Sexual Assault: A Whole Different Kind Of Victim Blaming

     Blaming the victim of a sexual assault, any type of sexual assault, is unfortunately very common. When we think of victim blaming, we think of the person person doing it being anyone from a family member to friends to strangers to a member of a criminal justice system. The person we don't often think of as being someone who blames the victim is the actual victim her(or him)self. After all, why would they blame themselves? There actually are reasons why a victim would blame them self. Not valid reasons, of course. But reasons that the victim convinces them self is a good reason. 

     The biggest reason a victim would blame them self is easy. Other people blaming them. If enough people tell us often enough that we did something wrong, it is easy to believe them. Especially when it comes to something like sexual assault. When people say to us things like "you should not have been wearing that" or "you should not have been in that area alone" or any other such statement often enough, we start to believe them. Especially when the people saying that are those closest to us. One would think that people like a parent, a sibling, or a spouse/significant other would never blame their loved one for being attacked. Why would someone hurt someone that they professed to love? I guess there are as many different answers to that question as there are people who engage in victim blaming. One thing I can say for sure is it is never acceptable to blame a victim of any crime for the crime committed against them, especially not someone we love. We are supposed to support those we love in times of trouble. We are supposed to show them that we care for them and that we are there by their side as they go through troubling times. Blaming a person for a crime committed against them is not loving, caring, or supportive.

     Another reason victims sometimes blame themselves is because they feel they did not say no or did not say no firmly enough. What they forget is it is not that they did not want to say no, sometimes giving in is the lesser of two evils. But let there be no mistake, giving in is not  necessarily a yes. For instance if someone lets you know by word or deed that either you give in or you will die, giving in is the best way to go. It is not saying yes to the act, it is saying no to possibly dying. Also, if we fight an attack, there is more of a chance of greater physical harm, up,to and including death, being done to us, whether they say we are going to die or not. Fighting an attacker just spurs them on. Giving in to someone who is a parental figure, whether it be an actual parent or someone who was always like a parent is also not saying yes, this is ok, I want to have sex with you. It doesn't matter whether you are a child or an adult when it happens, giving in does not equal saying it is ok. We are taught from a very young age to obey our parent's or other adults. Especially if you are over a certain age. Obeying adults has become not as important today as it once was. But I can tell you when I was young you did not say no to adults. And if you are over a certain age, the adults from your childhood are still adults and you are still a child, at least in your head. Does this mean that no adult would fight sexual advances from their parent's? No. But just because one does not fight incest does not mean it is a consensual act or a consensual  sexual relationship, no matter the age of the victim/survivor. I prefer the word survivor myself. When we call someone a victim, we keep them in the victim role. A parent trying to have sex with their child is always wrong. No matter what the age of the person is or whether the person gives in. The parent is always at fault there.

     Of course there are also sexual acts while someone is drunk or high. Let me get one thing straight here. Someone who is intoxicated or high cannot give legal consent. But besides the legal aspect, there is the fact that if we are impaired by some substance, we don't know what we are doing. Or we think we are doing something that we want to, but in reality it is the substance that is making us think we want it. Does that mean that you definitely did not want to sleep with that person you slept with last night because you were drunk? No, not at all. But it does mean that if you did not want to do it, then you didn't want to do it. It means that the alcohol or drugs you did does not mean that it was your fault if someone assaulted you.

     There are many ways of saying no that don't require you saying the word. If you are resistant at all or if any of your actions indicate that it is not what you want, then it should not happen. Just because you may not feel you can say the word no, for whatever reason, a person can tell if someone wants to have sex with them. Simply giving in does not mean a person is saying yes. And if a person cannot read a person when they are saying no in a non-verbal way that they do not want to have sex, then that person should not be engaging in sexual relations. My wish is that some day everybody will be able to say no, that there will be no reason that someone feels they should just give in. But until that day comes, my wish is that people who are sexually assaulted, either blatantly or in a more manipulating way, will realize that it is not their fault.

Marriage Equality

     This blog post is titled Marriage Equality and not Gay Marriage Rights for a reason. If you know me or have read stuff I have written or posted on Facebook or Twitter you know how I feel about the term "gay marriage", for those of you who do not know why I prefer marriage equality vs. gay marriage, let me explain. One reason is we are not looking for different rights than our heterosexual counterparts already have, so why should it have a special name? Do we say heterosexual marriage? No. We simply say marriage. So why should it be called gay marriage? Another reason is we don't want to be separate we want to be equal. Civil unions are not acceptable because they are not equal, so why would we call marriage anything other than simply marriage? Marriage equality says it much better, in my opinion. It says exactly what I want. Marriage and Equality. The words gay marriage imply difference. I don't want difference. I want the same.

