I also have a huge problem with parents who dress their little girls like little harlots. It certainly is not the child's fault when they are abused, but they still should not be immodestly dressed.
54 comments
this just cements my belief that bro. randy -as-a-goat has an obsession with little girls. he'll turn up someday in a sex scandal with some twelve-year-old that he was "teaching bibles studies."
The more quotes I read from 'Brother' Randy, the more I think he is a child predator. He must scan young women (including his own daughter) for any sign of expressed sensuality. If that's not the behaviour of a child predator, I don't know what is.
I don't know any parent that dresses their little girls like harlots. But, what is your definition of a harlot? It's always been my experience that people like Randy complain that parents don't stop girls from dressing the way they want when they are old enough to get clothes from a third source. I'm probably just out of touch, but still, dressing little girls up has nothing to do with if a child predator comes after them or not. In fact, they're probably more inclined to like a more traditional outfit on a child as they tend to be attracted to innocent looking children, not children who look like adults.
Goddamit, this is number 9 this month. Or is it 10? I've lost count.
Ooh, I sense a spike in cognitive dissonance - he's trying to reconcile his rabid belief that people who dress "provocatively" (A term that, for fundies can range anywhere from "wearing trousers or short hair" to "not wearing a burka, even when going to the beach or swimming pool") are at least partially to blame for getting raped/abused, etc, with the obviously ludicrous notion that a child could even have any conception of being sexually provocative, and thus could not be held responsible even if they were dressed to provoke, because they could not possibly have any intention to do so.
I have a problem with parent's who let their little girls read woman-hating bigots like you. When I see someone trying to teach their daughters to accept abuse in the name of the Lord by sick perverts hiding behind a psuedo-religious fear of strong women, I get real sick! I would rather catch my daughter at a porn site than at teens-for-christ, they have a higher view of women than you do!
Randy does make a good point, in that little girls (or children in general, but it seems to be a bigger problem in girls) shouldn't dress like...to be blunt...whores.
I think there's a difference between skimpy clothing (ie. bathing suits, leotards, sports clothes, etc.) on children, and sexualized clothing on children.
Well, I must say that I have seen a few little girls who made me do a double take and wonder WTF their parents were thinking (particularly a tot who couldn't have been older than 5, dressed in clothes that had a basque-like lace motive on them, running around basically unsupervised in a museum. My jaw hit the ground when I saw that one). But I can probably count these kids dressed like predator-bait on the fingers of my hands. image
EDIT 2: a few pics just for the hell of it.
image image
@Fed Up
SaneChick: The cat comment is just ASKING for a photoshop! image
Correction: Tolkein was a catholic, not a Christian. I haven't personally read LOTR, but my sister is right into it, and I was subjected to having to listen to my teacher read "The Hobbit" to me at school.
I don't care what kids run around in, actually. Six year olds could run around in mini-skirts, and I wouldn't have a problem with it. Know why? Because they're kids! It isn't "too sexy" at all. If you think it's too sexy, why the hell are you looking at a kid that way?
to be fair, if that is him he was 21 at the time. I mean it *could* have been a 17 year old, and that wouldn't be that bad, she was just legally too young to consent. I personally think around 16 is a good age for consent but the law is the law...
"I also have a huge problem with parents who dress their little girls like little harlots"
And yet, these child beauty contests - mainly in the Bible Belt states (that fact alone says it all, really!) - don't ring any warning bells with you fundies?! I once saw a documentary of one of these. Next to the documentary film "Jesus Camp", 'Creepy' would be the understatement of the century. I found it to be utterly horrific. And all the more so because (like Jesus Camp)- it's REAL. The way they were dressed, made up, taught to act etc made one think of not so much a display of cuteness & talent, more like a paedophiles' convention, proved by the fact that most of the men in the audience were using camcorders to record the proceedings (and no doubt most not related to the contestants or their families).
So I agree with Mike (and the OP), but only insofar as this part of the OP's quote:
"I also have a huge problem with parents who dress their little girls like little harlots"
Two Words: JonBenét Ramsey.
This might be the only time I ever agree with anything Bro. Randy has to say.
I think that some of the 'prostitot-wear' that people inflict on their daughters is horribly inappropriate. What kind of message does it give to young girls when they are allowed to run around with t-shirts that have slogans like 'bitch' and 'slut'?
Now I sound like my mother. Damn!
Matilde
"nobody can be so perverted as to think girls who are unable to breed are suitable for sex"
@ Conservative Hypocrite
Yes, two gay men or lesbian women together is acceptable, even though they cannot "breed" from their union, just as a married, infertile, heterosexual couple is fine. Or do you not consider the "rutting" of heterosexual infertile people to be an acceptable lifestyle choice?
Though Matilde could have used better wording, the "unable to breed" comment was obviously being used here as a shorthand for "haven't hit puberty yet/physiologically too immature for sex/etc"
He is right about some parents allowing young (8 to 14) girls to slut it up in todays fashions. As many have pointed out here though Bro. Randy has problems with girls beachwear since the 60s or girls or women wearing pants. Most men don't sexually key on little girls even when they reveal more skin.
In todays (indeed the last thirty years) girls bathing suits reveal as much area as womens,,so technically even when they Brittiney Spears it up they're covering more than they do at the beach.
The younger girls wearing outfits inspired by pop tramps don't even realize the sexual message they're sending but their parents should. I've seen many age inappropriate fashions these days, it's Halloween now and wearing lingere has become a thing the last few years.
But again, Bro Randy's a closet pedofile, most girls and women keep it within societies perimeters. The fact we hear complaints about it shows most people thinks it's gone a little far lately,,
Spice Girls started it with "Girl Power", a thinly disquised phrase that could have easily been "Tramp it Up" for the actual message they sent
@#1324242: in and of itself, nothing. But a great many posts from Br'er Randee here seem to be about young girls, immodestly attired. In fact, it would almost seem to be an obsession of his.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
