Category: Dating and Relationships
Please leave religion out of this.
I'm not sure if this intended debate is appropriate here, please reassign if necessary.
There was a response to a post on a topic here that states:
just because a girl shows a little bit of skin; that doesn't mean
that he has the right to do as he pleases,
Now, what "rights" one has is due for an interpretation. for practical purposes, "rights" is majorly defined by the powers at be. But, I define "rights" as to that which does not harm others or put others in an inconvenient status to benefit your own. That of course is not perfect, but serves to protect others, while giving your own rights as you deem fit.
Humans may see themselves as a higher being of existence apart from the animals such as that of dogs, hyenas, fish, etc. however, desires manifests just as strongly if not more so in others as does in that which we deem lower by our standards. Difference is that we would like to believe that we are able to "surpress" such desires. Dthat established, why is it "wrong" to have responses to invitation by females who wear revealing clothes? In nature, females broadcasts signals that entice the males to want to copulate.
Perhaps some of you are repulsed by my comparison of humans to "animals" and its parallels. If so, let me present some questions in a more humane perspective.
If you knew that a neighborhood is drug and gang ridden, full of violence, would you knowningly traverse through such environment and subject yourself to the high probability of being asulted?
If you knew that the stove is hot, would you subject yourself to being burnned by placing your bare hands on the burner?
If no, then why would you wear revealing clothes knowing the end result that you probably will be acosted and asulted, then say that "he has no rights". You are just as guilty in presenting the situation knowingly. Sure you have the "rights" to wear the clothes of your choice. But you have the equal amount of "rights" to assume the consequences resulting from such choices.
You women have fought for your own rights for years, but never consider consequences when you exercise those rights.
Consider the guy from Australia who tempted fate playing with dangerous creatures. It ended up killing him. Sure he had the "rights" to do so, but he also had the "rights" to forfeit his life in doing so.
Intended or unintended consequences results from choices one consciously or unconscily makes throughout the timeline of their lives.
Please note that my views expressed are based on females who made choices that tempts fate and flirts with consequences that are undesireable and yet places blame on others without even considering their actions leading to the end result.
I could sort of see where your coming from, dressing tooo revealing is in a way asking to get raped because there are frieks out there, but there are women who dress non revealing and get assaulted to you know..
My statements has already assumed and agreed with your response babygirl j, I had thought not to express the obvious and so did not.
I am merely addressing those who flirt with danger and then cry foul play when danger results.
Sure there are proper females who get attack as well, as in the example of a nun who was dragged out, raped, and killed while a bell rang out loundly masking her screams.
For those instances, the blame entirely lies in those male.
You may be able to compare us to animals, but part of what seporates us is the ability to distinguish what's right from wrong. Just because a woman wears revieling clothes does not mean any decent man is going to rape her. What makes us human is the ability to restrain our selves, and not blindly follow instinct. It's rather easy to fight the urge to mate, after all I do it when ever I don't take a drunk girl home from a bar. You are assuming that the woman is responsible for the consiquences, and thus not placing any blame on the man who should be perfectly capable of going about his business.
"You are assuming that the
woman is responsible for the consiquences, and thus not placing any blame on the man who should be perfectly capable of going about his business."
On the contrary. You neglected to take the following statement in to consideration.
"You are just as guilty in presenting the situation knowingly."
The blame not only lies in him, but her as well.
"part of what seporates us is the ability to distinguish what's right from wrong"
Can we? Many cultures dictates that some procedures are right, while others have a contrary view to them. Animals too know what is right from wrong. It has been proven that they don't commit incest for the most part. Assuming that your sense of right and wrong parallels that of mine.
Now, lets say that to a person, punching women is right, as occured in the past and even today. In his perspective, he is doing the right thing to force his woman to be subserviant. I however, do not agree with that tactic thus deem him wrong.
In this case, who is the right and who is the wrong?
Or, even in that same person, deeming that females are subordinate to males. To him, that is absolutely right and to do otherwise is utterly wrong. I however, believe that woman have equal grounds. Who is right and wrong in that situation?
As I mentioned above, the majority dictates what is right and wrong. So, if he responds to signals issued by females who dress revealing, he is wrong. But why is the female not equally wrong for sending out the signal thus triggering the response?
If you don't dropped a lit cigarette on flammable matterial, you won't get destructive fires. A fire can not be started without a spark.
Of course I know of natural fires, and of woman who dress decently falling victum, but that is not the issue I am addressing.
i don't agree with you at all. you beaing a man. should be able to control yourself, no matter what the other person is wearing. so if what your saying is the case, then should women not be able to go swimming? I mean a bikkinni is much more3 revealing than some short slinky shirt. So if were out swimming and a man attacks us, just because we had on a bikinni, were at fault too? um, i think not! Let's forget the clothes for a minute. A man and a women are getting hot and heavy. , the women then decides she wants to stop. The man then decides he wants to continue. . Are you trying to tell me, it's her fault because she provoked him? Doesn't she have the right to change her mind, as she has the right to wear what she feels comfortable wearing?
men, or even women for that matter should know how to control themselves, animals don't!
You seem to contradict yourself in each post that you make. In your second post, you give the example of a nun who is raped. This example shows that your initial premise is wrong. If revealing clothing was a partial key to being raped, then the nun wouldn’t have been assaulted at all.
You are assuming that rape is a sexual crime also. Most experts agree that rape is an anger and control problem. The rapist expresses his anger, or his feeling of a lack of control in his life, in a sexual manner, but it is not about sex…which explains the nun example that you gave. If it is a sexual desire problem, I don’t believe that 80-year old women would be raped by teens…and they are.
As others earlier have stated, you are blaming the victims. Anyone who says “I attacked her because of her revealing clothing,” is rationalizing. Using your example, you must be broke. Over the years, advertisements have used scantily clad women to sell their products. So, are you so turned on by an advertisement that you lose control, and then run out and buy cigarettes, whiskey or cars every time you see the add? I imagine not, because you are able to control your reactions.
Also, if you are going to use the animal kingdom as a comparison, maybe you should spend more time watching the animal planet channel. Yes, female animals do put out signs that signify they are ready to mate, but it is the male of the species that usually has the attractive physical appearance. After all, it is the peacock that has the beautiful feathers, not the peahen, which is rather drab.
Also, the female who is putting out signals that it is time to mate does not mate with just any male that comes along. She picks the one that she deems best, and if another male tries, she will fight them off…hell hath no fury like a female baboon in heat.
