Page 25 of 25 [ 397 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 21, 22, 23, 24, 25

Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,440
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

04 Aug 2021, 8:59 am

hurtloam wrote:
The problem with dictating dress is that it doesn't actually prevent attack.

If we all have the mindset that it will prevent an attack, when someone is assaulted the question "what were you wearing?" gains validity in the public consciousness even though anyone can be assaulted no matter what they wear.

It leads to: We believe her if she was covered, we don't believe her if her neckline was plunging.

I heard one court case when the survivor of an assault was questioned on why she had been wearing lace panties. It had no relevance, but the lawyer was trying to besmirch this woman because she bought herself some nice knickers! Totally ridiculous. Should we all wear big cotton briefs just in case we have to defend ourselves in court one day?


Also, it seems a lot like blaming the victim...what someone is wearing should never be taken as anything more than clothes. Skimpier clothes don't mean 'anyone who feels like it can have sex with me' why would anyone think it does mean that is the real question. Even at strip clubs you aren't allowed to touch the women dancing around with their boobs out, so why would it be ok to touch a passed out girl at a party just because her clothes are a bit revealing?


_________________
We won't go back.


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,563

04 Aug 2021, 9:09 am

AngelRho wrote:
So the only thing left to do is tell girls what they can or cannot wear. Because we're protecting them. What is wrong with this?











SMiLes FRiEnD, Well, Since You Asked, i'll Provide Some Answers For "the Only Thing Left to Do Is TO TELL GIRLS
AND OR WOMEN WHAT THEY MUST WEAR" in Fear that Boys And Or Men are Too Weak to Control
Themselves (You Sound A Bit Like the Prime Minister of Pakistan, in Relating This Advice 'Hear')

When Women

Express Their
Sexuality Freely
Through What They
Do or Do Not Wear Now...

A Law Enforcement Uniform
Verily DID NOT STOP GOVERNOR
CUOMO SOBER OF NEW YORK From Groping

A Female Law Enforcement Officer Uniformed
to Protect Him Among Other Toxic Patriarchy related
Incidences Associated With the 'Old Boys Club of America' Today...

And True Moving to A Country Like Pakistan Where the Woman
ARE ALL COVERED UP or almost All Covered Up in India Associated

With Rules to Control Women's Expression of Sexuality Through
Clothing in Hopes of Mastering and Controlling Their Reproductive

Freedoms WILL NOT WORK EITHER

As in the Muslim Country of Pakistan
With A Supposed Religion of Peace

That is The Supposed Way of the
Country, 50 Percent of Married
Woman Report Physical Abuse

And 90 Percent Report Verbal
Abuse By the Same 'Token' of
Toxic Patriarchy Sponsored Through
State Religion Of 'Them' Covering Women Up...

No Different than Hindus in Some States of
India Where Women in Marriages Report Rape
At Rates of Over 40 Percent Where Raping in Marriage
Is Considered Legal to Do at the Whim of Toxic Patriarchy There too...

So what is the Solution...

A Healthy Social Justice

Dose of the "Me too" Meme is a Start

For Indeed There is Safety in Numbers

When the CuLTuRE Decides together in

Union That TOXIC PATRIARCHY IS NO LONGER COOL...

AND TRUE IF YOU DON'T LIKE THAT THERE IS ALWAYS

THE SOLUTION OF MOVING TO some Countries like India
And Pakistan Where Women are Still Bought and Paid for

Branded

And Bred

Like Cattle...

And Yes Even
Harmed, Raped,

Maimed, And Killed

More than they are in
the United States of Course

Where Thongs Are Regularly Worn

At the Beach And Everyone Gets Along

Fine As Science Shows Lust is a Main Source of Male
Sober Creativity and Lust is A Main Source of Female

Cooperation When Healthily Expressed and Not Mentally

Ill Out of Balance And Or On Drugs Using Other Humans As Masturbatory tools...

Hint:

From a
Professional

Free Verse Poet and Dancer

Only By Vocation, Of Singing
And Dancing With Stars Free

If ya Wanna turn (Not Speaking
to 'You' Personally Of Course) A Real

Woman On, If Ya Really, Really Now
Wanna Turn Her on And Not Use Her
As Just a Masturbatory Tool Now Touch

Her HeART; Better Yet, Bypass Her Body
And HeART and Touch Her Soul And Bring
Heaven to Her Eyes for Real In Other Words

Do the

'Jesus
Thingie'

For Real

or Get Butthurt

in the Audience and

Lie About 'Mary Magdalene'
Being A Prostitute As 'Then' 'They'

Couldn't Understand What LoVE Really Is

Either...

