[LMB] Levels of Sexuality
natali.vilic at zd.t-com.hr
Thu Jan 6 17:28:03 GMT 2011
On Thursday, January 06, 2011 3:46 PM Gwynne Powell wrote:
>> Stacey wrote:
>> It is NOT OK to assume that any style of
>> dress means that you can harass the wearer and NO absolutely means NO
>> I am convoluted on this. Yes, of course "No means No", and all men
>> should accept that any No is a bona fide No. However, some women do,
>> unfortunately, use the "no..." which actually means "chase me, seduce
>> me, convince me"...
>> Also, clothing sends a message, this in escapable. A woman dressed
>> like a prostitute gives that impression. It is of course perfectly
>> possible to dress well, even sexily, without giving out the 'totally
>> available' vibes.
>What most people who say that seem to forget is that a prostitute is
>engaged in commerce. She's not giving anything away for free, and like
>any other shopkeeper she has a right to refuse service to any customer.
>Just because a woman is a prostitute doesn't mean that anyone has some
>kind of right to abuse her. Like any other woman, she has a right to say
That stands in theory, but the practice is
a whole another set of things.
As prostitution is against the law in most
of the countries, prostitutes do not enjoy
the protection other shopkeepers do. And
"regular" shopkeepers get robbed for their
goods and/or income too.
As I say to my children:
"It is not that I don't trust you, it is that
I don't trust the people you might encounter".
The world is regrettably full of idiots, abusers
and people who think they have the right to
do something just because they can.
I would rather not have my children coping with
The part of the discussion on this thread in
which I made my comments *was* about children
and the directions towards which children's
clothing is going nowadays. I was not making
comments on choices of clothing in general.
who does not want to be misunderstood as
narrow-minded or judgmental
More information about the Lois-Bujold