Was what Trump said really that offensive?

If your name is Melania Trump, yes. Absolutely.

By now, we've all probably heard Trump's controversial Billy Bush tape--the one where he has what he presumes is a private conversation among men ... you know, the bro-code. But were the things he said really that bad?

If so, a large percentage of men are just as guilty as him, Republican or Democrat.

No, no, I know ... you would never say half the things he did, right?

Not that you would admit to your wife or girlfriend, thus the original statement. If your MelaniaTrump, you'd have every right to be upset. I mean, he flat out admitted to trying to have sex with a married woman, but failed.

I can't tell you how many times I've sat in bars with other men, no women around to hinder our speech and listened to talk that reflected the kinds of things that trump said. As men, we puff our chests and talk about our successes and failures with women. It's what we do. It's what we try to do if we're single and what we sometimes wish we could still do if we're married or in a committed relationship. I don't condone anyone screwing around on their wives or girlfriends if they have them. That's a no no.

But when I listened to the Billy Bush tape, everything Trump said made sense to me. It fit. Him saying those things aloud didn't make him a gentlemen, but let's be honest here. If we're going to speak the truth, let's speak the truth.

Women don't typically fall for the gentleman type. Period.

Yeah, yeah, I've heard the argument before. Ask a single woman what her idea of the perfect man is and she'll list of a host of logical things like: Someone who makes me laugh, has a nice smile and likes the same things I do. He opens doors for me, compliments me on my wardrobe and takes me to nice places.

But take a look at that girl's dating history and it will often tell a different story. She'll often complain that there are 'No good men out there,' but the reason she says that is because she's dated nothing but bad-boys--guys who really only care about one thing and after she gives it, or after they get tired of getting it, they move on to someone else. At that point, he becomes a jerk--an a-hole, but while she was dating him, he was the next 'Mr. Right.'

This same girl who claims to want a gentleman most likely has five to ten conversations per day with 'nice guys' and yet, doesn't go out with any of them. If she did, she would end the date with a yawn and make an excuse to go home early. I don't necessarily blame her, I suppose. Perfect gentleman are boring. What fun is it to sit there for an hour or two and talk about where he works, where she works, her family and friend, or his--people you don't know or care about yet. It's not fun. It's gets really boring really fast and if that's all you talk about for an hour, by the end of the date, you're both ready to go home and the date is classified a failure by both parties.

But if the guy makes moves on the girl on occasion, even if she playfully rejects them, it automatically makes the date more interesting, doesn't it? I mean, isn't that what dating is about? Isn't half the fun of going on a date to see if it could lead to something more? Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that women should put out on the first date. Prolonging the pre-sex foreplay for several dates, and possibly more than that, makes it even more interesting and gives the potential couple more time to get to know each other before things go to the next level.

So, back to trump. Most of us aren't lucky enough to live the kind of lifestyle that he and many other celebrities enjoy. When I said that everything he talked about made sense, I think it did. Here are some of the comments he made:

"I just start kissing them. I don't even wait ... and when you're a star, they let you do it.  You can grab them by the pussy.  You can do anything." (Followed by Billy Bush laughing).

And then as the female reporter walks up, he starts talking about how great her legs are.

My point here, is that what he said was very true. If you're famous, your chances of succeeding with women goes up substantially and you most likely can get away with saying or doing a hell of a lot more with women than you can if you're just an average guy. How many husband's out there have heard their wives make innuendos about sexy male movie stars? How many of you have went to concerts with superstar rock-bands and seen women throwing their panties onto the stage? I know I have. I went to a Metallica concert once and by the end of the concert, the front of the stage was littered with bras and panties from women in the audience. No doubt, if any of those women had the chance to have sex with any member of the band, they would have. Without ever having to be taken on a single date.

And this was demonstrated on the tape by the very reporter that was to interview Donald. On their way to the interview, the reporter suggested that she wouldn't choose one over the other, but would 'Take both.'

And to be honest, I think she would have. If Billy and the Donald had tried to take the reporter back to the bus, she may have went with them, simply because they are both celebrities.

Did Trump's status a celebrity go to his head? Sure. I think it did. But I think it often does with celebrities, male or female. Why do you think so many celebrities have such a difficult time in marriage. I think it's because they get so used to being idolized by the opposite sex, that they feel unfulfilled by their spouses, who learn to see them as normal, flawed human beings, just like the rest of us. They are used to being able to control others and get whatever they want, whenever they want and when their spouse doesn't give into that? Well, trouble ensues.

This isn't a political blog, so I'm not going to get into the politics of it. This blog is more about the attitude of our society in general toward men, and I would suggest that Donald's attitude toward women is reflective of how most men feel, whether we are bold enough to say it aloud or not.

