You are correct, of course, that black people had separate laws and rights, although I don't think it changes the meat of my argument.
Still, please allow me to cowardly shift my argument to that of women's rights, then. Did women, also, have a set of different rules and rights from men, or were the rights that men were granted simply not granted, also, to women? I never paid too much attention to my history classes, but I seem to recall the drive was for women to be granted all the same basic rights and privileges that men had always received.
The bird's-eye view is: there is a group of people who is unable to achieve what another group of people IS able to achieve based on the way the laws are written. If expanding the laws to include the first group of people does not harm the second group in any way, why on earth should the laws not be expanded?
And BioWare, who actually wrote the scenes, and wrote them very well. I like to picture a scenario where the bosses at BioWare threatened to jump ship if EA didn't allow the content in, but that's me writing constant imagi-dramas in my head, as I do.
The only bearing the animal kingdom's tendencies have on homosexuality is to refute the old counter-homosexuality argument that "animals aren't gay, so it's unnatural!" It does happen in nature, so that argument is incorrect.
Otherwise, I agree with you completely. Referring to animals in any discussion of human nature won't lead to a resolution of an argument for exactly the reasons you present.
Ah, but you can still punch a heavy bag to let it out. There are outlets for your desire that nobody judges you for using. Let's change your "punching in the face" analogy to a more general "acting based on your feelings" since I don't really want to compare a loving homosexual relationship to a punch in the face (apologies, but I can only meet halfway on that one).
You point out that not acting on your feelings when you are angry is a virtue, and seem to imply that not acting homosexual tendencies would also be a virtue. Why is this so, if you can find another that feels the same way as you, and act on your feelings safely and in private? I'd like to hear why people believe it a virtue to ignore a part of who you are, even when you've found others who are just like you and are willing to explore that part of you with them?
I guess I've just never heard a concise example of why homosexuality is "wrong" other than the classic "Read the bible, heathen!". There might be a discussion if homosexuality was actually harmful to the people involved, such as the drug or alcohol abuse problems I've had homosexuality compared to, but that's just not so. Sex is sex, and stupid sex is dangerous sex, no matter what shape the naughties are.
I don't get how grown-ups can actually argue from a position of "eeeewwwwwwwwww (or the much more rational "God says eeeewwwww"), because that's what every discussion I've ever had about this issue has boiled down to. Please, prove me wrong so we can have a real discussion.
Honestly? Yes. Assuming, anyway, that it was done across the board with no exceptions. It's a stupid, scorched earth solution to the problem, but it would a) level the field fairly and b) bring the hammer home for hetero couples when they face the same difficulties of pooling resources that a committed a same-sex couple does. Right now too many people can't get past their "eww sick" gut reactions long enough to recognize that the bumping-same-shaped-uglies bit is not the damn point.
Heh... I'm hoping this is ironically funny and missed the joke. From this ridiculous position I could argue that black folks have historically had the same rights as white folks; all they ever needed to do to exercise them is stop being black.
The problem with this position is the original assumption of homosexuality as a sin. You and your ilk are not empowered to decide that homosexuality is wrong in the first place. In fact, you should be careful, for ye are judging, lest ye be judged, and the transparent way your judgement is packaged isn't fooling anybody.
It's just as logical for me to say that I love you but hate your sin of being named 3arwax. You could be a good person, if only you'd get away from your addiction of using 3s in place of Es. Does this make me anti-numeral? No way. Hate the sin, not the sinner. Sounds pretty stupid when I pass judgement on you from an utterly baseless position I've picked for no good reason, doesn't it?
Of all the things to hate EA for, they choose progressive gay rights? I'd say I have to side with EA on this, but I'm choosing to believe BioWare had the cubes convince EA to let them put it in.
One of the very best things about the additional "same-sex" content was how completely UN-weird it was, and I applaud the developers for treating a historically delicate subject as standard fare. Hell, Cortez almost made me cry when I found out he lost his husband; that was definitely NOT the usual "zomg gheys!" giggle-treatment. Even the treatment of inter-racial relationships still doesn't have that level of dignity in entertainment media.
I figure if a vampire can eat a fetus out of the uterus of the woman he impregnated with his zombie spawn on screen, and the only protest is the quality of the acting, two dudes can make out in a video-game just peachy.
