REAL STORIES
BY REAL PEOPLE Search
Wednesday, December 13, 2017

Nobody's Body but Hers

Credit: patriotic gspot
This scantily, but patriotically clad beauty is expressing herself, not confessing to immorality nor inviting attack.
watch the video

The fact that one has a penis is neither a mandate, nor a license, nor an excuse for being a dick.

Two recent developments show that a nation “conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal” has a long way to go before full civil rights and civil liberties and complete human equality applies to its female residents and citizens in the minds of many. One of these is a growing protest phenomenon by the title Slut Walk. This began in Toronto, Canada, and has spread globally. The other calls itself, Personhood USA and its “primary mission is to serve Jesus by advocating for pre-born children.

The inspiration for Slut Walk is a remark by a Toronto police officer to a personal security class that “women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized.” The initial protest response formed around the premise that regardless of what they wear no women are asking for rape. The attitude expressed in the police officer’s remark is depressingly common although less frequently explicitly stated. In fact, the only thing that exceeds the persistence of this attitude is its abysmal stupidity.

Before proceeding let us define our terms. Rape is forced sexual intercourse. It may involve a male forcing himself on a female or a male forcing himself on another male. A special category known as statutory rape focuses on the ages of the victim and the attacker and may not entail the use of force. In theory at least, a female could force herself on another female and some say upon a male, but the focus of concern here is male attacks upon females. All rape victims suffer trauma to a greater or lesser extent if they experience actual rape as opposed to merely alleged rape. Therefore, no woman actually wants to be raped and no woman is asking for it regardless of her attire at any given moment.

Women may dress in a way that attracts attention. Women frequently dress in ways they believe are attractive and may consider daring and provocative. Males may concur that a woman’s choices in attire are attractive, daring, or provocative. Regardless of the intentions of women and the opinions of males, an outfit is neither a confession of depravity nor a declaration of open season. Outfits worn by women [and men for that matter] are forms of personal expression. For example, the lovely, young, patriotic woman in the image with this article is not admitting to loose morals and she is not welcoming an attack. She is simply showing a body more deserving of adornment than concealment. This is her choice and we should leave her to it and, perhaps, thank her for it.

Males of quality champion full female equality. There are few more dishonorable actions than efforts by men to exercise power and influence to keep women in a subjugated status. This sort of behavior is bad enough in countries such as Saudi Arabia, but when it happens in a nation that boasts of its commitment to equal liberty under law it is intolerable. Women are fully the equal of men in their humanity and if they are American citizens, women have all the civil liberties and civil rights that male American citizens enjoy. Any practices, prejudices, precepts or provisions that deny complete equality to women deserve nothing except opposition, disputation, and refutation. Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid and defense of their female compatriots whether these are wives, lovers, daughters, sisters, mothers, friends, acquaintances, or unknown people in news reports.

In one sense, the attitude to which Slut Walk is responding is a more superficial assault on full recognition and respect for the complete humanity and [for Americans] citizenship of women than that perpetrated by Personhood USA. This organization, which declares its primary mission is to serve Jesus, seeks to pass legislation in various states that confer the status of a person with the attendant legal rights on zygotes.

Again, let us define the terms. A zygote is the initial cell formed when an ovum and a sperm join. A zygote is a single cell. Because the best estimates for cells in an adult human body range from 50 to 100 trillion, one would be reasonable to hope the absurdity of this legislation is self-evident. Unfortunately, many state legislatures, mostly in the south, take these proposals seriously. Personhood legislation criminalizes abortion and some forms of birth control. Zygotes are designated separate persons from the mother. Many doctors assert such legislation would ban in vitro fertilization and prohibit medical assistance to women with critical pregnancy complications such as ectopic pregnancies.