I think there may be more to your question than meets the eye. You asked, “that established, why is it "wrong" to have responses to invitation by females who wear revealing clothes?” No one ever said that a short skirt or skimpy top was an invitation to have sex. It may be a sign of “hey, look at me,” but nowhere is it saying, “Hey, come have sex with me.” Do you see someone eating at a restaurant, then sit down and start eating their food. After all, they have food in public, and you’re hungry, so they must want you to eat their food, right? Give me a break.
Am i the only one who feels the self-righteous and condescending vibe given off by this post? Seriously, you take so much pride in being able to debate/argue/present your points articulately it seems. But you're too negligent to even pick up on simple spelling errors that I can't help but have a good laugh at your expense. You're inconsistent, and the posterchild for someone who can't think outside the box.
But just to play devil's advocate, what deems a form of dress decent in your opinion? Because when myself and my girlfriend rode the subway during rush hour and an older man reached over, grabbed her ass, and smiled at her, she was wearing pants. I assure you. So, did she put out an open invitation for her ass to get grabbed simply by having one?
And you clearly don't know a whole lot about rape, do you? Most people would say that rape is one of many crimes that is a form of expressing dominance over another. This dominance just so happens to manifest itself sexually, but the sexual meaning or intent is usually secondary. Even in the case of a man wanting to have sex with a woman who rejects him. if he ends up raping her, he is expressing the fact that he can and will get what he wants, is he not?
Do i have to dig up how historical rape laws were put into place in order to protect upper class white men whose daughters or wives might be victims, and how if you were of any other class or race, you had no decent prospects of seeking justice? OR how about how black slaves were raped by their owners? Or perhaps a more recent example being the civil rights movement, where countless black women were raped by Alabama police? Surely due to the racial tension between blacks and whites at this time, the last thing whites wanted to do was part take in any kind of sexual relations with them. Are you rationalizing rape?
1. Swimming as you well know is a unique situation for women to wear as little as possible. Or that which will enable her to be more efficient in the water. In this case, it is necessary for her to wear that which will enable her to glide through the water. I have yet to run across a story about a female being raped while she was swimming. I'm uncertain, but if one views a female swimming, I'm almost certain such person does not see her breasts move seductively as she progresses through the water, so is not "trying" to tempt a male. Thus, I do agree with you in that example that she needs to wear what is necessary to improve her performance in the water. However, she does not need to wear that while she goes shopping for groceries, cds, etc. Nor does she need to tempt others while she picks up the mail.
Your example about being in the "heat of the moment" then changing her mind in my opinion is against the 9th amendment if repeatedly enacted. :=P (pure evil)
----
1. my example about the nun was to illustrate 100% of the blame being on the male in that situation. Where is the contradiction?
"Sure there are proper females who get attack as well, as in the example of a nun who was dragged out, raped, and killed while a bell rang out loundly masking
her screams.
For those instances, the blame entirely lies in those male."
Please read thoroughly before making presumptions. My point remains viable.
Yet in the case of those flirting with disaster by wearing revealing clothes in situation that does not warrant them is what I am addressing.
Commercials? Being totally blind, such example is not valid, being directed towards me. Please try again.
Baboons example: First, while this is true, those females are equipped with the ability to do so. Perhaps those human females should go to self defense class or take martial arts training so that they are well prepared should any undesired attention result from their choice of clothing. Then much of this "rape" would be fairly reduced as males will begin to think twice about attacking a female.
However, you bring food in the mix at a restaurant. Is such smell of food intended to make you want to buy the food? You are saying that females, dressed revealing intend to tease a guy and that they are not to react, either directly or indirectly? If indirectly? That would be cruel to ask him to do so, as nature will tend to override unless he is simply impotent. Directly, well, he then accumulates a "wrong", but does the female not accumulate the equal amount of wrong as she KNOWINGLY flirted with disaster?
------
now for ck1012, who takes pleasure in the simple things in life as spelling errors. Believe me, such expense I can readily aford and don't much mind what you conclude about me. You utterly missed my points and believe that you have understood me to be a dominating and sexist pig. But reguardless what I say, you will have your own opinion as you are entitled to. But I will take this time to clarify as I had mistakenly assumed that everyone understood my position.
1. I believe that all "rapists" needs to be put to death. Simple as that.
2. I believe that, though females can wear what they wish, they should understand the consequences of flirting with disaster. Unless they are well apt to dealing in manners of their own defenses. Sure you can file charges, but having self defense can place that female in a preventative position and not have the trama of dealing with the aftermath.
Regarding your girlfriend, I point you as well to my nun example. Please read thoroughly as you too have misunderstood the obviousness. This is in defense to you deeming me condescending as you attempt to do likewise to me. This is my attempt at trying to understand why FEMALES WHO CHOOSE TO PUT THEMSELVES IN A SITUATION WHERE THEY ARE FLIRTING WITH DISASTER, and not those who obviously are not trying to attract attention, why males are burdened with 100% of the fault. Those who are not tempting danger obviously are not trying at attention and therefore have 0% of any blame.
For claiming that I can't think outside the box, you certainly can not make correct deductions of my meanings. Of course, like many, you wish for me to spell my meanings out to you. Unfortunately, I don't believe there is enough space for me to do so without obscurities. *sigh*
Where am I trying to rationalize rape? There is no excuse for such action, yet at the same time, there is all kinds of excuses for the female to liberally do as she deems without consequences? Unfortunately the universe has an unconvenient force called "cause and affect". The question is, why are males having to receive 100% of blames if a female knowingly tempts him? I am not attempting to justify the action of rape, but trying to understand an attempt of those who deems a cause should not have an affect justified or unjustified.
Your examples of white man rapes this one and that one, I am certain falls under my nun example. Again, read and understand thoroughly before discounting my understanding of the issue.
Once again, my point is not whether rape is an excuse, nor is it about females dressing decent having blame or "being victumized by blame", it is towards those that are FLIRTING WITH DISASTER by CHOOSING their atire in situations that DO NOT NECESSARILY WARRANT them.
Thanks, and next time perhaps there would be a more mature discussion and not attacks on inconsequentials like ck1012.
What do you consider decent atire? I'm only curious because that too can be subjective. I'm simply trying to see where you're coming from in terms of that. What might be revealing to some might not be revealing to others. My reason for asking is because times have changed somewhat drasticly, even in the timespan of a couple of years. what is acceptable nowadays might not have otherwise been accepted, 5 or 10 years ago.