Sounds good:)
As for security at the airport... I really don't know. It seemed things were fine, right up until 9/11 "changed everything". While that was a truly tragic situation, I don't know if we really do need more security than the level we had before that incident. Maybe better training for how to spot a potential attacker, or maybe federal marshals on airplanes. But checkpoints like we have now? Not allowing anybody into the terminals to greet loved ones walking off the tarmac, like the old days? I don't think the trade-off has been worth it. I have to wonder; will everything that the terrorists attack then require this level of security? If so, where does that eventually lead? That scares me more than a hijacked plane.
Really, the point I'm trying to make is the entire "airport security" idea is ridiculous. I like your comparison, but in a computer security scenario, the TSA wouldn't be a firewall, it'd be an armed guard watching the cables ever-so-closely to make sure no naughty bits sneak through. Of course you'd need multiple levels of security on top of this to actually prevent a security breach, but it's stupid and ineffective to have the guard in the first place. Now imagine that your armed "firewall" also gets to go around groping all your customers, too, if he wants. The TSA is big, scary, and worthless for the purpose it's been put to.
Calling attention to the fact that the demon-cell-phone-with-wires item made it safely onto the plane in the first place accomplishes two things.
First, for those that think the TSA is actually a valid and appropriate way to deflect danger from our airports, anything left on the plane should be "safe" because it made it through the security checkpoint (yes, this is normally a ridiculous assumption, but these folks take it as a given is that the TSA does it's job well). By being terrified of the "bomb", the airline crew proved rather obviously that the TSA is not, in fact, infallible.
Second, for those that recognize the TSA as a farce, it shows that there are appropriate and effective (and preventative) ways of monitoring the safety of the flying public that don't need to result in misplaced fear, such as identifying odd carry-on luggage as "safe" or "inspected at checkpoint #:" or even "This is a child's non-exploding science experiment. Please make sure he remembers to remove it from the airplane upon arriving at the destination terminal." when it arrives on the plane. It could also have been forced to be checked so it couldn't be left behind, or the exiting flight crew could have swept the plane and provided data to the oncoming flight crew, or a thousand other common-sense precautions. None of this happened, so the situation degenerated into "wtf is that wire-y thing!? run bitches!", instead. I don't fault the crew for wanting to be careful, but I do fault the system for being so broken that fear was the appropriate response.
The truth is, shit happens, and in some unlucky rare cases it's spectacularly shitty (trust me, I have some small experience here), but it's absolutely retarded to put the infinitesimal risk of "death by plane explosion" above more likely and just-as-deadly risks. In fact, we've put this tiny risk so high up that we willingly give up all semblance of self-respect to pretend there's a small mitigation. I would NOT be willing to walk through a security checkpoint in my underpants while someone with a badge sniffs all my possessions for the FAR more dangerous act of driving my car to work every day; why are we willing to do this to pretend it's making the statistically safest way to travel less dangerous?
More evidence is always better. I wasn't disagreeing with you at all, just saying that the TSA looks ridiculous on both sides of this argument. To me, that's more interesting, long-term, than whether the bomb was scary or the reaction to it was silly.
While all you say is absolutely correct, it's also pretty damning evidence of the TSA's utter uselessness. If this WAS a bomb, under your scenario, it could have done its job rather discretely, all under the TSA's "watch".
Funny how "paranoid" has absolutely squat in common with "safe", isn't it? It's also funny how many more lives common sense saves than forcing people to wait in lines while people touch their bits. I'd rather risk the worse-than-winning-the-lottery odds of a dangerous flight than have a guarantee of removing my shoes and pants every time I fly. And everyone risks much, much higher odds of death than a dangerous flight by driving to the airport in the first place, most likely without giving it a single thought.
I expect them to react to my shoes. I expect them to react to the foreign sounding guy with the beard. I expect them to react to someone who doesn't want their naughties put up on the green screen with suspicion. With all the things I now expect the TSA to react to, I don't think there's much time left to react to real terrorists. I just assume the government has a separate agency for that.