The term zygote is often carelessly used to refer to the group of cells formed by the first few cell divisions [1, 2, 4, 16, 64], but these should be called a morula. A zygote is always synthesized from the union of two gametes [sex cells] and it constitutes the first stage in a unique organism’s development. A zygote contains DNA from both the female and male sex partner and provides all the genetic information necessary to develop a new, viable member of the species. If the male and female involved were human beings, then the zygote would contain the genetic material needed to develop a new, viable human being. Despite this genetic endowment, a single cell organism is not a 50 to 100 trillion-cell organism. For that matter, a 64-cell organism is not either. A human zygote exists for about four days. On roughly the fifth day, the zygote matures into a blastocyst from which the embryo and placenta ultimately form. The developing organism is called an embryo until about eight weeks after fertilization and from then on the organism is called a fetus.

At the start of the fetal stage, the fetus is usually about 1.2 inches long and weighs about 8 grams. Movements that simulate breathing are necessary to lung development, but no oxygen is obtained. The head is roughly half the size of the organism and the heart, hands, feet, brain, and other organs are present but they are only beginning development and have minimal operation.

If we consider that personhood indicates the state or condition of being a human individual with all attendant moral and legal rights, it should be clear that neither a single-cell organism nor a sixty-four cell organism has the capability of rational thought and moral agency. It is also dubious that such miniscule and comparatively simple organisms are self-aware. A zygote formed by the union of a human female’s ovum and a human male’s sperm is unquestionably a human organism, but it is not demonstrably a person.

Why would Personhood USA and their allies want to confer personhood on zygotes? They wish to “serve Jesus according to their declarations. “Personhood USA desires to glorify Jesus Christ in a way that creates a culture of life so that all innocent human lives are protected by love and by law.” Unfortunately, the people at Personhood USA do not love living females enough to avoid using the law against them. They also further or reinforce the subjugation of female human beings, but they fail to declare or even acknowledge this. The Personhood USA site does not readily disclose the identity of the organization’s leaders, but it does advertise a “must have personhood book” and the author is Daniel Becker. The title is Personhood: A Pragmatic Guide to Prolife Victory in the 21st Century and the Return to First Principles in Politics. Apparently, the First Amendment prohibition on laws respecting the establishment of religion does not qualify as a first principle of politics for the Personhood USA folks.

People are entitled to have the religious views they find true and hold dear. However, patriotic American citizens who hold the precepts of the Constitution to be the first principles of American politics must insist that sectarian beliefs stay out of legislation. As much as religious American citizens may wish to write their sectarian beliefs into law, the true American political scripture denies their right to do so. This is a Republic, not a theocracy, and all of us benefit from keeping it so.

The personhood law efforts are simply extreme forms of campaigns to deny full human equality to females and/or full citizenship rights to American women. The more familiar initiatives persist to limit or eliminate women’s access to reproductive health care. The pretext is a desire to prevent abortions, which allegedly equate with murder. Almost all people who advocate interference with or prevention of female access to reproductive health care, do so from a religious premise. Frequently, “my religion does not permit abortion” or words to that effect express the premise. To reiterate, people are constitutionally entitled to hold the religious beliefs they think best, but they are not constitutionally entitled to enact their particular views into law. Ironically, many people who assert their religion prohibits abortion do so while blatantly violating other known prohibitions of the religion they profess. For example, one woman asserted her religion prohibited abortion and had six children born out of wedlock. To the best of my knowledge, the religion this woman practiced also prohibits fornication. Did her six children result from Immaculate Conception?

Furthermore, one cannot assert that merely having sexual intercourse is tantamount to intending to become pregnant or to impregnate. Many studies have indicated that pregnancy only results if intercourse happens within a six-day interval prior to and including the day of ovulation. Because the typical female cycle is twenty-eight days, this means there is roughly a 22% known probability of pregnancy in the abstract before any instance of intercourse. Any action where the odds are about 4 to 1 against something happening does not indicate an intention for the less probable outcome to happen. People who have intercourse do not thereby demonstrate their intention to initiate a pregnancy, even though they must recognize the possibility. If one is the male partner and one’s character is so bereft of honor, then one does not deserve to be on her. If one’s inner self is so shallow and barren as to care nothing about one’s partner, then one does not deserve to be in her. At this most intimate encounter, it is time for all good men to come to the aid of their intimates. Any man who cannot be supportive and helpful in the event of an unintended pregnancy deserves only four letters in response – STFU.

