Dianne Abbott FemiHag Calls for Purge of ‘Sexualised Images’ in UK High Streets (Trigger Warning)

diane abbott
Diane Abbott

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21878027

Shadow health minister Dianne Abbott has called for a purge of sexualised imagery from public spaces in the UK.

“I think it has reached a point where we need to detox our High Streets, and make Britain a family-friendly country again,” she told the Mumsnet website.

She also blamed a “disturbing” trend for online bullying of young women on a “crisis in masculinity”.

Ms Abbott, who came under fire over privately educating her teenage son, plans to make a speech on the issue.

“I think we need to clear our public spaces of worst elements of unrestrained markets – including addressing music videos that blare out at us, and our children.

“The online bullying including problems around ‘sexting’ and ‘slut-shaming’; the huge billboards that have very sexualised images of women that loom over our public spaces, and the sexualised figures of women in films that are now commonplace.

Notice how she blames bullying over slut shaming on ‘boys’, even though as I have pointed out here several times recently, 95% of slut shaming bullying that attractive teenage girls are subjected to is by other teenage girls. Actually that’s not quite correct. I shold say other teenage girls, and older jealous women such as Dianne Abbott clearly is, and who validate ‘slut shaming’ through the clever but transparent pretext of ‘protecting’ young girls from ‘potential’ slut shaming. In fact, the connection that hags like Dianne Abbot selfishly wish to draw between sexually liberal behaviour from young girls, and harmful consequences, does indeed encourage the very slut shaming that she pretends to be campaigning against.

the sexualised figures of women in films that are now commonplace“… What the F*** is she talking about?! There wasn’t any sexualised figures of women 20 years ago? Or maybe she just didn’t feel such internal jealous rage notice them back when she was younger and not quite as physically repulsive as she is now?

“The current issues facing boys,” commented one Mumsnet user, “are the result of constructions of masculinity and are not caused by feminism.”

Ms Abbott responded: “Absolutely. One reason I am anxious to make a big speech about men, boys and male identity is to nail the lie that feminism is somehow the cause of the problem.”

Uh oh.  Can you smell some more Sexual Trade Union co-opting of the MRM in the works?  I have a feeling TyphonBlue might be happy to interview her on this subject…

 

Underage Models Risk Creating ‘Hyper-Sexualised French Lolitas’

The Telegraph prints an article on a subject I was alerted to and posted on recently : the bid by feminists in France to ban beauty pageants, child models, and ‘adult’ clothing for children (children being defined as under 18 or 16).

The French report suggests restricting beauty pageants to girls aged over 16 or 18, banning advertisers from dressing under age models in adult attire or using them as brand figureheads. It also advocates the return of uniforms in primary schools phased out in 1968 and considered a curious British anachronism by many.

Titled ‘Against hyper-sexualisation, a new fight for equality’, the report was triggered by international outrage over a French Vogue magazine cover featuring a heavily made-up 10-year-old model.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/9126568/Under-age-models-risk-creating-hyper-sexualised-French-lolitas.html

I’ve added a comment below the article – please add your own :

Whilst concerns over the sexualisation of 8 year olds might have some validity, we all know this is about feminists exploiting such concerns to artificially ‘de-sexualise’ teenage girls.

First you legally define children as anyone under 18 (when throughout history, adulthood began at puberty).

Then, when most people still associate ‘childhood’ with pre-pubescents, you create a hysteria over the ‘sexualisation of childhood’.

Finally, you legally ban 17 year olds from wearing thongs or mini-skirts as part of a legislative package supposedly to protect pre-teens, which no politician chasing the female vote (every politician in a modern democracy), the family values vote, and the muslim vote,  dare challenge.

This way, 40 year old feminists (not to mention 40 year old male Islamists) don’t have to be wracked with pain everytime they walk down the street, having to pass girls at the peak of their beauty displaying their flawless skin.

