Gab blog post

You know what I don't understand about women in general that seems to be very obvious on sites like this, Facebook or any social media site where people upload photos of themselves?

Women claim they don't want to be looked at a sex objects and they don't want sex talk, yet so many women put up revealing or sexy photos of themselves. What's the logic? You're marketing yourself with photos that show that you are clearly using sex signalling to attract men, yet there's complaints when men act on those signals. I don't get it. Doesn't the desire to avoid sex talk/flirting in initial messages conflict with your choice of photos to market yourself? It's contradictory. Women want one thing, but consciously attract another. Which is it? You can't have both, so which do you want?

By the way, I am not one of those guys that goes into sex talk and flirting with random women here. I would only talk like that to a special someone of which there is no more than ONE of at any given time. I just don't get this obvious contradiction that women don't seem to understand they are doing. Sexy photos aren't even necessary, but it certainly increases the odds. So, I guess I can understand why some wouldn't use photos, but humans (especially men) are visual animals and without the visual element, there is naturally less interest for many men.

What's a "spar", though? You met a wooden pole? Maybe a metal pole? :P

I'm glad you seem to have found someone special. :) Maybe my prediction about Valentine's Day 2020 will come true after all? He must be very lucky!

You're just great, Gab. I wish you all the best!

I'm diggin' our argument Mike; it's taking my mind off this knee issue. Thank you.

Hey, no problem. I appreciate the civil nature of it all. I see it as more of a conversation than an argument, though.

You are right... but wait, are you throwing all these questions to me or are you referring it to me or in women in general?😁... because if its me your pointing out, I can only say this to you - I may be PROVOCATIVE sometimes (sometimes only when its needed😁) but am really CONSERVATIVE by all means.. and it never come to any point that am inviting men to molest me (in the way I dress up) and I would never give them a spark of chance to sexually assault me...that would never happen..for sure...but if you are referring to women in general, I cannot give you the exact ground why they dress up like that and then complain later... because each of these women certainly have their own reason .. so am not really sure what to conclude... Besides, no matter how simple or seductive a woman look like on their profiles, there would always be an asshole who dirty talks on their first communication which is very annoying...so, I hope you wont put the blame alone to women... men have fault too..

Spar is something like I argue with or have a fight with BEFORE!😁 (like a sparring on the boxing😆)... see? I cant believe that this someone I once have quarrel with and once sent me "GOODLUCK ON YOUR SEARCH" turned to be someone who expresses his feelings... and thats called "MAGIC"😁

Thank you...and thank you again for your prediction.... I believe LUCK comes to those who wait... Ive waited looooonng enough...so, am very LUCKY!...

Have you found anyone here already? I sincerely hope you do!

No, I wasn't directing it at you. I was speaking more generally and no, I think men are just as much to blame. I have heard the argument where they say "well I should be able to dress any way I want without being talked to that way or stared at!" and my response to that is maybe you're right, but that is NOT the world we live in.

I can't go food shopping dressed up like a circus clown and expect no one to notice or comment on the fact that I am dressed as a circus clown. This is not an issue about any woman "deserving" anything, but you can't be so disconnected from reality that you don't realize that men (who aren't eunichs) are going to notice beautiful women especially when they are dressed in a way to show off their bodies whether it's tight clothes, short shorts/skirts or low cut tops. Certainly, even women who don't dress this way will get attention like that sometimes, but you're significantly increasing those chances by how you dress.

People can wear whatever they want, but to not be aware that those clothes may bring with them unintended or unwanted consequences as if they shouldn't exist just because you don't want them to is kinda ridiculous. We live in a world with other people some of which don't need very much extra incentive to assault someone sexually or otherwise. That is THEIR problem, of course, but if you want to dress provocatively, you risk awakening those urges in people that have been present since the dawn of man. It's not right, but it is an unfortunate part of this reality we live in. To ignore that is irresponsible and, to some degree, makes you culpable for anything that happens as a result.

