hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) (01/28/86)
In article <1167@homxb.UUCP> joey@homxb.UUCP (joey) writes: >The strings that some women wear on the beach nowadays >only do one thing...tease This is the second article of this general nature I've seen posted recently. Since others have already posted appropriate flames in reply I thought I'd have a try at analyzing the underlying attitude implied. Perhaps the original posters can gain some insights while recovering in the burn ward. Come, let us reason together ... It's been my experience that very few women deliberately set out to tease and frustrate men for the fun of it. When a man feels teased it's usually because a woman isn't responding to him in the manner _he_ thinks she should. The logic seems to run something to the effect of "I'm sexually attracted to you {for whatever reason}, therefore you are obligated to fulfill my fantasy.". There's also some ego-protection going on in the form of "There's nothing wrong with me, so your rejection of me must be an act designed to tease.". Reasoning like the above can lead an otherwise intelligent man to conclude he's being teased because an attractive woman is wearing beach attire at the beach. I've learned to avoid the pain and frustration of these fallacies by keeping one simple principle in mind: _Any_ woman has the right to say "NO" and mean it _any time she wants to_ and _need not justify_ her reasons for doing so. Period. Paragraph. Any man who refuses to accept and honor this principle is no better than a common rapist. If a man thinks he's been or being teased he has a perfect right to leave the situation and have nothing further to do with the woman in question. He _does not_ have _any_ right to force his attentions on her or in any way try to make her behave as he thinks she should. Now a thought experiment for the male readers: Imagine you are 5'2" tall and weigh 100 lbs. You are an attractive man and dress accordingly. While sunning on the beach, in your bikini swim suit, a 6'4", 200 lb. homosexual man walks up and tries to pick you up. You politely decline but he refuses to leave and begins to show signs of irritation at your continued rejections. He finally leaves in a huff, and half an hour later the same thing happens with a different man. This goes on all the time you're at the beach, every time your at the beach. Ladies: Is the above a fair analogy? [Note: The above is in no way intended to represent the behavior of gay men as a group or any particular individual.] -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) Citicorp(+)TTI 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. Geniuses are people so lazy they Santa Monica, CA 90405 do everything right the first time. (213) 450-9111, ext. 2483 {philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe
whitehur@tymix.UUCP (Pamela K. Whitehurst) (01/30/86)
In article <118@ttidcc.UUCP> hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) writes: >Now a thought experiment for the male readers: > >Imagine you are 5'2" tall and weigh 100 lbs. You are an attractive man and >dress accordingly. While sunning on the beach, in your bikini swim suit, a >6'4", 200 lb. homosexual man walks up and tries to pick you up. You >politely decline but he refuses to leave and begins to show signs of >irritation at your continued rejections. He finally leaves in a huff, and >half an hour later the same thing happens with a different man. This goes >on all the time you're at the beach, every time your at the beach. > >Ladies: Is the above a fair analogy? > >[Note: The above is in no way intended to represent the behavior of gay men > as a group or any particular individual.] Imagine you closely resemble someone rich and/or famous. Wherever you go women mistake you for this other person. Most of the time they stay at a distance and just watch you. Several times a week someone will talk to you for a while and when they realize you are not who they thought you were they will leave. Occasionally someone will realize you are not who they thought you were but will stay around anyway because they like *you* as a person. There seems to be something that makes the resemblance more pronounced when you are sunning yourself at the beach. One day you are at a public beach (since you don't have your own) and a woman comes over and talks to you. You really just feel like reading and give her rather short answers. You do not consider it polite to start off the conversation with "I'm not who you think I am." After a while she realizes that you are not who she thought you were and she goes away angry. She resents the fact that you are masquerading as a rich and/or famous person. ... Specific Disclaimer: The characters in this example are ficticious. Any resemblance to real men or women is coincidental. Most of the people I know do not act this way. -- +-------------------------------------------------------+ | General Disclaimer: The above opinions are my own and | | do not necessarily reflect the opinions | | of McDonnell Douglas Corporation. | +-------------------------------------------------------+ PKW hplabs!oliveb!tymix!whitehur
cheryl@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (cheryl) (01/30/86)