There are All Kinds of 'Ignorance' IN Life...
Bottom And Top Lines Love Wins When Real...

For it Doesn't Matter What Controls You Put
on a Woman, She Will Fantasize About Whoever She
Wants to Fantasize About in Whatever Situation Comes Next...

Toxic Patriarchy

ALWAYS IS THE
ULTiMaTE Loser This way...

Yawn, There are Winners and Losers in LiFE iNDeeDS...

And True, if Ya Need LOTS OF Evidence of How This Works
Reams, And Reams, And Reams, Of Case Study Evidence

Provided At Free Will oF A Real Modern EPiC
Long Form Poem Bible WHeRE Women Are

Truly

The

Stars

of the
SHow with

The Rest of Nature Set Free True too...
All 9.6 MiLLioN Words... Just A "SonG oF mY SoUL" Now
Written in 8 Years, Currently Celebrating that Milestone
And Featnote NoW on The 8th Year Anniversary Date of
8.18.2021 With Way Over 100,000 Photos FOR FuLLY

iLLuSTRaTED 'Fred-Talk' EViDeNCE Now Yes Fully

Available Totally Freely Accessible Even on this Website

iN ParT As ThiS Ain't 'Your' Old Angry White Grand Daddy's
(That Version of God) Bible With A Beard Anymore, hehe...;)

It's Just

A Gift

Thanks

For Dropping By...

"Don't Call 'US', We'll Call You"..;)



_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,750
Location: Stendec

04 Aug 2021, 9:09 am

Sweetleaf wrote:
... what someone is wearing should never be taken as anything more than clothes. Skimpier clothes don't mean 'anyone who feels like it can have sex with me' why would anyone think it does mean that is the real question. Even at strip clubs you aren't allowed to touch the women dancing around with their boobs out, so why would it be ok to touch a passed out girl at a party just because her clothes are a bit revealing?

Guys, if it seems too good to be true...
Image
... then most likely ...
Image


_________________
 
No love for Hamas, Hezbollah, Iranian Leadership, Islamic Jihad, other Islamic terrorist groups, OR their supporters and sympathizers.


RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,933
Location: Adelaide, Australia

04 Aug 2021, 9:29 am

Fnord wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
[...] I guess I have to learn when someone is trying to pull a fast one on me.
Just learn who tries to "pull the fast ones", and then ignore them from then on.

Thus, I would not take RetroGamer87 seriously.


You're no fun :P I'm beginning to think you don't really live in Stendec.


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,187
Location: Right over your left shoulder

04 Aug 2021, 12:32 pm

Fnord wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
[...] I guess I have to learn when someone is trying to pull a fast one on me.
Just learn who tries to "pull the fast ones", and then ignore them from then on.

Thus, I would not take RetroGamer87 seriously.


I wouldn't take him serious when he's joking. :lol:


_________________
"If you stick a knife in my back 9 inches and pull it out 6 inches, there's no progress. If you pull it all the way out, that's not progress. The progress is healing the wound that the blow made... and they won't even admit the knife is there." Malcolm X
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

04 Aug 2021, 9:52 pm

Bradleigh wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Let me put it another way: Teens sneak drugs and alcohol to a party. Teen girls wear suggestive clothes to the party. Boys interpret this as girls “asking for it” and have sex with girls while they are passed out from the effects of drugs and alcohol.

Teens need protection from Narcissists who drug and rape them, yes? So we need to pass laws that ban teen girls from wearing skimpy clothes because it sends the message they are there to have sex with boys.

In the interest of protecting vulnerable girls, is the above statement appropriate or not? Underage drinking and drug use are not in view because there are already laws prohibiting those things. The rape itself is not in view because there are already laws in place against rape, including date rape and statutory rape—meaning that these girls already lack the legal right to give consent, anyway. So the only thing left to do is tell girls what they can or cannot wear. Because we're protecting them. What is wrong with this?


I think you will find the consistent Left opinion that there is no excuse boys interpreting the way a girl is dressed as consent to do things to them. Legally banning girls from wearing skimpy outfits so boys can't go "they were asking for it" is the exact opposite. And it is by these standards that seem to upset a lot of people who are more conservative. Let boys, girls and enby folk dress how they want, as long as they ain't flashing their unmentionables to people who don't consent.

