Funny Pictures Thread. It begins again

I am not aware of any particular subculture in the United States that considers shoulders to be sensual ... well, until now. Now I'm just perplexed because I'm curious why they feel photoshopping out shoulders is necessary. It's just bizarre. If the reasoning is because of some weird shoulder fetish, they need to get their personal issues under control.
Utah.

It is my understanding that Mormons have a...thing against exposed shoulders on men and women. I'm not sure if it's a thing that's written into their scripture but the Mormons around here seem VERY intent on keeping shoulders covered and above the knees as well.

Possible Religious pressures bleeding over into a public school...?
 
That's the thing, I don't think it is. It's just general "be modestly dressed". Do you think knees are sensual? 'cause I sure don't. But "skirts have to reach below the knee" is one of the most common things in uniform or dress codes. (admittedly, back in the day because you were supposed to be able to kneel on them to pray...)
 
This was the approved top for the girls at my high school, way back in the day. Feast your eyes, gentlemen (and ladies).

Year book.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: JCM

GasBandit

Staff member
The obvious solution:

spoiled for size
I have heard that muslim women say they are liberating... they free you from the male gaze, they free you from being judged by your appearance... the sort of "if we were all blind we'd all treat each other nicer" thing.

It'd make cosplay a bit of a challenge, though.
 
I have heard that muslim women say they are liberating... they free you from the male gaze, they free you from being judged by your appearance... the sort of "if we were all blind we'd all treat each other nicer" thing.

It'd make cosplay a bit of a challenge, though.
Not for the cosplayers. Just for those of us trying to guess which character they're playing.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
And yet for all its liberation, it reminds me of the Vonnegut short story about enforcing equality by making the pretty make ugly faces, the strong and graceful carry heavy chains, and the smart wear headphones that randomly blare babble and alarms to derail your train of thought.
 
And yet for all its liberation, it reminds me of the Vonnegut short story about enforcing equality by making the pretty make ugly faces, the strong and graceful carry heavy chains, and the smart wear headphones that randomly blare babble and alarms to derail your train of thought.
People who confuse egality with equality are the worst.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
People who confuse egality with equality are the worst.
“Egality is the elimination of differences. Since people are different, only force can cover up the differences, and then only temporarily. Once force is no longer applied, the differences reappear….” -Balint Vazsonyi
 
Except that by covering these girls or "modesty dressing", you're telling them to be the thought police: that they are responsible for the thoughts and actions of others because of how they are dressed, but at the same time telling boys "you are not responsible for your actions because you're programmed to want sex". Even in countries where women wear burquas, the amount of women who are still sexually assaulted is ridiculously high.

We're putting the onus on the wrong people: it should NEVER matter what a person is wearing, YOU are responsible for your own thoughts and actions at ALL TIMES. A woman should be able to walk down the street naked, and not fear she is "asking for it". Now, am I saying you shouldn't find it sexy? Hell no. Get turned on all you want. Hell, go home and rub one out until your raw. That's fine. But, under no circumstances, is it okay to take her nudity as an invitation that she wants sex. Do you know how a woman wants sex? She actually SAYS so. Not her outfit (or lack of), not her "sultry glances", only her actual words. Think she's pretty and you'd like to ask her out? Do it, and do it respectfully. (By the way, cat calls are NOT a respectful way to tell a woman you find her attractive. They're cowardly and insulting.) And if she says yes? Congrats! And if she says no? Then the answer is just no, for whatever reason. No, the reason is not that she's a stuck-up bitch or she's a tease or she's a lesbian... it's just no. And a single "no" is the end of the conversation. Always. Walk away, move on, life keeps going.