Once an unintended pregnancy [or an intended one for that matter] has begun, men who are men and not merely males play a supportive role for the female. Other people beyond the partners can have their opinions, but they cannot impose these on the pregnant woman without blatantly denying the full human equality and full citizenship rights of that woman. Once again, the woman’s body is nobody’s body but hers. She is the pregnant person, and she is the person who should have full control over the decisions about the duration and course of the pregnancy.

In the second decade of the twenty-first century, with all the daunting challenges facing the Republic, more than a few good men and millions of good, beautiful, loving women need to put their heads, hearts, and hands together on behalf of full equality for women. If it happens we cannot be with the ones we love in every moment of this struggle, we should love the ones we are with. Let us resoundingly declare enough is enough. Get your hands off the bodies of our wives, sisters, daughters, lovers, friends and all other women. Live your lives as you see fit and let them live theirs in the same way. Women are human too, smart, sexy, wonderful human beings; it is time to treat them that way all the time!



About the Writer

Caballero_69 is a writer for BrooWaha. For more information, visit the writer's website.
Want to write articles too? Sign up & become a writer!

18 comments on Nobody's Body but Hers

Log In To Vote   Score: 0
By NewHope4Us on June 15, 2011 at 03:24 am

Much as I agree with the logic presented here I must confess it is not pragmatic as well as being merely academic. For example, I grew up a white male in New York City. On occasion I found myself in Harlem; sometimes even at night. It is my right to publicly open my wallet and count my money at midnight in Harlem. In so doing I am merely exercising my choice and I am in no way inferring nor implying that I wish to be robbed. And for the honest people around me there would be no problem. But what of the less than honest individuals whom I would be tempting? Tempting to rob and possibly harm me. Tempting to perhaps start a life of crime.

Likewise, a woman has the right to dress as she pleases. But wisdom dictates caution and to merely follow the logic of this article would be naïve as it tosses caution to the wind. Also the scripture admonishes us not to tempt another in their weakness. Would I pull out a carton of ice cream or a box of delicious donuts in front of a friend whose weakness for them now finds them on a diet? Would I take out a beer in front of an alcoholic friend? And if I found myself in a group and someone whispered into my ear to put the bottle of liquor away because so-and-so in the group has a problem with alcohol would I declare my right to exercise my choice in drinking or state that I was unaware as I put the bottle out of sight?

You say “Women frequently dress in ways they believe are attractive and may consider daring and provocative.”

Well there you go! “May Consider” It is as daring to dress provocatively before strangers whose reactions to your dress is unknown as it is for me to stand at midnight in Harlem and count my money! I could count my money before friends but it would be foolish to do so out in the open where I may be surprised by someone who may consider grabbing it as they ran by me. Likewise provocative dress amongst strangers whose beliefs and morals are unknown to you are just as foolish. And don’t get me started talking about the possible mentally deficient person who may consider provocative dress as a green light for……. well I better just stop here!

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 3
By Caballero_69 on June 15, 2011 at 10:27 am

NewHope4US,

Thank you for the thought provoking comments.

Here are the thoughts they provoked in me.

