This post was inspired by this post at 90 Miles From Tyranny
The first Hooters opened October 4, 1983, in Clearwater, Florida.
I was working weekends at a hardware store called Scotty’s to support my College habit. I delivered the lumber for the first Hooters I ever saw or heard of in my Florida City….See Them Here:
I visited that Hooters quite a bit, so I can say I was a Hooters fan from the start, and that post got me thinking about Hooters and how much Feminuts hate Hooters, and how Hooters can agitate the feelings of overly Social Conservatives. So, In honor of Hooters here are the best links from the blogs, and some Hooters Girls too!
American Power also has a decent Rule 5 round up, although he did miss someone special, Ayhum
90 Miles also has a gal, with a gun
1389 Blog has the four Arabic words EVERY Infidel should know
Kurt P salutes Serena Williams
A View From the Beach offers up some Amber Heard
Adrienne: For once I agree with Bill Maher
All America Blogger has your Weekend Links
Robert tells the GOP what they should do now
Aleister has video of Gutfeld trashing Jim McDermott
Among the Joshua Trees salutes Lingerie
Animal Magnetism likes the Reds
Astute Bloggers has the story of the UK appeasing Islamists
Bare Naked Islam shows how radicals pay back Christian tolerance
Blazing Cat Fur laughs at the “Inclusive Garden”
Barb reminds us that there is a price for freedom
Bluegrass Pundit has angry bees vs Syrian Rebels
Bob Owens looks at those “high-capacity” guns
Bring the Heat celebrates 5 years of blogging
Wicked Thoughts has a Jeep for sale
Uncoached has Hannah Flattery
TC Mag has an idiot, on a bike, getting his just desserts
Soylent has giraffes doing the trapeeze
Smoking Jacket has Vivian Chau, OW!
Miss K has a funny vodka ad
Maxim presents Bria Murphy
Wirecutter is looking for Leprechauns
Jenna Dewan Tatum is featured at Mandatory
Izismile has 50 funny photos
Hookers and Booze has about what you would expect
Guyism has an unfortunate news anchor
Guyspeed has a Babe of the Week
Guns and Bikinis has BOOBIES!
Gunaxin has Poppy Montgomery
Bob Belevedere has a very curvy Rule 5
Captain’s Journal looks at the Church and Gun Control
Bill Quick: Christie or Walker for President?
Daily Smug: Bloomberg you dirty rat!
Sultan Knish: The End of the World
Doug Giles: Biden’s Utimate Gaffe
Doug Ross: The GOP really does suck
EBL has a must see video
Gateway Pundit tells us it is time to laugh at a racist asshole
Big Fur Hat: How did the Pilgrims ever survive?
It Ain’t Holy Water: Good dog
Feral Irishman: Wolf chases motorcycle
Double Trouble: random hotties
The Chive: Life is Awesome!
A Conservative girl talks about Paula Dean, and PC
Laughing Conservative: Snowden flying to Cuba?
Legal Insurrection: Lawmagedon!
Maggies Notebook exposes the Casino Kickback
American Perspective has the best golf video evah!
Moonbattery wonders when Jamie Foxx will be in hot water
Motor City Times has Sunday Links
Nice Deb has Judge Pirro’s take on IRS bonuses
Old Virginia: Nullification anyone?
Pitsnipes has advice on manners
Political Clown Parade: Obama’s Contras
Randy has his Thursday Tart
RR has some Orwell wisdom
Rio Norte: Why “Yes we can” Blows
Sentry Journal A Round at the Link
Wyatt Earp: He had 140 pound balls
Classic Liberal has some knowledge with Rachel Nichols
Lonely Conservative: My Mr. President, that is a mighty big carbon footprint you have there
The Right Way has a Friday Babe
Wine, women and politics has Geezer Gone Wild!
Zion’s Trumpet: Sharia, is EVIL
Wyblog: Amnesty plus!
A couple of nights ago, I posted this video of Democratic mouthpiece Zerlina Maxwell saying we should teach men not to rape.
This morning, I came across this screed from Mary Elizabeth Williams, of Salon, I read it so you do not have to, defending Maxwell’s inane comments
If you want to know why we need to educate men not to be sexually aggressive, look no further than what happened when Zerlina Maxwell went on television to say that we need to educate men how not to be sexually aggressive.