This case would mean that there were TWO huge failures; missing the device in the first place, and not finding it until after the plane landed, was emptied, old flight crew departed, and new flight crew came aboard. You'd think if it was a bomb they'd have found out much sooner (in flight). I guess, granted all those failures in a row, it sort of makes sense to get scared about the blinky lights thinger, but if your scenario is correct, I'm much more scared about the vast amounts of liberty I've given up to let obvious shit like this get through multiple levels of failure anyway.
Or, the departing flight crew could be responsible for sweeping the plane prior to the new crew coming on board and communicating any oddities, like the lifeguards do at my kids' swimming pool. Oh, right, flying, in general, has become re-fuckin-tarded.
Another reason for the pink "not a bomb!!!!" sticker that only the TSA has access to. I SO look forward to the days when I have to wear one on my forehead to fly.
I think the fact that it was *left* on the plane means that someone in the TSA already decided it was ok to be on the plane in the first place. In fact, it was judged safe enough that it could be a carry-on, which would be a requirement to be "accidentally left on the plane" (checked luggage would have made it to the carousel with nobody ending up detained, or outright lost forever).
You'd think that there would be a pink sticker or some shit for nutty stuff that's already passed a first screening. I can tell you, as a guy that carries various odd electronic equipment all over the country, it'd be nice to earn some sort of reward for convincing the apathetic screener that what I'm carrying onto the plane is, indeed, a very expensive spectrophotometer and not an evil pilot killing death ray machine, complete with a USB strangling cable for those desperation fallback plans (please, please stop fucking with... err vigorously inspecting... that device, sir...).
Incidentally, I flew a couple years back, and had to give up my $0.99 nail clippers that I'd forgotten I'd put in my pocket. Apparently I could have clipped the pilots' fingernails too short until he bled to death...? They didn't even have the file/stabby bits on em. Still, only $0.99 and I knew better, so d'oh. What pissed me the fuck off, though: I went to a shop on the "glad that's over" side of security to get a book and some chips prior to boarding my flight, and guess what I saw? The same exact fucking brand of stabby-less nail clippers for $4.99. I half wondered if they were MY clippers, and that security took so long because they needed time to repackage them for re-sale to me.
You make a good point too. The issue isn't as black and white as simply "blaming the victim." Instead of saying "it's the slut's fault for getting raped because she's a slut!" many people are trying to say "don't put yourself in that vulnerable a position.", which I get.
The place to draw the line, however, is well before we get to "if you don't like getting raped, make sure you change everything about your life to avoid it, because it's your fault it happened."
It's a slippery slope from being asked to take rational precautions (it's unfortunate enough that this is true) and being told that you were dressed or behaving like bait. The point of being so careful with the treatment of rape, or any type of sexual assault, really, is it's a personal violation from the get-go; often the victim feels regret and guilt about the situation already, and excusing the attacker as a known force that should have been avoided is counterproductive.
None of those things are "perverted" acts, unless the intent is to be a pervert in the first place.
I don't feel guilty when I do any of those things, and don't have to, because I'm not going to act indecently in any of those situations. It's not hard to recognize that many of my daughters' elementary school friends are going to grow up as beautiful women; hell, my daughters are too, and that worries me because it's my job to teach them ways they can behave when they do get to be fully grown, beautiful women, while being totally ill-equipped to do so. I can't afford to ignore what my kids and their besties are going to grow into; I'm sure as hell not gonna allow that to come as a surprise if I can help it.
A friend of mine has a 17 year old who has a pretty good body; he and I discussed that fact just the other day, actually. He's worried her future boyfriends won't see her for anything more than her looks, where he sees her as his perfect, genius, wonderful little girl. Her mom seems to have it under control though (we hope). I've known her since she was wee tiny, though, so the "funny feeling" really doesn't apply here... Still, I also don't feel guilty about seeing a hot chick and thinking "Damn! That's a hot chick!" before I find out she's only 17, at which point I'd think "Damn! I hope whoever that kid ends up with is a guy who treats her right!". If you make the much healthier decision that women closer to your own age are better relationship prospects, this whole thing really becomes a non-issue anyway.