I can see the validity of your arguments to a large degree. One thing in particular sticks out though. I can understand how a man might be tempted by a woman's body and that in itself could make a man try and pursue her. But when I think rape, I think force. This is where I lose you. Whatever happened to consent, and cliche as it may be, no meaning no? Are you saying that after a certain point of temptation, men are simply unable to control themselves and become animalistic? If that's what you think, i could see the logic behind your thinking that temptation such as wearing revealing clothes would directly influence a man to force a woman to have sex, but i doubt that's what you think. Are you saying that after that point is reached, ethics no longer come into play concerning the man? I'm not in any way trying to start an argument. I'm only trying to get clarification on precisely what you mean.
Talk about missing the obvious, I think that is you. You’re making assumptions again that are groundless. I don’t know how to more specifically say this…rape is not a sex crime, it is a crime of anger and control. How do I know this, I’ve studied the subject and worked with rape victims before. My degree is in counseling, and though not qualified as an expert in the area, I do have quite a bit of expertise. If you can not control your behavior, don’t go blaming the victim.
I just heard a story on the news yesterday, and I believe the King of Saudi Arabia pardoned a rape victim. How do you pardon a rape victim? This woman was ganged rape, and she was to blame? Is this how you view things? A woman who is ganged rape was asking for it?
My example about the food is the same. Hunger and a sex drive are natural impulses. Do you control yourself when you see someone else eating food? I would certainly hope so. If you see an attractive woman, regardless of her attire, can you not control your sex drive?
Never heard of anyone being raped while swimming? My, you are the expert in this area then, aren’t you? Unfortunately, women can, and are, attacked in all areas and circumstances. The clothes are not the problem; the problem is with the rapist. If you have a stereo system for example, if someone hears it while walking by your apartment or house, then it is your fault if he breaks in and steals it, right? After all, you were tempting him by playing music that he could hear. Again I say, give me a break, and don’t confuse assumptions with reality.
Decent attire is based on the situation and purpose.
One wouldn’t wear bright flashing colors at a funeral, nor would a female wear a blouse or skirt in the water. On the same note, it is not necessary to dress in braw and panties to go rent a movie, or it is appropriate to flash half your bosoms while taking a test at school.
What may be acceptable in society is not always appropriate for the situation at hand.
Please mnote my dangerous neighborhood example. Does a female have the right to dress in a halter top and mini skirt in that situation while walking alone? Sure she does. But she knowingly put herself in that position, and though she does not “have the right” to be raped, is she not a cause of the end result? Lets take that same girl, and have her walking alone in a safe neighborhood, on a busy street, dressed in a long skirt or dress. Is she liking to be attacked?
Control as you may no have varying degrees of pultencies in a person. Just as in some people can not control their anger/grief/depression naturally, some people may not be able to control their lustful intents naturally as well. I apologize for generalizing men to have animalisic uncontrollable urges, but at the same token, there are those out there that simply can’t.
There are many cases about men who kill their wives after they found out their wives had secret affairs. Is that justified? No, but the blame lies in the wife as well for not breaking up or divorcing the situation before starting a new activity. Some like to think that they can get away with cheating so tempt disaster, so is the man fully at fault for the kill while the wife is totally innocent?
However, if the man kills the wife for wanting a divorce, before her intended affair, as some cases go, then yes, the wife is absolutely clean and the man is 100% at fault.
I invite intellectual debate as this post is intended so. But its emotional outbreaks without support, or twisting my meanings, renders such attmpets unfeasible.
Now for Glenja:
This is a perfect example of emotional outbreaks without support.
You state that I have contradicted myself throughout every statement, but don’t provide quotes. UNFOUNDED
You are attacking me emotionally and not intellectually presenting your case, if this is your method, I am not interested.
I am not debating the definition of what rape is, as you seem to think I am.
You seem to think I am 100% blaming the victum, please refer to the above example as I attempted to make such examples in my initial board. You seem to discount my words and only selectively understand whatever benefits you.
Your Saudi Arabia example is not applicable my this debate as it is in agreement to part of my discussion.
1. Saudi Arabia girls don’t dress flashy like that of the western culture, no?
2. . I believe in that case, those men should be vivisected for their crime. Where in all my responses and posts did I say otherwise? Please prove.
All throughout your response you incessantly attack me, again as I state, please don’t post if this is your method of a debate, as I am simply not interested.
Your example about the stereo:
My cousin purchased an expensive car stereo for his civic. He proceeded to blast it around his high-school. Few days later, it was broken in and nearly stolen. As the criminals could not steal it, but rendered it inoperative. Who’s fault is it?
1. It is my cousin for knowing the situation and yet exhibited carelessness for tempting fate. (I have something expensive, come and get it)
2. . The criminals for taking it upon themselves to seek free money.
3. My cousin paid in the form of lost money.
4. the criminals have yet to be punished.
Confusing assumptions with reality? Please reconsider as I believe you are doing just that.
Again, I invite you to focus back on my point of debate.
If a female knowingly tempts danger, is she totally innocent for doing so?
(I have nice boobs, want some?)
You are truly amazing. I am focused on your point. I am saying that a woman’s clothing does not determine whether she is susceptible to rape. I can’t state it any more clearly.
Blaming the victim is just wrong. Wrong, wrong wrong. You can say this is emotional, but I can’t understand where you are coming from. A man who is going to rape a woman does not choose her because of her clothing. Rape is not about sex; do you not understand what I am saying? A man who rapes a woman isn’t doing it because he is horny, excuse the vernacular, but I can’t be any more plain. He is doing it because he has anger problems, or has the need to feel in control over others.
As for not providing you with specific quotes, I didn't think I would have to remind you of what you said. When talking of contradictions, I gave examples of what I was saying, and made the mistake of thinking you could read your own post.
As for the Saudi example, it does pertain to your initial point. You are saying that clothing makes a woman susceptible to rape, and I say that it does not. The woman in Saudi was not wearing revealing clothes, but was raped by many men anyway. I'm not sure why you are not seeing my point, other than that you do not want to.
And you are right in one area, I am emotional, frustrated to be precise. You are basing your opinion on absolutely no facts; I am basing mine of studies of rapists and rape victims by the criminal justice system. You say that you want an intellectual debate on the topic, but you aren’t using facts, just assumptions that you believe to be true. I am concerned about people reading this post and taking what you say as truth, rather than the opinion it is; an opinion that contradicts scientific psychological studies.
