Do you honestly like women?

[DVS]

.

 

[DVS]

Re: blowing the whistle

.

 

[Guest]

czarina of the thread

DVS-

In case you didn't notice... I am the czarina of this thread...

AND.... you're right, 'they' don't come in my mouth... HE does...

AND.... since I am extremely considerate and don't turn on lights when I get up to use the facilities in the middle of the night so I don't disturb my dearly beloved, I can't see the toilet when I go to sit down...

AND... will you be so eager to go down on your girlfriend after she just sat in the toilet?
b

 

[TheEarl]

I grew up with several sisters. Leaving the toilet seat down is something of a self-preservation technique .

It's actually got to a habit where I just put it down every time I use it.

The Earl

 

[DVS]

I grew up with several sisters. Leaving the toilet seat down is something of a self-preservation technique .

It's actually got to a habit where I just put it down every time I use it.

The Earl

Oh, I had several sisters (and no brothers), too. But, I broke from their grip when I moved out of my parent's house, many years ago. Ah, freedom!

 

[Pookie]

My younger sister and I properly trained our older brother about proper "bathroom etiquette" while growing up. I remember a time not too long after he and his wife were married when she thanked us for "preparing him for adulthood" while we were joking about the issue. My brother took it as a joke, but I knew she was very serious about her gratitude. I'm sure it helped avoid some early marital strife.

NOW ... back to the thread's original purpose ...

when a woman's pleasure or desires are ignored or seen to only derive from pleasing a man, does that dehumanize the female character?

I believe it does dehumanize the character. Even in a D/s relationship, the needs of a woman are not ignored, just not dealt with in a "typical" way, but they are dealt with normally. However, I have read some stories where the woman might as well have been a blown-up doll.

I honestly think this signals a potential issue(s) the author may have with women in real life. I think we all tend to write based on our knowledge, experiences, feelings, desires, etc. When I see story after story treating women the same way, I do begin to believe that it is a look into the personality of the author in regards to how he views women. I'm sure there are exceptions though.

Pookie

 

[Svenskaflicka]

I've been with guys who didn't care about my orgasm, only their own. I'm supposed to be multi-orgasmic, but with such aguy, I only have time to come about 3-4 times!

This was during a rather bad period of my life, when I let myself get taken advantage of. Thinking back, I admit that it was 50% my own fault, for not kicking the bastards out of the bed, telling them to get lost and never bother me again.

Finally, I got myself together and did just that, and I don't let anyone take advantage of me anymore. Shortly after I did that, I met the man who's now my hubby, and never have I met a man who has treated me as good as he does. We're not just lovers, we're also best friends, and he treats me with the respect you treat your best friend.

What I'm trying to say is that we're all 50% responsible for the things that happen to us. If we allow others to dehumanize us, then they will do it. If we want to remain human beings, we have to fight for it. You can only get respect if you demand it.

 

[gauchecritic]

I have read some stories where the woman might as well have been a blown-up doll.

I honestly think this signals a potential issue(s) the author may have with women in real life. I think we all tend to write based on our knowledge, experiences, feelings, desires, etc. When I see story after story treating women the same way, I do begin to believe that it is a look into the personality of the author in regards to how he views women. I'm sure there are exceptions though.

Pookie

Thank fuck for that, the exceptions I mean.

But seriously, are you trying to say that a writer writes only about her/himself?, which is what you imply.

Or are you saying that 'I' the author cannot extrapolate or even invent how a person (whom we have invented) reacts to any given stimulus?

Maybe I shouldn't be saying this but I've written stories (not here on Lit) about some real bastards whom I would hate to meet in real life.

Characters take on a life of their own, things happen to them that never happened to the author, but we can imagine their consequences.

Do you by any chance favour the Stanislavski (sp) 'school' of method acting?

Never been that

Gauche

 

[Pookie]

Thank fuck for that, the exceptions I mean.

But seriously, are you trying to say that a writer writes only about her/himself?, which is what you imply.

