Thursday, August 30, 2012

Unbecoming Unbuttoning








Lawrence Auster of the blog View From the Right agrees with The Thinking Housewife that Ann Romney's top, in her appearance at the Republican National Convention yesterday, reflects a typical example of the sexual licentiousness of the false conservatives of our time. 

"Notice the plunging neckline -- unthinkable for a First-Lady-to-be only 50 years ago," wrote Auster in a recent article.  "Even that liberal glutton for haute couture, Jackie Kennedy, wouldn't have dipped so daringly low for such an important public speech." 

Auster's frequent supporter and blogging ally, Laura Wood of The Thinking Housewife was glad he agreed, and noted: 

"Had Ann's blouse closed a mere, say, five and a quarter centimeters higher, our Nation would have been spared that glimpse of freshly healthy white flesh." 

Auster couldn't have said it better, he said -- except for one detail: 

"Please, let's not succumb to the Euro reflex and measure our words by the metric system: you meant to say:  she should have buttoned up 2 more inches." 

Laura Wood of The Thinking Housewife didn't have to think about it: 

"You're absolutely right, Larry! Shame on me!" 

Auster forgave her, steering the discussion to the more important point: 

"Bottom line: we concur on the unseemly spectacle Ann Romney made at such a pivotal fulcrum of our history." 

"Indeed," said Laura Wood of The Thinking Housewife.   "And did her blouse have to be so.... red...!!!???

"That's another thing," Auster replied, free-associating on a tangent as he is wont to do.  "All the commentators I've seen and read describe it as red -- when actually it's really orange..."

"Well, sort of an orange-red, perhaps..." Laura Wood of The Thinking Housewife demurred, passively.

"No, that's definitely not red -- think of a Macintosh apple, or a Santa Claus suit..."

"Or a fire engine!" blurted out Laura Wood of The Thinking Housewife with glee.

"Right, all examples of classic red -- and that's definitely not the color we see in Ann Romney's blouse.  I think the name of the color we're looking for is mandarin."

"Yes, that's it -- mandarin!  I think I threw out a chaise lounge that color last spring, LOL..."

"At any rate, it was a most unbecoming unbuttoning..."

"That's a good one!"

"Hm, maybe I'll title my piece here that."

"Sounds good."

"By the way, Laura, what are you doing for lunch...?"

"Oh, nothing much.  Paul's still on that conference in Akron -- won't be back before the weekend."

"Remember that little bodega we tried last summer...?"

"The one over on West 129th...?"

"Yes, Pascal's Eatery."

"That's the one!"

"Twoish sound good?"

"I hope you're not doing metric!"

"I don't need to do metric with you, baby!"

"Woops, are we still here....?"

"Oh, right, we better get off.   See you after a while."

" :-(|) "

5 comments:

Anathematic Action said...

It seems to me that somehow some conservatives are veering towards a stance on moral issues that closely resembles Islam's point of view with regards to the status of women. If "plunging necklines" are objectional to them, I can also imagine that some of them might just cosy up to Salafis for instance, who really believe that a woman is continually radiating immoralism from every pore as soon as she goes around "immodestly" dressed, so to speak.

If they also start criticising the color of her dress for the same reason, then I suppose these conservative Christian factions should draw up a "legislative dresscode" for the women in their midst (!)

What the hell are these people thinking of ? To assume that infidel women are defilers of Islam's moral code is part and parcel of Islam's doctrine. Leave this shit to Muslims, for crying out loud ! If women in the Western world can't show up demonstrating a mind of their own by being assertive in a number of ways, we'd better all start converting to Islam, I suppose (?)

Effing stupid idiots.

Hesperado said...

I agree.

Though my piece here was imaginatively satirical, I've seen pretty much what I'm satirizing at the Auster blog.

Not that I'm a big fan of the gay lifestyle, but I think it was going too far when Auster put the promotion of the gay lifestyle on a par with the Islamic threat:

Islam... [and] homosexual liberation—two of the major forces threatening our civilization from without and within...

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/021207.html

The main conservative known for this type of thinking which you are describing is Dinesh D'Souza; and he had a couple of debates with Robert Spencer years ago in which he, D'Souza, more or less claimed that Islamic morals are higher than ours and that's why they hate us.

Anonymous said...

"...Auster put the promotion of the gay lifestyle on a par with the Islamic threat."

Reading only your statement (as opposed to reading Auster), Auster is absolutely CORRECT.

The promotion of the HOMOSEXUAL lifestyle IS the Islamic threat which is WHY Western homosexuals are unconcerned about the steady encroachment of Islam in the West.

It is said that the atmosphere in Saudi Arabia is more overtly gay than San Francisco, CA, with men holding hands and kissing each other on the mouth in the street.

Certainly, the prince from Saudi Arabia was insistent on holding hands and dancing around with former President Georgie Bush during a formal visit to Texas.

Islam is the GAYEST religion ever, but it is ultimately a homosexual pedophile religion that worships pedophile man-boy rape over all other forms of sexual conquest and interaction including heterosexual marriage.

Via vicious clitorectomies that encourage or necessitate anal sex, even heterosexual sex is made to mimic homosexual sex.

The word on the street is that many gay Muslim men maintain long term homosexual relationships by 'marrying' their daughters to their young gay boyfriends.

Our military trained our troops to ignore - nay protect - the man-boy rape rampant in the Afghan Muslim culture.

Egghead

Hesperado said...

Egghead,

Auster means that Western homosexuality is on a par with the threat of Islam. That's a different thing than what you're saying.

Anonymous said...

Homosexuality in the West and the ummah appears to lead to the same place: promotion of homosexual pedophilia with the goal to increase the number of homosexual partners by using child rape and molestation as a crude and cruel form of 'asexual' (or nonsexual but using the sex act) homosexual reproduction.

To wit, sexuality is a continuum where some people are 'born that way' and some people are made that way. If homosexual men can get their hands on young boys (while simultaneously diminishing the power of mothers to protect their sons), then homosexual men can 'create' more homosexuals because young boys are very affected by their initial sexual experiences.

The recent infliction of the full deviant homosexual agenda - with public lewdness calculated to corrupt innocent children - on civic parades, public school curricula, military policy, church teachings, and church management has changed my (formerly PC MC propagandized) mind about the wisdom of introducing, allowing, and condoning open homosexuality in civil society.

Homosexuality in the West is the wedge being used to demolish the historical Christian definition of traditional marriage and family life - with an ever more strict PC MC prohibition against any and all criticism of deviant lifestyles with such criticism being labeled as hate speech to be prosecuted at the federal level in criminal and civil courts.

Homosexual unions will be used to legalize homosexual marriage, then polygamy, then child marriage, so homosexual unions are completely compatible with the interests of pagan Muslims as Muslims seek to introduce Sharia Law.

At the same time, Sharia Law is completely compatible with the interests of homosexual pedophiles who quickly realize that the impossible 'proof' of rape under Sharia Law works to the complete benefit of pedophiles.

Egghead