     Although the tide is turning regarding this subject and more and more people at least don't want to fight marriage equality and a lot of heterosexual people now fighting the fight right alongside us, there are still a lot of people who don't want to see gay people able to get married. The main argument is that gay people getting married will ruin the institution of marriage. I don't get this. And no one who feels this way has ever explained to me exactly how my marriage is going to ruin the institution of marriage. I say my marriage because I live in Massachusetts and we have had the legal right to marry since 2004. My wife and I have been married since August of 2007. We have been together since June of 2001. Guess what? Gays have been able to get married in Mass since 2004 and the state is still around! No major problems were created, the sky didn't fall. There hasn't even been a lot of real publicity around it in the state since in awhile. Some people rejoiced, some people fought it, some people didn't really care one way or the other. But no matter how people felt, it was only a matter of time before life simply went on as usual in the state.

     Ok, back to my marriage and how it can affect marriage in general. As we all know the divorce rate has been over 50% I believe since around the 70's, possibly the 80's. So the institution of marriage has not been exactly stable for many years. So if gays and lesbians marry and get divorced, the divorce rate will remain stable. BUT, if we get married and stay married, the divorce rate will go down. I say that simply because if the marriage rate increases and the divorce rate increases, nothing will happen to the divorce rate.  However, if the amount of people who get married goes up yet less of those people get divorced, the divorce rate will go down. Simple math. There has been a long and hard fight for marriage equality, and it is slowly being won. At least on the state level. Even on the federal level, things are turning around. But for gay people over the age of 25, marriage was not always a possibility. It still isn't for the majority of gay people. It is for that reason that I feel the homosexual community takes marriage very seriously. Does that mean that no gay people will get married just for the heck of it? Only to be divorced and marrying someone else within a couple of years? No, it doesn't. But I think for the majority of gay people, we understand all too well how important the right to marry is, and take it very seriously.

      A marriage is a marriage. No matter what two people are in the marriage. Just like people are people no matter what their sexual orientation is. The only difference is that we love members of the same sex. Our relationships are not only about the sex, but so many people in society still think that it is all about sex. Yes, we are sexually attracted to members of the same sex, but it is so much more than that. When heterosexual people get into a relationship or get married, is it simply about sex? Do heterosexual people spend every moment of every day having sex? No, of course not. Neither do gay people. Our relationships are the same exact relationships as heterosexual people have. Therefore any marriage that we have will be the same exact marriage as heterosexual people have. One thing that is needed is for people to stop thinking about sex when thinking about homosexuals. When thinking about heterosexual people and their relationships or their marriages, people don't think wow! they are having sex! People are so concerned with all the sex that we have and how we are all supposed to go from relationship to relationship to think we can actually have a regular every day marriage. So many people think that none of us ever have long term relationships, either we are not capable of it or simply choose not to have them, so how could we ever have long lasting marriages? Well, I am here to tell you that gay people can have long term relationships. My wife and I have been together for 10 years in three months. We have been married for 3 and a half years. I don't know about anyone else, but I would consider 10 years a long term relationship. Other than my brothers I don't know a lot of heterosexual couples who have been together as long as Shanna and I have. But I do know several gay couples who have not only been together as long as Shanna and I,  but who have been together for 15, 20 and more years. I consider Shanna and I a good example of an every day, ordinary marriage. I don't at all understand how us being married can hurt the institution of marriage.

     Not all gay people want to get married, of course. But most gay people at least want to be able to. Why wouldn't we want to be able to? Being denied the ability to marry is being denied one of the most basic rights afforded to the heterosexual community. It is discrimination, pure and simple. It is saying that gay people are not equal to heterosexual people. It is saying we are second class citizens. It is saying "they" are better than "we" are. This is 2011 and this country has dealt with discrimination for many, many years. I wonder why we are still allowing it to go on. Haven't we learned anything from the history of our country? Why do people still have to fight for basic civil rights? Why are some American's treated like they are better than other American's? The good news is that women are no longer treated as the property of first their fathers, then their husbands, then their sons if their husbands die. Women and African American's have the right to vote. We can no longer own another human being. And no one in the country is counted as 3/5's of a human being for the purpose of the census. Everyone can go to the same school and use the same public restrooms.  Interracial couples can marry. These are all positive things. They also say to me that it is only a matter of time before marriage equality is a reality in the whole country, not just certain states. The fact that even a few of the states have made marriage equality a reality makes me happy. I have realized I was a lesbian since I was 16 years old. I am 45 years old now. So I spent a great many years thinking I would never be able to marry another woman. Today I am married, even though it is not recognized federally, my state does recognize it. That is a positive sign. 