There's a co-worker of mine who's super hot, and mine isn't the only jaw that drops when she wears sweaters to the company Christmas party, but it's easy to keep to business while we're at work because (get this) it's time for work. I also don't find the need to act on those urges; she's attractive, but I really don't picture her naked in my head all day long. I've found I'm not looking for sexual conquest anymore, especially at work. Frankly, I have more important shit to do.
Anyway, I don't feel guilty about ANY of these situations, because I know what's appropriate for me to feel and/or act on, I know what is NOT appropriate for me to feel and/or act on, and I know it doesn't make me less of a man to exercise the judgement and self-discipline required to behave like a normal person.
If you're looking at a kid you know is 17 year old (or hell, any girl that's too young for your old ass man self; it's not just about the arbitrary age of 18) and fantasizing about screwing her, or taking a picture of a random kid's smile with the intent to get all pedophile-y later on, or staring at a co-workers heaving and half-exposed rack like you're gonna motorboat the shit out of them instead of discussing today's TPS reports with her, then I'm sorry, but you're really not grown up yet and you SHOULD feel guilty. You still need to learn when it's appropriate to act on the urges most guys feel, and when it's time to set them aside for a more appropriate time and place (not to mention age, ya weirdo). Studies have also shown that women have to deal with their own brand of urges, too (though they may be an alien concept to men entirely; my gender prevents me from attaining this exact knowledge). They generally seem able to compartmentalize their actions and thoughts a lot sooner and more efficiently than men are. Whether it's due to societal pressures or biological hardwiring, or men being the weaker sex, or who the hell knows why else, women still have to struggle between "appropriate" and "OooShinyAllForMe" too. Even though some people might be better at it than others, everybody on the planet, of both genders, has to decide to compartmentalize their urges, or be a douchebag. If you're this kind of douchebag, you can quit whining about it and stop being a douchebag, too, just like the rest of us.
It's not about feeling guilt, and to hell with anybody who tries to make you feel guilty, unless you're not "that guy" in the paragraph above. Being a man (a
Slashdot Mirror
You are correct, of course, that black people had separate laws and rights, although I don't think it changes the meat of my argument.
Still, please allow me to cowardly shift my argument to that of women's rights, then. Did women, also, have a set of different rules and rights from men, or were the rights that men were granted simply not granted, also, to women? I never paid too much attention to my history classes, but I seem to recall the drive was for women to be granted all the same basic rights and privileges that men had always received.
The bird's-eye view is: there is a group of people who is unable to achieve what another group of people IS able to achieve based on the way the laws are written. If expanding the laws to include the first group of people does not harm the second group in any way, why on earth should the laws not be expanded?
And BioWare, who actually wrote the scenes, and wrote them very well. I like to picture a scenario where the bosses at BioWare threatened to jump ship if EA didn't allow the content in, but that's me writing constant imagi-dramas in my head, as I do.
The only bearing the animal kingdom's tendencies have on homosexuality is to refute the old counter-homosexuality argument that "animals aren't gay, so it's unnatural!" It does happen in nature, so that argument is incorrect.
Otherwise, I agree with you completely. Referring to animals in any discussion of human nature won't lead to a resolution of an argument for exactly the reasons you present.
Ah, but you can still punch a heavy bag to let it out. There are outlets for your desire that nobody judges you for using. Let's change your "punching in the face" analogy to a more general "acting based on your feelings" since I don't really want to compare a loving homosexual relationship to a punch in the face (apologies, but I can only meet halfway on that one).
You point out that not acting on your feelings when you are angry is a virtue, and seem to imply that not acting homosexual tendencies would also be a virtue. Why is this so, if you can find another that feels the same way as you, and act on your feelings safely and in private? I'd like to hear why people believe it a virtue to ignore a part of who you are, even when you've found others who are just like you and are willing to explore that part of you with them?
I guess I've just never heard a concise example of why homosexuality is "wrong" other than the classic "Read the bible, heathen!". There might be a discussion if homosexuality was actually harmful to the people involved, such as the drug or alcohol abuse problems I've had homosexuality compared to, but that's just not so. Sex is sex, and stupid sex is dangerous sex, no matter what shape the naughties are.
I don't get how grown-ups can actually argue from a position of "eeeewwwwwwwwww (or the much more rational "God says eeeewwwww"), because that's what every discussion I've ever had about this issue has boiled down to. Please, prove me wrong so we can have a real discussion.