  • You must “confess it is not pragmatic.” Because the "it" I was championing is the recognition of the full human and civil equality, I take this to me it is not practical for men to make the choice to do so. I must confess I do not see why men could not practically adopt such a perspective and practice it.
  • You then say it is “merely academic”. It is interesting that you assert the idea of full human and civil equality for females is “merely academic” because the bigoted remark that prompted the Slut Walk protests in Canada and globally [Chicago, Boston, Southern California, London, and New Delhi] was made in an academic setting. Furthermore, as you have contrasted the academic and the pragmatic, it seems you are stipulating the idea of recognizing and respecting full human and civil equality for all females is “of no practical importance or use.”
  • I note you identify yourself as a white male and use Harlem as the setting for your counterexample. It is interesting that you do so. Nonetheless, you are correct that opening your wallet in no way implies that you welcome robbery. Thus, you make my point and it does not excuse the actions of the hypothetical robbers if they assert, “You were asking for it.”
  • “Likewise, a woman has a right to dress as she pleases.” Thank you! This is one part of my argument and I am glad you concur. What you characterize as wisdom, I contend is boorishness at best and blatant rationalization of abominable behavior at worst.
  • You assert naiveté regarding a woman exercising the right we agree she has; I believe those who would violate her right are demonstrating predatory and pigheaded behavior by doing so or thinking they are justified in doing so.
  • You trivialize the issue I raise by comparing scantily clad females to sweets as temptations for people who are dieting. Women are neither sweets nor temptations, they are full human beings with all the rights that entails.
  • While I have not studied it intensively, alcoholism is an affliction with which many suffer and struggle. No recovering alcoholic I have ever known has either suggested, or requested, or demanded the banning of alcohol at social gatherings they attend. They control their behavior and allow others to exercise their rights. Surely, males with no diagnosed affliction regarding sex could do likewise if they so chose.
  • My statement that women might believe that their attire is not only attractive, but also perhaps daring or provocative describes my surmise. As I am not and never have been a woman, I do not know this for certain, but it seems reasonable from my observations. You dismiss women who do so as foolish because they do not know the reactions of strangers. Because more people are strangers to any of us than are truly, known to us, should we all be paralyzed with doubt, concern, and dread? Should I have not written and posted this article because I did not know the reactions of strangers who may read it?
  • The thing with strangers is we do not know them. Why should one presume they are dangerous? Why as a white male do you presume you would be in danger in Harlem in the wee hours? What is there about Harlem that makes this example so compelling in your opinion? If women dressed at their most fetching and then visited a violent sex offender’s convention knowing it for what it was, I concede the probability of their rights of choice and expression being violated would increase. Do you see Harlem as being equivalent to a violent sex offenders’ convention for white males with visible money?
  • The beliefs and morals of strangers [as well as friends and family] are precisely what I am challenging. If guys harbor the beliefs and practice the morals that encourage and excuse them for attacking daringly or provocatively dressed females, they and not the females are wrong. If they need counseling they should get it; if they need medications, they should get them. The warped, misogynistic beliefs and defective morals of these strangers [or familiars] do not justify the predatory actions these cretins may commit. That is my point.
  • Roughly, half of humanity is female. I call for the other half to quit rationalizing despicable behavior and do the right thing – behave appropriately toward women with due regard for their rights. Two of the protestors in Slut Walk Toronto had relevant signs. One said, “I was wearing a sweater and pants. Is it my fault too?” The other said, “Ask me what I’m asking for.” Does not seem like a lot for one human being to ask of another.
  • By the way, what are you newly hoping for and who or what are US?
  • Thanks again for your comments and contributions to the conversation.
     Report abuse

    Log In To Vote   Score: 3
    By Caballero_69 on June 15, 2011 at 05:15 pm

    Melody,

    I appreciate your kind words. I fully concur, "A woman should have the right to walk down the street stark naked if she wants and still not be sexually assaulted."

    I am genuinely in favor of naked, but staunchly oppose assualt.

    It is way past time, for full recognition and respect for the complete human and civil equality of the better half of the species!

     Report abuse

    Log In To Vote   Score: 3
    By Caballero_69 on June 15, 2011 at 05:26 pm

    Cher,

    Statues of Justice, Liberty, and Victory have female form Whence comes the fair in fairness; why is liberty worth having? What is more worth fighting to win?