In article <118@ttidcc.UUCP> hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) writes: >Now a thought experiment for the male readers: > >Imagine you are 5'2" tall and weigh 100 lbs. You are an attractive man and >dress accordingly. While sunning on the beach, in your bikini swim suit, a >6'4", 200 lb. homosexual man walks up and tries to pick you up. You >politely decline but he refuses to leave and begins to show signs of >irritation at your continued rejections. He finally leaves in a huff, and >half an hour later the same thing happens with a different man. This goes >on all the time you're at the beach, every time your at the beach. > >Ladies: Is the above a fair analogy? > Yes. Cheryl
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (02/01/86)
Imagine you are a man sitting on a beach and not far away is a women sitting sunning herself and she catches you giving her more than just a passing glance and says to him "What are YOU staring at buster?" and the man says "Oh, just that infinitesimally bit of exterior posterior not covered by your G-string and pasties." Should this women who exhibits latent tendencies of exhibitional- ism scantilly clad to the extreme limits of the law be indignant when a healthy red blooded American male gives her the attention she obviously desires? And shouldn't the male also expect to solicit attention to himself if he was attaired thusly to this women's conterpart, namely a jock strap? If this woman didn't want people to look at her, why then does she desire a tan where the sun don't (usually) shine? Or is she perhaps soliciting attention from certain select groups of males and with the pretense of the virtue of a nun indignant to those who don't fall into that group? Could this woman consider herself a victim of beach harassment or is she simply a victim of her own misguided attempts at attracting a desirable male. Please no flames, just honest opinions desired. Remember, we're talking scantily clad here, you know, fish net bikinies with more holes than material. ray Said the pennyless kid smacking his lips to the irritated candy store owner: "I may be poor but I'm not blind."
brk.lib@ccnysci.UUCP (02/03/86)
> >>Now a thought experiment for the male readers: >> >>Imagine you are 5'2" tall and weigh 100 lbs. You are an attractive man and wait, lets change it a bit...... Now a thought experiment for everyone: Imagine you are are very attractive and dress accordingly. You are on the beach to get some sun and relax. While sunning on the beach, in your bikini swim suit, someone bigger than you that you don't know (and don't want to know) walks up and tries to pick you up. You politely decline but that person refuses to leave and begins to show signs irritation at your continued rejections. After finally leaving in a huff,a half an hour later the same thing happens again. This goes on all the time you're at the beach, every time that you are at the beach. How would you feel? There! Now its worded for everyone!
rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) (02/03/86)
In article <14986@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes: >Imagine you are a man sitting on a beach and not far away is a women sitting >sunning herself and she catches you giving her more than just a passing >glance and says to him "What are YOU staring at buster?" and the man says "Oh, >just that infinitesimally bit of exterior posterior not covered by your G-string >and pasties." Should this women who exhibits latent tendencies of exhibitional- >ism scantilly clad to the extreme limits of the law be indignant when a healthy >red blooded American male gives her the attention she obviously desires? And >shouldn't the male also expect to solicit attention to himself if he was >attaired thusly to this women's conterpart, namely a jock strap? OK, let's take this one at a time: a) She was rude, her comment was uncalled-for. b) He was rude back -- a silver star for him for the day. c) I should stop right here, because by the time this article reaches your site you are going to be dead. No amount of asbestos will save you from the wrath you will have created with the stupid (in my opinion) phrase: "she obviously desires?" d) I assume you were joking about the pasties. But, yes, the man will probably get some attention with a jock strap since they are much less often seen on beaches than are women in G-string-sized bikini bottoms. >If this woman didn't want people to look at her, why then does she desire a tan >where the sun don't (usually) shine? Or is she perhaps soliciting attention >from certain select groups of males and with the pretense of the virtue of a >nun indignant to those who don't fall into that group? >Could this woman consider herself a victim of beach harassment or is she simply >a victim of her own misguided attempts at attracting a desirable male. >Please no flames, just honest opinions desired. >Remember, we're talking scantily clad here, you know, fish net bikinies >with more holes than material. The woman in question, judging from her initial remark, is into a power game. Why play it beyond your initial parry? I'm sorry, this story is just not nearly as typical as is the girls' stories of being not only approached most of them don't seem to mind the simple act of being approached too much) by guys who refuse to take an implied or even outright "No" as an answer (this understandably bothers them a LOT). You have described a woman who is either in an excessively bad mood or is a real jerk of a person. If this really does happen to you yourself, why not just answer "What are YOU staring at buster?" with a sweet smile and the answer, "Nothing special." -- The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291) alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd mgnetp ]!burl!rcj ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua masscomp ]!clyde!rcj
