Margery Eagan
Nancy Armour
Shannon Ryan
Margery Eagan
Nancy Armour
Shannon Ryan
That's why you rarely see cheerleaders on TV. TV viewers have their own distractions from the monotony of football: TV commercials, instant replay, trips to the bathroom or kitchen, etc.
All part of the homosexual/lesbian agenda.
If something is good, leftards hate it and want to destroy it. It is called hatred of the good for being the good.They are so unhappy inside, they can’t stand to see others enjoying themselves.
"What are you so aggravated about?"
"I spent over an hour putting on all of my make-up,
coordinating my pants and blouse and doing my hair.
And l had barely got out the front door when some strange guy harassed me!"
"Wow. What did he do?"
"He noticed!"
I would say that was the sentiment of almost every Confederate soldier in the Civil War. "They" can't, are incapable, of leaving us alone. F-ing with people is what "those people" do.
But thanks to #metoo young attractive women who want to work as models or cheerleaders are told "no, that demeans you. Now go get a job waiting tables or maybe as a stripper if you still want to dance". I'm sure they're all thrilled that social activists care so much about them that they are willing to crush their dream.
If you watch a game on the TV set the broadcast doesn’t ever show the cheerleaders. Maybe a head shot once or twice a game.
Is it part of American culture?
Then the left will be at war with it.
Where do I surrender?...................Can I surrender in Dallas?...................
Are these same feminists leftists wailing about Superbowl half time shows like we saw the Satanists do a couple of years ago; Madonna and that black gal with the drone show, or the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction of years ago?
If so, I missed it.
If they want to impress me, they should concentrate their attacks on the feminists who use their sexuality in the ways they object to.
Beginning in high school, the prettiest and most athletic girls are elected to dance and cheer in front of the public in somewhat immodest attire. Where do you start with discouraging this behavior if that’s what your goal is? I was raised in a large family; four boys and four girls and my sisters went to great efforts to look as attractive as they could before each school day and got sent back to fix anything my folks deemed inappropriate.
Banning the cheer leaders from sports is pure silliness. One might insist on a bit more modesty in the attire, but short of a burka, beautiful girls are easy on the eyes of most men regardless.
It is normal for females to want to be noticed by males, and to go to great pains to make it happen.
The gay guys want to be the new cheer queens.
I came here for the pics and found practically none...
...man, Free Republic has really gone down the tubes lately.
Y’all might as well include #MeToo on this thread.
Reminds me of science fiction books I read as a kid. A future where both men and women dress the exact same in a unisex and unsexy manner. This seems to be what the Left is driving for. I think Star Trek went in that direction but the women could still be quite sexy nonetheless.
if you ask me RomComs are way worse than simple cheerleading squads in college or high school. The RomComs do more in indoctrinating women on male oriented ‘how women should act”. They are going after cheerleaders and it’s silly. My guess is somebody is doing post grad work with a very sympathetic teacher.
To describe those who oppose the form of NFL cheerleading due to its sensual nature as having sexual hang-ups is a liberal tactic, for liberals actually promote sexual freedom. Their opposition to NFL cheerleading is duplicitous political virtue signaling, both supporting slut walks and topless women (which blames men for lusting) while protesting porno cheerleading due to its war against masculinity while wanting "scantily dressed male cheerleaders and dance teams."
Wrong
Wrong, true Christians maturely oppose it on sound moral grounds, for scantily-clad sexually beautiful women (a testament to special creation, as they did not evolve from fish) in public is sinful, shameful, and essentially pornographic and has no place in public view. Which beauty is only for her husband to fully behold in marriage, which provides the secure context for what is normally part of this sexual exposure, as an act of trust and vulnerability, which is sexual relations and children.
Public nakedness is presented as shameful in Scripture, (Genesis 3:7; Revelation 3:18) as enticing normal men to lust (not that we must), which signals an invitation to sexual relations, but which requires the man to repress it, since at least for now, most feel public sexual relations themselves are embarrassing. Proverbs warns, "Lust not after her beauty in thine heart; neither let her take thee with her eyelids." (Proverbs 6:25) Holy Job attested,. "I made a covenant with mine eyes; why then should I think upon a maid?" (Job 31:1) And 1 Timothy 2:9 commands, In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array."