From this perspective, it's kind of understandable why some religions require women to cover themselves fully. Perhaps this is an attempt to eliminate or mitigate this to some degree, but unfortunately it hasn't worked.

We are such an immature species that has a much higher opinion of itself than is warranted. We have so much growing to do.. so much. These are things we shouldn't have to worry about, but have to nonetheless. It all starts with being honest about who and what we are and we can't even do that yet.

Luck is always necessary to some degree in matters of love at the beginning, yes. After that, it's all about the will of those two people to make it work and hold it together against all odds. :)

Have I? Yes. I think I mentioned that on a reply to another blog post. Oh, that kind of spar. I've not heard that word used in that way before. Referring to a person as a "spar" only has one usage and it's to refer to a female member of the US Coast Guard Reserves. :P You're dating a girl? I can't wait for you to post THOSE pictures! lol

Anyway, arguing is okay so long as you can work through it with him and come out on the other side. Lots of people give up so easy and don't compromise, but sounds like you two aren't lots of people. :)

DUDE! "...if you want to dress provocatively, you risk awakening those urges in people that have been present since the dawn of man. It's not right, but it is an unfortunate part of this reality we live in. To ignore that is irresponsible and, to some degree, makes you culpable for anything that happens as a result."
~Please, I'm begging you as a friend: RETHINK THIS!
Observe: "From this perspective, it's kind of understandable why some religions require women to cover themselves fully. Perhaps this is an attempt to eliminate or mitigate this to some degree, but unfortunately it hasn't worked."
So if you admit "...it hasn't worked." how can you hold women culpable for being raped based on their attire?

To be quite honest, I don't give shit one about how you use the word 'faith.' I simply enjoy engaging with the mind of The Other; but this, this misogynistic position is ugly and archaic. It is part of the problem.

Please man, think that through a little more thoroughly.

As a friend...

If I go out and drive a car without my seat belt on and I get into an accident and go through the windshield and die as a direct result of my decision to not wear a seat belt, am I blameless just because the accident may not have been my fault? Of course not. Everyone has some blame in their own experiences except for children.

Again, I said it's not about anyone "deserving" anything. No one deserves that, but can a woman put herself in a bad position and increase the possibility it will happen? Absolutely. There are almost certainly some bad decisions that led up to such a point. I wasn't specifically talking about rape, though. I was talking about getting sexual messages from people right off the bat or complaining that you're attracting all this attention without realizing your role in it.

I've been through some pretty terrible experiences myself and a couple almost killed me, but I also had a lot of blame in those things myself. Of course how you dress can affect how people view you and treat you to some degree. You're increasing the chances in the same way I am increasing the chances of death by driving my car without a seat belt on. Do I deserve to die? No, but I am certainly not blameless. I am a victim and I am also partially to blame even if the accident wasn't my fault.

Furthermore, is anyone to be absolved of all responsibility when they get so drunk they can't even think straight? That is certainly partially your fault for drinking irresponsibly and putting yourself in a position where something terrible could happen to you in the first place.

I don't buy that just because someone is a victim of anything that they are somehow completely blameless by default. In the case of children, I can go along with that. Adults? It's not so easy. If I was gay and went to a gay bar wearing chaps and a tight shirt giving off plenty of sexual signals and I get black out drunk, then get sexually assaulted during that time, am I blameless? NO WAY! I set myself up for it. I gave off all the signals. I got so drunk that I didn't know what I was doing and couldn't do anything about it even if I wanted to.

At some point, you're just enabling irresponsible behavior by absolving people of all responsibility. Do I deserve what happened to me? No, but I put myself in a position where it was far more likely to happen than it would have been if I didn't dress that way and drank responsibly. Obviously, the perpetrator still deserves punishment by law and rightfully so, but to say that I have no responsibility for what happened to me? Nonsense.

By the way, there's a reason prostitutes dress the way they do. Sexual signalling. They dress that way because they want it and it works on all men. People should be aware of how they conduct themselves including the way they dress and what the potential risks and consequences may be.