    Troglodytes persist in their repulsive attitudes and actions because they get or think they get something from them. Perhaps it is a delusion of power; perhaps it is a quelled conscience for things they have done; perhaps it is rampaging ignorance and runaway stupidity. Whatever their excuses / reasons, the guys have to make the commitment to recognize the full human and civil equality of the girls every day, ever time, every where.

    Beauty is its own excuse for being and men need to make sure the beautiful can safely favor us with the seeing. Then, all the other aspects of the article must be resolutely pursued and any rationalizations of disregard and disrespect for the rights of women must be disputed, refuted, and defeated.

    I will cherish the day when this article is a curiosity to any who read it.

    Larry

     Report abuse

    Log In To Vote   Score: 3
    By Caballero_69 on June 15, 2011 at 05:33 pm

    Life Riddles,

    "the right of any woman to be herself, to SHOW what she got or not is her right as human."

    You are so spot on accurate!

    It boggles my mind why somebody would even openly dispute the right of human beings to be and express themselves. This is particularly puzzling in a country which prides itself on declaring and defending the civil and human rights of individuals.

    People who follow a religious faith are welcome to it whatever it may be, but they have no right, in my sincere opinion, to impose their faith based percepts on anyone who does not voluntarily choose to conform with them.

    Theocracy is one form of oppressive govenment and Americans rejected that 222 years ago in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

    Patriotism if nothing else calls us to stand with our forebears on that point.

    Thanks for your comment!

     Report abuse

    Log In To Vote   Score: 2
    By Caballero_69 on June 15, 2011 at 06:29 pm

    TAZZone,

    You and I differ on what "the REALITY" we live with is. I believe the REALITY is people choose to behave in a reprehensible manner and seek to justify it by blaming the victim when the victim is a woman who chose to dress in a revealing manner.

    I mentioned the police officer because his remark ignited the protest movement. If he said what he is reported to have said, it is hardly unfair to cite his remark.

    People have the power to choose. Too many males choose to think and act in a manner that does not recognize and respect the complete human and civil equality of females. As long as males persist in this ignoble behavior, I will continue to designate it as such.

    The police forces have the onus of dealing with violations of women's rights. Their generic mission is to "serve and protect" not to slander and intimidate unless they operate under the direction of the Taliban or some other philosically mysoginistic band of brothers.

     Report abuse

    Log In To Vote   Score: 2
    By Caballero_69 on June 15, 2011 at 06:32 pm

    TAZZone,

    I am not trying to deny practical difficulties. I am trying to keep the focus where I contend it belongs, on the predatory behavior of males [for the most part] who have had cultural cover by impugning the character and conduct of females for far too long, in my candid opinion.

    Caballero_69

     Report abuse

    Log In To Vote   Score: 0
    By Dane Morgan on June 16, 2011 at 12:21 am

    I can completely agree that women should not have to fear rape, but the fact is there are bad guys out there. That said, what she was wearing has no bearing whatsoever, and certainly no complicity in the actions of the rapist. Should we believe that no women are ever raped in northern climes during the winter months when they tend to pretty well obscure their forms with warm protective clothing?

    The idea that violent rape is triggered by manner of dress is absurd on its face especially in light of the fact that we have known for many years now that rape is about control power, and rage not about sex.

    As to the second part of your article which has thus far been ignored, I find two things curious. The first is that I think trying to determine whether or not an organism is a person or an individual by counting it sells simply silly on its face. it is more striking when you insist on comparing fully formed adults with zygotes as though there are only the stages of embryogenesis and adulthood with no intervening states. I find the very idea of counting cells to determine personhood to be completely facile.

    Secondly, I suspect, based on the phrasing, that you used Wikipedia extensively to research embryogenesis and you go into great detail offering cell counts, durations spent in states, lengths and weights, all of which you take from the development of a specific species of zygote, but you carefully expunge any reference to "human zygote", "human embryo", which is required to make your statements accurate, because other mammals progress at different rates and contain different numbers of cells and spend different lengths of time in different stages of development.