"I am focused on your point. I am saying that a woman’s clothing does not determine whether she is susceptible to rape."
True, but that is not what I am debating at all, what so ever. I am presenting on the perspective of a girl who made the conscious decision of exposure. How is your "poiting out" parallel to my statements? I've already expressed that a male intent on rape will do so regardless. Where did i say otherwise? So again, your arguements here is irrelivant.
Let me present my point in a different perspective.
if I came up to you and starting bad mouthing loudly, right in front of your face. Calling out your mother, father, all those whom you love and I did it consistently. Would you not attack me if you it was your nature? Restrained as you may, the impulse is there. Now, lets say it breaks your threshold of restraint, would you not physically attack me. Who is the right or wrong once you have lashed out?
then there are others who walk around beating on others because they feel themselves to be superior and will attack me, whether or not I bad mouthed them first or not.
You are directing your comments towards me under your misguided interpretation that I am for placing absolute blame on the victum, when such situation can be avoided if alternative decisions is made in many cases. Instead you elect to have a negative attitude and be so condescending as your nature has demonstrated. I had hoped that others can shed light on such behaviors stated in my initial post can be explained or understood. But instead, you use the "I am better than thou" approach and decide to throw your wadded panties at me. In a debate, one brings forth examples, presents their case, supports it, another disputes it with points and supports of themselves, and in the end, one side may be convinced by the otherside's presentation. Not an all out bandy of ideas consisting of "you dumb shithead", "you have no idea what you talk about", then leave it at that. For one who graduated from college, I did not think I needed to explain that to you.
From the beginning, your attitude is absolutely negatory and serves no educational purpose. I obviously was seeking an educated perspective else I would not have phrased such in a more or less questioning manner.
You did studies? site them. Provide me with resource/links so that i may have a more broader perspective like you, since you seem to be sitting on such a high horse.
You said that I am misleading readers, again provide resources so that they too may grasp a more clear understanding. Information that do support your claims. I'm certain that you have learned how to site information after your schooling.
Well, after you cool down and gotten a hold of your mature side, then I will pay attention to your post. Else, I simply will overlook what you have to say.
Please consider this article
=============
Leo Lewis | November 02, 2007
WOMEN who wear figure-hugging clothes are giving Muslim men sleepless nights and distracting them from prayer, a prominent cleric said yesterday.
Attacking the appeal of modern Malaysian women, Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat - a fundamentalist Muslim cleric who controls the main opposition party and one of
the country's 13 states - said provocative clothes were a form of "emotional abuse".
Clothes that are modest by Western standards were, he said, stopping the country's men getting a good night's sleep.
"We always (hear about) the abuse of children and wives in households, which is easily perceived by the eye but the emotional abuse of men cannot be seen,"
Mr Nik Abdul Aziz said.
"Our prayers become unfocused and our sleep is often disturbed."
Like so many of his previous outbursts, the comments drew instant criticism from women's groups.
Previous advice from Mr Nik Abdul Aziz to Malaysia's women included the suggestion that they would be at a lower risk of being raped if they abandoned their
lipstick and perfume. Mr Nik Abdul Aziz posted a diagram of an appropriately dressed woman on his party's website. The picture shows a woman in a baggy,
floor-length dress with a scarf covering her hair.
As the minister of the northeastern state of Kelantan, Mr Nik Abdul Aziz has imposed fines on Muslim women who fail to wear headscarves, and imposed other
draconian restrictions.
As well as describing smokers as "similar to certain animals which have no brains to think rationally", he also argued that they shouldn't be allowed to
run as candidates in a general election.
He has heavily criticised Malaysia's endemic corruption, describing bribe-takers as intellectual weaklings who are destined for an eternity in hell.
Mr Nik Abdul Aziz did reveal a liberal streak when he revoked a 15-year ban on snooker. He was responsible for the original ban, imposed because the game
appeared to encourage gambling.
=====
This is at most circumstancial, but I hope it will allow people to understand my original inquiry. is the manner of a female's atire not a provocation for attack? I will reapeat as people seem to lose my intent. I have not validated, justified, rationalized, or any means demeaning the ramafications of an attack on a female. I am meerely trying to grasp an understanding of the impact females have on males through their atire, and whether or not females should not have a degree of blame for decision to wear such provocative clothing.
================
Source: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22687151-29677,00.html
Does the way you dress really matter?
Posted by
Steve Tobak
3 comments
Every morning, each one of us wakes up a ragged mess and eventually, presumably after cleaning up a bit, exits the house dressed in attire that expresses
his or her inner feelings.
Don't believe me? It's true; ask a shrink. The way you dress is a window into the subconscious. Of course, it helps if you know how to interpret the data.
Sometimes the conscious mind overrules the inner self, so what you get is the opposite of what the person is feeling. It's complicated.
Okay, enough psychobabble. The premise here is that the way you dress matters and it matters in the workplace. Over the course of my career, I've noticed
a lot going on with clothes, but nobody talks about it. Case in point, people have been commenting on the way I dress for decades, and I have no idea why.
Way back in 1981 - when I was an engineer designing chips for Texas Instruments - my manager told me I might consider dressing differently if I wanted to
get ahead. I was wearing torn overalls at the time. Hey, I was just an engineer ... and it was Texas!
Anyway, he did have a point. Years later I read Dress for Success and began taking this stuff a bit more seriously. When I became a sales executive calling
on customers, I began wearing a jacket and tie or a suit.
However, when it comes to really working, i.e. in the office, I'm strictly a blue jeans, untucked shirt, and sneakers or other comfy shoes kind of guy.
I guess that's what comforts my neurotic subconscious.
When I worked at microprocessor upstart
Cyrix
in the mid-90s,
Jack Kemp
- quarterback turned politician extraordinaire - sat on our board of directors. That didn't entirely make sense to me, but he was a great guy and really
fun at dinner parties.
Once, at an event of some sort, Jack said, in passing, "Nice tie, Tobak. Breaking out the spring wardrobe?" I know he was just being a politician, and that's
what politicians do, but still, I was flattered that he remembered my name. My ego aside, he chose to comment on my clothes.
PC Week
(now eWEEK) once ran a story about me wearing Intel Inside t-shirts to bed at night. This was ironic because Cyrix competed head on with Intel and I was
Cyrix's marketing chief. And yes, it was true. How was I supposed to know that the reporter I told it to at 2 AM at a
Comdex
party in Las Vegas wasn't as drunk as I was?
