"Women dress for us"
November 8, 2011 at 7:08 PM

 Long, but it's all mysoginyst gold. Some of the comments on that site are just plain fucked up. Lyn87 can die in a fire.

I recently took a long trip for work and spent a lot of hours in the air. One of my fellow passengers really stood out in my mind: a 20-something lass a few rows ahead of me. She is a natural-born beauty in that “launch a thousand ships” kind of way – slim, near-perfect symmetrical features, piercing blue eyes, and a shapely body. She is, simply, stunning. But there’s more to this story than a retired soldier admiring an exquisite example of female flesh young enough to be my daughter.
<--added by me

It was actually her tattoo that first caught my attention.

She was wearing a low-slung top that revealed a HUGE eagle inked across her chest and extending down under the front of her shirt. And then I noticed her hair – what little there was of it. I’ve always kept my hair short, even by military standards, and her hair was shorter than mine. Few things de-feminize a woman more than buzzing off her hair, which is why it is considered to be shameful in many societies. She was wearing ratty, ripped jeans and far too much costume jewelry. And then I noticed the piercings. As I stood six inches behind her for several minutes waiting to de-plane I counted seven, and that was just what was visible. I wondered what else she had done to herself. A tramp-stamp is a given, but who knows what other “body art” was hidden out of my view[...]

I asked myself what would cause the stunningly-beautiful young woman on my flight – at the height of her Sexual Market Value – to do that to herself? Women dress for us, so what does she intend for us to infer? I’m easy? I’m rebellious? I can drink you under the table?

I can think of no message that her chosen facade would convey that would be in her long-term interest. In a few years after her looks fade she is likely to be just another tatted-up skank wondering where the good men are.

It didn’t have to be this way. In a different social environment a woman like her would have learned to be (gasp!) feminine. She would have observed the older women in her surroundings and absorbed benevolent patriarchy in the air she grew up breathing. With her beauty she could have married above her economic station and lived a comfortable life. We can’t know if she would have been happy, but she almost certainly would have had stability, security and comfort. But she doesn’t live in that society; she lives in a “Slut Walk” society, thanks to feminism. When she chose the “Suicide Girl” look nobody stopped her. Now she has mutilated herself with enough ink and metal trinkets to repel the kind of man most likely to give her the life she wants, because no matter what she does to the outside of her body, she will eventually want what women have always wanted on the inside – stability, security and comfort.

The fruits of feminism: what a waste.

The Spearhead

Sexual Market Value?? FUCK OFF! I don't dress for you or others asswholes like you. Your just a creepy old shit. And what makes you think she can't get her OWN comfort & security?? What if she dosen't *GASP* want a man? Pull your head out of your dick you sick old shit.

You know I've noticed something. Two things, as a matter of fact. The first is that conservative men (almost always in their fifties or older) always comment about the looks of women young enough to be their daughters &/or grandaughters. They never find any shame in that at all. Are they trying to tell us something?

The second is that these folks seem to think that no liberal woman is feminine. I don't know where they got the idea that all women who believe in the equality of the sexes are butch lesbians (or that all men who do are severely-whipped if not camp gay) but the blame for that probably goes on the radical feminists (who would be more accurately called misandrists, but that's the subject of another rant).

But once I read "benevolent patriarchy", that's when I knew that this man was delusional. Notice that the happiness of a woman means nothing to him, only "financial stability". (Which is not bad by any means, but he implies that happiness and stability are mutually exclusive, at least for women.) Yet I am sure that this conservative-and-thus-hypocritical pundit is a great fan of works of fiction in which the (male) protagonist extols the virtues of freedom, more than anything else. I still don't know how people can think that other people (but not them; never them) can be happy as property.


  • 3JuJu3
    by 3JuJu3
    November 23, 2011 at 12:52 PM

    Gag!  I nearly threw up reading this.  Maybe she dresses like this so that old perverts wouldn't "appreciate" her natural beauty so much.  The response pretty much sums up my feelings. 


Active Posts in All Groups
More Active Posts
Featured Posts in All Groups
More Featured Posts