@GenjiKilpatrick I would hope that I raise my child with enough responsibility, and that we are strong enough role models to avoid the aforementioned scenario altogether. Besides, your link is not the outfit in the video. If it was your puritanical rant might mean something, but it's not. While a little too revealing for some, Katy is not wearing anything in the video that you wouldn't see while watching an Olympic figure skater.

In response to the "Christians happened to have started the United States" line I looked up "puritans" on wikipedia and found this:

"The first Puritans of New England certainly disapproved of Christmas celebrations, as did some other Protestant churches of the time. Celebration was outlawed in Boston from 1659 to 1681. The ban was revoked in 1681 by an English-appointed governor Sir Edmund Andros, who also revoked a Puritan ban against festivities on Saturday night; but it was not until the mid 19th century that celebrating Christmas became fashionable in the Boston region.[32] Likewise the colonies banned many secular entertainments, such as games of chance, maypoles, and drama, on moral grounds."

Hi Ant, I just wanted to let you know I truly like your shit (content sifted) even though you always down vote anything that is not puritanical (at least lately, i've been around a short time). Don't get me wrong, you are totally entitled to do whatever you want here (down voting this or that it doesn't matter). I'm totally cool with that. Your are like a fucking God on this website, with your name on a Top list and shit, kudos. Keep up the excellent sifting.

>> ^brunopuntzjones:

>> ^Fantomas:
>> ^BoneRemake:
To get respect your should look like you deserve respect.

I know right? If a woman wears revealing clothing she is obviously a slut. Everyone should be judged entirely on thier personal appearance and I'm sure you're always immaculately turned out and not just some neckbeard who judges others via the anonymous safety of the internet.

Well she may not be a whore, but she sure as hell is wearing a whores uniform.
Like I can go around wearing a cop uniform, should I expect people to not ask me for help?
EXCUSE ME. Just because I dress this way does not mean I'm an officer of the law. (Chappelle).


For anyone who hasn't seen Chappelle's delivery
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uscmRI9ZrE

Look, clothing and how people wear it is part of culture. Yeah, it's different in different parts of the world, but whatever it is, it will always have meaning...no exceptions. The clothing you wear has an effect on others whether you want it to or not. If I choose to go to a job interview in cutoff jean shorts, that fucking means something to the interviewer. Everybody knows that.

Her comment saying those jeans are "her size" implies "there's nothing I can do about the way I look". That's bullshit. I understand people's comments about our shitty uptight puritanical culture, but this is just silly. IMO, most women know exactly what they're doing when they dress like her. They're using their good looks for power just like a tall man with a deep voice might use that to get people to listen. Can people be naive about these sorts of traits? Of course, and they shouldn't be punished for that.


All this doesn't excuse the testosterone-laden players from being idiots, but there are only two options IMO...doing it on purpose or being naive. Neither option generally garners tons of respect.

Of course, none of this addresses the fact that the "sexual harassment" stuff was probably a lot more mild and the reporting on it way overdone. However, having been in college football locker rooms (had a father who was a college football coach) ...possibly not overstated...lol

Blame the victim. A woman can't look good and dress sexy in this puritanical society without it being a big fucking deal. I don't think she made a big deal out of it. I think the media did, the jets overreacted, and she is still smokin.

I've looked up his pics online - I could take him.

There is a big difference between high school swim team camel toe and this? I don't see it. This young lady is engaged in photo shooting - showing off her gymnastic abilities in an iconic setting. She isn't intending to display and frame her snatch - that's just how you see it. Fucking perv.

I guess if you want to nitpick about the attire of a man lurking about a children's playground, you are purposely obfuscating the issue. When you live your life online, I guess real life issues changes your perspective on things.

Who said anything about vietnam? Do you know who the Phelps family is?

Too bad if you think she is an adult, she IS a minor - and if not legally, then practically. She says she's 17. How old are you? You fucking perv.

Regarding your cock and balls - there's a great deal difference between glancing at ass and filming a crotch in public. If you don't understand that I don't have the time nor inclination to explain it to you. And how would I even know that this perv was filming her crotch? How many handheld cameras still have an eye-piece for viewing? Most have a screen. Anyone who glanced over and saw his screen would see what he was doing. He's a fucking perv. Whether he did this to 'provoke' as an aspect of his professional persona, or if he's just a perv normally is irrelevant. It was inappropriate.

Porn shoot? In public? Surely you know this would be illegal (and for a good reason). "Discuss this situation, don't raise unparallel parallels."

Pretending that this is a poor innocent young girl? She visibly IS a poor, innocent young girl. She's there with what looks like her family and a professional photographer. This is not a sexual display, this is an artistic endeavour meant to focus on her artistic ability, not her snatch you perv.

I've studied the polarizing effect of the internet - where anonymity and the digital interface leads to people upholding stringent, abstract principles with little regard for real-world practicality and social norms. This seems to be a textbook case of this trend. "She is wearing tight pants and is raising her leg" does not equal "She wants people to look at her snatch - you can tell because she is wearing tight pants and is raising her leg".

Remind me to never leave DannyM with my kids.

