Monday, August 19, 2013

Sluts Cause Dropouts - An Argument in Favor of School Uniforms



This from the chronicles of "wait, it really is 2013, right?": High School Slut Edition

I was listening to the 910 in San Francisco radio today. I was gobsmacked by the what the host, "Frosty" said and the truly sexist sentiments - against both genders.

He was speaking in support of school uniforms. He is a proponent of school uniforms because "of the way girls dress these days." According to Frosty, girls mimic rock stars, who all dress like sluts and trash. So girls at school are dressing like trash and sluts. When girls dress "seductively" or "like sluts" or "like trash" or "show too much skin" at school, the girls distract the boys and lesbian girls so they can't accomplish as much at school. He makes no mention of young men dressed to be attractive.

In order to make this jaw-droppingly sexist of this statement, one has to believe that young straight men and lesbians are so weak that they can't accomplish anything with a pretty girl showing skin in the room. One also has to believe that a woman can be responsible for the failures of straight boys and girls simply by dressing provocatively. The use of "slut" and "trash" to describe women who enjoy or have lots of sex harkens back to when we measured women's worth by what her vag counter would read.

I don't think straight men and lesbians have such marshmallow resolve that they can't accomplish something in spite of sexual attraction. I guess he feels young men and lesbians are like physiological divining rods – following their genitals to the source, no matter the terrain.

It is flabbergasthing to hear some old, white, fuddy-duddy putting sex based values on women. The idea that women who enjoy sex or look like they enjoy sex are somehow tainted or bad is wickedly arcane. We (women) like sex. Hell, we have an entire multiple orgasms organ. We are not male sexual satisfaction apparatuses. The childish desire for a woman who is uncocked screams of personal inadequacies and an unwillingness to be judged against anyone else. Oh, and just because we like sex does not mean we aren't smart or anyone has any right to treat us like we are substandard human beings.

Men and lesbians are responsible for their own failures. If a young man can't graduate from school, it isn't because there were too many pretty girls around - it is because he decided to value a tingling sensation in his pants instead of in his brain. It isn't a woman's responsibility to coverup to stop men from looking at her. Pretty girls don't stop people from accomplishing something. Men and lesbians are responsible for their own behavior. If a teenage boy or lesbian can't stop chasing their genitals, that is their problem - not the girls who are dressed in a way you find provocative.

Asserting that the way women dress can derail progress or makes someone else not responsible for their own behavior has justified rape for generations. Hell, this is exactly the same reasoning that has women in the desert wandering about in meters of fabric, covering their entire body. I'm sure Frosty isn't arguing women should ride around in burqas or get raped, but he is employing the same reasoning for the same reason – to place blame with women for other people's feelings, arousal, and behavior based on it.

Let's get real for a second. Attractiveness rules in schools are not about stopping students from getting distracted. Modest dress never stopped a teenaged hormone. Amish teenagers couple, women in burqas find husbands, practicing Mormon women still have babies, Mennonite teens still find ways toward distraction through attraction. The clothes don't matter too much.

Rules about sexuality in schools are enacted to stop teachers from being attracted to a student and behaving in appropriately. I suspect that all old men who are outraged at the skin women show are pissy about this for the same reason; they find themselves attracted to young women and instead of checking their own feelings, they gets pissed at the broads for being slutty in their eyesight.

It's time we start calling this anti-sex geriatric anger what it is; an emotional slacker's attempt to pass responsibility for their own inadequacies onto the source of their insecurities.

Monday, August 12, 2013

Rich, Delicate Egotists in Palo Alto Ban Living in Car


People in Palo Alto were so outraged that they had to look at the ugly reality of homelessness that instead of helping people, they banned living in cars. The consequence for living in your car is jail time and/or a $1,000 fine - an impossible amount for a person living in their car.

The sensibilities of the rich and privileged are so fragile that just seeing something unsavory, something uncomfortable is enough to demand their comfort be accommodated. They don't expect the same for the people in the cars, no. The comfort of the unfortunate doesn't matter to these deplorable, self-minded egotists.
Palo Alto, you are a bunch of delicate, heartless, self-important, inhumane debutantes, swimming in a sea of shameful inhumanity. You've done nothing but rain your ruthless, grotesque, self-minded behaviors like acid on everyone but yourselves.

Instead of burning the already injured with your aggrandized social vinegar, why don't you put on your big girl panties and feel the feelings associated with seeing another human being unhoused. Maybe then you might be compelled to actually do something to address the problems of homelessness.

Or will your little baby panties continue to ride up your crack?

http://blog.sfgate.com/stew/2013/08/07/emotions-run-high-as-palo-alto-bans-living-in-cars/

Photo: Kirstina Sangsahachart