I think the important difference to note from the girl who talked about a stalker is that you were, as far as one can tell from what you've written, reacting to an actual problem, and she apparently welcomed the assistance since she messaged you about further problems when you weren't there. A stalker clings to someone who doesn't want them there. You sound more like a big brother sort of protector. That's not to say you could never go too far; it's good to keep checking your motivations and the reality of the threat. But it sounds like you're watching out for her from a legitimate threat. I'm making an assumption from the way you described things that you've actively observed guys in the neighborhood making unwanted advances on her, so it's not a case of a dependent girl making things up. You sound like just a good guy, not someone looking for your own advantage in the situation.

There is a difference between "no significant withdrawal symptoms" and "not addictive". Just because it doesn't kill you if you try to stop doesn't mean it doesn't hook you.

It fogs your mind and alters your perceptions in ways that increase your risk of injury to self and others, since being high and being drunk both affect your ability to think rationally and your inhibitions. And the effect of it gradually becomes inadequate (as does any drug the body acclimatizes to), eventually leading many into harder drugs. Which is why they call it a gateway.

Doctors have to train their reactions to the nude form in the context of their jobs; I doubt you could find a doctor who would say that, in the full course of their careers, they have never experienced a sexual reaction of any sort to a nude patient. Learning to control reactions is not the same as not having those reactions. I couldn't say how female doctors compensate, but I expect at least a portion of male doctors exercise compartmentalization, suppressing reactions when in "doctor mode" but still quite capable of checking girls out in public. It's also worth saying that some doctors have gotten in trouble for groping patients unnecessarily, have had affairs with their patients, and various other things that say they're not completely immune to it. In similar fashion, there have been more than one or two artists who have had affairs with and/or married their nude models. Again, the ability to control or suppress a natural reaction is not the same as a lack of inclination towards it.

It is certainly true that a man is responsible to control his reactions. It is equally true that a woman is responsible for her behavior. The reverse is true if we're talking about a woman lusting after a man. She is as responsible for controlling her own thoughts as he is for not provoking them. The problem with both the pro-nudity concept and the complete focus on clothing control is that they both ignore that BOTH sides have responsibilities.

But why is a bar considered a place where that sort of attire is appropriate? Because it's where people go to hook up. It doesn't matter, in this context, whether hook up means find a date or find a one night stand to the particular individual. Bars are culturally regarded as places people go to find romantic and/or sexual connections, and dress to attract interest of that sort, which would seem to make giving interest of that sort appropriate to the location.

Sara wrote: "I don't care if a woman has glitter on her breasts. That doesn't make her some walking freak show that people can just gawk at. Her boundaries are still her boundaries and deserve to be respected."

You have to admit she's at least sending mixed messages about what her boundaries are, by exposing and coating her breasts with sparkly glitter, which suggests she intends them to get attention. You can't really expect the guys to decipher what's going on in her head when her visible choices send a different message.

Sharideth's description also made clear that her friend wasn't gawking, in this case.

If you're exposing that much cleavage and glitter-bombing them, then saying you don't want them looked at is a lie. What happened is not that you didn't want them looked at, but that you wanted them looked at by a particular category of people, and the person who encountered you and looked was not part of that category. A viewer happening to be part of the wrong category is not grounds for righteous indignation against them. Now, if someone thinks publicly visible means a right to touch them, that's totally grounds for righteous indignation because visibility does not grant a right to touch. Even a completely naked woman has every right to choose who is and who is not allowed to touch her. Or if someone attempts to interact with you and you request they go away, and they don't, then you've got harassment and grounds for righteous indignation against their refusal to stop approaching you. But you don't have a *right* to tell someone not to look at something that's in a public space. You can only make a request. You don't have a right to demand someone look away from something you choose to publicly expose to them. Their eyes are as much their private property as your breasts are your private property. You each have a right to choose what you do with them.

You can't really argue that Western-Islamic tension is a brand new invention, I would say. Islam spread by the sword for centuries, and was only finally halted from taking over Europe by difficult fights in Spain and Austria. When the Crusades are discussed, it's often overlooked that the Muslim states tried to conquer the West first before the Crusades occurred. That's not to justify the wrongs that occurred to Eastern Orthodox, Jew, and Muslim alike during the Crusades, but to point out that early Islamic expansionism is often left out of such discussions. There is a long gap where the Islamic countries were more concerned with their own internal fighting than with Europe (and current Sunni/Shiite warfare is largely a continuation of this) but that drive to establish complete dominance of the world by Islam, by force where necessary, is still strong. It is a mistake to leave that out of the analysis. There are a great many Muslims who may not subscribe to terrorist attacks as a means but do still hold the dream of world domination and have a vengeful attitude towards anything they view as an attack on Islam.

Wow. This leaves me simultaneously hurt, angry, and happy all at once. My heart aches for the pain you suffered, yet at the same time I am thrilled to see how God has taken what was meant for evil and used it for good in your heart. The protective part of me instincts to vengeance, but is tempered by something that came up in a sermon last week. The idea that when we feel someone ought to pay for something done to us or another, we can realize that someone already has paid for it, on a cross, and that's the basis for forgiveness.

I can certainly see in this how God took the evil done to you and shaped it into beauty on the inside of you as you came to know Him. You are loved, my friend.

1) What do I like reading? Military history, humor, and a variety of fiction genres such as sci fi, mystery, fantasy, and historical fiction.

2) What am I best at writing? Position papers. I don't do it often, because it takes a lot of time and research and prayer to write a good one. But I apparently have a gift for it when I do.

3) Occasionally, since I wander around the blogosphere somewhat randomly as I feel like it right now. Blog reading has fallen low on my priority list unless a subject line catches my attention. Like this time, I came to see what History of Violence was all about and then read this post here.

I was disappointed there was no guidance on factoring hippos into polynomials but my counting is much improved after reading this manifesto.____Also, you missed the rule about misspelling some words so people understand the urgency of your genius. You did it, but you didn't mention it as a rule. Or did you purposely not mention it as a rule because all proper geniuses know the rule already? Hmm. Deep.