Or are you saying that 'I' the author cannot extrapolate or even invent how a person (whom we have invented) reacts to any given stimulus?

Maybe I shouldn't be saying this but I've written stories (not here on Lit) about some real bastards whom I would hate to meet in real life.

Characters take on a life of their own, things happen to them that never happened to the author, but we can imagine their consequences.

Do you by any chance favour the Stanislavski (sp) 'school' of method acting?

Never been that

Gauche

I believe you are reading too much into what I said. I meant plots more than specific characters as well.

As an example of what I meant, if I read story after story where an author portrays a woman who is beaten savagely with no regard for her life by a man who seems to enjoy abusing women, I would tend to think that "signals a potential issue(s) the author may have with women in real life". Again, there are exceptions to this ... and it is ONLY signals of potential issues. And I didn't say what those issues may be either. It could be a number of things. He may hate women, he may know someone who hates women, he may be a serial killer of women, he may have lost his wife to a savage killer, he may be a virgin, etc.. any number of things .. only the author knows. But I think it does point to something, because the topic is definately an interest to the author who repeatedly writes about it. There is definately a fixation by the author on the topic. Just as an incest writer has an interest, to some degree or another, in incest if they repeatedly write about it.

But I do believe you can see signs of an author's personality in their stories and characters. They originate from the author. It is inevitable that certain characteristics will follow the characters and plots they create at times. I use events and things that have happened to me in my own stories frequently. Sometimes I don't. But characters tend to react to things many times the way I would react to a given situation, if I was put in that situation.

I don't believe that an author writes only about themselves. I write about people that couldn't possibly be me or my personality. But I think you see personality traits in many of my characters at times, especially how they may react to a specific situation. My characters could react very differently to something compared to how I think I would react. I don't think that someone who writes about murderers has traits of a murderer, but I think you can see some of their own personality traits given to their characters. Again, it's not absolute. There are probably many many exceptions to this.

But, I do think someone who writes exclusively about a certain thing has a real interest in it too .. for good or bad reasons. Only the author knows for sure.

I like my stories to have a happy ending. Not all of them will, but a larger proportion will. I think frequent readers of my stories could pick up on my happy ending trend and see that personality trait in me.

 

[curious2c]

I am a lot like Pookie__grrl. I like my stories to have happy endings also. Sometimes, they characters that I write into the story are very...well...bad people. I do get some feedback from time to time about my impossible storyline, but they also usually include how they would have dumped her or he would have been so dead, or other comments. That shows me that the reader took my story as realistic, even though it is just a story.

Because of my 'happy ending' personal thing, I tend to try to see the whole story from the female perspective as much as I can. Considering that I am a male...well it can be difficult at times. That is why when that one person accused me of hating women, it gave me pause for thought. Now I can look back on that and realize that was never the case. But it took coming to this thread and asking outright about it for me to see.

I have gotten feedback from a couple of individuals who I question why they came to read my stories to begin with. They sounded like fundalmentalist Christians on a crusade to clean up the net. Go figure.

In real life, problems in marriages that are similar to my stories will more often than not, end in divorce at the very least. Even I don't know if I could handle a female wife character like in my story and keep the marriage together. Forces me to think quite a bit about life, people, sex, and love. I guess that is a good thing in the long run.

 

[bridgeburner]

Have to weigh in on the blow job thing again. Any guy that thinks all women willing to suck his cock are just dying to get blasted with a faceful of cum is a moron, but at the same time the ultimate result of sucking a guy's cock is ejaculation, so if a woman doesn't want it in her mouth she should speak up --- the same as if she didn't want the guy to come in her vagina.

Honestly, if a guy can achieve orgasm through fellatio (sorry, cuckold) , the general rule of thumb is that he'd rather come inside than out. Knowing what the preference is the burden of speaking up is on the person who prefers something else.

It's kind of like ordering a Big Mac. It automatically comes with special sauce unless you specify otherwise.