I decided to start this blog after reading an article about non-consensual sex, written by a female college student. Not only did I find this article offensive, I found it downright scary.

http://www.irishtimes.com/student-hub/i-lay-there-like-a-doll-unmoving-and-let-him-work-away-1.2845342

Before I continue, let me say this, just to make it clear. No, means no. Period. Regardless of what the situation is, if a woman tells a man no at any point, everything should immediately stop. It doesn't matter if she consented to lying in the man's bed. It doesn't matter if she consented to him undressing her. If she changes her mind at any point and says no, anything that happens beyond that point is rape. This applies to wives and girlfriends too.

But let's get something else straight too. Women have just as much responsibility when it comes to sex as men do. When it comes to sex, women are now and have always been in control of when sex happens and when it doesn't (assuming the male in question stops when she says no).

One alarming comment that the author of this column made was when she said, 'The idea that ‘fair is fair’ seems to have rooted itself in the minds of the Irish and when it comes to sexual relations this should not be the case.'

What in the hell does she mean by that?

She went on to say in the next paragraph, 'Girls don’t owe boys anything and vice versa, no matter what the situation might be.'

No? They don't owe us anything? Really?

I'm not trying to suggest that women owe men sex. I don't believe they owe us that. But they are obligated to be fair, aren't they? Or does this author believe women are entitled to be selfish?

Then she says, 'When it first happened to me, I found myself naturally defending the boy in question, after all I had gone home with him - so what exactly did I expect?'

But there's more. She later admits that she 'shifted' the guy several times prior to going home and willingly lying in his bed, before telling him she 'didn't really want to', but giving in after he said that wasn't fair for her to pull back now. She makes the exaggerated claim that a 'low top says you’re asking for it, and a bit of fake tan basically puts you on a street corner there and then.'

Let's get this straight. Men do not expect women who wear low tops to have sex with them. Not reasonable ones, anyway. And we don't look at a woman with a fake tan and assume she's a prostitute. To suggest either is ridiculous.

But let's be honest here. Women wear low tops because they want men to look at their cleavage. Don't they? What other reason could there be (unless she's a lesbian, but the motivation is still the same, just for the same sex, instead of the opposite). For whatever reason (God help me, I don't know why), women seem to resent the implication that they dress provocatively to get the attention of men, but seriously? What other reason could there be?

Let's be honest here. Women dress the way they dress in an attempt to lure a man's attention for the purpose of finding a mate. It's human instinct and the beginning of our cultural mating dance. Again, a woman dressing that way isn't a guarantee of sex, but it is (or should be) done to signal that she is open to the possibility should the right guy come along and should definitely (at a minimum) be an invitation for men to look at her. Any man. Regardless of his age, type, body shape or anything else. If a woman is not comfortable having men looking at her chest, she has no business wearing anything that prominently displays her chest. If a woman doesn't want older, less attractive men staring at her ass when she walks by them, she should not wear skimpy shorts with something written on them. I mean, think about it. It's fashionable for women to wear shorts with words written across her bum, but how can someone read the words if they don't look at her ass? To say that women don't want men to look there is asinine.

The article this woman wrote was about consent, but as I suggested before, consent starts before the bedroom, not in it. Women have the right to say no at any point, but they should be obligated to pre-think their consent and they should be responsible for being clear about what they want early on. I think a woman should be selective about who she sleeps with and who she doesn't. I think it's great and intelligent for a woman to want to be courted before taking that step with a man. But I also think she should say that too and do it before it leads into the bedroom, giving him parameters, letting him know that if he wants to 'score' with her, he has to wine and dine her first if that's what's on her mind. Not lead him on by dressing sexy. Not give him false hopes by letting him take her home and letting him get her into his bed, only to then say something like, 'I don't really want to.' This is even more misleading and more unfair if the girl in question dressed provocatively and behaved that way as well.

The truth is that rape (whenever it happens) is about power and control, but the truth is also that men are not the only ones seeking power and control. Women want it too. The difference is that they seek it in different ways. If a woman wears a skimpy skirt and low cut top, but commonly chastises men for looking at her, that is about power and control. She does it knowing it isn't fair to men, but enjoys that feeling of power that she gets from it.

Ultimately, the article this woman wrote was about teaching consent to college students, but it came off as an attack on men in general. Most men do not deserve to be attacked. Most of us understand how things should work and most of us have no desire to sleep with any woman who doesn't want to be slept with by us. We want a woman who wants us. We want her consent. Teaching consent starts before it gets that far, however. To suggest that women should be allowed to wear whatever they want and that any man who looks is a pig is not the right way to go about things. Teaching women to know what they want before they get into a situation and teaching them to match their manner of dress and behavior to what they are ready for and willing to give, makes more sense. Men want to have sex with women. We all know that. Men go to parties with the intention of trying to get laid. We know that too. Women know it too. Isn't that one of the things that makes going to parties fun? Isn't that why we refer to it as scoring? Because it's not easy. It doesn't always happen. It's not guaranteed. It's a challenge and the woman's right to say no is what makes it challenging. Getting a girl to consent. That's what the 'game', if that's how you want to refer to it, is all about.

We don't need courses on consent. Consent is easy to teach. No, means no. That's really all you have to say. What we need to teach our college students is how to play the game fairly.