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^Throbbin:
I would have knocked the camera man out cold. Something being legal doesn't make something acceptable.
I'm not a puritan, I'm not religious, and I enjoy the feminine form as much as anyone - but I would not have accepted him standing around zoomed in on her crotch.
There are those of you who defend him for it being a public thing. Would you defend men in trench coats hanging around playgrounds? How about men with video cameras zoomed in on the crotches of a girls high school swim team? How about defending the Phelps family demonstrating in front of the funerals of dead soldiers? All perfectly legal, and I guess all perfectly legit with folks on VS.

Correction, you'd get knocked out by a surprised (and probably weedy) cameraman.
There's a pretty big difference between someone filming a high school swimming team's camel toe surreptitiously with obligatory shakey-cam and filming what looks to me like an adult woman WHO IS LITERALLY DISPLAYING AND FRAMING HER VAGINA IN THE MIDDLE OF A CROWDED STREET. And why is a trench coat any more offensive than for example, a neo-matrix coat? Why should the attire of a private detective draw your concern? And what the fuck has anything got do with vietnam?!?!? (war protesting)
If i saw this woman in the street and got chatting with her, it wouldn't even cross my mind that she was anything other than an adult. People referring to this woman as a minor, it makes me want to cry. I wonder if the modern awareness of paedophilia has brought as many false positives as it has genuine positives.
Do you know what? If i was so concerned about people seeing my cock and balls tightly sillhouetted against my tight shorts, i think i'd fucking refrain from posing - LITERALLY POSING - with my foot above my head whilst families walk past.
If you whipped this situation on its head and imagined that a porn star was doing what she was doing with a big sign saying "porn shoot", you'd get fat mothers and fathers waddling over to complain that they didn't want their children seeing bits and pieces on display. But because we're pretending that this is a poor innocent young girl who was just practising ballet oh yes sir poor lil ole me, suddenly we have to protect her poor innocence.
I just LOVE how people like you can see a video - one with utter moral ambiguity - and then say "Oh so you'd also let people stab a baby in the kidney? You want to make it a law that every school has to have at least 5 paedophiles working as teachers?" No, you mong. No one said those things. This situation is not "other situations". Discuss this situation, don't raise unparallel parallels.
In an ideal world, this video would have been titled "stupid exhibitionist bint shows her vagoo in the street, pervert films it, no one interrupts, everyone feels ashamed of the human race"
As for the post above me, man, no one i associate with would do this in the street and i think i could raise my children better when the time comes.

concur

>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^Throbbin:
I would have knocked the camera man out cold. Something being legal doesn't make something acceptable.
I'm not a puritan, I'm not religious, and I enjoy the feminine form as much as anyone - but I would not have accepted him standing around zoomed in on her crotch.
There are those of you who defend him for it being a public thing. Would you defend men in trench coats hanging around playgrounds? How about men with video cameras zoomed in on the crotches of a girls high school swim team? How about defending the Phelps family demonstrating in front of the funerals of dead soldiers? All perfectly legal, and I guess all perfectly legit with folks on VS.

Correction, you'd get knocked out by a surprised (and probably weedy) cameraman.
There's a pretty big difference between someone filming a high school swimming team's camel toe surreptitiously with obligatory shakey-cam and filming what looks to me like an adult woman WHO IS LITERALLY DISPLAYING AND FRAMING HER VAGINA IN THE MIDDLE OF A CROWDED STREET. And why is a trench coat any more offensive than for example, a neo-matrix coat? Why should the attire of a private detective draw your concern? And what the fuck has anything got do with vietnam?!?!? (war protesting)
If i saw this woman in the street and got chatting with her, it wouldn't even cross my mind that she was anything other than an adult. People referring to this woman as a minor, it makes me want to cry. I wonder if the modern awareness of paedophilia has brought as many false positives as it has genuine positives.
Do you know what? If i was so concerned about people seeing my cock and balls tightly sillhouetted against my tight shorts, i think i'd fucking refrain from posing - LITERALLY POSING - with my foot above my head whilst families walk past.
If you whipped this situation on its head and imagined that a porn star was doing what she was doing with a big sign saying "porn shoot", you'd get fat mothers and fathers waddling over to complain that they didn't want their children seeing bits and pieces on display. But because we're pretending that this is a poor innocent young girl who was just practising ballet oh yes sir poor lil ole me, suddenly we have to protect her poor innocence.
I just LOVE how people like you can see a video - one with utter moral ambiguity - and then say "Oh so you'd also let people stab a baby in the kidney? You want to make it a law that every school has to have at least 5 paedophiles working as teachers?" No, you mong. No one said those things. This situation is not "other situations". Discuss this situation, don't raise unparallel parallels.
In an ideal world, this video would have been titled "stupid exhibitionist bint shows her vagoo in the street, pervert films it, no one interrupts, everyone feels ashamed of the human race"
As for the post above me, man, no one i associate with would do this in the street and i think i could raise my children better when the time comes.