By your own words, covering up head to toe doesn't work. It would be the same as if seat belts did no good, but you require people to wear them or you blame them for their injuries.

Here: you were walking on the sidewalk when a drunk driver looses control and runs over you. Accept responsibility bud - you were, after all, walking on the sidewalk. That's a perfect analogy.

Sure, I can go with you on that analogy. That is truly a blameless victim. There will always be exceptions and we could sit here and come up with them all day long, I'm sure. I will retract my "always" in the previous post, but MOST of the time, victims aren't blameless.

Yes, covering up head to toe doesn't work to eliminate, but it reduced instances. I may have to dive into that again as it's been awhile, but it doesn't eliminate these things by covering up entirely. I'm not sure anything could was my point which means we have to be careful in how we choose to present and conduct ourselves. I think there would be more attention given to a woman in a bathing suit as opposed to a woman in a robe and burqa.

Look, I agree that it's disgusting that this is even a concern at all. It shouldn't be and I hope one day we get to a point where it is no longer a concern at all, but we are nowhere near that point yet. Until then, we have to be aware of the world we live in. That's all.

'Culpable' is the specific word you used. You said women are culpable for being sexually assaulted based on their attire.

Culpable...

Even our backwards ass courts are ahead of that curve, thank dog.

I hope you continue thinking about this, and turn that corner.

Also, for MEN, not rapists, a woman's attire may attract them, get them frisky, etc, but not make them ONE IOTA closer to committing a sexual assault. Men do not behave like that. MEN defend women.

Monsters maybe, maybe not: a quick look at the prevailing body of psychological research on rape shows it to be more about power, or anger over changing roles. They would even argue that cases of sexual assault against provocatively dressed women is to put them back in their place; to send a message that we men are in charge of them, have power over them.

Ugly ugly stuff...

Culpable.. as in deserving of some portion of blame, yes.

Well, I am not in any way saying that anyone deserves to be assaulted or is asking for it because no one deserves that. I understand those may be the reasons that some have and I find them to be disgusting reasons, however, that really just proves my point to a degree. I don't agree with the reasoning, but if there are some men who would feel the need to "put them back in their place" for dressing provocatively, well, that would be something to keep in mind when you decide what to wear, isn't it? Pretending it doesn't exist does no one any good and doesn't affect reality any more than "faith" does.

Certainly very ugly.... I am only trying to be realistic about this. I know people quickly jump to absolve women of all responsibility by default, but I just don't agree with this being the automatic conclusion. I don't agree with the law saying that a drunk woman cannot render consent and any sexual activity, even if both the man and the woman are drunk, is rape. It has gone to ridiculous lengths IMO. Of course we are subject to the consequences of our actions when we get drunk which is why people must do so responsibly.

People come in all flavors and some are not palatable. Men who do these things are repulsive. No one deserves that.. no one.

First of, thanks sir Thrasy... may the love of your life knocks on your door too one day...

Gohan... Gohan... Gohan... this is all I can say, I know how to dress ACCORDING to its place...its event...its people I am with. If am surrounded with frens or with people that is more conservative than me , of course I cannot wear provocative dress just to catch an attention so as I cannot take to hear mass wearing provocative dress too, I will only destruct people by letting their attention focus on me and the worst is, priest might caught my attention by announcing it to the podium where everybody can hear it, there are priest that are very vocal, what he observe, he would shout it out... and I dont like that to happen.. I cannot also wear provocative dress when am with children because I dont want them to install on their mind that its hooooo k to wear sexy clothes anywhere...children are great imitators.

So, the way I dress depends on those categories I mention... I just dont know other women if we have same views with regards to dressing.... but as I have said I am more conservative than being provocative..

People nowadays love to follow trends specially when it comes to clothing.. and each styles gets more wavering over the years and it continue to evolve and this are unstoppable... I dont know whos to blame of this - the idea of the designer, the stylists, the sewer, the magazines, the models, the advertisers, the boutiques.... any trends that wants to follow by people is uncontrollable... but its always in the people how they prefer to dress in public... any dress a people can wear supply a "message" and provides "interpretation"..

