I'm guessing the young girls want to be that "sophisticated" and the middle aged men - who are on the verge of having it shrivel up - wish they could have someone like that.  This is my idea of a sexy woman -

If I looked half as good and was in just 1/4 as in shape.....

She was 70-fucking-years-old in 2009. Whooooooo!!!!!!!

I'm not saying Lisa Loeb is slutty, I used her as an example of somebody who wasn't. Compare her videos to PCD or Miley Cyrus.

HUGE difference.

What is inevitable, Sandy, is that every one of the Pussycat Dolls will likely with age have the same point of view as you if they have daughters. The queen of "slut" Madonna is now fully clad most of the time and she tries to shield her daughter from the slut-world. And chances are, she will rebel and her mom Madonna will speak the classic phrase "hmmph, when I was a young girl, I never did such things".

Every Playboy centerfold since the inception of the magazine was/is someone's daughter. And men and boys for over 50 years jerked off to those images. And the Playmates who are now grandmothers are likely echoing your sentiments. The slut torch gets passed on from generation to generation. The cycle never ends.

 I just want to say that your threads are the worst , though I did rather enjoy the video. You act as if the sexual needs of women were the inverse of male desires and all outward expressions of female sexuality were coping strategies or clever pretenses to navigate a world of male predation. That's insulting to men and women. Why don't you just focus on yourself and your own problems.

*raises hand*  Just to make sure I am keeping up with this highly energetic thread:

Is the argument about why the Pussy Cat Dolls are deserving of animosity that their fathers might not approve of what they are doing? Our personal and emotionally biased disdain for them is backed up by how we wildly speculate their fathers *might* feel about their daughter's profession?

Further, did we also come to the agreement that, if someone does not have a daughter that their opinion on the topic is invalid? In order for an assertion to be given rational weight it needs to be weighed on how close the author is to the subject - instead of the weight of the argument itself?

For anyone who doesn't know, entertainers like the Pussy Cat Dolls put incredible effort into their craft. These women are athletes and entertainers. They put in hours of work every day and probably have for better than 15 years. While someone might be petty or bored enough with their own lives to pick and gripe at how these girls dress, calling them "no talent" is just ignorant.

\Have you noticed that their timing is perfect? That they don't have an ounce of fat on their bodies? Do you know why that is? They woooooooorked for it; harder than I would wager 99% of the people on this board have worked at anything throughout our entire lives. We should admire these women, not vilify them because we think their movements aren't Puritanical enough.

Here is the answer to the OP question as well as the other anti-female sexuality posters in the thread.

Good sum-up harleysporter. I sure love listening to some of you guys talk (mellestad, Beyond Saving, ragdish, latincanuck). It's nice to be humbled intellectually - reminds me that I'm not as clever as I think I am

Sandy, you totally missed my point.  I agree, if those points are valid I couldn't talk about girls dressing like 'skanks'.  That was my point, lol.

If you don't recognize the problem with relying on personal anecdotes to 'prove' a point, I'm at a loss about how to have rational discourse.

Sandy, you've ranted about this whole thread about how certain behaviors are bad, how these women are skanks and sluts and tramps (your words) but at no time have you made a single, actual argument for *why* these things are bad.  Not once.  There are plenty of good arguments against any lifestyle choice you'd care to name, but you're ignoring all of them.  If someone was on here and said, "This is OK because it makes my dick hard" I'd be asking them to back that up too.  I get that you have a hostile emotional reaction to the Pussycat dolls, up to the point of personally insulting them without any knowledge of their personal lives.  Why should I care?  How is what you're saying convincing?  Honestly, it makes me want to be contrary simply because you're lashing out in a way I don't like.

----------------

But it seems you've realized it is a generational thing and not a rational reaction.  Now it just remains to be seen what you do with this new-found awareness of self.

----------------

And yes, I have a daughter.

I will walk into what is no doubt an obvious trap. Acting/Dressing like that degrades woman, it dehumanizes them. It sends the wrong message.

Please note I don't actually believe this.

What I actually think on the matter is no doubt totally irrational. but to bad.

I'm against women dressing and acting like that for the same reason I don't like people swearing. I leave it to you guys to figure that one out.

Slinking around in skimpy clothing, being attractive and athletic is dehumanizing? How exactly are we describing human if doing this makes them less human? What scale are we working on if you have fully human on one side and completely dehumanized on the other?

Maybe it sends a message that not everyone likes, but that certainly doesn't make it the wrong message.

Theists don't like messages that atheists send - did we send out the wrong message? Or just a message that they, in their own personal and highly emotionally driven opinions, don't care for?

No, it doesn't make our arguments wrong. A solid and reasonable counter argument can make it "wrong" - have any of those?