     Some things take time. And they say that anything worth having is worth waiting for. I do have to say that marriage equality is worth anything it takes. This goes for all civil rights. All American's being treated equally is worth the fight. Marriage equality is just the latest fight for civil rights. I think I will see marriage equality on the federal level in my lifetime. This is something for years I never thought I would ever see. What I don't think I will see in my lifetime is a day when everyone (and I mean everyone) never thinks of the markers of identity of anyone else. A day when things like race, sexual orientation, gender, social class, weight, age, etc will no longer matter. A day when what matters is what is inside a person. A persons character. I have to believe that day will come. I just don't see it coming in my lifetime. Hopefully the children being born today will grow up in a world like that. One way to assure that is for the adults raising children and all the other adults around them to start seeing only what is inside a person. If a parent is bigoted in any way, that is what children will learn.  After all, children learn by example. Hopefully children who hear prejudiced ideas in their home will learn someplace else that hate is not a way to live life. Especially hate for something as basic as race, age, sexual orientation or anything else like that.

Janet Lee Smith

02/26/2011

Charlie Sheen & Addiction

Where to begin on this topic? The man? Addiction and it's effect on an addict, his life, and his loved ones? The people who enable Charlie? Martin Sheen comparing his son's addiction to cancer? Tough love? This will more than likely be a very long blog post. Hopefully people will bear with me and read it all, if it is interesting enough, of course. Right now I want to go back to some of my FB postings and find some of what I think are my best points of the day. I'm going to try to resist that urge.

Let me go from the first topic I listed above and go from there. The man. Charlie Sheen. Boy, his life is out of control. Or at least it appears that way. He has been giving radio interviews since he finished his at-home rehab. Let me start there, who has rehab at home? Yes people can try to detox and begin recovery from home. But if you say you are going to rehab, in my opinion that should be an inpatient rehab. Not your home. If you want to do it at home, call it something else. An actual rehab needs some things. Like structure. Like 24 hour staff (and I don't mean housekeeping). Like a nurse to help with detox. Like group therapy. The residential living in a rehab is also very important. Being able to relate to other addicts going through the same things you are. 

I actually feel for Charlie. He is an addict in the throes of addiction. I wish he would see his life for what it is, see what his addiction is doing to him. Last night on Twitter a soap actress said that due to her years of going to alanon and going on talk shows with her father who is a substance abuse counselor qualifies her to say that Charlie has either reached his bottom or is nearing reaching his bottom. First of all, she has no experience working with addicts. Second of all, no one can decide where a person's bottom is, except the addict in question. What exactly has Charlie Sheen lost to make it his bottom? He may be at his bottom, I don't know, because everyone's bottom is different. Everyone's bottom is different. That is why this actress cannot say that CS has reached his bottom. I know a lot of addicts. Some don't reach a bottom at all, they just realize their life is out of control. Some lose everyone they love. Some have gone to jail, some once or twice, some lots of times. Some overdose several times. Some become homeless. Only Charlie Sheen can decide when he is done and when he is ready to stop. We cannot make that decision for him.

Charlie's life. We already know this is affecting his life. At the very least he has been "laid off" from his job. IMO there is a good chance we will be hearing he has lost his job and either Two and a Half Men will be canceled or it will go on without it's star.  Charlie has lost more then one marriage due to his addiction. He appears to be at least somewhat mentally unstable right now. Not uncommon. Co-occuring disorders are very common. Sometimes the mental illness comes first sometimes the mental illness comes as a result of the addiction. But whichever comes first, mental illness and substance abuse often go hand in hand. Not always, but a lot of times. I think anyone can look at Charlie's life, or what we know of his life, and know he is out of control and is going down an increasingly slippery path. Will he fall completely or will he realize he has a problem (really realize it, not come to an epiphany due to a media relations nightmare) and reach out to people who can help him and turn his life around? I'm hoping for him, his family, especially his children, that he finally comes to an actual realization that he has to make changes. 