This is how third wave feminism operates, increasingly in conjunction with the Islamisation of society.  Feminists can’t honour kill their younger sexual rivals, but they do have the power and spurious moral authority to forcibly victimise 17 year old ‘children’.

 

In the same newspaper, and on a closely related Islamo-feminist slut shaming theme, a British girl has become the first white victim of honour killing by the muslim community :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9149929/Teenager-is-first-white-victim-of-honour-killing.html

Sexual Trade Union Seeks to Ban ‘Child Models’ from the Fashion Industry

***WARNING – GRAPHIC IMAGES BELOW.  DISCRETION ADVISED

One of my two loyal and esteemed readers from across the channel has alerted us to the attempts of the French sexual trade union to stop the ‘sexualisation of children’. In fact, the aging women of France aren’t content with calling it the ‘sexualisation of children’ – teenage girls who like to wear strings are now being described as the victims of ‘hypersexualisation’.  Amongst other things, under 16s will be banned from child modelling and beauty pagents, as well as discouraged from buying sexy clothing.

The government report is titled : ‘Contre l’hypersexualisation, un nouveau combat pour l’égalité. Rapport de Chantal Jouanno‘.  Apparently, if my limited capacity to understand French got it right, they are even admitting that this is an attempt at ‘equality’.  It sure is.  Forcing ripe teenagers into burqas is the only way these middle-aged hags stand an equal chance of getting any sexual attention from men.

Roselyne Bachelot
Why won't anybody sexualise me!

As I’ve reported here several times, feminists in the UK are likewise manipulating hysterias over ‘child sexualisation’ as a pretext to removing teenage girls from the free sexual market altogether.  Their latest wheeze is to call for restrictions on child models :

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/lifestyle/underfed-and-overworked-child-models-to-get-legal-protections/story-e6frg8k6-1226268892369 (note that the link is Australian, and confusingly doesn’t make clear that the story relates to the UK ).

The campaign over teenage models is led by Jo Swinson, the Liberal Democrat MP who chairs the parliamentary group on body image, and Claire Perry, Tory MP for Devizes, who modelled as a teenager after being spotted in Bristol at 15.

Perry, who is 6ft tall and gave up modelling after being ordered to lose weight, said: “Although I am not one for regulation, this is an area where something ought to be done.

“I was told I was grotesquely overweight although I was 5ft 11in and size 10. I was told I was a niche model. Thirty-two per cent of teenage girls want to be models. It’s seen as this impossibly glamorous career. You are just a clotheshorse – a clothes hanger. You would be doing two or three shows a day. I thought ‘sod that’ and I went to university.”

 

Here’s a couple of pics of former ‘model’ Clair Perry. ‘Niche’ model indeed…

claire perryclaire perry 5

Claire Perry, femiservative, has also been leading calls for ALL porn to be blocked in the UK : http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/372013/government-tones-down-porn-blocking-rhetoric

And here’s her partner in crime, Liberal Democrat Jo Swinson :

Jo Swinson

For some reason – well for a bleedin obvious reason that requires no 10,000 word treatise on the origins of Cultural Marxism from a men’s rights perspective – these middle-aged women with power don’t appear to have any objection at all to 13 year old girls being abused and exploited on reality shows in the name of entertainment : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2044915/Why-I-believe-X-factor-guilty-child-abuse.html?ito=feeds-newsxml#

Joan Bakewell on the ‘Raunch Culture’

Joan Bakewell 1968
Sex is Good!

Joan Bakwell used to be a ‘sex positive’ feminist back in the day – when she was young and mildly attractive (and earned the tag – ‘the thinking man’s crumpet’).  Now a wizened old hag, she spends most of her time trying to justify becoming a fully paid up member of the sexual trade union, slut shaming British tweens at every opportunity.