That is simply subscribing to one social norm while these girls subscribe to another (or at least don't give that one enough weight to inform their decisions).

What I think Mellestad was saying is that just saying "I don't like it" may seem like an argument but it isn't. It is just voicing an opinion with no supporting evidence or reasoning whatsoever. Without actually providing some kind of REASON for the opinion it is completely meaningless but for the break from momentary silence.

As I said , not the belief that I hold.

Would you tell me what evidence you would accept? I agree nothing that has been said is evidence, so what evidence do you want people to provide. There is not going to be any hard evidence on a topic like this.

I really don't see myself buying any Pussycat Doll albums either, LOL. Just not my type of music.

To be honest, I had never really heard of the group until these threads had started up.

But, leaving sexuality out of it for a moment, I personally think cultural entertainment is really not built to last beyond a few years for the most part.

There are exceptions, like the Rolling Stones, and a few other entertainers that have decades of sold out shows and multi-million album sellers underneath their belts, but given the thousands and thousands of one hit wonders and bands that have come and gone, that seems rather rare.

 I remember a line from an old Travis Tritt country song that said "When all them screaming metal bands have faded into rust, there'll still be a show on music row for the old outlaws like us,".

Now at the time, this was the 80's and my fellow metalheads and I were like " NO WAY MAN ! THIS MUSIC HERE IS GONNA LAST 4EVER, MAAANNNN !!!!".

There are one or two acts around from that decade that still are pretty big, but many, many more of them have gone the way of extinction.

I have a young nephew that actually has the nerve to call himself a fan of metal. He thinks that Rob Zombie and a bunch of weirdos called Disturbed make up heavy metal. Really makes me lose alot of hope for the younger generation, hehe. 

 He's never owned a single album by Guns n'Roses or Metallica. He has never even heard of Suicidal Tendencies, Obituary, Slayer, Sepultura, Napalm Death, Testament or Accept. And he calls himself a heavy metal fan somehow.

When he comes to visit me, I tell him real quickly to keep all of that garbage he listens to on his i-pod headphones or else. Probably in the same manner that my late father  used to tell me to keep the headphones on or else.

But, my late father did admit to me one time, that his parents objected strongly to Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin and all the other tunes that were deemed as "degenerate garbage" by his parents. (Older I get, the more I kinda believe that his generation had some better tunes than mine).

From Little Richard to Lady Gaga, it just seems to be the nature of the business.

Right, but you did make the argument so you get the counter argument. If your intention is to play devil's advocate then play it - otherwise don't put it up there.  

Reasonable argument based on recent human history regarding the roles between men and women? How these roles have been super-sexed more so recently than in the past and how that is being displayed?

Evidenciary support in the form of percentage of women who wear trampy clothes are raped? How many develop drug problems or the like? How has their life expectancy or IQ been impacted? People do surveys all of the time on all manner of topics so if people are dead set on villifying revealing clothing then they should put in the effort to go get some support for the assertion.

We have many (most) conversations using only our deductive reasoning and bring in hard evidence to support our argument as we can. If the argument holds up under scrutiny then it is generally considered sound. This conversation is no different. 

Good call. I don't know much of anything about the Netherlands but comparing US sexual taboo against Japan is faaaaaaascinating. The things they are afraid of are so different from us on a fundamental level it is just amazing.

Also, I think narrowing down the assertion to a much more managable level is a primary task. Trying to get support for something being dehumanizing and "wrong" is going to be quite a task indeed. Making the argument more specific will probably be necessary to get anywhere in making it something to be legitimately considered.

You are using the same tactics you attempted to use on me in the 'N' thread.. it didn't work there, it ain't gonna work here: False accusations

Show me the post where I said the girls in the PCD group are sluts, skanks, tramps or whores. Show me the post where I said dressing like any of the above is 'bad' or, 'wrong'.

YOU CAN'T because I didn't.

What I said was that they were ACTING like and DRESSING like sluts, skanks, etc....

What I said was, it is DANGEROUS to go to a bar dressed like that.

What I said to Cpt. was, if you feel that it is wrong, KEEP IT OUT OF YOUR LIFE.

What I am not going to do is be instructed by a bunch of hard-dick men, who enjoy porn, on what is appropriate dress for a girl/woman.

When I was a teen, I wore the midriff tops and the hip-hugger jeans...it was the style and that's what teens wore... same as it was 100 years ago and same as it is now ('style' that is... and notice that hip huggers and midriff tops are just as popular now as they were 40 years ago?) The 'older' generation didn't approve, just as they didn't 100 years ago and as they don't now. Nothing new. A 20-year old sees life through 20 year old eyes...as we grow older, we know better... or, hope to anyway.

PS: I think you've got the market cornered on ranting today.