bright@dataioDataio.UUCP (Walter Bright) (02/03/86)
In article <118@ttidcc.UUCP> hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) writes: >Now a thought experiment for the male readers: > >Imagine you are 5'2" tall and weigh 100 lbs. You are an attractive man and >dress accordingly. While sunning on the beach, in your bikini swim suit, a >6'4", 200 lb. homosexual man walks up and tries to pick you up. You >politely decline but he refuses to leave and begins to show signs of >irritation at your continued rejections. He finally leaves in a huff, and >half an hour later the same thing happens with a different man. This goes >on all the time you're at the beach, every time your at the beach. Well, from the male's point of view, if you hang around waiting for a woman to initiate a relationship with you, you are in for being very lonely. The only way I have found that works is to be very aggressive at meeting women, and being persistent. I am not aggressive by nature, I have had to learn it because I dislike being lonely even less. By the way, women usually say 'no' to me the first time I ask them out, but if I try again later, frequently they are more positive.
kort@hounx.UUCP (B.KORT) (02/03/86)
The debate focuses on the male reaction to a female sunning herself on the beach. Daniel Dennett, in his book, _Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting_, comments as follows: According to our traditional understanding of responsibility, we are primarily or directly responsible for our "voluntary" actions, the things we *do*, and (at most) only indirectly responsible for the things that happen to us. It is held, for instance, that "I can't help" the surge of anger (or lust, say) that I feel when objects in my environment present themselves to my senses in certain ways; however, I am supposed to govern my subsequent thoughts and activities regarding these objects by the force of my will. [Chapter 4] If one accepts Dennett's point of view, then those males who possess Free Will can be expected to behave in a civilized manner, while those males who do not believe in Free Will will feel free to act out their lust while protesting that they "can't help it" because their behavior is deterministically governed by the presence of the environmental stimulus. The only practical value of this point is that the female can infer from the male behavior whether the male is acting under his own self-control or under the control of the female via deterministic stimulus response. In other words, the beach scene is a sorting algorithm which the female may employ to sort the gentleman from the boor. Having accomplished the sort, she may then judge whose company she would prefer. Conversely, the boorish male learns nothing from the episode, while the gentlemanly male learns that he is dealing with a discriminating female. --Barry Kort
robert@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (02/04/86)
In article <14986@rochester.UUCP>, ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes: > Imagine you are a man sitting on a beach and not far away is a women > sitting sunning herself and she catches you giving her more than just > a passing glance and says to him "What are YOU staring at buster?" > and the man says "Oh, just that infinitesimally bit of exterior > posterior not covered by your G-string and pasties." > Should this women who exhibits latent tendencies of exhibitional- ism > scantily clad to the extreme limits of the law be indignant when a > healthy red blooded American male gives her the attention she > obviously desires? You're making a lot of (ignorant, biased, sexist) assumptions here. You're equating scanty dress with wantonness, which is not only demonstrably false, but laughably subject to fashion. It happens that the socially acceptable minimum in bathing attire has stayed nearly constant for a long time -- the mid-sixties at least -- at practically nothing. This leaves little room to use the old "anyone wearing fewer than n yards of cloth is a whore" argument. It's a stupid argument, anyway. She probably doesn't want your attention. If she did, she wouldn't snap at you. > And shouldn't the male also expect to solicit attention to himself if > he was attired thusly to this women's counterpart, namely a jock > strap? A jock strap is underwear, not a swimsuit. Try to come up with valid analogies. You didn't say she was at the beach in her underwear. > If this woman didn't want people to look at her, why then > does she desire a tan where the sun don't (usually) shine? Or is she > perhaps soliciting attention from certain select groups of males and > with the pretense of the virtue of a nun indignant to those who don't > fall into that group? Some people take pride in their appearance even when they're NOT trying to get laid. > Could this woman consider herself a victim of beach harassment or is > she simply a victim of her own misguided attempts at attracting a > desirable male. Please no flames, just honest opinions desired. > Remember, we're talking scantily clad here, you know, fish net > bikinis with more holes than material. You have absolutely no reason to believe that she's trying to attract men. Your assumption that "less clothing=promiscuous tramp" is the only basis for any of your speculations, and the assumption is silly. -- Robert Plamondon UUCP: {turtlevax, resonex, cae780}!weitek!robert FidoNet: 143/12 robert plamondon
