Sydney Sierota is the new /ourgirl/

No? Watch any footage from the dawn of the 20th century and virtually all of the women are much more conservatively dressed than Sierota as pictured.

Dressing immodestly is a sign of a polyamarous society. In a monogamous society, resources (including the body) are tightly constrained to a wedded partner. This includes the sexually alluring sights of a woman and the financial resources of a man. In a polyamorous society, resources are violently expropriated from men to administer to all women and women dress immodestly as they have nothing to gain from conserving themselves to a single sole-mate.

Get your shit together Burger, and stop thinking in us-vs-them categorisations if it is these very categorisations which are destroying Western society.

Do you want

>1925 New York

or

>2015 LA

It's an easy decision in my opinion.

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-10-11 at 5.21.02 pm.png (2880x1800, 1.9M)

Tell me, were 20th century Frenchman Mohammedans?

Attached: Paris 1925.jpg (700x727, 106K)

lol

New York Bar, Black and White, pictured left to right: Achmed, A'isha, Nehal, Rashima, and Abdul.

Attached: 1920s Bar.jpg (2000x1472, 473K)

I think thats a bit too much leg.............

You guys really like leaf women

Dressed slooty

In my opinion, an unspoken rule of 'by the kneecap' is best as unless the whole of the ankle is covered then there's no clear standard as to where the dress should be set.

I mean, even Niqabs allow for glances at the ankle as a woman strides.

just make it Hiroyuki Sawano already
lots of germanese and RWDS bombast

It joke

Yeah, no
Yeah, no
Yeah, no I’m a faggot

Fuck that. Must dress modest or be disqualified. No more slutty looking flash-in-the-pan whores.

biblically speaking anything that doesn't cover the loins and the thighs is considered naked, which is the standard I go by. compared to other modern women she isn't flamboyant but OPs image is unacceptable and should be treated as pornography