First off, Rob and I seem to have this habit of hijacking people's blog posts and going off on rants back and forth. We really have to try to stop doing that. lol .. First poor Charity and now Gab. hahaha .. Sorry Gab. :)

Wow, the priests there are dicks. That's so rude to do that to someone in front of a mass congregation of people. That's a great way to turn someone away from God. I expect nothing less from them! :P

I think people should wear whatever they want to wear. I only disagree with the idea of the absolution of responsibility and accountability to the potential risks and consequences that may accompany those choices. That's all. Personal responsibility.

I am soo not a trendy person and I don't care much about fashion. I care about being comfortable and I dress accordingly. I do agree that clothes do and can send messages which are interpreted in a variety of ways that are completely out of one's control. All the more reason to be careful with your choices. There's a time and place for everything.

Thanks Gab - know this: you DESERVE happiness love and fulfillment. You deserve it!

And Mike my friend, another stab at this wart: what you are saying is EXACTLY like faulting the run over by a drunk guy on the sidewalk for not wearing a reflective yellow vest, a helmet and flack jacket. That stuff doesn't change a damned thing - he'd still be squashed. It isn't his fault

A woman is free to wear whatever she wants. If she lives in a society of abusive sexual assault prone monsters, I'd say she might want to carry a gun, but her clothing isn't at issue. When a sexual assault occurs, the blame lies solely with the attacker. Women in hijabs are far more likely to be raped because they live in a society where the men have power over them and believe all women are to blame for being assaulted. This is all wrong.

'Namaste' means something like "the God in me sees and recognizes the God in you." It's a very cool greeting.

Namaste Mike, but right now I'm having to squint a little. Please think about this. You are better than this. I don't know you well, yet, but I know you well enough to say with confidence, you can fully realize women are not responsible for getting sexually assaulted based on their attire choices. The other stuff is a different conversation, there are grey areas, people lose their minds on substances and bad shit follows - plenty of blame to go around, maybe; but on this one thing, please, think it through.

Namaste.

Nah, it's not like that at all because no one expects you to wear a reflective yellow vest, a helmet and a flack jacket just to walk down the street on the sidewalk. The flack jacket isn't even necessary for biking, but the other two are good ideas for bikers at night or early AM. No, it's not his fault for getting hit at all. Walking on the sidewalk is an innocent act and is not sending sex signals. That alone complicates the matters far more than your scenario would.

If I was a woman living in a society of abusive sexual assault prone monsters, I would not go out wearing short skirts, belly shirts and low cut tops. You'd have to be INSANE to do that. That would be like walking around in the ghetto with a "white power" shirt on and not understanding why you might get your ass kicked or shot. You're poking the monster. You're instigating. If I do that and I get shot, guess what? I do have blame in that and not just a little. Chances are I would not have been shot if I didn't wear clothing that was so inflammatory and inappropriate considering the area I was in.

The question then is why test your fate? Why provoke? To prove a point? You're throwing rocks at a bee hive and complaining about how unreasonable it is when you get stung by a bunch of angry yellow jackets. Not your fault? Of course it's your fault to some degree. If you're a woman living in a society like that, I would never in a million years poke at those "monsters" because it's F'ing insanity. Yes, in that situation, you certainly would share some blame because you are displaying incredible depths of naivety.. or bravado which isn't any better. You're going to show them, right? Maybe they will show you instead. You're certainly doing all you can to get their attention.

I'm sorry but I just don't buy it to the degree you're selling it. I will concede your point about the hijabs, but if all there are there are women in hijabs, it won't ultimately stop men from getting hardons. If it truly does not decrease the amount of sexual assaults, I am not sure how that also proves that wearing revealing clothing does not increase the chances either more so in certain situations and more so if you have made poor choices in your friends or partners.