And what I remember as a teen was that I was an idiot, someone who thought they were mature and ready to understand things on an adult level, but took a while longer to mature. The brain still has a lot of development to do as a teenager, and people claiming that a teen is ready to be treated like adult, such as the idea of marriage, is ridiculous. People who claim that teenager are actually mature and able to make such decisions like being with an adult are fooling themselves, and it sounds like feeding into some justification fed by those who want to create a reason for something like a story in the bible. Or justifying some other traditions just because they are a tradition.

If you are unwilling to speak in absolutes, I certainly am. The likelihood of manipulation from an adult to a minor who can't think clearly, is the reason why a minor cannot consent to be with an adult. Just as the likelihood that someone doesn't actually consent to a sexual encounter from something like freezing up and other pressures, is why someone should get active before doing something, rather than taking a lack of a no as a yes. These are not ridiculous standards, and make much more sense than relying on a parent to make the decision of a minor, or have a person defend their actions by saying that they thought that the agreed by not fighting back.

What they not are is prescriptions along the lines of saying an adult has to get married at a certain time, like 30s or something, like you interpreted my accusations of you defending child marriages as you saying a child has to get married at 15. My stance is always the ability for an individual to make informed consent, free from the undue influences of an adult to a minor, excessive alcohol, and other social pressures. I don't care how mature you think a particular teenager might be, or a fear of women being pushed almost passed the point of childbearing age.

I also think that people, including children, have the right to not be cisgender or heterosexual, and no parent should get the right to control their child from not being so by claiming their religion. That is child abuse, and a freedom of religion is not a freedom to abuse children.

But we were just talking about the vulnerability of young girls. Would keeping them under lock and key and not allowing revealing clothing count as protecting them?

It’s darned EFFECTIVE, tbh. If she can’t support herself financially and must depend on us to buy her clothes, then we do have direct control over her appearance. So we have the ability to mitigate her vulnerability in this area.

If she is unable to leave the house, again…we’ve reduced her vulnerability by keeping her protected so she won’t be exposed to drugs, alcohol, and rapists.

Now…I realize two things here. First of all, if rape is going to happen, no rapist has to wait for a girl to show up at a party to do it. It can happen anywhere. There is only just so much you can do short of building your own max security fortress staffed with heavily armed, professionally trained, eunuch sharpshooters. Second, it won’t matter what she wears, so I’m not going to be the one arguing that she’s asking for it.

So let’s not go down the “she’s asking for it” road. We agree that she’s not.

Can we agree that at present there are boys who would use that excuse?

Can we agree that underaged girls are vulnerable, regardless even of what they wear?

If we agree on that much, can we also agree that it is not the girls we fault or mistrust, whether or not they wear skimpy clothes or lacy underwear, but rather boys who are looking for the opportunity to manipulate and exploit these girls?

If we agree on these things, is it reasonable for parents to take a protective role to make sure girls aren’t exposed to situations that carry excessive risk of harm to their children?

The difference being that we’re talking about underaged minors, not adults who do have the legal right to consent. This is not about women who wear sexy clothes to “the clurb,” getting white girl wasted, waking up naked next to guys they don’t know, and being “pretty sure” they consented to it…maybe, idk. I mean young people who have no legal access to alcohol and are sneaking gramma’s Percocet from the medicine cabinet. Is it reasonable to take measures that would effectively prevent them from being attacked?



RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,933
Location: Adelaide, Australia

04 Aug 2021, 10:39 pm

AngelRho wrote:
Would keeping them under lock and key and not allowing revealing clothing count as protecting them?

It’s darned EFFECTIVE, tbh.

You've done it! You've found the solution to sexual violence! Just keep girls locked up so that men won't be tempted! /s


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short


Bradleigh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 33
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,669
Location: Brisbane, Australia

05 Aug 2021, 12:00 am

AngelRho wrote:
But we were just talking about the vulnerability of young girls. Would keeping them under lock and key and not allowing revealing clothing count as protecting them?

It’s darned EFFECTIVE, tbh. If she can’t support herself financially and must depend on us to buy her clothes, then we do have direct control over her appearance. So we have the ability to mitigate her vulnerability in this area.