Well in the first place, rape and sexually aggressive are not the same thing, males, of all species are “sexually aggressive” to an extent, it is that whole testosterone thing. Men pursue women, is that “sexually aggressive”? I suppose it means how you define sexually aggressive. Williams, being a Feminut, my pet name for Leftists posing as Feminists, likely defines normal male behavior as sexual aggression. Normal male behavior does not include sexual assault, or rape. Rape is a violent crime that is abhorrent in American society, and in all of Western culture. Feminuts like Maxwell, and Williams, have tried to redefine rape for years now. Instead of defining rape as, well rape, Feminuts invented acquaintance rape, and date rape to increase the number of rapes, because all men are rapists according to Feminut theology. The more rapes the better you see, because more rapes gives Feminuts the moral authority to label all men rapists and demand that we teach them not to rape. Maxwell illustrates that here
As Maxwell, a rape survivor herself, told Salon on Friday, “I don’t think we need to be telling a rape survivor that statistics are not on your side. That’s insensitive.” But where she drew outrage was in her suggestion to Hannity that “I don’t think that we should be telling women anything. I think we should be telling men not to rape women and start the conversation there.” She told Hannity, “You’re talking about this as if it’s some faceless, nameless criminal, when a lot of times it’s someone you know and trust,” adding, “If you train men not to grow up to become rapists, you prevent rape.”
The problem is this, most men, and by most, I mean the vast majority are not rapists. Western cultures have been teaching men “not to rape” for a long time now. That is why rape is criminalized, with severe prison terms, although, I would be happy if we just executed rapists frankly. That is why most men are respectful of boundaries. If men were what Maxwell and Williams claim, Hooters and other Breastaraunts could not stay in business. No woman could go to a beach, or to a club without being raped. Again, there are men who get handsy, and they are looked down on by other men. Far more men will tell a “handsy” guy to back off than will engage in such behavior themselves. I know, I have done it several times. But, such facts do not dent the mindset of Williams or Maxwell.
As Maxwell tells Salon, her point to Hannity was not about self-defense; it was about how we look at the big picture. “Telling every woman to get a gun is not rape prevention,” she explains. “The reality is that we need to be changing how we train and teach young men. We need to teach them to see women as human beings and respect their bodily autonomy. We need to teach them about consent and to hold themselves accountable.” And when we do, things change. After Canada launched a “Don’t be that guy” consent awareness campaign in 2011, the sexual assault rate dropped for the first time in years — by 10 percent.
Again, nothing in Western culture teaches men to rape, that is nonsense. Men DO see women as human beings. Yes, we like to look at attractive women, and we like to fantasize about attractive women, but those are natural male responses to pretty women. So are wanting to date pretty women, and buying them flowers, and yes, certainly wanting to get them into bed. To seek to change those things about men is unnatural. The fact is Feminuts are seeking to change nature, and that is a fool’s errand. Are there men who are rapists? Yes, and they are unnatural, abnormal, and as I said, I would be happy if every one of them walked in front of a speeding bus.
Maxwell, and Williams are right about one thing though. men CAN help prevent rape, and they can do so by following the very natural male response to women in distress, to protect them. When I was 19, I went to a party at a friend’s house. Her name was Tammy, and, I knew most of the people there. There was one guy I knew, some guy in the neighborhood with a reputation for being a tough guy, Jimmy was his name. An hour or two into this party, I decided to find Tammy, we always talked a lot at parties, we were close, so, I went looking in various rooms, until I found her, in her room, struggling on the bed with “tough guy” himself. He looked up when I opened the door, and the look on his face was fear, of me. Tammy took the opportunity to kick tough guy, ironically enough in a very sensitive area, and he stumbled towards me, and my right fist which landed squarely on his nose. By that time the commotion brought other people in and Jimmy slipped away.
The thing about that incident is this. I was no tough guy, I think I have batted about .600 in fights in my life, I was never trained or taught to protect women. I learned by example, from my father, grandfather on how to treat women. That I would protect a women who was being assaulted, as in Tammy’s case, and as I have done since a couple of times is natural male behavior. Men are by nature pursuers of women, in a romantic sense, gentle with women, and at time fierce defenders of women. Men are not, by nature rapists, and no amount of Feminist clap trap is going to change that.