In 1997 National Semiconductor bought Cyrix, which was a good thing for us. One day National's CEO Brian Halla commented on my wrinkled blue jeans. He said
I could lay them flat after taking them out of the dryer and that would help take the wrinkles out. To this day, that's what I do. Thanks for the tip,
Brian.
Another time he chided me for wearing a sport jacket over blue jeans. Again with the clothes. That look is really in now. I guess I was ahead of my time.
I ran into Brian at a trade show a couple of years ago. First words out of his mouth were to tell me I needed to stand closer to my razor. And that's coming
from a guy with a beard. Okay, so that wasn't about clothes, but what was it about?
Then there's the whole business-casual thing. I'm not a fan. Sure, I tried it. I've got dozens of pairs of khakis and polo shirts from Nordstrom hanging
in my closet. But I never wear them, although I have no idea why.
Wait, it gets weirder.
I've noticed that some people wear the same clothes every day. Not the very same clothes ... you know what I mean. Dave Mooring - ex-president and director
of
Rambus
- used to call it a person's uniform. For example, Steve Jobs has a uniform - his characteristic black mock turtleneck and jeans. That look's been very
popular in Silicon Valley for the past decade or so.
I don't get the whole uniform thing. Are these people so insecure that they think, if they wear something different, folks won't recognize them? It couldn't
possibly be a challenge to match a few items of clothing once a day, could it? Maybe so.
I've seen lots of executives wear belts that didn't match the color of their shoes. Could someone actually reach the level of VP or CEO at a public company
and not know that these two items should match? Or do they just grab the first thing they see in the closet and put it on? They only come in three colors,
for God's sake. How hard can that be?
When I worked for Rambus CEO Geoff Tate, he only owned one tie, which he wore with his white shirt and suit. Now there's a guy who knows his fashion limitations.
You got to respect that.
I've noticed that lots of people wear company logo shirts exclusively. There's an analyst named Nathan Brookwood who does that. I mean, that's all he wears.
What's up with these people? Can they not afford to buy their own clothing?
Then there's clone clothing behavior. If you walk into a meeting with VCs, half of them - especially the more junior folks - will inevitably be wearing
blue button-down shirts and light khakis. How does that happen, exactly? And what does it mean?
For all you women out there, sorry about the male bias in the story. I'm sure you can understand. That said, I've had several female executives tell me
that they have to dress ultra-conservatively to be taken seriously in this male-dominated industry. I think that's true ? and sad.
Why bring all this up? To tell a few stories and, more importantly, to make a point. The point is that the way you dress is a big deal, it says a lot, it
makes a difference, people seem to comment on it, and we're hardly aware of all this stuff going on beneath the surface.
Moreover, when books say you can make your clothes work for you, I would argue that we all already do that, consciously or not. Twenty years ago I read
Dress for Success and I did. But guess what I'm wearing right now? Blue jeans, an untucked work shirt, and sneakers.
I guess you can teach a dog tricks, but he'd just as soon not do them.
So go ahead and dress for success, or failure. Show your innermost self, or try to cover it up if you can. Do whatever turns you on, makes you feel safe,
comforts you, or whatever it is that innermost selves do. But keep in mind, when you're getting dressed or commenting on another person's clothes, you're
probably saying a lot more than you think.
On the other hand, sometimes a shirt is just a shirt.
========
I guess one should dress how they want to be viewed or treated?
=========
source: http://www.cnet.com/8301-13555_1-9794237-34.html
The flip flop phenom
by
gchagrin
October 11, 2007 7:33 AM
I have to say that the author touched on a point but did not go far enough into the depth of the underlying issue. That issue seems to be with "most" of
the general population not taking any pride in themselves and therefore consciously or subconsciously not respecting others. I call this the flip flop
phenom. It is rare these days to see anyone actually dressed nice and wearing the appropriate clothes for the occasion. What makes these, most likely overweight,
unmanicured people think that they are projecting a positive image for themselves or their employer? Come on, they actually wake up in the morning and
pick out these 'rags" to go to work or to travel. If you can not maintain yourself or match your appearance to the situation you send a strong message
that you are just too lazy or clueless. The carelessness then transpires into your language, respect for others and common sense manners. Clothes do matter.
Ask the schools who instituted a uniform policy and the military about the positive effects of their policies. People, there is a place for flip/flops
and crocs. It is not the workplace or a restaurant. Perhaps if we cared about ourselves a little more it may transgress into us caring more about each
other.
I hope you get my intended point by now.
Let see, where to begin. First of all, I did not present any specific information because I thought that since you were the one actually interested in the subject, you would look it up yourself. I don’t mind spending a couple of minutes zipping out apost or two, but I have a busy life, and don’t intend to spend the time looking up articles about a subject to which I am already familiar. Being computer literate, you should be able to find information, if you are interested, on what I am saying. Start with your local rape crisis center for example if you want first hand information. Most of the ones I am familiar with have an abundance of literature and/or speakers that they will send to you.
Secondly, you said that you wanted to leave religion out of the debate, but the first article you posted was from a religious point of view, i.e. a Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat - a fundamentalist Muslim cleric.” Secondly, not one of your articles described what you were talking about, rape. I never said that the clothing you wear does not make a statement about yourself, but I am saying that a woman could be standing completely nude, and not be expected to be raped. You may think of her as a slut, a whore, or whatever other words you want to use, but that in no way implies that she is asking for sex. There are many statements that are made from female nudity, the first one that comes to mind are the stars who pose nude to protest animal abuse.
I sort of thought you were coming from a religious viewpoint from the arguments you were making. In my religion, we are responsible for our own choices. If a woman dresses in a way that is inappropriate, she may have to answer to a higher authority than to anyone here on earth. If a man lusts, or worse, attacks a woman, it is fully his responsibility, and the blame is his alone.
As for your question about what I would do if you came up and hastled me, it is very simple. We have police to handle matters like that. I may want to hit you, but if I do and you have made no physical provocation, the blame is squarely on me. This is the law. I am responsible for my own actions, which takes us back to the original post. A man who attacks a woman is 100% to blame for his action. You may not agree with this, but that is the way the law states it, “no means no.”
