XPost: alt.feminism, soc.men, soc.women
XPost: alt.music.nirvana
From: Jude@thebayou.LA
"bou bou" wrote in message
news:a7eij1th4dim8t3962ltfdk9bns2nkr8ha@4ax.com...
> 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.
On THIS ng, one can't assume fair and clear judgment concerning the
issue facing men and women.
> >> 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.
That isn't true. What generality did I offer? I just asked a
sarcastic question.
> 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).
What if you're wearing a speedo with you package all showing through.
Could a gay man consider that provocative? It's the same thing if a
woman has half her breast out of a scanty top of a bikini. Body parts
are being displayed for semi viewing. Muscles are being show off.
Curves are being shown off.
> 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.
SEF was the original posters who is a loudly proclaimed and proud
misogynist. He doesn't make any excuses or apologies for hated ALL
women and viewing ALL women as evil. Yet, somehow in his grotesque
evil world, we men are just poor victims of this overwhelming evil
that covers half the earth.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