Being a man, I know a woman wearing revealing clothing gets my attention far more quickly than one dressed more conservative. I have never raped anyone nor would I, but if I was prone to that sort of behavior, I would definitely become interested in those women much faster and before any of the others.

Clothing does matter.. in a lot of ways. The clothes you wear determines to some degree how other people look at you, perceive you and treat you. Are you denying this?

Namaste.. the God in me sees and recognizes the God in you. I never knew what that word meant. Thanks for telling me.

Namaste, then.

I will consider your points on this topic.

You're in some great photos Gab.

Thanks Mike - it's all a brotherman can ask. Namaste!

Thank you sir Thrasy 😊😊😊

(Another lance at that wart, lemme try this...)

"Look, I agree that it's disgusting that this is even a concern at all. It shouldn't be and I hope one day we get to a point where it is no longer a concern at all, but we are nowhere near that point yet."

-Okay, this will not change, has NO CHANCE of changing, until everyone is in agreement that women are not culpable for being sexually assaulted based upon their attire. So long as that mindset remains, this shall remain the case.

I don't see how that would have anything to do with it. When people learn that this kind of behavior is unacceptable, then it will change. That study I told you I was reading is interesting and shows that there is a connection between clothing and harassment/assault. It's not the one I was expecting, though.

Perpetrators of harassment and assault look for women who are passive and submissive and women who have these traits tend to dress conservatively which makes them more of a target while women who dress provocatively are less likely to be targets because they do not exhibit these traits and are seen as being more confident and more powerful. I certainly did not expect that.

To suggest that clothes have nothing to do with it is not logical. Clothing has an impact on how others see you and treat you in every other situation, but in this one, it has nothing to do with anything? Sorry, can't go along with it and don't buy it for a second.

That's a shame.

Until people don't see women as culpable in their own sexual assaults due to their clothing choices (especially people that read studies bearing out the truth of this), this blight shall not change.

Thank the gods our courts don't support your hideous position.

Ugh...

Our choice in clothing reflects who we are in a lot of ways. I will, however, admit that clothing seems to be an indirect factor in that choice in clothing reflects things about that person that perpetrators pick up on.

So, I retract my culpable claim when it comes to clothing, but it certainly does factor into the equation. Is that satisfactory?

Me? That was a study done at Duke university that came to those conclusions which revisited whether or not target dress plays a role in sexual harassment and assault and that was their findings. Courts even allow such evidence to be admissible in certain situations or at least they did at the time of that study.

I don't understand how you can deny the role that clothing plays in how others perceive us and treat us. That is amazing to me.

Hell, I've known guys who wore a suit and tie almost everywhere precisely because they liked the way others treated them when they dressed that way. That is to say, they liked the level of respect it got them from others. If that same person is wearing shorts and a T-shirt, they will be treated a lot differently. Clothing certainly affects how others treat us and when you or anyone else tries to selectively deny this, I just can't go along with it because it is observably false in MANY situations.

This particular topic is touchy and I understand that. In order for me to go along with you fully on this, I would have to deny the impact clothing has on the way people treat other people and I can NOT do that because I know it's true.

I can go so far as to retract my culpable claim insomuch as our choice or taste in clothing is more of an unconscious projection/reflection of who and what we are as an individual to some extent. I cannot deny this. I just can't.

Please point out where I, "deny the role that clothing plays in how others perceive us and treat us." Such a picture perfect example of the straw man fallacy. Hope you don't mind if I use it as an example in a critical thinking course some day.

Well then, correct me if I'm wrong then. You are saying that clothing plays no role of culpability (whether direct or indirect) whatsoever in sexual assaults or harassment, correct? That is what you appear to be saying here which would imply that you don't feel clothing choices have any effect on how perpetrators choose their targets, so is that not, in part, saying that you deny the role of clothing in this particular area of interest? Please correct me if I'm wrong in that. It is not my intention to strawman you at all and if I have, I apologize. Besides, straw is itchy and makes me sneeze.