Honestly? Yes. Assuming, anyway, that it was done across the board with no exceptions. It's a stupid, scorched earth solution to the problem, but it would a) level the field fairly and b) bring the hammer home for hetero couples when they face the same difficulties of pooling resources that a committed a same-sex couple does. Right now too many people can't get past their "eww sick" gut reactions long enough to recognize that the bumping-same-shaped-uglies bit is not the damn point.
Heh... I'm hoping this is ironically funny and missed the joke. From this ridiculous position I could argue that black folks have historically had the same rights as white folks; all they ever needed to do to exercise them is stop being black.
The problem with this position is the original assumption of homosexuality as a sin. You and your ilk are not empowered to decide that homosexuality is wrong in the first place. In fact, you should be careful, for ye are judging, lest ye be judged, and the transparent way your judgement is packaged isn't fooling anybody.
It's just as logical for me to say that I love you but hate your sin of being named 3arwax. You could be a good person, if only you'd get away from your addiction of using 3s in place of Es. Does this make me anti-numeral? No way. Hate the sin, not the sinner. Sounds pretty stupid when I pass judgement on you from an utterly baseless position I've picked for no good reason, doesn't it?
Of all the things to hate EA for, they choose progressive gay rights? I'd say I have to side with EA on this, but I'm choosing to believe BioWare had the cubes convince EA to let them put it in.
One of the very best things about the additional "same-sex" content was how completely UN-weird it was, and I applaud the developers for treating a historically delicate subject as standard fare. Hell, Cortez almost made me cry when I found out he lost his husband; that was definitely NOT the usual "zomg gheys!" giggle-treatment. Even the treatment of inter-racial relationships still doesn't have that level of dignity in entertainment media.
I figure if a vampire can eat a fetus out of the uterus of the woman he impregnated with his zombie spawn on screen, and the only protest is the quality of the acting, two dudes can make out in a video-game just peachy.
Sounds good :)
As for security at the airport... I really don't know. It seemed things were fine, right up until 9/11 "changed everything". While that was a truly tragic situation, I don't know if we really do need more security than the level we had before that incident. Maybe better training for how to spot a potential attacker, or maybe federal marshals on airplanes. But checkpoints like we have now? Not allowing anybody into the terminals to greet loved ones walking off the tarmac, like the old days? I don't think the trade-off has been worth it. I have to wonder; will everything that the terrorists attack then require this level of security? If so, where does that eventually lead? That scares me more than a hijacked plane.
Also, my whole "pink sticker" joke fell rather flat. The point you made so well was what I assumed would make it funny. C'est la vie.
Actually they don't have that. I was mistakenly thinking of when I return poor quality items to Wal-Mart. Apologies.
Really, the point I'm trying to make is the entire "airport security" idea is ridiculous. I like your comparison, but in a computer security scenario, the TSA wouldn't be a firewall, it'd be an armed guard watching the cables ever-so-closely to make sure no naughty bits sneak through. Of course you'd need multiple levels of security on top of this to actually prevent a security breach, but it's stupid and ineffective to have the guard in the first place. Now imagine that your armed "firewall" also gets to go around groping all your customers, too, if he wants. The TSA is big, scary, and worthless for the purpose it's been put to.
Calling attention to the fact that the demon-cell-phone-with-wires item made it safely onto the plane in the first place accomplishes two things.
First, for those that think the TSA is actually a valid and appropriate way to deflect danger from our airports, anything left on the plane should be "safe" because it made it through the security checkpoint (yes, this is normally a ridiculous assumption, but these folks take it as a given is that the TSA does it's job well). By being terrified of the "bomb", the airline crew proved rather obviously that the TSA is not, in fact, infallible.
Second, for those that recognize the TSA as a farce, it shows that there are appropriate and effective (and preventative) ways of monitoring the safety of the flying public that don't need to result in misplaced fear, such as identifying odd carry-on luggage as "safe" or "inspected at checkpoint #:" or even "This is a child's non-exploding science experiment. Please make sure he remembers to remove it from the airplane upon arriving at the destination terminal." when it arrives on the plane. It could also have been forced to be checked so it couldn't be left behind, or the exiting flight crew could have swept the plane and provided data to the oncoming flight crew, or a thousand other common-sense precautions. None of this happened, so the situation degenerated into "wtf is that wire-y thing!? run bitches!", instead. I don't fault the crew for wanting to be careful, but I do fault the system for being so broken that fear was the appropriate response.
