You probably all heard about this really stupid story – they are happening more and more and more – when a kid misbehaves in one way or another and the parents call attorneys and the ACLU. It seems everything is self expression, which then is supposed to be protected speech. You may remember a long time ago in England, if you spoke against the royal family, you would end up in the Tower of London and your head would be chopped off. The point of freedom of speech is to be able to speak up against the government and not end up beheaded. It’s not used for things like this little “twit” — I’m sorry it’s my opinion she’s a twit. I’m not going to say an “alleged” twit because I think this falls under the category of twit.
Here’s the story: a Colorado high school rejected 18 year old Sydney Spies’ senior photograph she submitted for the yearbook. In the photo, she’s on some wrought iron stairs with a light yellow, very, very, very short, little skirt and she’s got a shawl around her arms, covering whatever boobs she has — so she’s not even dressed. She’s got the long lashes, the kissable lips, the platinum hair and her body is arched. You see, that’s the important part. Her body is arched so her butt is sticking out backwards. Now, in the rest of the primate kingdom, that means “mount me.”
“…The yearbook staff initially accepted the photograph of Sydney posing provocatively in a yellow mini skirt and wearing nothing but a shawl across her chest. But after the holiday, school administrators deemed the photo unacceptable. The yearbook editors invited Sydney to hand in an alternative picture but they also rejected a shot of her in a skin-tight, strapless lacy dress…”
This broad wants to be a model, so she’s using an inappropriate opportunity to advertise herself. And, of course, the Today Show had her on, so she got her wish: She got a public forum. She is very upset the picture she paid for (a professional modeling photo) would not run in the yearbook.
“…Sydney isn’t backing down. She is paying $300 for a yearbook ad featuring her photo, and the staff has confirmed that the ad can run in the back of the book…”
How desperate is this little twit? And of course, her parents are horrified her First Amendment rights are being besmirched. People in our military died to protect our freedom and she’s using it is to dress like a tart. I mean, you would see this on one of those websites for when you need a girl for the night or if you want to masturbate to a picture. Here it is… send your $500.
It proves the point the whole feminist movement should really be down on this little twit. Because…what was the saying? .. It was equal pay for equal abilities and equal opportunity to jobs. But the other thing was they didn’t want to be treated like sex objects anymore….HA! (And interestingly enough, a huge growing population of CEOs of porn sites are women.)
So, that got me thinking… In the National Catholic Register (they advertise themselves as the nation’s most complete Catholic news source), there is a terrific essay by Pat Archbold. It begins:
This post is intended as a lament of sorts, a lament for something in the culture that is dying and may never been seen again.
Pretty, pretty is dying.
People will define pretty differently. For the purposes of this piece, I define pretty as a mutually enriching balanced combination of beauty and projected innocence.
Once upon a time, women wanted to project an innocence. I am not idealizing another age and I have no illusions about the virtues of our grandparents, concupiscence being what it is. But some things were different in the back then. First and foremost, many beautiful women, whatever the state of their souls, still wished to project a public innocence and virtue. And that combination of beauty and innocence is what I define as pretty.
Read the rest of “The Death of Pretty”
It’s funny, I’ve had women’s lib folks tell me I’m sending women back 100 years in their search for equality because I think it’s important mommies raise their own children, but Sydney Spies posing like a whore doesn’t set women back 100 years to being an object?