The Dumbest Thing I’ve Read All Day: 10/27

By now I’m sure you’ve all read the outrageous comments made by Austrailian Umma, Sheik Taj Aldin al Hilali, where he compares a woman not in a bhurka attracting men in the same way a piece of “uncovered meat attracts stray cats” in order to justify the Muslim gang rapists active in that country.

The leftosphere, two days late, finally got ahold of the quote and actually said that he is a bad man for doing so. Good for them!

But Shakespeare’s Sister, in order to also blame Christians and their abominable morals, takes the extra step and compares what Hilali had to say to…wait for it…School Dress Codes!

Also wrapped within al Hilali’s “uncovered meat” analogy is the implication that women have a supernatural and inescapable power over men, wielded primarily through their bodies. It’s a concept we have seen advanced not just in defense of rape, but in everything from 15th-century witch hunts, when only witches would dare to have “wide hips, prominent breasts, conspicuous buttocks, long hair,” to a modern-day justification of dress codes, as girls’ bodies are charged with distracting boys from their work. We’re all Eve, tempting every Adam by holding out ripe, delicious, forbidden fruit—and when he cannot resist, it is the fault of the woman who led him astray.

Go ahead and click the link she supplies in her paragraph. It goes to the story that came out around the first of August of this year about a school district in Arlington, TX banning the wearing of super-lowcut, tit exposing, shirts by girls. She takes from the article a quote attributed to the school board president and about how distracting it is to the boys in the classroom.

I don’t know how long Shakespeare’s Sister has been out of high school, but when one boy gets distracted, all the other boys get distracted, and then the whole class gets distracted, and by then the learning stops.

While that may sound anti-female, you have to remember that there is only one reasons girls dress to show off their attributes in their teenage years: 1. To catch the attention of boys.

They are trying to get, almost demanding, attention. Are they asking to be raped, absolutely not. If it happens, is it their fault, absolutely not. But they want to catch someone’s eye. They don’t dress like a club ho for their friends and they certainly don’t do it for their parents. They do it to attract boys because, oddly enough, girls know what boys like, one of which is low cut shirts that show off their tits.

Sorry to have to tell you this “Sister” but it just so happens to be a fact of life. I’m sure you’d like to change that and instead of banning the shirts, ban the boys from gawking, but even if these girls were wearing the shit the girls were wearing when I was in junior high and high school (85-90), you’d be suspending half of the school.

No one, I repeat, no one dresses like that unintentionally or accidentally. You could be a modern day Helen Keller and still not dress like that unintentionally or accidentally. So yes, it is a case of an offering of the “forbidden fruit by Eve”, and being that their intended targets are teenaged boys, they will easily succeed. They are “Dressed to Impress”, and yet oddly enough, the way they are dressing will only impress their like aged males.

Some people go to school to learn, not just to use it as some sort of taxpayer sponsored social club. Since the point of schools is to teach those who wish to learn, their rights will be, and should be, more respected than those who just go to “hook up”.

But a leftist has to support the hoochie-mamafication of young girls. Where else are they going to get their next generation of emotionally crippled welfare recipients?