One summer Sunday when we were still living in Queens, I got up to take our dog for his morning walk/potty break. It was around 7 AM, I was half awake and didn't really want to be up, so I didn't brush my hair, I tossed on my glasses, continued to wear the giant mens XXL t-shirt I had slept in, tossed on Mr. Z's shorts (which came to my knees) and a pair of sandals. If it weren't for my hair, I could have been mistaken for a guy. Still blurry-eyed, yawning and shuffling half a block from our apartment, a guy pulls up in his car next to me and proceeds to hit on me. I told him no and to go away. He continues to follow me with his car, all the while trying to "convince me to change me mind". I told him to fuck off several times and still he followed, telling me I shouldn't be out alone "looking so sexy". He would. not. stop. I had nothing but a small bag of poop, and a Westie to protect me. I didn't even have my keys because Mr. Z was going to buzz me back into the apartment. My only saving grace was the street I was on was mostly single family (or close to it) homes and I had lived there long enough to know/recognize/be recognized by a good amount to people on the block. So I started screaming. He sped off when people started poking their heads out.

Bare shoulders, burqas, sleeves, tits-in-the-wind... none of it matters. The only invitation is an spoken "yes", and the rest are thoughts that are solely the responsibility of the owner.
 
Nobody disagrees with you. (At least not on this forum)
I've often read posts illustrating that, or I wouldn't have joined. :) Previous posts were discussing that anything can be found sexual, and my point was whether someone finds it sexual is irrelevant: we shouldn't be worried about something being "sexy", we should be drawing a strong line on what is and isn't okay to do about it.
 
While your point is accurate in general, in this specific case you might be jumping the gun a bit in judging their motivations. There wasn't a statement about them being overly concerned about the girls corrupting the poor boys (unless there's one in the video I didn't watch), and basic modesty standards are as much or more about professionalism as sexualization and aren't gender-specific. For example, the ubiquitous "no shirts, no shoes, no service" signs you see everywhere. There's no reason I've seen from this story to think that their dress code doesn't have similar standards for boys, banning wife-beaters and muscle shirts. If that isn't the case, I'm fully with you, but without that I'll take a more generous interpretation of their reasoning.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
While your point is accurate in general, in this specific case you might be jumping the gun a bit in judging their motivations. There wasn't a statement about them being overly concerned about the girls corrupting the poor boys (unless there's one in the video I didn't watch), and basic modesty standards are as much or more about professionalism as sexualization and aren't gender-specific. For example, the ubiquitous "no shirts, no shoes, no service" signs you see everywhere. There's no reason I've seen from this story to think that their dress code doesn't have similar standards for boys, banning wife-beaters and muscle shirts. If that isn't the case, I'm fully with you, but without that I'll take a more generous interpretation of their reasoning.
As only female pictures were reportedly retouched, I'm of a mind to think their "professionalism" pretext is only that.
 
I feel like I should say something on the matter since I live in Utah, but I really don't care.

In my experience dress code is normal at a public school, I remember dress code since elementary school and it applies to everyone, boys and girls. It's always been skirts/shorts have to reach down to your fingertips when your hands are at your sides. Spaghetti straps were not allowed (only worn for gym), shirts were preferred to have at least some kind of sleeve. Boys weren't allowed to wear low-pants, tank tops not allowed (except for gym).

And it's always been this way. Sure, LDS people have a more covered up standard of what they find appropriate dress, but I've never seen/heard any school have a dress code for religious reasons.

There you go.
 
As only female pictures were reportedly retouched, I'm of a mind to think their "professionalism" pretext is only that.
But were there any pictures of boys in similar shirts at all? If none of them wore those sorts of shirts, there simply wouldn't be any photos to retouch. You'd think they'd mention it if there were any such photos, to highlight the hypocrisy.
 
Nobody disagrees with you. (At least not on this forum)
I hope that's so.

But were there any pictures of boys in similar shirts at all? If none of them wore those sorts of shirts, there simply wouldn't be any photos to retouch. You'd think they'd mention it if there were any such photos, to highlight the hypocrisy.
Lately there have been a lot of dress code updates which only target the girls; I think that's why it came up that way.

Ahem.....



Funny pictures thread. take serious talk somewhere else.

Funny pictures, okay, yeah, I think I have some of that.



Am I funny now?
 
  • Like
Reactions: JCM
Top