If she is unable to leave the house, again…we’ve reduced her vulnerability by keeping her protected so she won’t be exposed to drugs, alcohol, and rapists.

Now…I realize two things here. First of all, if rape is going to happen, no rapist has to wait for a girl to show up at a party to do it. It can happen anywhere. There is only just so much you can do short of building your own max security fortress staffed with heavily armed, professionally trained, eunuch sharpshooters. Second, it won’t matter what she wears, so I’m not going to be the one arguing that she’s asking for it.

So let’s not go down the “she’s asking for it” road. We agree that she’s not.

Can we agree that at present there are boys who would use that excuse?

Can we agree that underaged girls are vulnerable, regardless even of what they wear?

If we agree on that much, can we also agree that it is not the girls we fault or mistrust, whether or not they wear skimpy clothes or lacy underwear, but rather boys who are looking for the opportunity to manipulate and exploit these girls?

If we agree on these things, is it reasonable for parents to take a protective role to make sure girls aren’t exposed to situations that carry excessive risk of harm to their children?

The difference being that we’re talking about underaged minors, not adults who do have the legal right to consent. This is not about women who wear sexy clothes to “the clurb,” getting white girl wasted, waking up naked next to guys they don’t know, and being “pretty sure” they consented to it…maybe, idk. I mean young people who have no legal access to alcohol and are sneaking gramma’s Percocet from the medicine cabinet. Is it reasonable to take measures that would effectively prevent them from being attacked?


I am a little confused, it still sounds like you are either still wanting to punish girls for what some boys might want to do, or still considering things like rapist boys a fact that girls have to tiptoe around. Why not put the energy for boys not to see a skimpy outfit as a message?

Full disclosure, I don't think it is just girls being at risk to boys, you have the reverse, girl to girl and boy to boy. So I really don't think we need some sort of laws dictating what specifically girls are allowed to wear, when the boys would not being held to the same standard, and in general I found these gendered base laws kind of stupid, especially since I believe in there not just be a gender binary. It kind of sounds like some sort of Catholic school thing where you have teachers hit girls by the cane because they are not matching the proper dress code, but decided by who knows. Would they ban certain swimwear outright?

I understand parents being uncomfortable with their teenage child dressing a certain way, such be what they might want to buy their child in the first place. That discussion should probably be between the parent and child. I just don't think that by any libertarian standard the law should be making obscenity laws against young women for wearing tube tops and short shorts. At best I can think of maybe stopping adults from manipulating people into dress that makes them uncomfortable/vulnerable or open to something like creep shots. Not that this is saying that streaking is okay, certain unmentionables should be covered from those who don't consent. But it is still otherwise weird to police girls on the idea that they would tempt boys. How far does that go before you are requiring them to wear a hijab or not showing their ankles?


_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

05 Aug 2021, 12:09 am

RetroGamer87 wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Would keeping them under lock and key and not allowing revealing clothing count as protecting them?

It’s darned EFFECTIVE, tbh.

You've done it! You've found the solution to sexual violence! Just keep girls locked up so that men won't be tempted! /s

:lol:

In all seriousness, I think we can forget about worrying about what’s going to tempt men. The focus here isn’t on men anymore. Let’s start with the fact that men will exploit girls or take them by brute force regardless of what we do. I don’t care about whether men are tempted or not. That’s their problem. I like to think that men will normally do the right thing and just not harm girls. Men who are going to be predisposed to assaulting girls don’t even need an excuse, so it’s not even about what girls wear.

So rather than thinking in terms of what’s going to tempt men, as though men need protection, why not just focus on keeping girls safe? Parties where there will be older men, medicine cabinet opioids, and alcohol are unsafe for younger girls, so parents simply don’t allow them to go. Not because there’s something wrong with skimpy clothes and lacy underthings, not because we don’t trust girls around men, but because it is an UNSAFE ENVIRONMENT.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

05 Aug 2021, 12:32 am

Bradleigh wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
But we were just talking about the vulnerability of young girls. Would keeping them under lock and key and not allowing revealing clothing count as protecting them?

It’s darned EFFECTIVE, tbh. If she can’t support herself financially and must depend on us to buy her clothes, then we do have direct control over her appearance. So we have the ability to mitigate her vulnerability in this area.

If she is unable to leave the house, again…we’ve reduced her vulnerability by keeping her protected so she won’t be exposed to drugs, alcohol, and rapists.