So, you are saying that since you can't know everything, you feel justified in holding whatever random belief occurs to you?  Really?

You've been presented with an opportunity to think about a particular topic, you obviously have the time free to spend, and you're using that time to hand-wave away the possibility of enlightenment.  :/

Geesh man, you sure can put English on that ball.

Atheism is just rejecting one piece of irrationality; it is not a statement of our overall intellectual value. I see a good many atheists congratulating themselves on their final victory over simple-mindedness and I cringe. We still have all of the other knee-jerk social conditioning we came in with, unless we question and educate ourselves otherwise. Shrugging our shoulders and just accepting our behavioral and intellectual trappings is a tragic waste.

I am saying you cannot know everything. I never said I feel justified about anything. I have no clue where you are getting random belief from. Neither my belief nor how I arrived there are random. 

No real interest in the topic, tbh.  I have looked nothing to be found.

I find honesty is a good thing, it seems you don't appreciate it. Pity

I am here because im meant to be doing something else and im avoiding it.

I know how to defend that little it degrades women business, you won't like it though and will disagree with it. I see No reason to go through with that for something I don't believe. I have a question, how does someone come to a completely random belief? I mean do I just spin a bottle at letters? I still don't know what I am meant to be enlightened on. Why wearing revealing clothing isn't bad? I know why it isn't bad, I also know why I'm against it.

As for that evidence,

There are many factors that could be at fault rather than trampy clothes for being raped. Even if it was thats not reason to discourage wearing them. povocitive clothes/acting lead to drugs? there are far more likely suspects. Surveys good, public opinion is relevant to the truth, wait not really. I have no interest in villifying revealing clothing, hell I quite like them. I just think it should be kept to a minimum.

I had not read that.  Shit, it always makes me feel so inadequate when I stumble over a Hamby post or read his blog.

Do you think if we killed him and ate his organs, we'd gain his power?

Hmmmm, only his brain, I think. But, we might as well eat his whole body just to be safe.

Edit: Btw, have you read any of DeludedGod's articles? Now, that's another brain I want to eat.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/third_revolution

Look here. Are you attempting to use me as a chalkboard for your lesson on morality, logic and rational arguments because ...? I don't know why, do you?

You've already admitted that I didn't say the PCD are sluts or, that dressing like a slut is bad or wrong, as you first accused me of doing.

Since I didn't, why would you insist on me explaining why I did?

You want me to explain why I didn't like the video? I already did.

You want me to explain why I said they looked like sluts? Okay. The clothes they are wearing and their behavior identifies them as such.

If you were to see a brawny man slinging a hammer and wearing boots and carpenter pants, you would say he looks like a carpenter. If you see a woman wearing scrubs with a stethoscope slung around her neck, you would say she looks like she's in the medical profession.

Get it? Good.

I'm attempting to talk to you (not use you!), because you have a tendency to give your opinion without being particularly interested in justifying said opinion. 

You're sending mixed messages even in this message though.  'I didn't call them sluts."  "I said they looked like sluts."  "Their clothes and behavior identify them as sluts."

If you want to claim that your language use had no moral connotation then that's fine, but honestly it seems pretty strange to me.  Personally, it would not occur to me to to say someone looked like a whore/skank/slut without any moral judgment.  Maybe you can do that, but to me it sounds like you are trying to justify what you wrote under some sort of technicality.  The discussion was about morality.

But I give up, I'm not going to spend more time figuring out creative ways to repeat myself.  Either you understand what I'm trying to say at this point or you don't, both in this and the Huck Finn thread.

young female dog, what actually is a 'slut' anyway? Didn't the sexual revolution short circuit this loaded, sexist term? What's a male slut? A young buck? Red blooded? A player? A sleaze?

I posit there is no reciprocal term for a man who likes to have sex with multiple partners. There's something about the word slut that has moral connotations. An implication overt girl sexuality is wrong.

Maybe less sexual, older or married women use the social control embedded in the word slut to stop randy younger women from monopolising/stealing all the available men. 

Ed: Clarity.

cause doing so has a significant chance of success. It's especially useful for girls who don't have the faculty for any other means of persuasion (reasoning or some means of force), or when they are impatient for results, arousal is often the more immediate motivator available.

I don't hate it, exactly. But I agree that we are getting overly sexualised in our culture lately and can't wait for the penny to drop just how unimaginative and cliche it is to bare for boons these days.

I agree with your sentiment, it's pathetic basically because everyone is doing it. Lemming culture makes me nauseous with apathy.

Second paragraph: Definitely NOT me.... well, not in the past anyway. I would have said fuck off to the girls and kept my male friends. Now, at 54, things are much different. Now, I look at women as allies and (most) men as aliens.