The truth is, shit happens, and in some unlucky rare cases it's spectacularly shitty (trust me, I have some small experience here), but it's absolutely retarded to put the infinitesimal risk of "death by plane explosion" above more likely and just-as-deadly risks. In fact, we've put this tiny risk so high up that we willingly give up all semblance of self-respect to pretend there's a small mitigation. I would NOT be willing to walk through a security checkpoint in my underpants while someone with a badge sniffs all my possessions for the FAR more dangerous act of driving my car to work every day; why are we willing to do this to pretend it's making the statistically safest way to travel less dangerous?
Does that come with some type of shiny pony?
More evidence is always better. I wasn't disagreeing with you at all, just saying that the TSA looks ridiculous on both sides of this argument. To me, that's more interesting, long-term, than whether the bomb was scary or the reaction to it was silly.
While all you say is absolutely correct, it's also pretty damning evidence of the TSA's utter uselessness. If this WAS a bomb, under your scenario, it could have done its job rather discretely, all under the TSA's "watch".
Funny how "paranoid" has absolutely squat in common with "safe", isn't it? It's also funny how many more lives common sense saves than forcing people to wait in lines while people touch their bits. I'd rather risk the worse-than-winning-the-lottery odds of a dangerous flight than have a guarantee of removing my shoes and pants every time I fly. And everyone risks much, much higher odds of death than a dangerous flight by driving to the airport in the first place, most likely without giving it a single thought.
I expect them to react to my shoes. I expect them to react to the foreign sounding guy with the beard. I expect them to react to someone who doesn't want their naughties put up on the green screen with suspicion. With all the things I now expect the TSA to react to, I don't think there's much time left to react to real terrorists. I just assume the government has a separate agency for that.
This case would mean that there were TWO huge failures; missing the device in the first place, and not finding it until after the plane landed, was emptied, old flight crew departed, and new flight crew came aboard. You'd think if it was a bomb they'd have found out much sooner (in flight). I guess, granted all those failures in a row, it sort of makes sense to get scared about the blinky lights thinger, but if your scenario is correct, I'm much more scared about the vast amounts of liberty I've given up to let obvious shit like this get through multiple levels of failure anyway.
Or, the departing flight crew could be responsible for sweeping the plane prior to the new crew coming on board and communicating any oddities, like the lifeguards do at my kids' swimming pool. Oh, right, flying, in general, has become re-fuckin-tarded.
Another reason for the pink "not a bomb!!!!" sticker that only the TSA has access to. I SO look forward to the days when I have to wear one on my forehead to fly.
I think the fact that it was *left* on the plane means that someone in the TSA already decided it was ok to be on the plane in the first place. In fact, it was judged safe enough that it could be a carry-on, which would be a requirement to be "accidentally left on the plane" (checked luggage would have made it to the carousel with nobody ending up detained, or outright lost forever).
... err vigorously inspecting... that device, sir...).
You'd think that there would be a pink sticker or some shit for nutty stuff that's already passed a first screening. I can tell you, as a guy that carries various odd electronic equipment all over the country, it'd be nice to earn some sort of reward for convincing the apathetic screener that what I'm carrying onto the plane is, indeed, a very expensive spectrophotometer and not an evil pilot killing death ray machine, complete with a USB strangling cable for those desperation fallback plans (please, please stop fucking with
Incidentally, I flew a couple years back, and had to give up my $0.99 nail clippers that I'd forgotten I'd put in my pocket. Apparently I could have clipped the pilots' fingernails too short until he bled to death...? They didn't even have the file/stabby bits on em. Still, only $0.99 and I knew better, so d'oh. What pissed me the fuck off, though: I went to a shop on the "glad that's over" side of security to get a book and some chips prior to boarding my flight, and guess what I saw? The same exact fucking brand of stabby-less nail clippers for $4.99. I half wondered if they were MY clippers, and that security took so long because they needed time to repackage them for re-sale to me.