I want to now address Martin Sheen's statement comparing Charlie's addiction to cancer. I am going to get this from what I put on FB.  The two are not the same, imo, at all. Addiction you can control and put a stop to. No it is not easy, it is one of the hardest things a person will ever do in their lives. But when someone has cancer, they don't have control over it. They have to hope that treatment will work, they cannot stop it. Charlie can stop his addiction. Again, not easily, but he can do it. He does not want to. Does Mr. Sheen think that people who have cancer don't want it to go away and would not do everything in their power to make it go away? That is why people put poison into the body to stop cancer, because they will do anything to stop it. And recovering addicts will do anything to make sure their disease stays arrested, but Charlie is not there yet. As someone who lost both her parents to cancer, I find Martin Sheen's comments insulting. 

Martin Sheen needs to love his son, without a doubt. But at some point that love needs to turn to tough love. Which part of that is saying I won't sit around and watch you kill yourself any longer, so I am out of here until you get your act straightened out. One of the hardest things a parent has to do, but it is a very needed step when helping a child. I have talked to parents who had to make this decision and struggled with it, but at some point they finally said I'm done. I have seen parents with 18 years old daughter who  told them that they could not go home to live after leaving treatment. They did it hoping that their child would go into further treatment, but in some cases they knew their child was going to end up on the street because they were not going into further treatment, but they stood their ground. We cannot enable addicts. It does not help them, it only hurts them. People need to start walking away from him until he makes the decision to get himself well. Which is something he can do, while it is something that someone with cancer cannot do.

Charlie has some difficult decisions to make. He has two roads he can follow. If he makes the decision to get clean, he has a long, hard road ahead of him. But that road will get easier. He will learn that life can be good without partying, without getting high or drunk. As hard as the road of recovery can be, if he chooses to stay on the path that he is on, it will be a much harder road. Not only will it be a much harder road, it is a road which will get harder as time goes on. Unlike what would happen if he choose recovery. If he chooses recovery it may not be easy in the beginning, but his life will improve, ten fold. The important thing to remember is only he can make that decision. Hopefully the media will decide to stay out of it, but as we all know as long as he is making them money that is not going to happen. 

Janet Lee Smith

02/25/2011

I am an American. I am a woman. I am an adult.

I am an American. I am a woman. I am an adult. No one has the right to tell me what to do. I make my own choices. I can choose what to do with MY body. I can choose who I want to marry. I can go anywhere I want to go, without being treated like a 5 year old who is told I should only go where I am told is safe for me. And if I go anyplace that certain people in society feel is unsafe and I am attacked, I WILL NOT be blamed for it!

I am a woman. A strong, independent woman. I can be like a "little girl" who likes feeling safe in my wife's arms or I can be like a tigress who will rip your heart out of your chest if you hurt me or someone I love. I will not let anyone bully me, I will always stand up for myself. I can be the sweetest person you ever met or I can be a bitch on wheels. I am and always will be whatever I choose to be. I will always do what I choose to do. I am a woman, not a possession.

I am also an American which means I deserve the same rights as every other American. I am a lesbian. That does not make me any less of an American than any heterosexual American. We are all equal, or should be equal. When will some parts of society start to realize this? More importantly, when will politicians who we ALL pay their salaries, start to work for us ALL? Start to treat us ALL equally? It is time we started firing them, sending them on their merry way, if they are unable to represent us all.

One more thing, just to make sure there is no misunderstanding here: SEPARATE is NOT EQUAL!!! Civil Unions will NEVER be ENOUGH! Unless a law is made saying that no marriage is legal and that only civil unions are legal, for EVERYONE. Everyone deserves the same rights and privileges in this country. Not separate rights and privileges, but THE SAME!

Janet Lee Smith 
02/18/11

Father's Rights

This blog post has the possibility of pissing off some women. Oh well. If it does, I am forever saying something that pisses someone off. It's like I always tell my wife when she gives me a hard time over something I say: If it is not true you wouldn't give me a hard time. Same theory here, if what I am about to say makes you angry, perhaps you should look at yourself. Before I go any further I want to say that this does not apply to all mothers. I actually hope it applies to very few mothers. But one thing I know for sure is although I do not know how many women do what I am going to talk about, I know that some do. I also know it should never happen.


I am a woman, of course. Maybe that is how I know how vindictive some woman can be. Maybe it is because I have had my share of vindictive moments. Not something I'm proud of, but I have said things that should have never come out of my mouth, just because I wanted to get even with someone who had hurt me. That isn't even a woman thing, it is a human thing. A human response to being hurt. What this blog post talks about goes beyond using words to get even. Something that unfortunately hurts innocent bystanders: making one parent pay for something they did to the other parent by using their children.


