XPost: alt.feminism, soc.men, soc.women   
   XPost: alt.music.nirvana   
   From: horton@bruce.biz.ca   
      
   On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:09:08 -0500, "Jude Alexander"   
    wrote:   
      
   >   
   >"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.   
   >   
      
   =P   
      
   and sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)