>> ^Throbbin:

I would have knocked the camera man out cold. Something being legal doesn't make something acceptable.
I'm not a puritan, I'm not religious, and I enjoy the feminine form as much as anyone - but I would not have accepted him standing around zoomed in on her crotch.
There are those of you who defend him for it being a public thing. Would you defend men in trench coats hanging around playgrounds? How about men with video cameras zoomed in on the crotches of a girls high school swim team? How about defending the Phelps family demonstrating in front of the funerals of dead soldiers? All perfectly legal, and I guess all perfectly legit with folks on VS.


Correction, you'd get knocked out by a surprised (and probably weedy) cameraman.

There's a pretty big difference between someone filming a high school swimming team's camel toe surreptitiously with obligatory shakey-cam and filming what looks to me like an adult woman WHO IS LITERALLY DISPLAYING AND FRAMING HER VAGINA IN THE MIDDLE OF A CROWDED STREET. And why is a trench coat any more offensive than for example, a neo-matrix coat? Why should the attire of a private detective draw your concern? And what the fuck has anything got do with vietnam?!?!? (war protesting)

If i saw this woman in the street and got chatting with her, it wouldn't even cross my mind that she was anything other than an adult. People referring to this woman as a minor, it makes me want to cry. I wonder if the modern awareness of paedophilia has brought as many false positives as it has genuine positives.

Do you know what? If i was so concerned about people seeing my cock and balls tightly sillhouetted against my tight shorts, i think i'd fucking refrain from posing - LITERALLY POSING - with my foot above my head whilst families walk past.

If you whipped this situation on its head and imagined that a porn star was doing what she was doing with a big sign saying "porn shoot", you'd get fat mothers and fathers waddling over to complain that they didn't want their children seeing bits and pieces on display. But because we're pretending that this is a poor innocent young girl who was just practising ballet oh yes sir poor lil ole me, suddenly we have to protect her poor innocence.

I just LOVE how people like you can see a video - one with utter moral ambiguity - and then say "Oh so you'd also let people stab a baby in the kidney? You want to make it a law that every school has to have at least 5 paedophiles working as teachers?" No, you mong. No one said those things. This situation is not "other situations". Discuss this situation, don't raise unparallel parallels.

In an ideal world, this video would have been titled "stupid exhibitionist bint shows her vagoo in the street, pervert films it, no one interrupts, everyone feels ashamed of the human race"

As for the post above me, man, no one i associate with would do this in the street and i think i could raise my children better when the time comes.

I would have knocked the camera man out cold. Something being legal doesn't make something acceptable.

I'm not a puritan, I'm not religious, and I enjoy the feminine form as much as anyone - but I would not have accepted him standing around zoomed in on her crotch.

There are those of you who defend him for it being a public thing. Would you defend men in trench coats hanging around playgrounds? How about men with video cameras zoomed in on the crotches of a girls high school swim team? How about defending the Phelps family demonstrating in front of the funerals of dead soldiers? All perfectly legal, and I guess all perfectly legit with folks on VS.

HUR HUR! pedo...its the new nigger!

for fucks sake, people think he lost the highground because he was a dick... when you are verbally assaulted and accused of being a pervert for filming something thats happening in broad daylight in a VERY public place you have the right to be a dick..sorry, but you shouldn't have to be polite when basically being accused of being a sex criminal for filming something thats happening in public.

and I'm sorry but the white knight on the bike would have gotten knocked the fuck out...you do not get in my face with that shit when i'm doing nothing to you...best back the fuck off.

godamned false moral hypocrite suedo-puritan country is turning into a christ-mastabatory wasteland.

she is 17, 17 is not a child...she is a fully sexually mature woman, but OH NOES! HURHUR the law sais u cant tuch her so hurhur fuck of u PERV!!1!!

godamned ridiculous.

That's a fairly puritanical response to the human anatomy.

I don't think this clip is NSFW, despite the half-second image of a penis.

>> ^TheJehosephat:

Maybe nsfw due to the not-so-hidden penis?

^I can live with that. Too bad the puritanical and uneducated will fight it tooth and nail in this country. My fingers are crossed, California.

Nudity is not an aberration, In most of the world and during almost all of history this would not be seen as anything out of the ordinary (well--except for the electronic doo-hickys). Our society's puritanical world view screws up more kids than home nudity ever has. I won't--however--defend this family; I simply don't know enough about them or how they raise their kids.

I will however upvote blankfist's oedipal comment--Hehehe. And she is a babe!

I, admittedly, tend to be more liberal and less puritanical about this sort of thing, but I'm for it. Yes, there is obvious, unfortunate editing for pornographic purposes, but watching the anatomy at work is still informative, even if the rest of it is lost. Consider this a more focused study on just the anatomical points. I'm just really glad that it wasn't filmed in 3-D!

Aluminium
Yeah, as said above on the Aluminium thing... we SPELL it differently (we being Aussies who slavishly follow the brits) to the yanks, so we say it differently.

So that particular case is not one of pronouncing a word oddly, it's spelling it two different ways and therefore pronouncing it as they are spelled.

Titbit

You want this explained? He explained it... it IS Titbit... and the puritanicals got rid of the tit in it..

Sidewalk
Us Aussies and English call them footpaths... they are paths we walk on with our feet. Just as sensible as sidewalk... although sidewalk limits you to being on the side of something, whereas as a footpath can roam where it pleases.