Back on real topic. Pookie said:

As an example of what I meant, if I read story after story where an author portrays a woman who is beaten savagely with no regard for her life by a man who seems to enjoy abusing women, I would tend to think that "signals a potential issue(s) the author may have with women in real life". Again, there are exceptions to this ... and it is ONLY signals of potential issues. And I didn't say what those issues may be either. It could be a number of things. He may hate women, he may know someone who hates women, he may be a serial killer of women, he may have lost his wife to a savage killer, he may be a virgin, etc.. any number of things .. only the author knows.

and "he" may be a "she". It's a mistake to think that only men write or read stories about brutality and non-consent.

I agree with your point that someone who writes or reads exclusively or even predominantly one type of story is revealing something about his/her personality, but what exactly that may be is up to the licensed professionals to determine.

I think people reveal far more about themselves on the boards---whether or not they intend to.

 

[Pookie]

and "he" may be a "she". It's a mistake to think that only men write or read stories about brutality and non-consent.

I agree with your point that someone who writes or reads exclusively or even predominantly one type of story is revealing something about his/her personality, but what exactly that may be is up to the licensed professionals to determine.

I think people reveal far more about themselves on the boards---whether or not they intend to.

I agree completely that "he" could easily be a "she". It was just my example is all.

And I do agree with the remainder of what you say as well. It's hard not to let your personality, views and bias spill out at times, even unintendedly. Part of being human.

Pookie

 

[sweetnpetite]

I usually hit the back-button as soon as I read a word like "slut", "whore" or "bitch".

Such misogyni turns me off.


(Wow! I used a 4-syllable word in a sentence!)

My stories are FULL of words like that! (Guess its the masocist in me) I'm a bit meaner in the stories I write than in the ones I like to read, though. I try to avoid writers who seem to have absolutley no self respect. Being submissive is one thing, if its what you like, but if you think its the only way to attract attention, or you have zero sense of self worth, its just icky. I tend to focus more on what I think the writers real attitude is- a lot of people I think write things that are quite opposite of what they are really like.

 

[sweetnpetite]

If a guy wants me to swallow his cum, he must have a spoon of it himself first, so he will know what it is he's asking me to do.

If a guy wants to fuck me anally, he has to let me shove a dildo up his ass first, so he will know what it is he's asking me to do.

And a guy who wants me to try a threesome with another woman, has to go through a threesome with another man first.

So he will know what it is he's asking me to do.

you go girl!

 

[sweetnpetite]

Dr. M. That is quite possibly the most degrading sexist statement I've seen here at lit! It's a horrid and inaccurate generalization.

Had you said "some" instead of "most" I wouldn't have blinked an eye, but to say "most men" is just plain wrong. It isn't true. It's a sick stereotype that demeans men.

Sorry, but I find it objectionable, so I'm here objecting!

BigTexan

Oh PLEASE

 

[sweetnpetite]

Re: control

I am interested in is the concept that men"handle" overwhelming feelings with "violence, hatred and resentment". This disturbs me.

No one can make someone feel anything. My feelings are my responsibility. While my kids' behavior may irritate me, it is my choice as to whether I will become angry or lose my temper. Yes, it is my responsibility to deal with their behavior, but sometimes it is just kids being kids and I need to deal with my emotions.

Unless you are willing to concede that men are unable to control their emotions, I am unwilling to accept as reasonable any of these responses. I am not saying they have to control their initial reaction, just their chosen response.

It seems that these responses are men projecting their self-hatred and blame for their lack of control onto women.

b

and, no, I am not a feminist

A. "It seems these responses are men projecting their self hatred and blame their lack of control onto women.:

agreed- and so its been since the begining of time

B. What's wrong with being a feminist?

 

[sweetnpetite]

Re: Re: dominating vs degrading

I must admit I feel honored. And, I consider that story to be rather mild BDSM, maybe "couples BDSM", if I may coin such a term.

This story was actually a role play I had with a friend, and she set the scene. I then wrote the story from memory. A lot of what happened was her idea, or my idea with her "Okay". That is part of why I call this "couples BDSM".