Children are always innocent bystanders in the break-up of a relationship. Children simply want to maintain a relationship with both parents. Some parents would do anything to get even with the other parent for something they did wrong. Usually cheating and/or leaving the other parent for another person. Sometimes simply for ending the relationship, with no other person involved. They simply do not want to be in the relationship any longer. So they use the child/children as a pawn. 


You left me, so you will see the children only when I am there. You cheated on me, so you will never see your children. Oftentimes the only thing that "offending" parent did was leave the relationship or cheat. Or in some other way hurt the parent making the decisions. Deciding that it is within their rights to say if and when the other parent sees their children. The parent making these decisions is often the mother. Not always, but generally. 


Some mother's seem to think they have that right, simply because they are the child's mother. The problem with that thinking is a woman has no extra right to a child because she is the mother. Father's have the same rights as a mother. They have the same rights as the mother to see the child and to have custody of the child. I'm not sure if it is the fact that historically the courts in this country have given custody to mother's that causes this thinking or if it is something else. But whatever causes this thinking, mother's simply do not have greater right to children than father's do. Luckily courts do realize this now, and a father receiving custody of a child is not a rare occurrence. In my opinion, if both parent's are good parent's and both want custody, they should have shared custody. 


Don't get me wrong, there are men who do not deserve custody and there are men who should have no more than supervised visits. There are also women who these situations apply to. A persons gender alone does not make them suitable parents. One thing I am sure of is that no child should be used as a pawn for either parent to get even for injustices against them, real or imagined. A parents main concern should be their child's welfare, not getting even with another person. If a person puts their own needs in front of the needs of their children, it makes me wonder how competent they are to ever put their child's needs above their own.

Of course the parent can take it to court and fight for visitation, joint custody or sole custody. The problem is that courts are backlogged and it takes time to get a court date. A child should not have to wait for a court date to be able to spend time with both their parent's. Two people who were once in love should be able to set up arrangements for them both to spend time with their children. It is not only the adult thing to do, it is the right thing to do for the child/children. After all, the well being of the child should be what is of utmost importance to any parent's ending a relationship. This is never easy on a child, and parents should want to make it as easy as possible. 


I know it is hard when someone cheats on you or when someone unexpectedly ends a relationship. Sometimes it is devastating. But a persons response should never be to use another human being, especially their child, to get even. Especially a child. When a child is not allowed to see one of their parent's, they are the one being hurt. Yes, it may hurt the other parent, but the person hurt the most is the person who both parent's should be doing everything to protect and take care of. Keeping a child away from their other parent, unless that parent is a danger to the child, is not taking good care of that child. It is emotionally and mentally hurting that child. And in the long run it may hurt you, because at some point that child is going to be old enough to understand what you did. When they do, it may be you who loses your relationship with your child.


As always, these are my opinions. But the fact that actions like I have discussed here can emotionally or mentally damage a child is not only my opinion, it is a psychological fact.


Janet Lee Smith
02/16/2011

Assault & Blaming The Victim

A sexual assault on a woman. Unfortunately, this is not an uncommon story. This time it was a CBS correspondent reporting from Egypt on the problems going on there right now. Problems I am not going to discuss now, because they will take away from what this blog is about. This was an attack on a woman who was trying to get the story of these people out to the rest of the world. The same people who attacked her are people she was telling the story of. First I want to commend Ms. Logan on her decision to make her attack public knowledge. That is something that a person who has been sexually assaulted never has to do, and often times do not do. It is a very personal, private matter and to go public about it is not an easy thing to do. 

This blog post was inspired by other comments on other blogs and websites. One person even posted on their Twitter "sometimes we have to find humor in the small things", while as a general rule, I think humor can help people get through a lot, a sexual assault is neither a "small thing" nor is it in anyway humorous. This person also posted on their Twitter that Ms. Logan "had to outdo Anderson" by getting raped. Yes, that was her plan, outdoing Cooper Anderson. On a blog someone posted on Feb. 3rd: "OMG if I were her captors and there were no sanctions for doing so? I would totally rape her". That blog has since been updated to say "Super funny joke deleted in the light of sad news that Lara Logan was raped in Egypt. Can I just say, however, that I soooo totally called this?" First of all, the supposed "joke" was not funny at all, even if Ms. Logan had not subsequently been raped, and it should never have been said. Second of all, taking credit for "calling" a sexual assault? Really? What kind of person posts this stuff?


