XPost: alt.feminism, soc.men, soc.women   
   XPost: alt.music.nirvana   
   From: horton@bruce.biz.ca   
      
   On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 07:17:57 -0500, "Jude Alexander"   
    wrote:   
      
   >   
   >"bou bou"  wrote in message   
   >news:ugaij19ncmmah3bkb7ofcj95chk6tj8csh@4ax.com...   
   >> On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 06:12:24 -0500, "Jude Alexander"   
   >>  wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >   
   >> > wrote in message   
   >> >news:1127789292.804261.64150@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...   
   >> >> >But if they get touched by someone, this can be considered a   
   >crime.   
   >> >>   
   >> >> Just because I go to a nude beach, it cannot be construed that I   
   >> >want   
   >> >> to be fondled by strange men. Such uninvited touching constitutes   
   >> >> assault and battery.   
   >> >   
   >> >I wonder if they would agree if the same principle held to strange   
   >gay   
   >> >men fondling and touching them on some nude beach?   
   >> >   
   >> Attire and behavior is often used by women to initiate something   
   >more.   
   >   
   >I would agree with you if you were fair by saying "used by SOME women"   
   >iinstead of indicting ALL women using some sort of manipulative   
   >behavior?  How is THAT any different than SOME women saying ALL men   
   >are dogs?  They are incorrect in their statement as is yours.   
   >   
   I assumed that distiction was obvious.   
   >   
   >> The original authors remarks were aimed at a the double standard of   
   >> interpretation when touching someone's chest. If a woman grabbed my   
   >> left tit for gratification or curiosity, I'd have a very hard time   
   >the   
   >> same standard of justice that a woman would find if our roles were   
   >> reversed.   
   >   
   >Understood that biology plays a different role in life and   
   >interpretation of certain acts are unavoidable because of that fact.   
   >However, the discussion took a turn to bashing (like the majority of   
   >them do) and that's when I put in that if there are SOME men out there   
   >who say they have the right to touch a woman simply because she is   
   >dressed provocatively and/or is on a nude beach, then do these SAME   
   >men believe that gay men have the right to touch THEIR bodies if   
   >they're in skimpy trunks and/or on a nude beach?   
   >   
   They offered one generality and you offered another.   
      
   If I was sticking my crotch in the guys face, making stupid looking   
   faces and overly attentive, I'd expect a gay guy (if interested) would   
   probably make a pass (which may include physical contact).   
      
   The original poster clearly aimed his criticism at the judicial   
   interpretation of sexual assault and sexual harassment as pertaining   
   to the female breast. The likely missing part of this are the resent   
   legal arguments of exhibition and exposure without legal reprimand. If   
   topless women become socially or legally acceptable, then justice must   
   make allowances to avoid selective prosecution.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)