And, as a clarification, she didn't "show her butt", he forced her into that through her submission. But, if you mean she showed her mean personality at the party by saying "showed her butt", that is true. This scenario was her idea in the role play.

In contrast, 'The Box' was my creation, alone. It is a bit darker or vicious, but still a couple living in the BDSM lifestyle. Discipline is involved, and a bit rougher than in 'Party Favors'. Still, there is no demeaning treatment of the woman, no debasement, no "out of character actions" that would lead the reader to think this couldn't actually happen in a real BDSM couple's life.

A further clarification of what I mean by "couples BDSM" is the woman is never mistreated beyond the limits she has set. The submissive sets limits she will NOT go beyond and as we all know, this can vary greatly in different relationships.

My stories sometimes include electro play, because I do so in real life. This is so in 'The Box'. But, with literary license, everything can be trumped up to seem more vicious than it really is.
Most writers know this as a tool to use, and it can take the reader into areas they would only venture in their fantasies, and not ever attempt in real life. This can be accomplished by the actions and reactions of the story characters.

In actuality, electro play isn't usually as vicious as it was in 'The Box', but it can be. There are extremes in everything. These extremes are what I use, without going over the edge into abuse. Of course, this must come from a real life knowledge of what is happening in the story, to be seen as real to the reader. There is an obvious give and take that is always there. And, the word abuse is seen differently by everyone.

This is what I meant by saying write what you know, because it will seem more real to the reader, because it is based on truth.

Now, I say all of this, but I do have a couple of stories in the writing stage where the woman is a victim. I don't know as yet, but these will probably be posted in the Non-consent area for certain reasons. This has yet to be determined. But, even in these stories, there is no out of character words of debasement, although the plot requires some of this to be true to itself.

In one story, there are 4 women experiencing the same thing, with 4 different reactions. This is so because not everybody views things in the same way. Be true to life, if you want the reader to believe it.

I guess what I am meaning by all of this is there are things that can be done to make a story seem to be worse than it is, without actually using words like slut, whore, and bitch. I don't see a need for this in my stories, even though there are some stories where I know it is needed.

I hope I haven't taken this thread from the direction it was intended, but I did want to make these distinctions. Everything is in the eye of the individual. That should be remembered in the writing process, so it can be lived in the reading process.

I have no objection whatsoever to "words of debasement" but it is a little more interesting to read a story that manages to get the point accross without them. I think I've personally come to rely on them a little too much, both in my writhing and in my sex life- but then I really like that "naughty" feeling. Its a turn on becuae its taboo. I still remember when I was young and afraid to say "fuck" during the act, and could barely whisper "harder" without blushing. There's something freeing in being able to call up those "dirty words" at will, but at some point, I suppose its good to move past that -at least some of the time

 

[sweetnpetite]

Re: "Boys will be boys"

Whose responsibility is it then, to make sure he doesn't attack a woman and rapes her? Her own? By not wearing sexy clothes? Like in Iran, where women must wrap themselves up in order not to tempt the poor men, who will be victims of incontrollable lusts?



By using a phrase like "boys will be boys", we pat rapists on the head and say "He couldn't help it, she looked so sexy, he got horny, poor thing". I actually don't give a cat poop about how much pain he's in when he sees a sexy woman and gets blue balls, he has no right to rape the woman or be rude to her verbally, and if he does, he deserves to be punished for the pain he has made her suffer!

The pain he feels when he gets a hard-on is nothing like the pain she feels after being raped! His pain passes within half an hour, hers stay with her for the rest of her life - unless she ends it.

Absolutely! Totally! I agree!

"A short scenario for you...A woman walking down the street will meet a male walking the other way. A man will see her and appreciate her in a respectable way. A boy would see the same woman and something less respectable could happen.

Both man and boy may be thinking the same thing in their sexual minds, but only one can take the next step and control what his body wants."