Ah let me come at this from a different angle and see if that makes a differents which I don't think so, but here goes anyway. The first poster is maybe a blind person. Let's assume this is the case. Now as a blind person you assume it is your right to walk on the streets and not get robbed, beaten, or refused services based on your blindness correct? You also feel it is unreasonable fore you to be required to wear shades, or eye covering, travel without your cane, and anyother device that shows that you are blind so that you do not have adverse things happened to you correct?You would feel it was discrimination to require you to hide your blindness. Now if you refuse to hide your blindness, but your are robbed, refused services, and adverse things happen to you is this your fault? Sure you are part of the cause for not conforming, but is it right? I agree that women in states of undress cause male, and female actraction, but is it right to force your wants on another person? It would be slightly safer for women to cover up, but it would not solve the issue of rape. What would solve the issue of rape is castration, if the crime could be proven without a shadow of a doubt. Cut him, give him medical services so that he heals well, then let him go. SMILE Rape he'll not commit again now will he. If he can not control his thoughts, impulses then he'll control them now won't he?Animals are built to not refuse the impulses and there is no rape in the animal kingdom. They are beautiful, skin shines, muscles show and all that makes them beautiful. Humans are given what is called reason and reason is what separrates humans from animals. If reason can not be used properly by men then I vote for my fix. On a personal note I do not care what a woman has, or does not have on her smell, voice, and demeanor are enough to turn me on and make me feel sexual, so is it her fault for being female if I can not control myself? Last you stated a woman was not in the wrong if her husband kills her because she wants a divorce, but has not been told exactly, or she has not gotten it yet, so I suppose according to your rules thinking is responsibility for your killing. Don't think and have your husband suspect you might leave and get killed now women.
"Let see, where to begin. First of all, I did not present any specific information because I thought that since you were the one actually interested in the
subject, you would look it up yourself. I don’t mind spending a couple of minutes zipping out apost or two, but I have a busy life, and don’t intend to
spend the time looking up articles about a subject to which I am already familiar. Being computer literate, you should be able to find information, if
you are interested, on what I am saying. Start with your local rape crisis center for example if you want first hand information. Most of the ones I am
familiar with have an abundance of literature and/or speakers that they will send to you."
Excuses, just as in your post about, "As for not providing you with specific quotes, I didn't think I would have to remind you of what you said. When talking of contradictions, I gave examples
of what I was saying, and made the mistake of thinking you could read your own post." The purpose of quoting someone is not whether or not they can read their own post, or not whether or not I can look it up myself... But to make your point in a debate.
Everyone has their own excuses about lack of time this and that, its not lack of time, its time management. But of course you only have time set aside to negatively criticize others and no room for constructive criticism. Typical violationof the "fundamental error". Yes, you are better than me in that respect. Feeling proud?
It was not my intention to express my views in a religious manner, and for the simple fact that it may mirror any believe from any factions does not make my statement a basis of. If such comes across as so, I do apologize.
====
First of all I am not quite sure what you are stating in reguards to your reference to "my last statement". I followed you up until that very last line.
You brought up an interesting point that is very valid, Reason.
I understand your parallel about a blind person and a female, but on the same note, anyone can be robbed, a blind person easier than a sighted one. What would be interesting is a male being rape outside of a prison setting.
I’m not exactly sure what constructive criticism you have given me. In the last post, for example, you said I am not posting articles to support my side of the debate is just an excuse; that I have poor time management skills. Where do you find constructive criticism in that? You have no idea what goes on in my life, as I have no idea what goes on in yours, so don’t tell me I should do a better job managing my time. The remark I made about you being computer literate, and could look up the information yourself if you wanted comes from your profile. You stated, “My love is computers, I study them, tinker with them, debate about them, and just about anything you can think other than hacking.” So, please don’t assume that I was making excuses when you don’t know what was in my mind. I actually thought you could do the research if you wanted…if you don’t want to, that is fine, your decision.
I have had years of experience working with victims of crime. I worked for the district attorney’s office here, so as I said earlier, I may not quite be an expert, but I do have quite a bit of knowledge on the subject. If you are really sincere in gaining information about motives for rape, then I gave you a couple of ideas of where to start looking. If you choose not to follow through to increase your knowledge in this area, that is fine, but please don’t presume to assign me motives for my actions that aren’t accurate.
Yes anyone can be robbed, but a blind person is easier to be robbed as a woman is easy to rape by a man if she is not armed with a weapon. I'll not convince you, just wished to show you how unfair it is to say that due to wearing less clotheing makes it the woman's fault if she is harmed. SMILE Remember all blind people are not easy to rob nor are all women with less clothes on easy to rape. They are targets for the bad in society. This does not make it fair and does not place blame.
Hmm, I fail to see how Glenja is negatively criticizing you. It sounds like she is presenting a view on the issue that happens to be different than yours. What is so wrong with presenting another view on the issue? In reading over her posts, it sounds like she has presented a resource to back up her point of view. Now if you are not willing to take the time to look into the resource she has provided, then who are you to criticize anyone on how they manage their time? I fail to see how anyone can see another point of view when their defences are up and ready for battle. Honestly, I think there are valid points on both sides here.
Thanks for the support Crazy Cat, that’s sort of the way I felt. Just one thing though, I’m a he, not a she. lol
Oops, sorry, I didn't check your profile until after posting. My sincere appologies! Please forgive me. I will be sure to make a note of that for the future though.
Ok, two very important things. What do we mean by revealing clothing? It is possible to dress attractively, sensually, erotically, enticingly, etc with out dressing skankily, sluttily, or out right whorishly. If someone is showing some leg they are just displaying their nice body, or if they wear spaghetti strap tops in the summer to excentuate their shoulders, neck and collarbone, sandles that showcase nice feet and anckles, tops which show off cleavage, but not handfulls of brest are all nice, sensual ways of expressing your appreciation for your own body and how good you feel, just being you and being alive. There is a huge difference however between that and wearing bathingsuit bottoms that not only show off your legs, but where the material is crawling up your crack and disappearing, wearing tops that don't excentuate your brests, but rather leave ninety percent of them hanging out, material that clings so closely that you can see curly pubic hair, dimples on the bum, and other such intimate details. Clothing of the latter sort is inappropriate and is not fare to the men who must watch women ware it, when they do so only to anger, frustrate and prevoke them. Also it is not appropriate to wear in front of children. The human body is a beautiful thing, even the naked human body, but I would much rather have my children accidentally see a naked person who is walking in their own house, coming out of a sauna or changing, then a barely and suggestively clad person strutting down the street. There is a big difference between saying "This is my body, it is beautiful and I love it. It makes me happy and I would like others to see it and appreciate it" and saying "This is my body. I want to use it to have sex. I want men to imagine having sex with me whenever they see me, even if it's across the boardroom table at work, or while I'm picking up my kid from preschool. I want everyone to know exactly what every single part of my body looks like, to torment them." It is possible to be tasteful in one's erotic clothing choices. The goal is to get the attention of the opposit sex, to get them interested, not to make them cream their pants in public or cause them to become druling, incoherent idiots. For example you can show off a body part by the cut and color and material of your clothing that covers that body part, with out leaving the entire body part exposed. It is enticing and tasteful for a man to katch a brief glimpse of a taught nipple through a garment, but not to see the whole brest exposed, or to see the barely vailed shape of a hip through the softly shifting material of a dress, not to see the flesh of the hip it's self as a woman in a waaaaaaaaay too short skirt sits down. Ok, I think I'll have to post twice to cover
this whole issue, but the first point I wanted to make is that dressing suggestively is ok, dressing like a hooker is not.