    There is nothing wrong with having a particular political/social agenda, but when you craft your presentation of science in this way to present it, it diminishes your credibility with any thinking person.

     Report abuse

    Log In To Vote   Score: 3
    By Caballero_69 on June 16, 2011 at 07:25 am

    Dane,

    I am glad you recognize what a woman wears has no complicity in the actions of the rapist. Also, I know there are bad guys out there and it is good that you acknowledge that as well. My point is that the people who use the "She was asking for it" rationale are bad as well as those who attack women regardless of what they are wearing.

    If by silly, you mean frivolous, I assure you there is nothing frivolous about my contention. My point was to contrast the living people most people agree are persons with the object of the personhood legislation. While both may be included in the same species, they are not equivalent let alone identical.

    As to your finding the idea of counting cells to determine personhood complete facile, I presume you intend to characterize it as shallow or simplistic rather than easily accomplished. Allow me to share with you what I find to be both silly and facile in the sense I suspect you are using the terms. This is the ensoulment concept.

    Some people assert that the formation of a zygote represents the beginning of life, and that the single cell already has a soul. These people then argue ensoulment makes the zygote a person. They proceed from this premise to advocate legislation conferring or in their view recognizing the rights of this person. This is not merely facile, it is fatuous. Theology and sectarian creeds are taken far more seriously by far to many than their demonstrable veracity merits. People can believe and do believe all manner of things, but belief is not knowledge and piety is not proof.

    Others do not share this belief and often argue that theological concepts and sectarian beliefs are not the basis of public policy. These conflicting beliefs frequently cause political disputes and social agitation as citizens debate such topics as reproductive choice and stem cell research.

    As far as Wikipedia is concerned, I did follow the form of its presentation because I found it to be the most accessible approach which was also accurate. I judged its accuracy based on my on prior knowledge and reference to other sources. If you care to check some of them they appear below. The Abysmal had an interesting chart along with an array of symbols that seemed astrological. The chart caught my attention and is consistent with the information presented in the article.

    As to my credibility with any thinking person, there are many people I know to be thinkers who attest to my credibility and I will just have to endure the fact that you may think otherwise.

     Report abuse

    Log In To Vote   Score: 2
    By Caballero_69 on June 16, 2011 at 07:40 am

    Forgot the sites!

    http://www.ehow.com/how-does_5497232_stages-formation-human-baby.html

    http://theabysmal.wordpress.com/2008/11/26/human-gestation-time-and-the-stages-of-becoming/

    http://www.answers.com/topic/how-do-the-terms-zygote-embryo-and-fetus-differ

    http://www.livestrong.com/article/92683-embryo-fetus-development-stages/

     Report abuse

    Log In To Vote   Score: 4
    By Caballero_69 on June 16, 2011 at 09:06 am

    TAZZone,

    If communication was easy, the world would be a happier, more peaceful and prosperous place. Instead of repeating the word reality, let me try this.

    I do not dispute that males really do justify their deplorable behavior toward females with the "She was asking for it" canard. I am merely trying to keep the focus on what I contend to be the really lame and fallacious nature of this allegation.

    Human beings really do have a choice; human beings really are responsible for their actions. Women really are entitled by virtue of their humanity to full recognition and respect for their human and civil equality.

    I never contended that we live in utopia; my contention is that we, the living, can either continue to conform our behavior to the highest standard or change our behavior to begin doing so. As a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, a transfomation of society begins with a single choice.

    My intent in this article was to champion one such choice that I believe needs to be made by many now. Really, I do.

    I am unclear about whose children you are refering to, but I concede your right to make decisions for your children while they are in fact children.

    I think the people who got the Slut Walk protest up and running were not actually children although they were almost certainly younger women. Their youth is especially pronounced in regard to an old guy like me.