So what is there to complain about? It is the availability – indeed, the marketing – of such raunchy videos to the young and impressionable that disturbs me. Something has shifted in our culture to bring sub-teens within the orbit of suggestive sexual activity. T-shirts with cheeky, even lewd slogans – jokes that only adults can understand – are designed and sold to the under-10s. Children can hunt on a multitude of television channels for something that looks vaguely adult and vaguely transgressive. Can it be good for them? I for one would not be prepared to take the risk.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/8998434/Sex-in-society-too-much-raunch-too-young.html

Now, there’s nothing particularly wrong with arguing that under 10’s are exposed to too much sexual imagery.  The problem with the ‘sexualisation of children’ debate is twofold.   Firstly, the way feminists ignore the distinction between the sexualisation of pre-pubescent children and the ‘de-sexualisation’ of post-pubescent teenagers (which is what most feminists are really after).  Secondly, the infringement of liberties and sexual freedoms that any measures to end the supposed sexualisation of children inevitably entail.

joan bakewell 2012
Sex is Bad!

But what occurred to me whilst thinking about this today is that there seems to be something amiss here with the very notion that ‘children’ can be sexualised at all.  At least, it appears to me, that it is inconsistent with the idea of ‘informed consent’ that lies behind feminist statutory rape laws.  The reason why feminists hold that 15 or even 17 year old girls are unable to consent to sex is that they do not know what they are doing when they get into bed, at least with an older partner.  They do not understand what sex is – they do not have ‘informed consent’, this mysterious thing that a 15 or a 17 year old girl doesn’t have, but an 18 year old or a 21 year old does.  This thing that is so mysterious and esoteric, that it could not possibly be written down and taught to an underage child, in order to give them the capability of informed consent.  And even if it could, presumably a child’s brain is either so innocent or immature, that they simply couldn’t understand this knowledge.

Yet the viewing of a raunchy MTV video can somehow turn an innocent child into a sexually experienced whore.  A 10 year old girl who sees Lady Gaga opening her legs on screen will suddenly turn into an 18 year old slut walker, eight years too early.  According to Joan Bakewell, a pre-teen who overhears a comedian telling a sexy joke will have her sexual innocence corrupted.

But doesn’t a child’s supposed lack of ‘informed consent’ regarding sexual matters mean that she simply can’t understand what the joke is about, or why it is that all the men are looking at Lady Gaga when she opens her legs or wears a skimpy outfit?  If that’s the case, why the fuss over the ‘sexualisation of children’?  If the feminist theory of ‘informed consent’ is correct, a ‘sexualised child’ is a contradiction.  If little girls are dancing ‘sexily’ in their bedrooms across the land after watching Lady Gaga, they are merely imitating their favourite pop star like parrotts.  But they don’t and can’t understand what they are doing, or what Lady Gaga is doing, because they are incapable of sexual knowledge.  So what exactly are feminists worried about?

14 y.o. Kylie Jenner – ‘Dressing 10 Years too Old’

The Daily Femiservative Mail worked itself up into a masochistic froth the other day, jealously bitching over an attractive 14 year old girl (Kylie Jenner) on behalf of its middle-aged, middle-England, sexually embittered female readership.

kylie jenner 14 years old

Although pictures of pretty 14 year old girls will brighten the day of any sane and rational male on this Earth, I’m not highlighting the pictures here as eye candy.  Just pointing out that you probably see jailbait like this every time you visit your local club, all of them with fake ID, and most no doubt ready and willing to lie to you before going down on you, letting you go down to rot in prison for a decade or more without any concern crossing their sweet little minds.  Remember – a child is always the victim and the adult always responsible.  Even when they look 24 and present fake ID to you.  Hell, this girl could almost pass as a cougar!

Indeed, despite the Daily Femiservative Mail bitching that she is dressing ‘ten years older’, it is in fact 24 year old women who (vainly) try to look like perfect beautiful post-menarcheal girls like Kylie.  She’s probably just wearing a little too much make up, and an excessively figure enhancing dress, when girls her age don’t really need to.  A typical 14 year old American girl, trying to impersonate a typical 24 year old American woman vainly trying to look like a perfect 14 year old girl!