Man, boy. Doesn't matter, both are still responsible for there own actions. A boy who committs murder will often times find himself being tried as an adult. It's a rediculous double standard for it to be any different because a woman is involved. It is the old --very old- strategy for men to blame woman when they are the one's that have fucked up. According to your scenerio, if you fuck up your a boy, if you don't your a man. (the guy can't loose) Sorry, but if you fuck up, you fuck up. Period.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Re: Re: "Boys will be boys"

You missunderstand what I am trying to say. It is the boy's responsibility to not rape the girl. But, because a boy will not always accept that responsibility and blame the way the girl was dressed, the girl should at least be aware of this fact and possibly be more in control of her fate by watching what she wears in some cases.

This should not be necessary, but it is a fact, just the same. I brought up the phrase "boys will be boys" to help explain a point. This situation has been ongoing for many years. That is how the phrase got started in the first place. It does not condone the actions of the boys, it only voices what has and will continue to happen.

Be aware of what is out there. Know what is possible. Dressing in a certain way should not be the cause for rape or any other form of confrontation. What it does is help create a target for the mental mind that doesn't (for one reason or another) control his response.

Sure, you can continue to go out in provocative dress and not be concerned about the result. That is how it should be. It's the pure and perfect world I spoke of before. But, you are also more likely to be the victim, if you do not use a little common sense and know when to do this and when not to. Don't you think it is better to be in control of your own situation?

Also, rape is a control offense, not a sexual offense. Situation plays a lot in who is raped and who isn't. But, by what you wear, you can become a target in the warped mind of a rapist.

What about the nuns grannies and little girls (and boys) who are in no way dressed provocotively who are raped? By even giving credence to the phrase "boys will be boys" you reinforce the idea in *some men's minds* that what they do will be accepted or excused, thereby promoting the idea, and the act. A smart preditor who would have gladly rapped a little old lady, may go after an attractively dressed lady instead, not becausse he couldn't control his raging hormones- but because he knows that in todays society, he is more likely to get away with it.

Also, I am not a believer in "all men are raposts" but I do think that all sex is fundamentally violent on its most basic level, so to say that sex is about power and violence and not sex, is really missing the point. (not that you said that, but I hear it all the time)

 

[sweetnpetite]

Also, I am not a believer in "all men are rapests" but I do think that all sex is fundamentally violent on its most basic level, so to say that sex is about power and violence and not sex, is really missing the point. (not that you said that, but I hear it all the time)

MY BAD, YOU DID SAY THAT (RAPE IS ABOUT POWER)

 

[sweetnpetite]

Okay, this thread is making my blood boil in many ways.

First off DVS and Dr. M. do not speak for most men.

A MAN knows how to control himself.
A MAN doesn't have uncontrollable urges.
A MAN doesn't rape women or even fantasize about raping women.

This shit about "Men have urges they can't control" is just that. It's shit!

Yes when I see a pretty woman, I admire her beauty. That doesn't lessen her value and it doesn't hurt her. I don't have "uncontrollable urges" to fuck her. I don't get "blue balls" if I don't fuck her. I'm in no physical pain and I'm not even uncomfortable around her. And of all the men I know, I only personally know one who claims any of that shit. And he is a complete fucking idiot and an asshole!

On to other topics. Is it right for a man to hit a woman? If he is protecting himself or his property from real threat and there is no other way for him to achieve that protection then YES.

Violence should always be a last resort, but any person has the right to protect him/her self against real harm. Why should a woman be treated differently? Why should a man be expected to allow a woman to stab him to death and not protect himself? He shouldn't.

On to rape. There is no excuse for rape. MEN do not rape women. Monsters rape women. Human animals of the male gender rape women. These pieces of shit are not MEN and they should NOT be given the same rights as men. They are monsters and should be treated accordingly. My perscription is public physical castration without benefit of medical aid and then public crusifiction until such time as their skeletons fall from the crosses. If we did that I suspect that even DVS and Dr. M. would suddenly find their urges to be much more controllable.

