If a woman walks in a sexy or provocative, has some responsibility in the event there because even into temptation and sin. So a woman walking in a provocative or violent overreaction raises, sins into temptation.
I hate to go back to the stone age of reasoning and talking about women so hot air, but it is possible that there is still some dinosaurs who think this way?
In this case, the dinosaur is called Bishop Arduino Bertoldo and bishop of Foligno.
Dear Mr. Bishop,
if he left his car parked in the open, with the keys in the picture, a bystander would be allowed to take it?
If leaving the house forgot to close the door, someone would be excused if emptied the apartment?
If he has lost his wallet on the street, would be "normal" that a passer-by pocketing the money?
If a child of two years ran naked on the beach, you feel justified to harass him? Because you are of Foligno, the very country of the "monster" should investigate the habits of the victims in terms of clothing and see whether it is appropriate to give some mitigating Mr. Chiatti?
If a guy (read: men) were walking down the street dressed in a chaste, no sway, but with a face like a slapped incredible, would apologize to those who began to insult him just to see it go? If an earthquake
upset his area, in your opinion who is allowed to steal in the rubble of his home would be considered a jackal or not? Or even "half-jackal" as even she would be responsible for leaving the rubble accessible to everyone?
If instead of speaking generically about "women" scendessimo in this case, you would have the courage to face the parents girls who are raped, beaten and even killed for their daughters to tell them that, somehow, if they are sought and that their rapists / murderers in the end they are made of flesh (weak) and therefore are entitled to a species of contributory negligence? What if those girls had worn a skirt just a few inches longer than could have been still there, undamaged and vegete?
There were dark moments in human history in which it was thought that women could kill plants just by touching them during "those days". I bet it was coined at that time that the unfortunate "opportunity makes the thief." No coincidence that we speak of "man", since the woman at the time did not even have a soul (it was granted later, most likely a male). In more recent times was instead coined the saying "count to ten before you speak," now in force.
How sings Creminini, "words are bad" can hurt, they feel bad, can send wrong messages, can justify acts which do not have excuses, but one shot can make someone feel 'a bit less guilty "in actions that go far beyond the human being.
About guilt, she would not feel at least somewhat 'responsible for rape if the rapist before a judge is justified by saying "Is not all my fault: that he had a skirt so short that looked like a belt. The Archbishop also said that Bertoldo when one goes around so tanned is a contributory negligence. "
postfemminista I'm not a pissed off with the hormones that turn like helicopter blades, are a disappointed woman. Disappointed because they say that women who dress provocatively victims of rapes / violence / beatings / murders in some way if they are looking for is how to reintegrate into family law authorization for the husband to beat his wife as denying us again the right to vote, the right to a soul, equal opportunities with men, in turn, relegated to the role of dumb beasts, completely governed by instinct a brutal, destructive and violent. Disappointed because they say this is like saying that it is impossible to prevent the rapes (so we should not even try, ed) because it would be necessary, "a soldier for every beautiful woman."
I come from we like to think that the human race deserves more respect and that the world tends to go forward, not to go back and discuss issues and positions already hackneyed thankfully overcome.
Staff Writer
0 comments:
Post a Comment