Blog powered by Typepad

« LBJ: Hero or Villain? | Main | Sorry, 'SoD', another book for my Xmas Wish List »

Friday, 20 October 2017


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

A woman sends a message by her choice of dress, as by her choice of words.
The message is likely intended for one person or at least a restricted number of people, but is received by all. When one of the unintended recipients acts on the woman's message is she entitled to be upset?
Consider if a woman, instead of whispering her desires into the ears of one person instead shouted them so all could hear. Would she be surprised at gaining attention from people other than her intended?

About 1400 years ago some chap said that women must dress modestly..............

Donna Karan, Harvey Weinstein, Feminism...collateral damage of the Left's culture war.
A sobering analysis-

What militant feminists, David? I don't remember any such beasts posting here....

Patriarchs and hidebound traditionalists just can't go wrong accusing women of being childish and irresponsible.

“What women want is what men are incapable of giving — understanding. That is the proverbial spice of life.”
— TheBigHenry

These people who apologize for what the feminazis object to are saying in effect that the opinion of said feminazis is worth more than their own.
If that were me, i would offer them some advice involving sex and travel.

Ladies, it really is very simple...

If you hit the town on Friday night dressed like one of the Fat Slags from Viz, certain types of male - especially after a skinful - will interpret your attire as a green light for all sorts of hanky panky. Those self-same men would be much less likely to do this if you were modestly dressed. Surely, that is basic common-sense... Then again, in these politically correct times, common-sense has been banned.

Of the more than three billion men in the world, the overwhelmingly vast majority of them can and do control themselves.

So Pompous, if you had one, would you let your fifteen year old daughter go out for a night on the raz on Friday wearing a dress the same width as a belt and a tank top that barely covered her tits? And would you be surprised if she came back in tears because she had been groped, or worse?

Now fuck off, you sad, twisted, disturbed little person.

Peter Gaseous attempted to expel his bad breath here and has been expunged.

So Pompous, take a screenshot of this.

You were banned from this site, not because David Duff disagreed with what you were saying, but for a sustained series of gratuitous ad-hominem attacks, some made on other posters on this site, but mostly on David himself.

Your comments, as I can attest, went far further than mere disagreement would warrant. You actually went out of your way to be as unpleasant as possible, so much so that even those of us who on occasion agreed with something you said, welcomed the fact that you had been banned.

Apart from the narcissistic nature of your posts, their sheer unpleasantness is a strong indication that you are a spanner or two short of a full toolbox. Now, do us all a favour and go away. Oh, and do yourself a favour. Get psychological help. You need it.

Duffers any attempt to reason with a militant feminist is like pulling the pin on a grenade and then throwing the pin - bound to end up hurting.

Slightly OT but one of our local newspapers had a small headline "Great British Tit".

I thought they may have been referring to Barbara Windsor but it turns out it was a bird of the feathered variety which seems to be a favourite with people in the UK.

Duffers I thought the pathetic troll had been given the sex and travel option.

What about the rights of admirers of the female form, both male and female, who would never raise a finger to harm sensually or provocatively dressed women, but who simply adore the innate beauty of the form, to pursue their joy?

What about the rights of females who enjoy displaying their beauty in pursuit of their joy?

Why should we the admirers be denied our harmless joy, and the willing, non-coerced admirer her joy, for the sake of a small minority of pervs in whom the experience induces authoritarian urges?


Last para, "admirer her joy" should be "admiree her joy".



Can you show me some evidence that sensually, scantily dressed women are more targeted by authoritarian pervs?

Seriously, I haven't seen any statistics that reveal sexual assault and rape victims were dressed more "like they were asking for it" as you might say.

Rather, on a pure media surface skim, most attention grabbing CCTV of rape and assault victims shows them dressed in jeans, jumpers, and coats, like the girl who was assaulted three times in separate incidents on her way home from a night out.

Might we have a case of no correlation, let alone causation, in your "she was asking for it" theory?


Ahh, the blog seems clean and clutter free this morning!