BigTexan

WOW, you said a mouthful! I agree with much of what you said. I especially like the part about the guy who is an asshole!

About violence towards women. I am a little old fashioned on this. I think a man should NEVER hit a woman (violently and non-consentually I speak of) However, when a woman attacks you (not slaps, or hits, but attacks- you should know the difference between which is which and which requires you to defend your self) she is no longer a WOMAN, but an ATTACKER, and you should defend yourself in what ever manner you deem neccessary. I kicked a guy and he punched me- hard. I didn't hurt him in the slightest by the way and I am 4' 10 1/2 inches tall, he was above average height. Unless I have a weapon, I think it is more than sufficent for any guy to prevent me from hitting him, without hitting me back. For my part, I should have handled the situation differently, I won' t claim otherwise. But I maintain that he was completly out of line. (I didn't attack him either, he refused to leave my house when I asked him to)

 

[sweetnpetite]

You can never protect yourself from rape. If you think that you'll be safe by wearing nice but not attractive clothes, and never walk alone at night, and never flirt with a stranger, you're fooling yorself. There is no safety. There never has been.

Rapists aren't masked bandits hiding in the dark night waiting for a prey in short skirt.
The father of 3 kids, who has been your neighbour for 13 years, who comes by at noon, and asks if he can borrow a cup of sugar - he can be a rapist.
The priest, who hasn't touched a woman in 55 years, because he has devote dhis life to God - he can be a rapist.
The principle at your children's school, who asks you to come and discuss little Timmy's slipping grades - he can be a rapist.

You can never know, never protect yourself. By thinking you can, by following certain rules and rituals, you're only making yourself vunerable for the clever ones.

so sad and so true.
and by giving any one of them a pass because "boys will be boys' or becuase a woman dressed provocatively, makes us all a little less safe than we already are.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Being Gauche I think I'll have to step in here and say what everyone who has posted on this thread has studiously avoided saying.

Are girls who 'dress up' (for whatever reason) asking for it if they are the subject of diminution, from cat-calls to rape.

Well let's ask this question. Why do girls (and indeed men) 'dress up'?

In the majority of cases, however much you may disagree, it is to appear attractive in order to procreate. This is basic.

You may argue that it makes you feel good. It makes you feel good to be attractive. It raises your self-esteem. Because it makes you attractive. You are a lesbian and want to attract women. It still makes you attractive.

Attractive is the operative word.

This is basic, however modern society isn't basic. For the most part it is cultured, educated and aware.

This is where the dichotomy begins.

It is the right of every Woman (and man) to feel and appear attractive yet at the same time to NOT be in fear of the very same thing.

As for the power struggle, women have, and will always have the greater power over men, because it is they who are biologically capable of procreating. Everything else is just muscle.

Gauche

This makes me think of something that occured to me today. I think that for men, the purpose of dating is sex. Whereas for woman, the purpose of dating is to get to know someone. Some women do just want sex, but since men are usually pretty easy (sorry Tex) they don't have to date- they just have to find someone and "pick them up" or get 'picked up' I don't think theres anything wrong with that, I just think that we should be aware of it. Men and women often times just don't realize how differently they are thinking about things- that's where we get into a lot of trouble. They/ we just assume that we are thinking the same things.

 

[sweetnpetite]

To me a slut is a woman who is promiscuous. Not a bad thing IMHO (not taking the piss. Being serious here).

What's your interpretation of bitch? I can only see that as negative.

The Earl

What is promiscuous? [serious question]

What do you call a man who is promiscuous?

How many partners makes a man promiscuous vs. how many makes a woman promiscuous?

**I would like answers, but my point is we don't even use the word promiscuous to refer to men, and if we do need to identify a woman as such (which we don't - because a 'promiscuous' woman is a woman who 'is in charge of her sexuality' because she doesn't allow someone else (probably male) deside for her how many sexual partners she is 'allowed' to have) but if we did, couldn't we then just use the word 'promiscuous'?