greenber@phri.UUCP (Ross Greenberg) (02/04/86)
It's all so silly! You folks haven't been to other parts of the world much have you? Our European subscribers that are still reading this (those that haven't laughed themselves to death over how silly Americans can be!) must be thinking even less of the colonies: What about topless beaches? You know, the kind most other, less puritanical countries have. The kind where a woman goes, removes her top entirely, and gets a tan, reads a book, swims, whatever. The times I've approached/been approached by a women on these beaches, sans breast-covering, there was never the tension we have here. It was natural, there was no feeling of "vuneralibilty" or any of that other stuff. Funny, 'cause you don't even think "Hey....she's got no top on". You just sit and chat, and maybe go out later for a drink, or laugh about the language difference. Next time I vacation over there, I'm gonna have a great topic of conversation: this current silliness. -- ------ ross m. greenberg ihnp4!allegra!phri!sysdes!greenber [phri rarely makes a guest-account user a spokesperson. Especially not me.]
stu16@whuxl.UUCP (SMITH) (02/05/86)
> > 2. Those who believe that the three men, by trying, with varying degrees of > persistance, strike up an acquaintance with the woman were *harassing* her. > Harrassment is in the eyes of the harassee. What I may think of as harrassment by a sleazeball, I might take as a compliment from a "civilized" co-worker. It really depends on WHO is doing the harassing. -- whuxl!stu16
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (02/06/86)
In article <118@ttidcc.UUCP> hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) writes: >Now a thought experiment for the male readers: > >Imagine you are 5'2" tall and weigh 100 lbs. You are an attractive man and >dress accordingly. While sunning on the beach, in your bikini swim suit, a >6'4", 200 lb. homosexual man walks up and tries to pick you up. You >politely decline but he refuses to leave and begins to show signs of >irritation at your continued rejections. He finally leaves in a huff, and >half an hour later the same thing happens with a different man. This goes >on all the time you're at the beach, every time your at the beach. > >Ladies: Is the above a fair analogy? Not quite. Let's suppose, in addition, that your trunks can be undone at the back, and you have done so in order to get a nice even tan. Now, maybe, this analogy is a little fairer. (Yes, I know you asked the ladies for an answer, and I am not a lady. Well, excuuuuse me.) -- David Canzi "Mothers are fonder than fathers of their children because they are more certain they are their own." -- Aristotle
abeaver@tekig5.UUCP (Annadiana Beaver) (02/06/86)
> > >If this woman didn't want people to look at her, why then does she desire a tan > >where the sun don't (usually) shine? Or is she perhaps soliciting attention > >from certain select groups of males and with the pretense of the virtue of a > >nun indignant to those who don't fall into that group? > >Could this woman consider herself a victim of beach harassment or is she simply > >a victim of her own misguided attempts at attracting a desirable male. > >Please no flames, just honest opinions desired. > >Remember, we're talking scantily clad here, you know, fish net bikinies > >with more holes than material. > > The woman in question, judging from her initial remark, is into a power game. > -- > > The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291) As a sunbather, < read NUDE suntanner> I have no problem understanding why, even though one is totally without clothing (or scantilly clad) it is unnerving to have someone sit and stare at you. In fact, it is one of the reasons why I gave up on going to the beach. I try to get a nice EVEN shade of tan, so that no matter what I wear, you don't see white streaks sticking out here and there. If you don't have a private place to tan and there are no clothing optional beaches, you might wear as little as possible in an attempt to get the most even tan possible. Now that I have a private place to do my tanning, I simply avoid that problem by staying home. That way I don't have to worry about some jerk trying to pick me up. When I did not have a private place to tan, you could find me at the beach along with all of the other sunbathers. I don't miss the fools who walk up and down the beach fully clothed and stare at everyone. However, I do miss the volley ball games.
jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (02/06/86)
In article <957@whuxl.UUCP> stu16@whuxl.UUCP (SMITH) writes: > Harrassment is in the eyes of the harassee. What I >may think of as harrassment by a sleazeball, I might take as >a compliment from a "civilized" co-worker. It really depends >on WHO is doing the harassing. I'm sorry, but this just won't wash. If there's no intent to intimidate or annoy, you may not like it, but you can't call everything you dislike harassment without the word losing some meaning. How is a random man to know whether you consider them sleazeball or civilized? (or even a well-ordered man?) One answer to that would be, "never make an approach", but you don't seem to advocate that, since you take some attention as a compliment. To get back to the beach scene, it seems to me that the consenus has been that the first and third men were harassing, and the second was not. (And apparently she thought the same way, since she (perhaps pointedly) spoke to him and not the third man (wasn't that a movie?) when she left.) The critical point, I think, is that the first man assumed an intimidating position, and the third man was apparently annoying her after she refused him. Here's a question for the women - if you could be absolutely sure that a man would respectfully back off and go his own way after you refused his attention, would there be any such thing as harassment, as the term was used in the beach scene discussion? Jeff Winslow
ray@rochester.UUCP (02/07/86)
> > You have described a woman who is either in an excessively bad mood or is > a real jerk of a person. If this really does happen to you yourself, why > not just answer "What are YOU staring at buster?" with a sweet smile and > the answer, "Nothing special." > -- > > alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd mgnetp ]!burl!rcj > ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua masscomp ]!clyde!rcj But that would be fibbing.
ray@rochester.UUCP (02/07/86)
> > > >>Now a thought experiment for the male readers: > >> > >>Imagine you are 5'2" tall and weigh 100 lbs. You are an attractive man and > > wait, lets change it a bit...... > > Now a thought experiment for everyone: > > Imagine you are are very attractive and > dress accordingly. You are on the beach to get some sun and relax. > While sunning on the beach, in your bikini swim suit, someone > bigger than you that you don't know (and don't want to know) > walks up and tries to pick you up. > You politely decline but that person refuses to leave and begins to show signs > irritation at your continued rejections. After finally leaving in a huff,a > half an hour later the same thing happens again. This goes > on all the time you're at the beach, every time that you are at the beach. > How would you feel? > > I would feel like dressing less accordingly. ray *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (02/07/86)
> >Imagine you are 5'2" tall and weigh 100 lbs. You are an attractive man and > >dress accordingly. While sunning on the beach, in your bikini swim suit, a > >6'4", 200 lb. homosexual man walks up and tries to pick you up. You > >politely decline but he refuses to leave and begins to show signs of > >irritation at your continued rejections. He finally leaves in a huff, and > >half an hour later the same thing happens with a different man. This goes > >on all the time you're at the beach, every time your at the beach. > > > >Ladies: Is the above a fair analogy? > > Not quite. Let's suppose, in addition, that your trunks can be undone > at the back, and you have done so in order to get a nice even tan. > Now, maybe, this analogy is a little fairer. > David Canzi Now I get it! David must find female backs every bit as sexually stimulating and erotic as he imagines homosexuals find male buttocks. Why else would he think that his changed analogy is better? Sorry to be the one to have to tell you this, Dave, but you've got rather unusual taste in bawdy parts. Most guys aren't turned on a whole lot by backs. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j
rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) (02/09/86)