God bless Zoe Strimpel ...

... A light - of reason, balance, perspective, honesty, truth, courage (I bet she'll get a tonne of shit from the feministas for that), and simple acknowledgement of the importance of flirty playfulness between men and women that bridges the gap in outlook between the sexes - shining brightly in a world of inhuman, zombie-like, safe zone dwelling snowflakes and rabid bossy boots.


Er, Lawrence, What on earth are "authoritarian pervs" when they come home? You seem confused, so here are a few self-evident truths for you.

1) Men are (on average) bigger and stronger than women.

2) As someone (can't think who) said in one of his plays: "Drink promotes the desire."

3) Too much drink also results in loss of self-control.

4) Aggressive males are prone to the above, especially when they have had a skinful.

6) The loss of aforementioned self control will, regrettably be exacerbated by members of the fair sex of who are immodestly and revealingly dressed. (Roger so far?)

5) An unfortunate combination of all of these factors will in too many cases, cause aforementioned males (hereinafter known as arseholes) to press unwanted attentions on previously referred to members of the fair sex.

6) Should this occur, there will - very regrettably - be an incident, or incidents.

7) Said incident or incidents will be highly unpleasant at best and will result in injury or fatality at worse.

David, I am compelled to to ask this. Did you ever get around to explaining the facts of life to Lawrence when he was younger?


Speak for yourself mate.

Oh, and just go find me some stats that rape and sexual assault victims were more "immodestly dressed" than average.

As Zoe points out, alluringly dressed women will receive more attention from heterosexual men making legitimate passes, comical, hopeless, and occasionally successful. But the rapists and sexual assaulters, being cowards and bullies, will seek prey on vulnerability, not any other condition of their intended prey. Drunkenness, isolation, control, these are the conditions sought after by "authoritarian pervs". "Immodestly dressed" isn't the trigger. I bet when you dig out the stats it will show the correlation and cause as being vulnerability: Drunkenness, isolation, a controlling male, and the like, not dress code.

"Immodestly dressed", btw. You're starting to sound like the prophet Mohamed, the original authoritarian pervert. His urges were so coercive and uncontrollable that he instigated a diktat with an entire rules system to suppress them - not against him of course, but against women and their dress code. And yet male Islamic rape gangs flourish, not targeting alluringly dressed women but young girls in care homes. And it sounds like you approve of Mo's strategy on dealing with rape and sexual assault, broken by design and failed in practice thought it appears to be?


1) The Koran's injunction that women should dress modestly means just that, and that alone. Most people would argue that there is nothing extreme about it. However, the same people, and I would include myself among them, have a big, big problem with the hard line Muslim interpretation of said injunction, namely that women should only go outside concealed within some sort of portable tent. I'm sure that you will agree that it is the interpretation that is extreme, not the injunction.

2) Let me make it very clear that no matter how a woman is dressed, her attire should never be interpreted as a green light for any kind of assault. Having got that out of the way, let me state the following. Political correctness (which regrettably you seem to accept) makes absolutely no allowance for human nature. Certain things fall into the category of a 'if you fall in the river you get wet' level of certainly. Going to certain areas at certain times wearing provocative or otherwise inappropriate clothing is one of these things. There will be trouble if you are stupid enough to do so.

3) This is no more than human nature rearing its ugly head, and human nature is the eternal constant. Being in the wrong place, inappropriately dressed, and at the wrong time would have had exactly the same consequences in ancient Rome, even further back in ancient Greece, in fact all the way back to the stone age.

4) Lawrence, you don't need statistics to prove this because it falls into the category of the bleeding frigging obvious. While I fully support the right of people in general and women in particular to dress and go as they wish unmolested, any realist would agree that if they exercise that right in certain places, at certain times and in certain company, they are complete bloody idiots to do so.

It's the way of the world, and regrettable as it may be, perhaps they (and you) should descend from that warm pink fluffy politically correct Never Never Land and recognise the fact.

The comments to this entry are closed.