I ate and drank at the very first Hooters, in Clearwater, Florida. And I one got cut off, when I was 22 at another Hooters, I guess the Hooters Girl thought I was drunk because when I asked for another beer while wolfing down peel and eat shrimp, she looked at me and said “you do know you are supposed to peel the shrimp first right?” But seriously, some people freak out over Hooters. I still recall an example that make me shake my head. When I first moved to Texas, in 1995, there was a controversy over a new Hooters opening in the town of Arlington. A group was trying to stop Hooters from opening because it was “too close” to a high school. And, the boys at that high school might go to Hooters, and see the Hooters Girls and think about sex or something. Yes, some people ARE that stupid. But, to me Hooters is just a restaurant, yes a restaurant with great scenery but really now! Anyway, this post by the World’s Youngest Blogger from The Other McCain got me thinking about Hooters.
Dad was driving us back from Virginia Beach, and took a serendipity exit at Hampton Roads. He didn’t know, he claims, that there was a Hooters there, and who was I to argue? Who, indeed. Who! Who!
Smitty and his son at Hooters? I say Lucky Kid! Pretty cute too!
And their place, under Feminuts Doctrine is on the Plantation of Accepted Liberal Ideas, where any view point can be proudly expressed. As long as it is approved by Liberals of course! Now what does this mean? Well it means that only certain women are deemed fit by Leftist Feminuts. Here is a quick checklist
An “approved woman” must vehemently embrace abortion on demand. No pro-life views are welcomed or tolerated! Remember that unless a woman is aborting her baby, she is not really free!
An “approved woman” firmly holds fast to Liberal ideology on every issue, or else!
An “approved woman” never celebrates icky things like marriage, which is really just rape after all, or giving birth, because a baby in the womb is just a parasite anyway.
An “approved woman” only makes those lifestyle choices that are pre-approved by Feminuts like Amanda Marcotte. Remember ladies you can do anything you wish, as long as the Feminuts grant you permission of course!
Unapproved lifestyle choices include being a Conservative, a Republican, anything except a Democrat, being attractive to men, liking being attractive, and smiling, remember womyn are OPPRESSED so look angry all the time! Also under no circumstances whatsoever should a woman like to make men happy, or enjoy cooking, housework, or raising kids. And, of course no posing for any type pf photo shoot that might appeal to men! And working at Hooters, known as the Seventh Circle of Hell to Feminists is STRICTLY prohibited!
More Feminist Offending greatness via Matt who posts THIS OFFENSIVELY OFFENSIVE picture at The Conservative Hideout! Outrageously outrageous outrage from Feminuts in 3,2,1….
At least that is what I get from Donald’s post at American Power. Feminists HATE “NUTS” Maybe I should say that “NUTS”, drive Feminists nuts! Maybe most feminists just hate “NUTS” period? Or maybe I am just having a bit of fun at the expense of Feminuts? Who me?
At the Camden New Journal, “Camden School For Girls’ Feminist Group blasts Tesco for displaying ‘degrading’ lads’ mags at child’s eye level“:
SIXTH-FORM pupils have formed their own campaigning feminist group and are taking on a shop selling “degrading lads’ mags” near their school.
They argue magazines such as Nuts and Zoo – with pictures of women posing in their underwear and showing off their cleavages – should be positioned away from the eyeline of children and teenagers.
The Camden School For Girls’ Feminist Group say they have asked staff at the Tesco, opposite their school in Camden Road, Camden Town, to move the magazines – but have so far been ignored.
The rack of magazines is next to where many children buy their sandwiches and drinks at lunchtime.
Isabella Woolford Diaz, 17, one of the founders of the group, said: “If you walk in here, you can see where people go to get food, and the magazines are clearly on the eyesight level of us all.
“The magazine covers are not the image we should see – it is very submissive for women. In other shops, they have already moved magazines or put covers over the picture bit of the front cover. Marks & Spencer has been good at this.”
The feminist group is concerned that the racy front covers have two negative impacts: leading boys to see women only as sexual objects; and pushing girls into worrying about weight and appearance, possibly triggering eating disorders.
Asked what the group would say to models like Lucy Pinder – this week’s Nuts cover girl – if they met her, Ms Woolford Diaz added: “We are not about being aggressive or judgmental. I’d want to know the background, how she got into doing this.”