Ok, part two. The second clarification. If the poster is saying that it is ok for men to attempt to rape, asult and or drug women who dress like sluts I think it's obvious that that is not acceptable at all. However, if they are saying that it is alright for men to speak crudely and or suggestively to these women, to proposition them, I think that's just fine. If you dress like a slut, note, not merely suggestively, but sluttily then whatever people say to you is your problem. I would never condone a man actually hurting one of these women, laying a finger on them, but if they are willing to put out a message then they'd better be ready to hear the verble response of those who don't like, or perhaps like too much the meaning of that message. If a woman walks down the street in a skirt which lets you see her bum when she walks and a top which lets you see everything above and including her nipples and everything below and including her belly button and a man passing by makes a comment like "I've got the money, honey, you got the time?" or "I bet you look even better on your back, wanna come home with me and see how good I look riding you?" they deserve it. Of course if a man follows a woman dressed that way home and asults her or rapes her, that's taking it too far and he should be punished. What people say and what people do are two entirely different things. Granted, there should be no need for people to say such crude things outside of dirty talk in the bedroom, but there should also be no ocasion for a woman to dress like a whore in public and think that that's acceptable.
Damn, hate to make multiple posts in a row, but I read through this massively involved debate and I thought of two other things that bare mentioning. First of all I would place some, note, some of the blame on the rape victim if she dresses like a complete and total slut, but that percentage of blame would be maybe point five percent. I might think that one percent of the blame lies with a stripper, five to ten percent of the blame on a prostitute, maybe point nine percent on a girl who goes to a spring break party alone with no friends and drinks unknown substances. You have to realize that it is not up to me, and I realize that it is not up to me to determine exactly to what extent the rapest and the raped are responsible for the event. I also would not presume to say that there is any set mathematical formula for assigning such blame, but I was simply trying to describe that although I do think that the sluttily dressed woman is in part responsible, that it is a virtually negligible amount of responsibility. It was stated earlier that rapests should be put to death. I do not agree with that. While rape is a terrible crime I do not think that it is deserving of the death penelty. Perhaps if it was a rape murder, but for a non leathal rape the death penelty would be uncalled for. Hell, there are even cases, many of them in which those who commit murder or even multiple murders are not given the death penelty, and if this is the case, why should a rapest be given such a harsh punishment? As for men being raped, it does happen. Men are raped by other men, and with the use of drugs some men are even raped by women. Just because it's not the obvious assumption or the stereotype, it does not mean that it does not happen.
I think I can understand where you are coming from with saying the victim may be slightly responsible for the crime, but that is a very dangerous and slippery slope on which to tread. Yes, common sense should be used, but not everyone is blessed with that ability. I am of the opinion that if a woman says no, even if she is spread eagle on a bed having sex with other people, the answer is no. Very simple. Sex against someone’s will, regardless of other behaviors is rape.
If you say a victim of crime is even slightly responsible, where do we draw the line? I am fortunate to live in a nice, middle-class home. I have nice, middle-class objects in my home. If someone knows I have a computer, for example, is it my fault that my home is burglarized? After all, the yard is kept mowed; the house isn’t in disrepair; so am I advertising that I want to be robbed? I don’t think so. If we are to blame a rape victim for her attack, then we can in turn blame any victim of crime for what has happened.
In my opinion, it all boils down to personal responsibility. If a criminal commits a crime, it is his/her choice to do so, regardless of the temptation. Going back to the burglary scenario, you have to ask the question, “How many other people passed by my house without stopping to rob it?” The temptation was there all the time, the same for everyone. The one who succumbs to it is still personally responsible for the action.
In the case of a scantily clad woman, I say the same thing. How many other men passed by her, even having lustful thoughts, but did not rape her? Doesn’t matter what she is wearing, the fault is still that of the rapist.
Yes, I agree that it is a very slippery and dangerous slope when we delve into the philosophy of something and state that something is technically so, that is, it is so in some way, shape or form, or to some degree, just for the sake of complete accuracy. That does not mean that we should put that small component into practice with oureveryday lives and laws. Lots of things are true, in theory, but they are not generally or broadly applicable in the spacific application of them. I hope that clarifys things. I don't believe that any court of law sshould use a woman's dress as a pardon or excuse for a rapist, but in theory, not in practice, there can be some very small part of blame placed with the victim in some cases.
First, no matter what part of blame someone who hasn't experienced it places with her, they'll never place as much as she carries; unless it's the US legal system, and well, that's another subject all together. Secondly, I have a question for the poster and those who agree with them. Say the situation was reversed. Men ware revealing clothes all the time...No shirt, shorts so loose that the privates flash out if they're not waring underware, shorts so low that you can see pubic hair and cracks...Then, if a woman rapes him; heard the phraise, "use it or lose it"? Is he also to blame because he wore such revealing clothes? Next, a question for everyone. Why is it permissible for a man to ware no shirt and show his nipples, but a woman has to keep completely covered? A man's nipples can be just as sensitive as a womans. They have hair and we don't, but most of what's on our chest is simply fat; where as on their's is muscle; which I personally find 10 times more attractive than fat.
I agree with poster number 1.
A person dresses a certain way to consciousely get attention. So, women, stop wineing and put on some clothes!
There is a big difference between drawing attention to ones self and asking to be sexually attacked. I go back to my example about robbery. If you use the logic that attention equals assault, then having items should equal robbery, therefore, you are to blame if you own anything and are robbed.
Also, cattleya brings up an interesting point about men’s clothing. Should men dress differently to prevent being attacked by a gay rapist? If a woman’s attire entices a heterosexual rapist, then it should follow that a man’s attire entices a homosexual rapist.