In article <474@tekig5.UUCP> abeaver@tekig5.UUCP (Annadiana Beaver) writes: > Now that I have a private place to do my tanning, I simply avoid that > problem by staying home. That way I don't have to worry about some > jerk trying to pick me up. > When I did not have a private place to tan, you could find me at the > beach along with all of the other sunbathers. I don't miss the fools > who walk up and down the beach fully clothed and stare at everyone. > However, I do miss the volley ball games. > Gotcha. If I ever find you on the beach and have a desire to stare at you without being snapped at, I'll be sure to invite you to a volleyball game right off the bat. Message: Why does anyone need to snap at anyone? If you don't like my staring, please tell me so in a relatively civil manner and assume I won't be obnoxious. If I am obnoxious, pick up a tree (or lifeguard stand) and kill me. If you like my staring (you might if I was a candidate for GQ), then don't say anything against it. Why not let's try to be nice to each other, us peoples? It might make life a lot easier all around. I think Jackson Browne had some neat lyrics: "...I have done all that I could To see the evil in the good And now I'm crying; you must help me if you can." -- The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291) alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd mgnetp ]!burl!rcj ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua masscomp ]!clyde!rcj
laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton) (02/09/86)
>In article <957@whuxl.UUCP> stu16@whuxl.UUCP (SMITH) writes: > > Harrassment is in the eyes of the harassee. What I >may think of as harrassment by a sleazeball, I might take as >a compliment from a "civilized" co-worker. It really depends >on WHO is doing the harassing. Gosh, you have just made things hard as hell for all the men out there. Do you have rules that you post in advnace so that any given man can know in advance whether you consider them a sleazeball? It sounds to me as if you have set up a perfect no-win situation here. Assuming the truth of the statement ``civilized men don't want to harrass you'', then all the civilized men will logically stay away from you (after all, you might think they are sleazeballs, and then they would harrass you) and thus you will be left with *only* those people who don't care whether they harrass you or not. Everybody is unhappy. I think that an objective standard for harrassment is called for. Good luck getting one -- as far as I can see, some people offend real easy. I suspect they will consider me insensitive. -- Laura Creighton ihnp4!hoptoad!laura hoptoad!laura@lll-crg.arpa
cs111olg@ucla-cs.UUCP (02/09/86)
[To rip the throat out with my teeth and hear with glee the blood gurgle out...] In article <15135@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes: >> Imagine you are are very attractive and >> dress accordingly. You are on the beach to get some sun and relax. > >I would feel like dressing less accordingly. Ray, old pal! I thought you left the net for good, but alas! you are back to enertain us with your unique and disarming sense of Born-Again humor, pearls of Fundamentalist wisdom and under-ripe intelligence! How 'bout this scenario, Ray? You are sitting on the beach suntanning wearing a 3-piece suite and a tie... Naw, even YOU are not THAT weird and dumb! And now, for a few inflamed comments about your stand on the "Beach Harrassment" issue: I wonder if you spontaneously ejaculate every time you see a naked woman... Or any naked flesh for that matter! What's wrong with human bodies, Ray? Why's it that a strip of flesh MUST be construed by you as a sexual innuendo? Are you so stupid that you can't tell when a woman is paying SPECIAL attention to you and when she'd rather you left her alone? After all if she was interested in your company she would have probably come up to you herself... "Dressing less accordingly".... Your mediocre mind as always has noted only the surface... What if the girl in question was naked? Like on a nude beach? Or topless, like on a European beach? What if you walk down the street and run into a naked woman -- is your first reaction going to be "She probably wants to fuck me!"??? Do you unzip your pantin public places and let your penis hang out (if you have it, that is!) as a sign that you are available and looking for a fuck?! And WHAT'S WRONG WITH FISH-NET beach-wear?! Or does a sight of a woman's breast give you a heart attack, Ray? Then again, as I remember from the rape discussions last fall, a sight of a sexually attractive woman is enough to cloud your mind, demolish your morals, annihilate your self-control and threaten to turn you into a fuck-crazed monster-rapist! -------------------------------------------------------------- SKEPTICAL? EAT THIS ARTICLE NOW! Oleg Kiselev, student again P.S. Is it just my warped perception or are ALL born-again and fundamentalist Christians either dumbshits or assholes?