I know you are also arguing against culpability and I think we are on the same page there now as well for the most part. I would still disagree with part of that argument in that when I argue for culpability, I would not say that a woman would be the primary cause of the incident because that is always the offender nor would I say that it is an excuse for any offender to commit said offenses, so I would disagree with your assertion that this mindset is the cause for this blight as you put it.

I don't think you'd find many people who would say that the offender should be let off the hook for his or her crimes. If that WAS what people were saying, then you'd have a point I could be on board with there. The bottom line is rape or harassment is against the law and there is never any circumstances where it should be okay or acceptable nor should they be let off the hook.

Hello, Kate. It's one thing to undress someone with your eyes (women do this too, of course) and quite another to act immorally on those desires. One is normal and the other is not.

I would never go to a prostitute, though. Never wanted to even if I have the money. On the contrary, they can't afford ME! lol

'sup Olga? What do you think of Odessa?

'sup Mike? I wonder how would you would feel about it if your wife, your mom, your sister or your daughter were raped, she was going to a rock show at a club and dressed appropriately for the situation. The judge looks at her outfit and lightens the guy's sentence, lets say for laughs. No sir, wearing a bikini is great, and it doesn't ever cause any normal man to want to commit rape, not ever.

The drunk guy is running over the guy on the sidewalk. Oh well, boys will be boys?

Somehow you're not getting it?

Ah, but I have never said that I think a rapist should have their sentence lightened for any reason and certainly not that reason nor do I believe that should be happening. I think the strawman is on the other side now. I was more trying to approach it from what a woman might be able to do to reduce her risk of being a target. I was not arguing that just because a woman may share an indirect portion of blame that it somehow means we should go lighter on the offender. If that's what you think I am saying, then I can understand why you would be repulsed.

I agree that wearing a bikini (or any article of clothing) does not cause any man (normal or not) to rape anyone. No, what causes them to do that are deep seeded personality flaws, issues with self control and possibly mental disorders as well. The cause begins in the head of the offender, but then how does he choose his target? Are there things that they look for more than other things? Are there patterns?

You said before that it is about power and I agree. It goes in line with provocative dress actually being a deterrent due to those women appearing to be more confident and more powerful. No, they would look for the passive and submissive types who don't typically dress that way. They want power over their victim, so it makes sense that they would pick out those kinds of women, right?

My point is that we all send off signals to the people around us with the way we dress about who we are. People express themselves in all kinds of ways and clothing is one of the more obvious ways. Why wouldn't people of certain personality traits make a lot of the same clothing choices? The clothes don't cause anyone to do anything. Victimizers seem to have an uncanny ability to pick out the perfect victims, so how do they do this? Many ways, I'm sure. Why should clothing be excluded here?

No Kate, you make good points. I have heard that before about those kinds of women being soul stealers. Although I've never been to a prostitute, I was very promiscuous in my youth and even that steals your soul. I really hated myself for awhile, but I decided to change it and I have been much better for it ever since. I've changed a lot since then and so I can see it clearly now. That was such a long time ago, but I learned a lot from it. I know your comments have truth in it and I believe you are right.

That's deep... unfortunately, I have heard things like that before, too. I hate that any woman would be made to feel that way...

One of the things that made me hate myself (and sex to a degree) was how I would feel after the act of doing that with someone I really didn't love or had any serious interest in at all. That feeling of "Why the F did I just do that? What am I doing here? I need to get out of here..." .. god damn did I hate myself at one point and I didn't even enjoy sex anymore.

I've had enough "sex" to last several lifetimes before I turned 25 and have had almost none since then and ya know what? I don't really miss it. The next person I share that with will be the last.. and that's the truth. Somehow, no kids and no diseases. I'm just glad I learned what I had to learn before anything like that happened. I still don't want kids of my own and have never really had a strong drive for that sort of thing.

I agree to an extent that we're just on some runaway train and just have to deal with whatever we run across, but I disagree that there is no choice particularly in how we deal with those things when they come.

As for the prostitute and nice clothes, that may be okay for some, but I know I couldn't be happy with that arrangement. I already led a sort of life like that before. I don't like opera, but I could never be attracted to anyone that did not stimulate me intellectually. I don't like opera much, but I love deep conversation. I have heard that some say the way to a man's heart is through his stomach. The way to mine is through my brain, not my dick. It's not easy for a woman to get that anymore.

Prostitutes don't interest me at all. Besides, they should be making enough money to buy their own damn clothes. lol

I stand corrected then. :)

However, I would care. I am not easy to get and prostitutes just don't interest me. Never have, really. They can throw whatever they want at me but I will just keep walking. I am sure I could go out right now and get laid if I wanted to, but I have no interest in that. I am not that person anymore and will never be again. I know that many men can be had in the ways you describe, but I am not one of them. :)

Not mad at you at all, Kate. Share your thoughts any time you like. :)

Awesome pure Olganeity my friend! What have you been up to? I was seriously wondering if you ever visit Odessa and what you think of the city - I mean, you don't have to answer me - this isn't the compulsory round...

This is getting tedious Mike.

If they share culpability in one case over an other due to wardrobe, it damned well ought to mitigate the sentence!

If you think a normal man can get so titillated by what a woman chooses to wear that he rapes her, or she's dressed so conservatively she looks weak so a normal man rapes her, well, we are just two different kinds of dudes. My own main source of data collection comes from my own first person experience in the world, as a man, in the world.

So there's sexual predators out there. According to that one study they prey on women who dress conservatively because they look weak. According to you they prey on women who dress provocatively because they look hot (?). According to statistics they prey on women in Burkas even more often because they accept it over there - hell it's socially acceptable to rape your sister if she sleeps with a guy she's not married to in some places (no shit). ~What sort of wardrobe do you recommend women wear so they aren't culpable in their would-be rapes, anyway?

Maybe we just see the world from two distinctly different positions. I don't see a continuum from civilized man to sexual predator. Nope. Not from my peepholes into the Universe I don't. I see it as a quantum move, a difference of kind not degree.

I'm glad we are at least moving in that direction, of not accusing women of getting themselves raped. If people lose their faith that global warming isn't real and we don't extinct ourselves accidentally, perhaps we'll get to where women can wear whatever they want and it won't affect their chances of being sexually assaulted - oh oops, it appears to be the case now - doesn't it - but we're still gonna blame them a little(?).

Ms. Kate, to be honest, I was a lil mad at you Sir Thrasy knows that... I was just irrirated by your "deleting" skills... I hope you wont delete stuffs anymore... after all, whats the point of putting them all if you only gonna delete it after.. i just dont see the point... your unpredictable sometimes... but I think thats alright.. forgive me if i have this "mad" mode to you at some point before...

People write to you without any single photo? Uhmmm.. I passed that stage.. i reached out to people when I didnt have a photo... been ignored and rejected many times..thats understandable, I could not blame them.. pictures are what these men after... but when I decided to upload picture believe me or not, these men who ignored and rejected me came back and write to me... I said this is the perfect time to revenge, what I did , I reject and ignore them too... i reply to some and asked them where are they when I sent them a message .. its just soooo funny to hear these mens alibi's and lies...

But as what you have suggested to tell them theyre stupid and greedy, uhmmm am in no position to react like that... they're messaging you and not in me...so, have no idea what kind of approach they did to you... sometimes, people's reaction varies from how they being approached and talked..

Mmm.. I said I would rethink my position and I did. I found the study's findings compelling and have changed my opinion as it makes more sense that way than how I was looking at it previously. I thought that was clear, but perhaps it wasn't. My bad.

