XPost: alt.feminism, soc.men, soc.women   
   XPost: alt.music.nirvana   
   From: Jude@thebayou.LA   
      
   "bou bou"  wrote in message   
   news:i4gij11pm94j1r25hm6l3cph0p5k48bd8s@4ax.com...   
   > 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...   
      
   Could that have been a Freudian slip?  :)  I'm saying that in all   
   friendliness.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)