Sunday, 12 July 2009

Females Let Loose

Lately, a picture of President Obama staring (or maybe not, but let's for argument's sake say he did) at a girl's behind at the G8 summit caused a major brouhaha. I guess they have nothing else to worry about.

The reactions by "conservatives" are amazing. From "Negro sensuality" via "We once again have a President who is more interested in the ass of a 16-year old then doing the right thing for our country" to "just a 'regular dumb guy... looking for a little butt action ... and bows to Saudi royalty, too", there are all kinds of topical, witty, straight-to-the-point, politically savvy and punctuation-conscious comments. One was even worrying what Little Miss Flimsy Dress might "feel" having those evil evil men staring at her butt. I'd say: satisfaction that the dress worked so well and she got all the attention she clearly doesn't deserve. However, what none of those "conservatives" asked was what the parents of that girl thought, when they let a girl that young strut her behind, barely concealed by a thin bit of cloth, at an international political gathering. Or rather: What a girl has AT ALL to do at an international political gathering.

I'd never thought that I'd ever say anything nice about Obama but the storm in a teacup about an instinctive and natural male reaction just shows what a bunch of sexually repressed and emasculated weirdoes Americans are. The behind of that girl didn't look like 16. What is a normal, healthy male supposed to do? Say: "Excuse me Madam, but before I stare at your arse, are you above legal age?"

Elsewhere, 9-year old girls are marriageable, consummation included. But who cares? It's so much more sexy to be outraged if a normal American guy stares at a behind that looks 25, if only the girl attached to it is 16.

5 comments:

Bruce Church said...

The reason it got so much play in the news is just a few weeks ago veteran comedian David Letterman got in trouble for joking about Sarah Palin's daughter being "knocked up" by an older man at a Yankee's game. Turns out the daughter there was only 14 years old, AND she only looked 14, too. So there was a theme:
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/31275358/ns/today_people/

Carl said...

Even in most of the US the age of consent is 16: http://www.avert.org/age-of-consent.htm

16 is marriageable in the UK, in Scotland even without parental permission (hence Gretna Green being like Las Vegas).

I really don't see the fuss and it is always the Americans flipping out about stuff like this even if it's legal in their own state.


Here's a pic of Obama doing it again: http://order-order.com/2009/07/11/explain-this-to-michelle/

What I find funniest is that he's with Sarkozy again! Not to mention that the woman's skirt would have been banned at any decent school even these days (I'm only 23), yet she appears to be some kind of UN or EU assistant.

The movies make it appear that this style of skirt has been "accepted" and "conservative" for at least 70 years, but has it really? A similar style school skirt would at least have some folds in it so that this situation wouldn't occur when she bent over.

The_Editrix said...

Bruce, I am aware of the Letterman incident. As much as I find the joke tasteless and "off", it was perfectly clear that Letterman was talking about the eldest Palin daughter. The attention whoredom of that family is getting seriously on my nerves. That "conservative" woman ought to have stayed at home to look after her adolescing children and now she is miffed by the reactions to the consequences.

Bruce and Carl, in Germany 16 used to be marriageable in Germany. It is (I believe) now 18 for both sexes. However, I firmly believe that those who are making such a fuss over a normal male reaction are projecting and having much worse problems with barely nubile girls than Obama or any other straight, healthy male who likes to look at their behinds. I remain adamant that the hostility between the sexes created by feminists and sadly internalized by only too many men is answerable for that.

Carl, yes, that's a good point that any skirt is considered discreet (not quite sure whether that is the correct term) now, if it's only not too short, even when it clearly isn't.

I guess that awful Sarkozy would even corrupt a saint. However, I fail to see what business young woman have to be at such an event.

What really puts me off is that I seem to sense a racist overtone in all this. Obama, as it is, has a sound reputation as a family man. Even leaving openly racist slurs like "Negro sensuality" aside, I don't think a white president of any political denomination would have raised quite such a brouhaha.

Gosh, I'd never thought I'd ever defend Obama...

Z said...

Editrix, I disagree; this wasn't about Black/White. If Bush had done that, he'd have been MUCH MUCH more insulted by our media, TRUST me on that. MUCH. They were laying in wait for a faux pas like this.

And I don't think it was a faux pas; I think this picture is a snippet in time in which the video I saw shows quite completely that he did NOT linger on the girl's backside, he was beginning to look up at the girl behind him and gave him her hand to help her down the steps.........Sarkozy, on the other hand, as exhibited in the video, craned his whole body AROUND Obama's to keep watching the girl's arse.
This Obama criticism was unwarranted..the camera caught a split second in time...
And, anyway, so WHAT if he did cop a peek? BIG DEAL!!! You're right.

God help me for defending Obama (Smile!) xxx

The_Editrix said...

Z, I DO take your word for it and the black/white thing was a side-aspect I just SUSPECTED anyway.

Yes, God help us if we need to defend Obama indeed!