A little bit like Rebecca Black in the latest video from Katy (with the makeup) Perry – is it just me, or is this a little ‘inappropriate’ for a 13 year old girl?

diane abbott
Diane Abbott

Meanwhile, the repulsive Afro-British member of parliament Diane Abbot was indulging in some child slut shaming of her own this week, after studies in the UK confirmed both that porn is replacing (school) sex education for teens, and that more and more girls are having under-age sex.

Earlier this week, a survey found more young people were having sex under the age of consent. Among 16 to 24-year-old women, more than a quarter had lost their virginity under the age of 16.

Diane Abbott, Labour’s Shadow Health Minister, said: “The rising numbers of girls having under-age sex is alarming. It is not a cost-free phenomenon.

“It poses public health policy challenges and social challenges. The underlying cause must be the ‘pornification’ of British culture and the increasing sexualisation of preadolescent girls.

“Too many young girls are absorbing from the popular culture around them that they only have value as sex objects. Inevitably they act this notion out.

“Government needs to respond to spiralling under-age sex, not with pointless schemes to teach abstinence, but with better PSHE teaching in schools for both girls and boys.”

Notice the deliberate and common Femi obfuscation between ‘the sexualisation of pre-adolescent girl’s’ and ‘underage girls having sex’.  I would have thought that it’s  largely 15 and 14 year old girls having the underage sex, which doesn’t necessarily have much to do with the sexualisation of pre-adolescent girls (i.e. under 11 or 12).

Notice also her comment – “not with pointless schemes to teach abstinence, but with better PSHE teaching in schools for both girls and boys“.

That’s right, left-wing feminists are a notch more sophisticated than the right-wing fuddy duddies in protecting their middle-aged vaginas in a free sexual market.  They recognise that vainly forcing Biblical based abstinence upon sexy 15 year old girls won’t be enough to keep their nubile legs crossed.  So they resort to more secular, liberal, and ‘progressive’ means to preserve childhood innocence – such as teaching 8 year olds that pretty girls who show too much skin are filthy whores and easy meat for sick paedophiles (men), whilst impressing upon them the normality of gay and transgender anal sex games.

Chris Brand took a typically controversial stance on the study showing that British jailbait are fucking like rabbits :

GIRLS FOR PAEDOPHILIA!

A poll found 27% of British 20-yr-old girls admitted to having had full sex before age 16 (Sun, 16 xii). This percentage was twice that admitted by their own mothers. Much of this admitted sex would have been with over-16 boys/men, for only 22% of British 20-yr-old boys admitted pre-16 sex – and quite a bit of that would have been with older slags ooops girls.{The enterprise, enthusiasm and daring of male over-16’s had to be admired, given the vicious legal and MSM penalties they faced!}

Dankota Fanning Perfume Advert Banned in the UK

A perfume advert featuring 17 year old actress Dakota Fanning has been banned in the UK for ‘sexualising a child’.

Designer Marc Jacobs’ latest Oh Lola! ad’ campaign starring Dakota Fanning has been banned.

The UK Advertising Standards Agency have deemed the pictures ‘too suggestive’ and have ordered it be pulled forthwith.

In the advert, 17-year-old actress Dakota is wearing a short, pale dress and resting an over-sized bottle of the Oh Lola! Scent between her legs.

According to the regulatory body the “length of her dress, her leg and the position of the perfume bottle drew attention to her sexuality. Because of that, along with her appearance, we considered the ad could be seen to sexualise a child.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/news/2011/11/10/banned-dakota-fanning-perfume-ad-for-marc-jacobs-is-axed-115875-23552130/

According to other reports, a total of FOUR people had complained about the advert.

Somebody explain to me how it is possible to ‘sexualise’ a 17 year old ‘child’ when the average onset of puberty for girls in the Western world is now around 11 or 12?