Now…I realize two things here. First of all, if rape is going to happen, no rapist has to wait for a girl to show up at a party to do it. It can happen anywhere. There is only just so much you can do short of building your own max security fortress staffed with heavily armed, professionally trained, eunuch sharpshooters. Second, it won’t matter what she wears, so I’m not going to be the one arguing that she’s asking for it.

So let’s not go down the “she’s asking for it” road. We agree that she’s not.

Can we agree that at present there are boys who would use that excuse?

Can we agree that underaged girls are vulnerable, regardless even of what they wear?

If we agree on that much, can we also agree that it is not the girls we fault or mistrust, whether or not they wear skimpy clothes or lacy underwear, but rather boys who are looking for the opportunity to manipulate and exploit these girls?

If we agree on these things, is it reasonable for parents to take a protective role to make sure girls aren’t exposed to situations that carry excessive risk of harm to their children?

The difference being that we’re talking about underaged minors, not adults who do have the legal right to consent. This is not about women who wear sexy clothes to “the clurb,” getting white girl wasted, waking up naked next to guys they don’t know, and being “pretty sure” they consented to it…maybe, idk. I mean young people who have no legal access to alcohol and are sneaking gramma’s Percocet from the medicine cabinet. Is it reasonable to take measures that would effectively prevent them from being attacked?


I am a little confused, it still sounds like you are either still wanting to punish girls for what some boys might want to do, or still considering things like rapist boys a fact that girls have to tiptoe around. Why not put the energy for boys not to see a skimpy outfit as a message?



But it is still otherwise weird to police girls on the idea that they would tempt boys. How far does that go before you are requiring them to wear a hijab or not showing their ankles?

Because no matter what you do, there will always be boys who will reject or resist seeing girls as anything other than a c*m dumpster. Because sometimes people really are just that evil. They weren’t abused by their fathers. They were hugged and told they were loved every day by their mothers. They always had the best of everything. And they still find sport in seeing how many vajayjay’s they can stick it in, no matter the cost, and the younger the better.

Ok, so I might agree passing more laws and regulating clothing along gender lines is unreasonable.

But this isn’t about tempting boys or men. Men who choose to do evil things don’t even need temptation. We’re not going to discuss evil men like they are some kind of victim because women wear sexy clothes and men can’t help themselves. Let’s go ahead and agree that women having to change because men are tempted is weird. If I wanted to make a case about temptation, I could do that in a different thread.

Instead, what is the problem with simply insisting that your own children are kept in only safe environments at all times? Boys AND girls. You might say that keeping a girl away from a party with her friends is punishing her because everyone else is evil, but parties involving older men, younger girls, drugs, and alcohol is ILLEGAL. You aren’t punishing her because of bad people. You are keeping her on the the good side of the law. You also keep her away from an environment in which she cannot consent to things such as taking unprescribed Oxycodone, drinking, and having sex with adult men, anyway.

How exactly is keeping her away from criminal behavior by protecting her a bad thing?



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

05 Aug 2021, 12:36 am

Oh, and I prefer the girl/man thing for the sake of simplicity. Of course you could say the same thing regardless of gender.



Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 45,472
Location: Houston, Texas

05 Aug 2021, 12:42 am

Sweetleaf wrote:
hurtloam wrote:
The problem with dictating dress is that it doesn't actually prevent attack.

If we all have the mindset that it will prevent an attack, when someone is assaulted the question "what were you wearing?" gains validity in the public consciousness even though anyone can be assaulted no matter what they wear.

It leads to: We believe her if she was covered, we don't believe her if her neckline was plunging.

I heard one court case when the survivor of an assault was questioned on why she had been wearing lace panties. It had no relevance, but the lawyer was trying to besmirch this woman because she bought herself some nice knickers! Totally ridiculous. Should we all wear big cotton briefs just in case we have to defend ourselves in court one day?


Also, it seems a lot like blaming the victim...what someone is wearing should never be taken as anything more than clothes. Skimpier clothes don't mean 'anyone who feels like it can have sex with me' why would anyone think it does mean that is the real question. Even at strip clubs you aren't allowed to touch the women dancing around with their boobs out, so why would it be ok to touch a passed out girl at a party just because her clothes are a bit revealing?


Because it's all about power, not about inability to get laid.


_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!

Now proficient in ChatGPT!


