I say we take it one step further, lets cover them head to toe and not allow them outside without our permission. We all know that wearing skimpy clothing and makeup is just asking to be raped or abused...lets make it illegal!
/sarc
Maybe I misunderstood the point of your sarcastic comment. If so, I apologize in advance.
I'd like to know how covering girls from head to toe and not letting them out is one step further. That appears to me to be about 1,000 steps further.
No one deserves to be raped. There is nothing wrong with modesty and being careful with where you go and what you wear though. These clothes for kids now are ridiculous.
... Great idea! Quick someone send Mohamed a memo!!!
/sarc.
While I agree we shouldn't dress little girls provacitivly, I don't think pedophiles prey on those girls any more than ones dressed like little girls. After all...they want little girls because they are little girls, not adults. As far as rape, I thought everyone knew that rape is about violence, not sex.
Cool it, NEWBIE!!
Welcome to FreeRepublic...nice of you to drop by.
So - you are saying that the scenarios described in the article are A-OK?
I don't see anywhere in the article or replies that anyone is saying what you said. Only that dressing little girls like sluts is a bad idea.
But your response that pokes fun at people who think that dressing little girls as prostitutes is a bad idea - reeks of one who enjoys little girls dressed that way....
"I say we take it one step further, lets cover them head to toe and not allow them outside without our permission. We all know that wearing skimpy clothing and makeup is just asking to be raped or abused...lets make it illegal!"
The sarcasm is neither appreciated nor called for. No one here has suggested that women or girls be clad in burkhas.
Given your newness to the site as well as your exhibited attitude, my first inclination is to dismiss you as a common DU troll. But hope springs eternal, so maybe you'll read on and learn.
Welcome to FR.
We're not talking burkas, brain-trust, we're talking about not letting them wear micro shorts and minis, tight baby-t shirts that say Porn Star or Tramp in pink glitter, shorts that say JUICY across the butt, etc.
Or do you not get the subtle nuance of that? (You should know all about nuance, aren't most libs complaining that we dunderheaded right wingers don't understand 'nuance')
Growing up in the '50s, I wore little sunsuits that were little more than bathing suits, so did everyone else. We loved Elvis and Ann-Margaret. I was in ballet, tap, jazz and baton twirling, for recitals we wore skimpy outfits and wore mascara, lipstick and rouge (it wasn't called blusher yet).
Since the sexual revolution we have sexualized everything. We also have 24/7 news to tell us of every sexual deviation known to man like it was a commonplace occurrence. (Yes, it happens all too often.) We're filled with fear of sexual deviation because as much as we hear about it we begin to think that everyone is a sexual deviate and that everything relates to sex.
Might not be a bad idea. There are some that are becoming a little tired of the public debauchery. It is more serious than the fact some folks cover their women from head to toe. As the man said of his sick society many years ago "...I would then have him trace the process of our moral decline, to watch, first, the sinking of the foundations of morality as the old teaching was allowed to lapse, then the rapidly increasing disintegration, then the final collapse of the whole edifice, and the dark dawning of our modern day when we can neither endure our vices nor face the remedies needed to cure them.....of late years wealth has made us greedy, and self-indulgence has brought us, through every form of sensual excess, to be, if I may so put it, in love with death both individual and collective...” THE ROMAN HISTORIAN TITUS LIVIUS 59 B.C. TO 17 A.D.
You have suffered a head injury maybe?
Well, if you do, you should know that there is about a 1000 mile gap between burkhas and preteen hookerware.