Friday, July 14, 2006

Charlie Posts A Good One-Liner

Naaah. Not about Screechin'Shirley's continuing Arrogaton-of-Powers March, which now resembles Sherman's walk toward Atlanta. There are no good one-liners about her or her pocket-puppet pals on the Left side of the Wisconsin Supremes.

It's about Prosti-tots--the 12-year-old skank wannabees.

If it’s not for sale, why are you advertising it?

Some of you may actually see an obtuse connection between the Governor's new powers and the prosti-tot line....but you are vicious, cynical, (and correct) observers of BagManJim.

But I'll pick a bone with Charlie, anyway. Here's more of his post:

Simply put: letting a 12 year old dress like a 21 year old puts her in harm’s way, especially since few girls that young really understand what teenage boys are really like.

Why, Charlie, may a 21-year-old dress like a skank? Does the term "virtue" no longer apply due to some clock-based divide? Should 21-year-old women be targets of lust? Why?

Or maybe we should ask if 21-year-olds ARE 'for sale.'

Just sayin'

12 comments:

Billiam said...

Hmm. We've changed the social norm in society. Many "progressives" think they have a right to do whatever they want. Society no longer judges, hence, the shame factor is gone. I saw an example of what we called white trailer trash the other day. A female, about 30lbs overweight, wearing a semi-opaque mid-rif top, a black bra, and, unfortunately, tight low rise jeans. Her boyfriend/hubby, looked like he had all the intelligence of a shovel. I don't think anyone ever told her that it wasn't attractive. It's like a 250lb woman wearing spandex. You've got Oprah saying "you go, girl", while the rest of us retch!

Disgruntled Car Salesman said...

21 year old "girls" dress like "skanks." 21 year old women do not. As a connoisseur of the socail life, I can tell the difference. A free lesson is available whenever you wish to schedule an appointment.

Other Side said...

Brookfield is inundated with prosti-tots. I see them all the time. Is this perhaps a result of over-indulgent, Republican-voting parents (Brookfield IS overwhelmingly conservative)?

All right, little nudge in the side aside ... My daughter will join a convent (I may not be a follower, but I'm not dumb) before she thinks she will dress in that fashion.

Not too many progressives who dress like the woman Billiam described ... actually, not too many modern humans dress that way.

Dad29 said...

I'm well aware of the Brookfield disease; it's so bad that a teacher in the District called Belling to talk about it. Evidently the District administrators are VERY leery of addressing the problem, as you can see if you watch the HS chilluns when they leave school for the day in late spring.

The problem in Brookfield (I've lived there for most of 50 years)is that there's way too much money out here. Parents simply buy off their children without doing much thinking.

By the way, Brookfield is fiscally conservative--it's a 'veneer' conservatism which has little to do with Edmund Burke, or Russell Kirk. That has to do with the turnover in residents; there's no 'tradition' here.

Personally, I go to Laacke & Joys when shopping for my daughters' blouses. THEY make stuff that COVERS, hey.

Jim Rowen said...

Why is your post filled so much name-calling and so little reasoned argument?

Dad29 said...

Jimmy Boy--you mean about Screechin'Shirley? Or her pocket-puppet pals? Or their resemblance to Sherman's army burning all of the South?

Ahem.

THEY chose to ir-rationalize order.

I'm just following their example.

Anonymous said...

Charlie Sykes talking morality is a little like a crack whore talking durg avoidance. What is he on now, his third wife?

Charles loves marriage -- he's done it three times!

Dad29 said...

Sykes' marital situation is irrelevant to the discussion--and certainly does not disqualify him from observations about dress patterns.

Dave said...

I've already devised a way to discourage my daughters from dressing immodestly: if they dress up skimpily, then so does Daddy. Especially if the boyfriend shows up.

Dad29 said...

Good trick--I hadn't thought of that one.

I have a different method with new boyfriends: I start cleaning the guns just before the poor schlep shows up.

So he shakes my hand which is full of Hoppe's #9 and powder residue.

Makes an impression when I ask if he can run faster than a speeding bullet...

Anonymous said...

Charlie's propensity for dropping wives with alarming frequency suggests that he is indeed qualified to make such observations about female dress.

Why? Because it appears that he has a highly roving eye.

Marriage is a lifetime committment. People who get divorced commit a moral offense.

Didn't you learn this in church, Dad?

Dad29 said...

Actually, getting a divorce in and of itself is NOT a 'moral offense,' unless one abandons the children.

And depending on one's religious affiliation, re-marriage is not necessarily a 'moral offense' either.

But, as you know, that's not the point. Your interest is in attempting to "qualify" observations based on the alleged 'moral capacity' of the one who makes the observation. That's a logical fallacy--but hey, certain people like logical fallacies--it works for them.

Equally as moronic would be for you to state that a convicted robber cannot accurately identify another robbery, or conversely, that ONLY a convicted robber can accurately identify another robbery. Pish posh. Except in the World Without Truth, (occupied by such as Derrida,) there are absolutes; Sykes observation is contingent on the existence of the absolute, not on his flaws as a human.

As to your other implication: you hold that Sykes has a 'custody of the eyes' problem. That may be the case. But that makes Sykes a BETTER critic of clothing style than, say, a eunuch.

Sykes' point is accurate: many women and girls are creating the "eyes" problem you describe, with varying degrees of culpability. Like it or not, the failure to practice the virtue of modesty is a failure of women, not men.