    Just to try for clarity one more time out of respect for your well stated comments. I recognize that miscreants roam the earth; I acknowledge women whatever they wear really are in danger from predators in human form. I assert that this really can change through [1] honorable choices by those who are capable of such and [2] incarceration or technological or chemical nuetralization of those who are incapable of such. My conviction is that we, males, have an inescapable ethical obligation to advocate verbablly and demonstrate practically our commitment to the full human and civil equality of the better half of the species.

    Thanks for your thoughtful remarks.

    Caballero_69

     Report abuse

    Log In To Vote   Score: 2
    By Caballero_69 on June 16, 2011 at 09:48 am

    TAZZone,

    Perhaps we are talking past one another.

    My point is simply, I do not accept the safety contention as a basis for taking the pressure off guys who would be predators to get their minds right and do right by the women in the world.

    Right at this moment, no male has any legitimate excuse to hold on to attitudes let alone perpetrate actions which jeopardize or ravage women.

    Caballero_69

     Report abuse

    Log In To Vote   Score: 3
    By Caballero_69 on June 16, 2011 at 11:05 am

    TAZZone,

    We probably will never agree on the proper referent for the words THE reality.

    Such is life!

    Caballero_69

     Report abuse

    Log In To Vote   Score: 2
    By Caballero_69 on June 16, 2011 at 11:27 am

    TAZZone,

    I submit we have been over this before.

    I believe you are wrong. If repeat youself until the Sun goes supernova, I will still beleive you are either fixated on an incorrect position or belaboring a point you will never make to me. Thereby wasting both your time and mine.

    I suggest we move on to more fruitful topics.

    ¿Usted entiende a mi amigo?

     Report abuse

    Log In To Vote   Score: 1
    By Caballero_69 on June 16, 2011 at 12:36 pm

    TAZZone,

    I submit we have been over this before.

    I believe you are wrong. If repeat youself until the Sun goes supernova, I will still beleive you are either fixated on an incorrect position or belaboring a point you will never make to me. Thereby wasting both your time and mine.

    I suggest we move on to more fruitful topics.

    ¿Usted entiende a mi amigo?

    "See above...read it twice if you have to."

     Report abuse

    Log In To Vote   Score: 0
    By Dane Morgan on June 17, 2011 at 08:54 am

    I'm not so certain you can say "as bad". The rapist has committed a violent act against another person. The person who sees complicity in an article of clothing is ignorant, in which case they can be educated or stupid, in which case, while grevious, delves into the arena of creating thought crimes and saying that thinking a baddly is as bad as doing violence. That seems a stretch to me.

    I don't believe I said anything about a soul. I am not a religious person. I'm an agnostic. If someone posted an article about the point at which a soul enters the human body and intentionally removed all mention of a word that made it difficult to press his case, I would have had a very similar critique for that author as well.

    My point was not that you are uncredible, but merely that such a surgical application of agenda does your credibility no favors. It is possible to present your ideas with their warts and still argue for them. That I can respect. When you pretend the warts aren't there, it is difficult to take the piece seriously.

     Report abuse

    Log In To Vote   Score: 0
    By Caballero_69 on June 17, 2011 at 09:09 am

    Dane,

    You are surely entitled to your perspective.

     Report abuse

    Log In To Vote   Score: 1
    By LaurenK on November 15, 2011 at 12:05 am

    Thanks Cab!

    Great article. If only more thought along these lines! Thankfully there has been some hope in both the cases you speak of - Slut walk went global (we participated down here in another hemisphere!) and at least 55% thought similarly to you at the Ballot vote for Measure 26 in Mississipi - so we now know that almost half the voting population of Mississipi is insane, and just over half has a functioning brain - phew!

    Ps. I don't think there was any problem with using Wiki, its important to make information accessible and wiki can be a great resource as long as you check the facts with the literature. If Dane wants to complain about the science he should probably learn how to spell "cells"...

     Report abuse



    Add A Comment!

    Click here to signup or login.


    Rate This Article


    Your vote matters to us



    x


    x