Dakota Fanning Banned Advert

Just to send the psychotically jealous old femi-hags even more insane, here’s a behind the scenes look at the making of the advert :

Feminists and Femiservatives Ban Raunchy Ads in the UK

The femi-islamification of the UK proceeded apace this week with the news that ‘indecent’ advertising billboards will be outlawed everywhere.  Indecent in the UK now apparently means any image of a female in a sexually suggestive pose.  Advertisers can still dare to risk fines or imprisonment by showing women in bikinis, but if she is in an ‘indecent’ pose – for example with her hands on her hips – then the the advert will be deemed illegal and a threat to the sexual innocence of children.

The move comes ahead of a Downing Street summit this week between David Cameron and companies involved in leading the Coalition’s campaign to combat the sexualisation of children.

Banning raunchy billboard adverts near schools was one of a number of recommendations made in May this year following a Government-commissioned review by Reg Bailey, chief executive of the Mothers’ Union.

While billboards will be allowed to carry posters of models wearing bikinis, they will not be allowed to show them in poses that are deemed to be sexually suggestive, the ASA guideliens rule.

This will cover everything from images of stockings and suspenders to poses where the legs are parted or even hands are placed on hips.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/8815242/Raunchy-adverts-slapped-down.html

Reg Bailey is the head of the fundamentalist Christian/femiservative group ‘the mother’s union’. The UK is supposed to be a secular society, with less than 3% of the population attending church regularly. The present coalition government includes ‘the liberal democrats’, which to a naive person, should have something to do with pursuing policies that are liberal and democratic – rather than imposing religious edicts that a Saudi Arabian mullah would approve of.

The original report into the sexualisation of children was written by Linda Papadopoulos, an American pop psychologist and feminist now living in the UK, and somebody who loves to attend children’s charity galas in incredibly revealing and sexualised outfits.

Of course, the logical next step is to control what children wear. Dressing up billboard models with burqas instead of bikinis won’t, in itself, have much impact on the vast numbers of barely pubescent girls walking around in semi-transparent spandex leggings and g-string in every town and city in the UK (and giving conservative middle-aged men uncomfortable erections). Not when every other 20 year old woman in the UK is wearing the same and the younger girls are noticing all the male attention that such clothes attract.

In fact, the ‘review on the sexualisation of children’ has already made a recommendation that fashion brands stop making children’s clothes with ‘inappropriate’ materials. Unfortunately, as far as feminists/femiservatives are concerned, this won’t be enough to stop 15, 16 and 17 year old ‘children’ displaying their perfectly near naked and fertile rumps to every man who passes them – unless you actually ban the selling of such clothes to anyone under 18, ID checks and all – which is probably where we’re heading. In the Islamic world, it is only when girls begin puberty (i.e at 12 or 13, when they cease to be children in the land of non-feminist reality and start to become attractive to men) that they are required to cover themselves up. In the Western feminist world, we will soon have a sort of curious ‘reverse’, at least for a while. Only ‘children’ will be required to cover themselves up – under the pretence that it is to save ‘children’ from being ‘sexualised’. Of course, what feminists and femiservatives are really trying to do is to stop and disempower the the most fertile and desirable group of females – teenage girls – from attracting male attention and driving their own aged haggard selves crazy with sexual envy and fury.

Meanwhile, as children’s innocence is protected by the billboard burqa police, probably every other teenage ‘child’ in the land is watching videos of mexican drug gangs beheading rivals with chainsaws and the like. And reading, with a curious erection, of the latest dirty pedo to be disemboweled in prison – wot, no video?

On a lighter note…there are a number of videos on YouTube where sexy young women have attached spy cams to parts of their body to show what disgusting dogs men are, through secretly capturing every glance at their see-through spandex clad butt. Well here’s a video where the tables are turned. A muscular, fit young man attaches cams to every part of HIS body, and then goes out and meets women. What do you think these non-objectifying women are going to be staring at?