And the Fed (give the power back to the State central banks).
I hate rider bills.... :)
aim higher and happen to get into a relationship with a woman working on her PhD
You lucky bastard. Bring something nice back from Borneo; perhaps high level funding from the private sector?
You make a good point too. The issue isn't as black and white as simply "blaming the victim." Instead of saying "it's the slut's fault for getting raped because she's a slut!" many people are trying to say "don't put yourself in that vulnerable a position.", which I get.
The place to draw the line, however, is well before we get to "if you don't like getting raped, make sure you change everything about your life to avoid it, because it's your fault it happened."
It's a slippery slope from being asked to take rational precautions (it's unfortunate enough that this is true) and being told that you were dressed or behaving like bait. The point of being so careful with the treatment of rape, or any type of sexual assault, really, is it's a personal violation from the get-go; often the victim feels regret and guilt about the situation already, and excusing the attacker as a known force that should have been avoided is counterproductive.
None of those things are "perverted" acts, unless the intent is to be a pervert in the first place.
I don't feel guilty when I do any of those things, and don't have to, because I'm not going to act indecently in any of those situations. It's not hard to recognize that many of my daughters' elementary school friends are going to grow up as beautiful women; hell, my daughters are too, and that worries me because it's my job to teach them ways they can behave when they do get to be fully grown, beautiful women, while being totally ill-equipped to do so. I can't afford to ignore what my kids and their besties are going to grow into; I'm sure as hell not gonna allow that to come as a surprise if I can help it.
A friend of mine has a 17 year old who has a pretty good body; he and I discussed that fact just the other day, actually. He's worried her future boyfriends won't see her for anything more than her looks, where he sees her as his perfect, genius, wonderful little girl. Her mom seems to have it under control though (we hope). I've known her since she was wee tiny, though, so the "funny feeling" really doesn't apply here... Still, I also don't feel guilty about seeing a hot chick and thinking "Damn! That's a hot chick!" before I find out she's only 17, at which point I'd think "Damn! I hope whoever that kid ends up with is a guy who treats her right!". If you make the much healthier decision that women closer to your own age are better relationship prospects, this whole thing really becomes a non-issue anyway.
There's a co-worker of mine who's super hot, and mine isn't the only jaw that drops when she wears sweaters to the company Christmas party, but it's easy to keep to business while we're at work because (get this) it's time for work. I also don't find the need to act on those urges; she's attractive, but I really don't picture her naked in my head all day long. I've found I'm not looking for sexual conquest anymore, especially at work. Frankly, I have more important shit to do.
Anyway, I don't feel guilty about ANY of these situations, because I know what's appropriate for me to feel and/or act on, I know what is NOT appropriate for me to feel and/or act on, and I know it doesn't make me less of a man to exercise the judgement and self-discipline required to behave like a normal person.
If you're looking at a kid you know is 17 year old (or hell, any girl that's too young for your old ass man self; it's not just about the arbitrary age of 18) and fantasizing about screwing her, or taking a picture of a random kid's smile with the intent to get all pedophile-y later on, or staring at a co-workers heaving and half-exposed rack like you're gonna motorboat the shit out of them instead of discussing today's TPS reports with her, then I'm sorry, but you're really not grown up yet and you SHOULD feel guilty. You still need to learn when it's appropriate to act on the urges most guys feel, and when it's time to set them aside for a more appropriate time and place (not to mention age, ya weirdo). Studies have also shown that women have to deal with their own brand of urges, too (though they may be an alien concept to men entirely; my gender prevents me from attaining this exact knowledge). They generally seem able to compartmentalize their actions and thoughts a lot sooner and more efficiently than men are. Whether it's due to societal pressures or biological hardwiring, or men being the weaker sex, or who the hell knows why else, women still have to struggle between "appropriate" and "OooShinyAllForMe" too. Even though some people might be better at it than others, everybody on the planet, of both genders, has to decide to compartmentalize their urges, or be a douchebag. If you're this kind of douchebag, you can quit whining about it and stop being a douchebag, too, just like the rest of us.
It's not about feeling guilt, and to hell with anybody who tries to make you feel guilty, unless you're not "that guy" in the paragraph above. Being a man (a