whitehur@tymix.UUCP (Pamela K. Whitehurst) (02/10/86)
In article <1015@burl.UUCP> rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) writes: >... >Why not let's try to be nice to each other, us peoples? It might make life >a lot easier all around. I promised myself never to by 'nice' again. I will be considerate, respectfull, and understanding, but never 'pleasing and agreeable'. Nice is for puppies, not people. -- P. K. Whitehurst hplabs!oliveb!tymix!whitehur +-------------------------------------------------------+ | General Disclaimer: The above opinions are my own and | | do not necessarily reflect the opinions | | of McDonnell Douglas Corporation. | +-------------------------------------------------------+
gmack@cisden.UUCP (Gregg Mackenzie) (02/10/86)
>> >> Not quite. Let's suppose, in addition, that your trunks can be undone >> at the back, and you have done so in order to get a nice even tan. >> Now, maybe, this analogy is a little fairer. [David Canzi] > > Now I get it! David must find female backs every bit as sexually >stimulating and erotic as he imagines homosexuals find male buttocks. Why >else would he think that his changed analogy is better? > Sorry to be the one to have to tell you this, Dave, but you've got >rather unusual taste in bawdy parts. Most guys aren't turned on a whole >lot by backs. [Jeff Sonntag] Oh, I dunno 'bout that. Haven't you ever had someone ask you for a back rub and then come to find out she's got all kindza zits 'n things all over it? Gaack! Tends to make you appreciate a nice back! :-) Gregg Mackenzie cisden!gmack
seifert@hammer.UUCP (Snoopy) (02/11/86)
Okay, boys and girls, listen up: Anyone who goes to a public beach and expects privacy is a fool. They are called *public* beaches for a reason. If you go there you had better be prepared to handle people attempting to engage you in conversation. (And yes, many of them will be hoping that that engaging you in conversation will lead to engaging you in other activities.) If you do not want to be approached by strangers, find yourself a private beach, or a backyard where strangers are not welcome. Snoopy tektronix!tekecs!doghouse.TEK!snoopy "I'm sorry, but I don't have a listing for that name."
stu16@whuxl.UUCP (Pippin) (02/11/86)
> >In article <957@whuxl.UUCP> stu16@whuxl.UUCP (SMITH) writes: > > > > Harrassment is in the eyes of the harassee. What I > >may think of as harrassment by a sleazeball, I might take as > >a compliment from a "civilized" co-worker. It really depends > >on WHO is doing the harassing. > > Gosh, you have just made things hard as hell for all the men out there. Do > you have rules that you post in advnace so that any given man can know > in advance whether you consider them a sleazeball? It sounds to me as if > you have set up a perfect no-win situation here. Assuming the truth of > the statement ``civilized men don't want to harrass you'', then all the > civilized men will logically stay away from you (after all, you might > think they are sleazeballs, and then they would harrass you) and thus > you will be left with *only* those people who don't care whether they > harrass you or not. Everybody is unhappy. > > I think that an objective standard for harrassment is called for. Good > luck getting one -- as far as I can see, some people offend real easy. > I suspect they will consider me insensitive. > > -- > Laura Creighton > ihnp4!hoptoad!laura > hoptoad!laura@lll-crg.arpa Methinks you have completely missed the point. My interpretation: A person you absolutely can't stand makes a suggestive remark - that's harrassment If a person you get along with quite well makes the same remark - that's humorous. (Attitude also depends on the harassee - how she takes the remark). -- Pippin Stuart whuxl!stu16
stu4@whuxl.UUCP (PAMATONI) (02/11/86)