Bradleigh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 33
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,669
Location: Brisbane, Australia

05 Aug 2021, 1:27 am

AngelRho wrote:
In all seriousness, I think we can forget about worrying about what’s going to tempt men. The focus here isn’t on men anymore. Let’s start with the fact that men will exploit girls or take them by brute force regardless of what we do. I don’t care about whether men are tempted or not. That’s their problem. I like to think that men will normally do the right thing and just not harm girls. Men who are going to be predisposed to assaulting girls don’t even need an excuse, so it’s not even about what girls wear.

So rather than thinking in terms of what’s going to tempt men, as though men need protection, why not just focus on keeping girls safe? Parties where there will be older men, medicine cabinet opioids, and alcohol are unsafe for younger girls, so parents simply don’t allow them to go. Not because there’s something wrong with skimpy clothes and lacy underthings, not because we don’t trust girls around men, but because it is an UNSAFE ENVIRONMENT.


Sure. Have parties that are 18 or drinking age and older, or people running parties have precautions to keep underage people safe. Otherwise have parents talk to their kids, explain that they don't want them going to certain types of gatherings, and there be a range of powers that parents can hold over them like privileges. Kids can also still get in trouble for underage drinking.

All this as long as it isn't something gender based, writing some sort of purity culture into the law. And I want to make it clear again, that a parent can't just choose whether their teenager consented or not to something.



AngelRho wrote:
Because no matter what you do, there will always be boys who will reject or resist seeing girls as anything other than a c*m dumpster. Because sometimes people really are just that evil. They weren’t abused by their fathers. They were hugged and told they were loved every day by their mothers. They always had the best of everything. And they still find sport in seeing how many vajayjay’s they can stick it in, no matter the cost, and the younger the better.

Ok, so I might agree passing more laws and regulating clothing along gender lines is unreasonable.

But this isn’t about tempting boys or men. Men who choose to do evil things don’t even need temptation. We’re not going to discuss evil men like they are some kind of victim because women wear sexy clothes and men can’t help themselves. Let’s go ahead and agree that women having to change because men are tempted is weird. If I wanted to make a case about temptation, I could do that in a different thread.

Instead, what is the problem with simply insisting that your own children are kept in only safe environments at all times? Boys AND girls. You might say that keeping a girl away from a party with her friends is punishing her because everyone else is evil, but parties involving older men, younger girls, drugs, and alcohol is ILLEGAL. You aren’t punishing her because of bad people. You are keeping her on the the good side of the law. You also keep her away from an environment in which she cannot consent to things such as taking unprescribed Oxycodone, drinking, and having sex with adult men, anyway.

How exactly is keeping her away from criminal behavior by protecting her a bad thing?


I am not against all those things, and I do think that is up to a parent to talk to their kid about, along with those stuff I mentioned above about some responsibility should be put on those who may host an event. If a parent tells their child that they will take their phone away that the parent pays for if the child goes to a party that the parent doesn't agree with, or was caught doing something illegal, then all the power to them. Although, I have heard certain access to things like the internet are more important now than when I was a kid, I can't really pass a judgement. And I respect the idea of cops finding a teenager having done something illegal , and take them home to their parents to receive some discipline. I am more iffy on the idea on say a police officer know that their neighbour doesn't like their "son" wearing feminine clothes, and if said police officer saw them walking around a skirt the officer would force kid back home to be punished. To create an example of the law being used control expression like what someone wore.

But backing up a bit to earlier in your post here, the thing to do about boys seeing girls, is education and changing the culture. Now, I want to make sure this idea is distinct from something like purity culture, because I think that really only works to do things like mystify things like sex and sexualise any women/girls that don't adhere to whatever standards like they are objects. You have comprehensive sex education so all genders can be as informed as possible, and aware of boundaries and what their "powers" are in a situation.

We end the culture of dudes being congratulated for conquering gals, the same way we stop shaming gals for being with dudes. It is really only given so much power because they are treated so differently between the genders, that girls have to keep on their and boys have to lose them. Of course there is always something like a power imbalance common to the gender, one penetrating the other, but we can always deemphasise these mindsets that boys are winning something over who they are entering.

Of course, I can't entirely account for what part hormones may be involved in this discussion, I have experienced the hormones typical for a guy in strong urges in libido, and it can suck. But a lot can be done to stop things like women/girls from being considered things like objects, such be ideas that damsel in distress can push.


_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall