Posted on 06/11/2016 3:45:18 PM PDT by heartwood
Huh, that’s very interesting.
I got way too much attention and I did the same thing. I wore a jogging bra and a tank top underneath my t-shirts and loose clothing. It did not work as well as I’d hoped. One in particular who harassed me constantly and groped me several times never got in trouble for it. One time I slapped him so hard afterwards it left one hell of a mark. I got sent to the principals office (by a female teacher) and nothing was done to him. I just went home rather than go because I was so sick of it. Some people are just jerks!
But what was the old man doing with the frying pan, before he was clobbered?
(KIDDING, KIDDING. Not everything has to be taken at heart attack seriousness, even though it seems that way to us.)
I suppose an enlightened (as to context) response would be something like “unhand me, you are not my husband.”
It’s kind of a community sin, to isolate sex from family.
The glue that has such power in cementing family together the right way, is such a shame provoking mess when allowed to slop around the wrong way. I’d liken it to squirting Super Glue all over a machine. It will gum up the works very badly.
Anyhow, behavior like this is a combination of ignorance, addictive habit, and disregard to charitable conduct.
(And selfishness, i.e. “jerks”)
I find the categorization of men in general based on the behavior of individuals hypocritical when such generalizations about women are not sanctioned.
Furthermore, the generalization that there is something wrong with men because their attention is unwanted by particular women is not only pathologically subjective, it is conceited in that it denies the obvious about men's sexuality.
It's like "heads" thinking it has more right to come out than "tails" on a coin toss.
Actually, I find the frying pan response quite appropriate. Despite that, I think that verbal contact that one does not appreciate is simple petulance over being inconvenienced by that contact.
It’s called internalizing. Some people do. It isn’t rational, but it’s what I did when I was a teenager. I don’t blame myself now for being psychologically immature then.
When we talk about sex, right away we talk about an area in which “feelings” are far more influential than reason. And ironically, reason should be able to understand that.
Sometimes, in charity, we need to be merciful to people who overgeneralize. The area is simply a mess because it has been wrongly dissected. What God made to be joined together, fallen humans have rent asunder.
Being immature is not some sin any more than a strawberry plant having green strawberries on it is a sin.
But it would take quite an inconsiderate person to jibe at the green strawberries.
"Understand," yes. Capitulate to: never.
My twin girls were like that. It was hard on them.
One of them also got seizures at 10 because of puberty.
And at any rate, family is the proper context for coming to maturity, just like green strawberries belong on the farm until they are red.
And we have become more and more addicted, as a society, to a kind of caricatured rugged individualism which is more like a ragged folly. We turn kids loose among strangers that we scarcely even get to talk to, then wonder where they get all those crazy ideas from.
God is a prankster and we are the punch line.
I own guns because Jesus is a hit man and I’m next.
Mercy is the thing that tells us to yield when we could have demanded abstract rights.
What?
And it’s wrong to love Indians too.
The "rights" you reference are anything but "abstract." Should not those asking for mercy also extend it?
Love is an icepick to the eye.
Sometimes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.