A bitch is a woman who also doesn't allow someone else to deside for her when she is allowed to be upset, bossy, or any damn other way she wants to feel or behave. "Bitch" is what you call a woman when you want to control her. You think she needs to soften up. A woman who is offended by that word will then bend over backwards to prove that she is not a bitch (been there done that) a woman who is impowered by that word will know that you are the one with a problem if you use that word, because you are upset that you cannot control her behavior or that she has not conformed to your standard. In short, she knows that she has got it right.

sweet_and_bitchy

 

[sweetnpetite]

Re: Re: I have snipped quite a lot of this quote, mind you!

What you think I mean is because boys will be boys, girls should be responsible for not arousing them to temptation. And, if a girl is acosted, it is then her fault, because she knows boys don't always act responsibly.

This is not what I am saying. Boys should be responsible, and that is the first and foremost thing that should happen. But, because this doesn't always happen, don't you think girls could be aware of this fact and be prepared? Erotic dress brings an awareness to them, that might not otherwise be. Boys have it in their minds that a girl who dresses this way is either wanting it, or asking for it. Of cours, this is not the correct way to think, but until a boy learns otherwise, the girl is a target. He may be put in jail for rape or sexual abuse, but the girl's mental stability is then damaged. Don't you think she should be aware of the creeps out there, and know how to control them by her actions, if the law and the boy's actions do not?

You jump to conclusions here. All I say by saying what has happened and will continue to happen is this all if a fact of life. Nothing will change without someone taking charge of the situation and doing something about it. I agree with you about the way society sees the boy's feelings as natural, because they are. BUT, the fact they sometimes can't control these feelings is NOT natural. The problem is worsened because society seems to condone sex abuse by looking the other way when the boy was "only doing what he does naturally." Then they say the girl asked for it, either by the way she was dressed, the way she was acting or just because she was there and available to him. This happens far too often. Most men (and again I say men because I assume a man has mentally grown to understand and cope with his feelings) will understand their feelings and act accordingly in these situations. But, a boy (with a boy's sexually imature mind) can have a problem with even understanding what is right and wrong. Of course this is still the boy's problem and his fault if he acts on his feelings, but who is ultimately hurt? The girl. I just think it is best for the girls to know the score and be able to control a situation where nobody else seems to be doing the job.

This sort of goes along with the above. I am not trying to shift blame from the rapist or abuser to the victim. But because this male dominated society can be corrupt sometimes, I think the girls should be able to take the next step and watch out for themselves. What they wear shouldn't be an invitation, but there are creeps out there who see it as that. It is sort of like defensive driving. You don't drive along, staying in your lane, and assume all others will be doing the same. You watch for a possible bad situation and drive around it, if you can.

This doesn't mean dress in a long dress and not to wear makeup, etc. It just means be aware of your situation and be able to second guess the creeps.

I completely agree with you on this. But, although rape is a control offense, dress can be a factor. No, it isn't the only factor, and it isn't a reason someone is raped. But, it could be the reason someone is seen in the first place and the thought to act (which was already in the rapist's mind and he's looking) can then be steered to her. This is not a fact, it is just one possibility.

Yes, any woman can be raped, young and old. Depending on how great the feeling to rape is, the rapist will go for the most defenselss victim possible.

Above all that I have said, the male who takes advantage of a woman for his pleasure, without her consent is always in the wrong. The woman who is the victim is never so because of something she has done.

Personally, I like to see a woman in a sexy dress or whatever. But, I am not a rapist. Never even had the tendency in my mind. But, I know males who have had the tendency but didn't act. Many times, it was the way the girl was dressed that caught their attention.

Would this have ever turned into a rape situation? Who knows. Maybe yes, and maybe no. BUT, if someone can do something to stave off sexual abuse or a rape, I think they should at least have the option to do so. If they don't, it is not a crime at all. But, in some situations, it might be the factor that stops something from happening in the first place.

Woman shouldn' t be tought how to dress. They should be tought how to kick some serious ass on anyone who thinks that they are a good little "weak" target.