No, this does not mean women must be dressed in a tent, and veils, and any beauty completely hidden. "Leah was tender eyed; but Rachel was beautiful and well favoured" (Genesis 29:17. KJV) yet which i am sure was perceivable without short skirts, cleavage or even pants.
In addition, a NFL game is often a family affair, and which teaches the young that dressing like a prostitute and (from the few glimpses I have seen) engaging in erotic dancing is acceptable public behavior. Fathers who would never let their daughters to prance around in public half naked like that yet have no problem letting their kids see (even married) women do so.
It is the Left that abhors sexual mores, and other realities resulting from the Fall, and reducing those who oppose erotic (if you are a normal male) cheerleading to being liberals, as if the most conservative wound not for truly moral reasons, is itself a form of liberalism.
I interviewed a former Atlanta Falcons cheerleader, Nina Ahlin (now Noa Hami), on my radio show. When she entered my studio, I was struck by how attractive she was 20 years after retiring from cheerleading, and by her modest dress. Regarding her dress, she explained that soon after retiring as a cheerleader, she met an Orthodox Jewish man, fell in love, converted to Orthodox Judaism and married. Apparently, her religious husband, a successful businessman, didn't find this woman's cheerleading background "demeaning." On the contrary, like the vast majority of men -- religious or secular -- he was delighted to be dating and ultimately marrying an NFL cheerleader.
If he found no problem with it, then you must think he would approve of her doing it now. Which is absurd. "Not having a problem" with one's past as defining what they presently simply does not necessarily equate to sanction of the past.
It was clear that even now, as an Orthodox Jew who dresses in the long skirts and long sleeves, she doesn't find cheerleading demeaning: She sent me a photo of herself from her cheerleader days.
. Good thing he didn't go to Yale Divinity School.
While Yale is liberal, I think your scorn of traditional Judaeo-Christian values in this regard is showing.
So she glories in what he faith disapproves of. More like a liberal.
A Vanity Fair piece on cheerleaders gave the game away: "The league profits from selling a retrograde notion of masculinity -- big, strong men, unafraid to take a hit, surrounded by enthusiastic, scantily clad women."
Strength and fearlessness (and protection of women as the weaker sex - as gold is to iron) are normal esteemed aspects of masculinity, which the Left deplores, and thus it deplores cheerleading for the wrong reasons, because it wants to feminize men.
The new emasculated man will not look at sexy women.
Meaning the new emasculated man is not attracted to sexy women, which is very much the opposite to men with normal testosterone (at least from what I have seen and experience).
The left has contempt for masculinity and the male sexual nature that is part of it.
Indeed. In essence they abhor Genesis 2, in which God made the women for the man as a helpmeet, as uniquely compatible and complimentary, sexually joined in marriage (while only condemning homosexual unions wherever they are manifestly dealt with), and with man being the leader, while also abhorring the next chapter, of the Fall or man and the constitutional changes that resulted, and laws thereof.
men like looking at women, and women like being looked at.
Yes, and they go together (in marriage) like toast and butter) however, the interior is what is of overriding importance. For Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the Lord, she shall be praised. (Proverbs 31:30 KJV)
However, by utterly ignoring the moral case for opposing public eroticism and relegating it to immoral anti-masculine ("masculinephobic?") liberals, then you are actually writing like a liberal while trying to oppose it.
To act like a real men means not being fearful of opposing what is immoral in the sight of God, whether promoted by a liberal or a conservative. Of course, while one cannot be a Christian without being a conservative, one can be a conservative of sorts without being a Christian.
I’m waiting for Rubio to weigh in...
Leave it to some of the miserable prudes on this thread, and we’ll eventually end up with this but with burqas:
NFL cheerleading as “creepy and demeaning.”
____________________________________________________
Do these same people want to ban pornography?