This blog post is not about what other bloggers are posting, though. It may have been inspired by other people and other blogs, but it is about blaming the victim. In the case of a sexual assault, the victim is often blamed. She was wearing provocative clothing or she said yes up until that point, how could she expect him to stop or as some people are saying in this case, she should not have been there. These comments or any comments like them all do the same thing. They blame the survivor. Yes survivor. Because if a person is attacked and they are continually called a victim, that is what they will continually be thought of. Ms. Logan was a victim, she is now a survivor. At some point we have to take back our control. It is at that point we are no longer a victim. My first marriage was abusive. I allowed myself to be a victim for many years after the marriage ended. Until I realized that I survived the situation and came out a stronger woman. I am a survivor and will never be a victim again. Once I realized I was a survivor was also when I stopped being in relationships where I was in someway abused, whether it be physically, emotionally, or mentally. Like all survivors of abuse I am now in control of my own life. 

Back to the subject at hand. There is nothing that gives one human being the right to abuse another. Nothing at all. Not what they are wearing. Not where they are. Not when they say no. Or any other reason that people find to blame the victim. Myself, as strong as I think I am, I could not be in another country where there was a lot of unrest reporting on the situation. Not because I don't think I would belong there, but because I think I would be too afraid to be there. But I have every right not only to be there, but to be there without being attacked. I have every right to be anywhere I choose, any time I choose. So does every women. When we blame the victim we are taking the focus off of where it needs to be. First of all, we need to think about the what the woman went through and what she may need to get through it. Second of all we need to think about the perpetrator and the fact that he (or she) needs to face consequences for their actions. 

One of my most fervent wishes is that when we think about the victim or survivor of any crime, we don't think of what the person was doing or wearing or where they were, or find any way at all to blame the victim. We simply think of the person as a victim of a crime and do whatever we can to help get that person through the tough times. Help them to become a true survivor, not just a person who survived the crime, but a person who overcame the crime in every way. A person who got through the pain, physical, mental and emotional pain, and came out the other side. Let's simply be kind, compassionate human beings who want to help our fellow citizens, instead of making their life more difficult.


Janet Lee Smith
2/16/2011

I Am Full Of Contradictions

I always say life is not black and white. I am living proof of that. I have so many contradicting likes, thoughts, beliefs, opinions, etc. You cannot look at me and know much about me and I enjoy that. You look at me and see a middle aged (44) woman. But I am me. I defy stereotypes. I like classic rock and 80's music, but I also like rap and hip hop music. I am a lesbian, but I still enjoy looking at attractive men (as long as they have clothes on lol), I am a liberal who has realized that on some topics she is more moderate. I am agnostic, which means I am ambivalent toward religion yet some days I believe very much. I am a feminist but I also like to feel protected and taken care of, while all the time knowing that I am very capable of taking care of myself, should I need to. And I spent many years of my life having to do just that. I am a femme lesbian but I can swing a hammer and use a cordless screwdriver as well as any butch or man can. 

At any given moment I can be professional, responsible, adult, childish, silly, bitchy, evil, sweet, innocent and any number of other adjectives that are very different from each other. I can change my mind at the drop of a dime and do. I can be laughing one minute and crying the next. I am very loyal, but piss me off and I will have no problem putting you out of my life. I have been hurt a lot in life, and have my defenses up except with very few people. Those people are my wife, our family, and some very important friends. 

Most of the time I love myself and everything about me. Other times my stomach is too fat, my ass is too big, my legs are too fat, my lips are too thin, my forehead is too high and I hate my hair  and if your a woman who is reading this you understand all of that because more than likely you feel the same things on any given day. I am also usually a very strong woman. But sometimes I have no strength left. It is those times when I need someone else to be strong. I am very strong willed, very opinionated, very outspoken, and as much as I hate it sometimes very judgmental. Although I have worked on that a lot over the last few years. I have a lot of energy most days and can get everything I need to done. Other days I either have no energy or simply want to be lazy. 

I am me. Like most women I am a complex creature. But that also means that like most women there is no one like me. I am unique, an original, and I love to defy all everyone assumes by looking at me. Because you cannot possibly know me by looking at me. You cannot possibly know any woman by looking at them. God may have made women from man but that is because he wanted to be close enough to perfection as possible, and men did not fit that bill.  :)  Only kidding there, well, sort of! 


Hugs,
Janet