If I am driving with someone and I am a passenger and am arguing with the driver which causes the driver to run a red light and hit another car, should I share the penalty for the accident even though I share some of the blame (culpability) for arguing with the driver and therefore distracting them to the degree that they ran a light and hit a car? It's not illegal to argue with someone in a car and yet, I am partially to blame for the accident. No points will go on my record, right? Does that mean I wasn't to blame at all? Does that mean the driver should get a reduced sentence and that I should be sentenced as well for arguing?

Perhaps we do. We can just agree to disagree, I guess. It all starts in a person's head. Clothing is a major way that people express themselves. It affects interactions with other people and how they look at other people pretty much all the time... except for this one circumstance. Of course there are differences in culture that may affect this as well.

The climate is always changing.. with or without us. If NASA and the NOAA hadn't been caught fraudulently manipulating climate data to show a warming trend that isn't actually happening, maybe people would believe it. I don't. The planet has gone through warming and cooling trends since it's birth. What is happening now is well within normal variation. Doesn't mean we shouldn't be moving to cleaner energy, but runaway global warming? Only for the ones who believe proven fraudulent statistics which I do not.

I imagine we differ on quite a many things, Rob. :)

lol Kate. Well, he knows now, doesn't he? Does he at least get to help pick names for them?

I want to name one of them Yokazuna. Yokazuna Socrates Monk. F.ck yeah!

No wonder you tried to defend faith so ridiculously. You are truly a man of Great faith.

Not really. I won't believe fraudulent data, though. Maybe that's your thing. They were CAUGHT doing it multiple times. They are trying to rewrite climate history. CO2 levels were five times higher than they are now in the medieval period and nothing happened as a result. I have looked into it. They lied. More than once. If this is really happening, then there is no need to commit fraud in order to show it. No faith involved there.

I believe on reciprocation ms. Kate.. I reciprocate what people did to me... sometimes, its best to let people know how I felt by reciprocating everything what they did , any amount of the things they do - bad or good, intended or not, deserving or unworthy, I reimbursed them with same quantity... that's how I am.

Dude! Aren't you even the least bit curious how I pegged your climate denying ways from this other utterly unrelated tripe?

(Hint: no super powers were involved...)

I don't deny the climate is changing. It's always changing. It's been changing all by itself since the beginning of time. No denial there. I deny conclusions based on proven fraudulent claims. They were much publicized scandals. How do you not know about this and yet so confidently call me something that doesn't even really make sense. No one denies the climate is changing. At 400ppm, CO2 levels are well within normal variation. They were over 2000ppm in medieval times before humans had any ability at all to alter the climate and nothing catastrophic happened as a result. So, you pegged nothing really since I don't deny climate change at all. No one does. "Climate denier" is just more of that nonsensical name calling people like to do even though it's not even an accurate representation of the people you're trying to insult.

You obviously haven't done any research on this topic at all if you don't know about any of that. I'm sure you won't either. It's much easier to just throw "climate denier" around. :) I can take it. I spent many hours diving into this topic on all sides to come to my own conclusions. Did you? .. because the data has been proven to be just that; fraudulent. It's alarmist nonsense.

I guess the 31,487 American scientists (9,029 with PhDs) that signed a petition stating:

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of CO2, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric CO2 produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

..are also just "climate deniers", too? Seriously, you don't know what you're talking about. They are basically saying it is a hoax. Scientists. American ones, but there are scientists from all over the world with the same views.

People don't BELIEVE it because it's BULLSHIT! There's so much evidence to show it as well. You must have missed all that? Confirmation bias, perhaps? John Cook's "97% consensus" has been debunked from numerous different angles as he misrepresented studies and omitted contrary ones. The scientists who he misepresented came out and said so. Raw satellite data shows no significant warming for decades and the only way it does is when the data is "cooked" to show something it doesn't actually say.

It's fraud. All of it. That's why people don't believe it.

No, not curious at all. Besides, you pegged nothing since you're referring to me as something I am not. I am not ignorant on this topic.

Ya know what, I'm done with this. Say whatever you want in reply, I don't care and won't read it. I'm tired and don't wish to continue this since I see where it's headed and I have no interest in going there. :)