Should anyone’s physical appearance cause them to be blamed for being attacked? If a blind person is mugged because he/she is an easier target, should the victim be blamed for being out in public in the first place? I was a pretty small kid. Should I be blamed for being in school where bigger kids picked on me? I still maintain that blaming a victim is not a very wise idea.
Or, let's bring it closer to home. A blind 10 year old is waring shorts and a tank top when an adult man sees her. He decides to molest her, and later when charges are brought and he is asked why he says, "because she looked good, it felt good to me and I knew I would probably get away with it." Who is to blame? The 10 year old blind girl because she's pretty and was waring shorts and a tank top and because she was an easier target because she's blind? Or the adult male who should have known better. By the way, true sanario...He was never convicted.
Exactly!
I'm not saying it's okay to attack a woman. I'm saying that she can expect some attention.
This post is a bit late, but I'm sure there will be people interested in the topic, as the first post is quite inflammatory.
A lot has been already stated, so I will make this in list form.
1. If rape is defined as forced copulation on a female, by a male, there is a collection of research which shows that rape exists in every type of human society. This does not mean that the society recognizes the act as rape by legal or physical punishment, or that the society even acknowledges the act as existing at all. However, the definition stated above, when applied to those societies, shows that rape does occur.
2. The act of forced copulation is looked down upon by females, as well as males. Although males often boast about their perceived to be conquests, most males tend to respond, when asked seriously about forced copulation, that it is unnecessary, and that true males need not resort to such measures. This implies that socially, there is a belief that self control is part of the equation, not just sexual gratification. Psychologists have also proposed that there are evolutionary functions to rape not being a tool for procreation. After all, one could say that who ever is strong enough to rape the most attractive women will father the most children and pass on their seed. This might make rape a social norm in time. But we find that this is not the case. Rape, does not usually occur.
3. Psychological studies have shown that rape is not a sexually motivated crime. It is mostly about control, and sometimes violence.
4. A belief in explanations of rape such as: a woman's way of dressing might determine whether or not she might fall victim to rape: Most women who are raped are sluts: If she was raped she must have been doing something to create that situation for herself: look how she flirts with everyone, she's asking for it,, these beliefs are called Rape Myths. They may be the result of certain religious upbringing, social customs of the particular culture the person if is from, or just personal belief. These myths put blame on the victim, often exhibiting a low sense of empathy and a disregard for personal responsibility.
5. A high tolerance for the acceptance of rape myths as truth has been found in rapists, and potential rapists. In other words, not everyone who has a high tolerance for rape myths is a rapist or a potential rapist, but rapist and potential rapist, do tend to have a high tolerance for rape myths.
6. Fortunately, I still have some of the research to back these things up, if anyone is interested.
Just something I’d like to add… When I was in the seventh grade, it was the fashion of the time to wear an army or fishing vest. So, like most of the other little hip hop heads, I wore one. However, I have never been fishing in my life.
Wow, I'm amazed that this topic has lasted so long. These words are Directed to the doctor Phil want to be. We as humans have the choice to be tempted. Each of us has this beautiful gift called freewill. Who cares what kind of attire a woman is in? Every women is at risk for a sexual attack no matter if they are dressing skimpy or professionally. It’s that plain and simple. We have control of our thoughts and the actions that follow. If a person feels that they can’t control their sexual outbursts than they will be answering to the proper authorities.
of course that is true...
I had to bring this back because it's an interesting topic. When people say "she asked for it" they mean that she shouldn't be shocked when she gets unwanted attention for acting a certain way. I am not just talking about rape.
If a woman takes off her shirt in public, guys will look. That's just the way it goes.
But looking and physically doing are two different things. Of course, if you don't want people to look, don't reveal your parts at which they like to look, but taking care of your physical desires is something that should be consentual. End of story. I'm sorry, but I can't stand it when people say it's the female's fault she got raped just because she wore revealing clothing. That dessert you see on the table of a formal reception looks pretty tempting, doesn't it? That doesn't mean you dive into it before the time has come to eat it.
I understand and it is certainly not the woman's fault she got raped. However, I am meerly pointing out one of the possible reasons for it. Perhaps not beeing so revealing would help.
Yes, that is an option, but learning to control one's impulses would also be greatly appreciated. Do you think a defence of, "Well, she looked revealing", would determine a rapist's innocence in court?
80-year-old ladies, in rather haggard clothing, have been known to be raped.
The only problem OceanDream I have with what you're saying is you can't talk to these guys as you do normal men. Rape is as far from us normal men as dashing a baby's skull is for most women. Predators are opportunistic cowards, and the real story is they prey on the most available. As to 'they should stop', well, the rest of us should stop them.
I don't see you saying hyenas should control their impulses, no, you would rather drive them off from killing your pet if that's what it came down to. And that's what we have here.
Rape is a human predation / hate crime, not an instance of the young man's blue balls.
On the same note, it took my marine corps sister in law to tell me that postpardom was not an excuse for women killing their kids, all went through it. And in fact, she was as put out at the very idea, and for the same reason, as I am by the 'Dead Men Don't Rape' crowd. She was insulted as a woman anyone would think that, potentially of all women.
Same here: A rapist is one kind of "man" and for speech users, I put man in quotes. As I said at the beginning of this post, elderly women in haggard clothing may get raped as readily as the youngest of you, the only difference being that with your age, you may be prone to run off by yourself and unprotected into high-risk areas. Oh, and high-risk for rape = the suburbs, FYI, these guys being the suit-and-tie "respectable" (in quotes) types.
Hi all, It's been stated on this board over and over, but it should b said again. Rape is not about desire, lust, skimpy clothing. it is about agression, anger, control.... If you do not have the time to look up professional articles on the subject, at the very least visit wikipedia and do just a little bit of reading.
Once again, Rape is not about desire. The argument made by the original poster is what is referred to as a rape myth, in other words, it is a commonly held belief among certain groups that somehow, the victim was asking for it, however research shows that this is false.
So, let's do a little research and put this topic to sleep already.
I have to agree with Okay sure, in this case.
OKSure and Jess, thank you guys...very well said.
What I am saying here is that we are all responsible for our own actions. That means men and women alike! What a shock that was! Men need to control how thier hormones drive them and the same is true for women. I am sick of hearing that we have to control ourselves and women can do what ever the bloody hell they want. It is a double standard.