XPost: alt.feminism, soc.men, soc.women   
   XPost: alt.music.nirvana   
   From: horton@bruce.biz.ca   
      
   On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:45:50 GMT, bou bou  wrote:   
      
   >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.   
   >   
   err.. recent, not resent...   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)