TikTok Feminists Try to Cancel Shane Gillis Again, This Time for Stating the True Fact that Slutty Women are Dressing Like Whores at the Gym

This is another non-controversy turned into a tumult by bored, neurotic attention- seeking clickwhore e-feminists.

Shane Gillis gave a kinda lame monologue on SNL about women dressing like "whores" at the gym.

This is not a controversial take, nor is it new -- people have been noticing and commenting on the trends in women's (or, let's be serious, women who want to be influencers and e-girls) wearing nothing on their upper body except a spandex strap across their breasts and wearing shorts designed expressly to show their butt-cracks and camel toes.

These aren't your Grandpa's tight shorts. These shorts have a tight, elastic seam in the crotch that hugs the deep contours of the buttocks and sucks the material in.

This is not some new observation. Nor can it be denied.

The old shorts let you see the outside contours of the camel toe. The new shorts let you see the inner contours of the camel toe.

That's a sexual escalation.

Shane Gillis said, basically, that women were dressing like "whores" to entrap men into looking at their asses and breasts so they could then monetize their "sexual victimization" on TikTok.

I don't know if that's still funny three years later -- but it remains 100% factually accurate.

There is an entire genre of TikTok "content" of e-girls showing their nether regions to every man in the gym and then claiming that any man who so much as looks in their direction is "harassing" them.

The YouTuber Joey Swoll basically built his channel scolding e-girls for these cheap attention-getting/sexual-harassment-faking antics.

Again, this is not controversial. My objection to this bit is that it's like three year old observation. We've been seeing women dressing extremely provocatively and then filming men merely glancing at them and accusing the men of ocular rape for years.

But The Libs of TikTok are stupid, vicious animals and so they're pretending that Gillis is talking about more normal sportswear -- which is itself very tight and revealing, but that's not even the type of outfit he's talking about.

And they're trying to cancel him.

As you know, feminists tried to cancel Sydney Sweeney over showing off her body. But on the other hand, they celebrate singing whore Sabrina Carpenter and Body Positivity Moose Lizzo for doing the same.

The difference, they claim, is that Sydney Sweeney is appealing to the "Male Gaze" while Sabrina Carpenter, when she wears lingerie on stage and has a male dancer mime taking her from behind as she mimes going down on another male dancer, is not appealing to the Male Gaze but merely "sexualizing herself for herself" and "empowering herself."

(Evidence: Content warning for Sabrina Carpenter getting into various sexual positions and asking, "Want to try it this way?" And here's where she posed being doubled-teamed by two men, again asking, "Want to try it this way?")

Basically, this is entirely a political settlement reached among feuding branches of feminism, the "Slutwalk Feminists" ("sex-positive" feminists) versus the Prude Feminists ("sex-negative" feminists).

This battle divided the movement so they settled on the completely fake, utterly political bullshit-compromise position that you could be as big a slut as you wanted so long as you claimed that you were doing so to empower yourself as a feminist and definitely not to appeal to men's interest in seeing sexy women.

Meanwhile, the Prude Feminists could continue to attack women like Sydney Sweeney by asserting, without asking Sweeney herself about it, that she was appealing to the Male Gaze and not to her own Empowerment and therefore is degrading all women.

The Prudes get what they want -- shaming the sluts -- and the sluts get what they want -- getting to be sluts without being judged by their fellow left-wing cows -- because all feminists and their cuck beta orbiters agree to this utterly incoherent and arbitrary division of the world between "Good Sluts" (empowered feminists) and "Bad Sluts" (women who want to appeal to men).

This is of course complete bullshit. When women dress provocatively, they're doing it to appeal to the Male Gaze. Period. If they feel "empowered" in doing so, it's because everyone, naturally, feels an ego lift at being thought of as attractive by the other sex.

One time I mentioned the claim made by women that when women dress sexy they're doing it to impress other women. The woman I mentioned this to scoffed at the claim and said -- vulgarity warning -- "Oh? Do they shave their pussies for other women, too?"

No, of course not. But it's a shibboleth among stupid feminists that it's Good if you sexualize yourself "for yourself" or for other women but it's very Bad if you sexualize yourself for men, and of course they get to decide which is which.

If you're a member of the Cult of Feminism with all dues paid up, you can mime getting double-teamed on stage while wearing lingerie and be hailed as an empowered hero. If you refuse to join the Cult of Feminism, you get attacked for "degrading women in sports" for appearing semi-nude in an ad for a betting parlor.

It's just the same easy rules for those in the leftwing tribe and the same viciously-exacting rules for those outside the tribe. Just vicious tribal leftism applied to another area of the human experience.

Anyway, this is what the Bubblegum Brigade is shrieking about this week.

Update: Apparently the shorts are called "butt scrunch shorts" or "scrunch butt shorts." This female trainer says OF COURSE the shorts are designed to show off every contour of your ass so how can you say you're offended by men doing exactly what you intended them to do?

From bonhomme: Here's an ad for them. You can see why they're called "butt scrunch shorts."

The claim that these shorts aren't being worn for sexual provocation, but are merely worn because it's "comfy" to work out with an elastic band tight up against your butt-hole, is preposterous.

These Scientific Geniuses argue that the shorts don't show the folds of your actual asshole, the just make it look like they show the folds of your actual asshole, which is Completely Different, Racists.

Limechomp @cointelbo

It has nothing to do with "how they work" just because the shorts look like a *fake* butthole. The scrunching looks like a butthole at first glance, the same way that a pointy bra can look like nipples despite nipples not looking like a pointy bra in reality.

Oh well then. Consider me "served."

posted by Disinformation Expert Ace at 05:23 PM

| Access Comments