

      Feminists claim that if a man is attracted to a woman, he won’t care about her as a person. It’s pretty much the exact opposite of reality. In truth, when a man is attracted to a woman, he’s more likely to befriend her, be kind to her, and generally treat her better all around compared to someone he’s not attracted to. (I realize this isn’t true 100% of the time.) Feminists keep repeating the lie of objectification, and somehow they’ve gotten a lot of people to believe in it, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.

    • Billybobownway

      Objectification is just a meaningless term that means whatever a feminist wants it to mean.
      Men don’t imagine a sexy woman as an object. They imagine themselves as the object of that woman’s approval and affection. Or, they see her as a tease, which is an exploitation of their natural desire.
      Objectification is pure horseshit.

  • Legion

    A few notes:

    1. We all agree the sexualization of children is grotesque, wrong, immoral.

    2. The way we dress is a social communication. I, as a man, choose clothes which fit me well, emphasise the narrowness of my waist, the breadth of my shoulders, my sheer height. My hair is kept short because I am a practical man. I choose clothes of colours I think are both striking, but also respectable looking. I have a beard, to hide the worst of a facial scar I acquired recently. What does this tell you? Nothing, beyond my love of unpatterned bright colours, my own self, and a fondness for practical haircuts.

    3. That said, as a member of a number of alternative scenes; judging people on the basis of their appearance is beyond retarded. Some of the most sexually-driven people I have known are the most conservatively dressed. Some of the cruelest, most twisted people were the most respectable. Some of the kindest and most generous were those with the least to give.

    I have bridged the length and breadth of society, and I can tell you this; dress doesn’t tell you shit about a person’s character.

    • Partridge

      Of course we should not judge solely by appearances, and certainly not by first appearances. The way we dress is often dependent upon the occasion and the activity. But if, as you say, the way we dress is a social communication, the way we communicate socially can certainly be indicative of our character; thus our attire may be but one indicator of character among a number of others, but definitely not one to be ignored.

      • Dasque

        Dress tells you next to nothing about a person’s character. It tells you volumes about how that person wishes themselves to be perceived. Women who go out dressed in a sexually aggressive manner are telling the world that they wish to be considered to be sexually aggressive, but their hypergamous instinct tells them that anyone outside of their desired class is creepy and gross.

    • Billybobownway

      Yes, dress is often a false or frivolous signal. We all learn that.

      The point of the meme is that teaching young girls to signal that they are whores or sluts is foolish and confused . People may know that the signal is false but they still get it. And of course some women who dress as whores are whores. Who knew?

  • Shrek6

    I know this is a bit off topic, but this story is yet another typical case where a mother can commit a most heinous crime against an innocent infant, make light of it when caught out, then be shown complete forgiveness and leniency by not just the police, but the system and the media.

    The mother said herself that she is the one who should be locked up. Indeed!
    Why then is she not locked up??

    Also, why aren’t the children now living with the father?
    Oh I forgot, he’s a male and can’t be trusted!


  • http://feminismisfraud.wordpress.com/ sirias74