|Re: Some debate from the Detroit Slutwalk Facebook Page...|
- Tuesday, June 21 2011, 6:48:59 (UTC)|
from *** - *** Network - Windows XP - Mozilla
Whenever I went shopping at the supermarket with my first son, from the time he was four or so I always let him play with the candy and gum and suckers placed at kid-level by the check-out stand at all major supermarkets...the fuckers know what they're doing by placing colorful temptation where kids can be easily aroused...my attitude was "if you put it where my kid can easily get to it, it's YOUR fault, not his or mine because my kid, like any kid, gets sucked in by what Madison Avenue spends billions a year in devising to SUCK HIM IN"...and I sure as hell am not going to buy the crap, but then neither am I going to punish him for giving way to a simple and innocent child's desire to touch pretty things, especially if he can't eat them or buy them....so let's be consistent: if a woman's clothing is the reason men want to rape, then it's a store's policy that makes my kid destroy their displays....and all that money in a bank is just too much "temptation" for poor bank robbers etc and etc.
If grown men can't control their libido because they are too tempted by a woman's clothing or hair or arse, then why must my son, or a poor person, control his urge to get what is put there to tempt him, which he can't afford to buy?
If "irresistible temptation" is good enough of an excuse for a rapist then surely it's good enough for a child, or bank robber.
The full topic:|