I should be totally fair here. It is just Feminists, who I “lovingly”call Feminuts, that get themselves all worked up over magazines featuring scantily clad women on the covers. Some Social-Conservatives with too much time on their hands stress over this as well. It ought to be pointed out that these folks oppose these magazine covers being in plain view for totally different reasons. The Social Conservative thinks the magazines will, get this, make teen boys think about sex. Well, yes,they will, but so will pretty much everything. Some Social Conservatives, I stress some here, also freak out over Hooters restaurants for the same reason.
The Feminut, in my view, opposes these covers, AND Hooters strangely enough because they hate men,and they really hate seeing, or even thinking about men enjoying themselves! And, yes, looking at attractive women IS enjoyable to men, unless that man is Andrew Sullivan of course, but that is another post entirely!~
In closing, let me cause even more offense to the Feminuts, and to those Social Conservatives
Just ask yourselves, Perrybots, what might have been possible if some other candidate — any other candidate, perhaps one who could remember how to count to three — had an extra $20 million to spend here in Florida. But no, you spent months telling the rest of us that Rick Perry was The Only Conservative Who Could Beat Romney, an argument you didn’t hesitate to repeat as late as December, long after it was apparent that he wasn’t ready for prime time. And you still refuse to admit that you were misled, and helped mislead others, into jumping aboard that hopeless Bandwagon to Loserville.
Given that I am, at times, a guy who can give in to anger, I will just allow Chris to speak for me, and then I will print out this post about “Perrybots” a few hundred times and spread it own my lawn this Spring.
Hey, Stacy McCain is a kick-ass gonzo journalist and all. He Knows Things. I’m just a random Polack from New Jersey. But it occurs to me that Rick Perry, a guy who’s actually won elections and governed from conservative principles, might have gotten more traction if a certain gonzo journalist hadn’t taken a flyer on the likes of Herman Cain, and in the process misled a whole lotta other folks into buying a one-way ticket on the 9-9-9 Restraining Order Express. Cain wanted to be president alright, just not President of the United States. More like president of Hooters, if you get my drift. Certainly beats that web site idea, right?
All I can add is that if supporting a very good man with great character, a damned good conservative record, and who certainly does not deserve to have his intellect, or that of his supporters maligned, is wrong, then I will GLADLY be wrong! At least I will have my principles.
One final thing, that whole Perrybot BS is, frankly, insulting. The reasons I did support Perry, after initially supporting Cain, before it became clear that Cain had the foreign policy chops of the average three-year old, were simple. His record, his principles, his character, and yes, his ideas for shrinking Washington and getting the economy going made him EASILY the best guy for the job. I will always support substance, over style, because when push comes to shove, style is absolutely meaningless without substance!
UPDATE!! Lance Burri does a great job of refuting Stacy McCain’s logical fallacy
Just ask yourselves, Perrybots, what might have been possible if some other candidate — any other candidate, perhaps one who could remember how to count to three – had an extra $20 million to spend here in Florida.
I may or may not meet his standard for a “Perrybot.” I was on the Perry bandwagon. Then I got off. Then I ran alongside it, ready to grab hold and swing back aboard. I never quite gave up on him until he officially dropped out.
So regardless of his definition, I think I qualify, and will therefore respond.
One need not be a “Perrybot” to see the logical fallacy McCain is making. To wit: “if Rick Perry hadn’t entered the race, somebody else would have gotten that $20 million.”
I dunno what’s in that pile, but it smells.
Short answer: no, neither Rick Santorum, nor Herman Cain, nor Michelle Bachmann, nor Thaddeus McCotter would have received that $20 million. A small proportion of it, perhaps. I’m speculating, but it seems likely that other candidates would also have received some of it. Therefore whatever financial impact this fictional Perrylessness might have had would be distributive in nature, and thus zero.
But even so, those sans-Perry contributions wouldn’t have added up to $20 million. Much of it was contributed only because Perry was the candidate. For McCain to speculate that this $20 million existed and was in play regardless of Perry’s candidacy, and that this $20 million would have made Rick Santorum competitive pre-Florida (or, perhaps, kept Herman Cain competitive post-scandal) is ridiculous.
Bravo! Be sure to read the rest and check out what Pat Austin has to say!