> > Ray, old pal! I thought you left the net for good, but alas! you are back to > enertain us with your unique and disarming sense of Born-Again humor, > pearls of Fundamentalist wisdom and under-ripe intelligence! > > How 'bout this scenario, Ray? You are sitting on the beach suntanning wearing > a 3-piece suite and a tie... Naw, even YOU are not THAT weird and dumb! > > And now, for a few inflamed comments about your stand on the "Beach Harrassment" > issue: > I wonder if you spontaneously ejaculate every time you see a naked woman... > Or any naked flesh for that matter! What's wrong with human bodies, Ray? > Why's it that a strip of flesh MUST be construed by you as a sexual innuendo? > Are you so stupid that you can't tell when a woman is paying SPECIAL attention > to you and when she'd rather you left her alone? After all if she was interested > in your company she would have probably come up to you herself... > > "Dressing less accordingly".... Your mediocre mind as always has noted only > the surface... > > What if the girl in question was naked? Like on a nude beach? Or topless, like > on a European beach? What if you walk down the street and run into a naked > woman -- is your first reaction going to be "She probably wants to fuck me!"??? > Do you unzip your pantin public places and let your penis hang out (if you have > it, that is!) as a sign that you are available and looking for a fuck?! > > And WHAT'S WRONG WITH FISH-NET beach-wear?! Or does a sight of a woman's breast > give you a heart attack, Ray? > > Then again, as I remember from the rape discussions last fall, a sight of a > sexually attractive woman is enough to cloud your mind, demolish your morals, > annihilate your self-control and threaten to turn you into a fuck-crazed > monster-rapist! > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > SKEPTICAL? EAT THIS ARTICLE NOW! Oleg Kiselev, student again > > > P.S. Is it just my warped perception or are ALL born-again and fundamentalist > Christians either dumbshits or assholes? RIGHT ON!!!! Let's hear it for oleg! -- ihnp4!whuxl!pama
ran@ho95e.UUCP (RANeinast) (02/12/86)
> Okay, boys and girls, listen up: Anyone who goes to a public beach > and expects privacy is a fool. They are called *public* beaches for > a reason. If you go there you had better be prepared to handle > people attempting to engage you in conversation. (And yes, many of > them will be hoping that that engaging you in conversation will > lead to engaging you in other activities.) > If you do not want to be approached by strangers, find yourself > a private beach, or a backyard where strangers are not welcome. > Snoopy > tektronix!tekecs!doghouse.TEK!snoopy Yeah, right. And anyone who goes to a public restaurant and expects privacy is a fool. If you go there you should expect all sorts of people to come up to your table, maybe want to dance with you, maybe try to sell you some insurance, whatever they want. If you don't want to be approached by strangers, eat at home. After all, it is a PUBLIC place, isn't it? And how about a public library. If you go there and expect privacy, you're a fool. Anybody can go there and have a party if they wish. After all, it a PUBLIC place, isn't it? Oh, and by the way, anybody can stop you on the highway to try to meet you, and maybe discuss the situation in Angola. They can honk at you as they wish, and shout out various suggestions. If you don't want to meet these people, you can just stay home. After all, it is a PUBLIC road, isn't it? Look, obviously there is no law against this sort of harassment, but rules of politeness do apply. Just because some people are too stupid to realize this and make asses (as in har-asses) of themselves, does not mean we have to countenance it. There are codes of behavior for various public places. Nowhere do I see that the code of behavior for beaches includes the right to approach and annoy complete strangers. -- ". . . and shun the frumious Bandersnatch." Robert Neinast (ihnp4!ho95c!ran) AT&T-Bell Labs
abeaver@tekig5.UUCP (Annadiana Beaver) (02/12/86)
Here Curtis quoted part of my article, in which I said that I did not miss the people who walk up and down the nude beaches, fully clothed, and simply stare at all of us who are unclothed. > Message: Why does anyone need to snap at anyone? If you don't like my > staring, please tell me so in a relatively civil manner and assume I won't > be obnoxious. If I am obnoxious, pick up a tree (or lifeguard stand) and > kill me. If you like my staring (you might if I was a candidate for GQ), > then don't say anything against it. Nowere in my article had I said that I 'snap at anyone'. Actually, I am really easy to get along with. I enjoy meeting new people. In fact, at the time when I was going out to 'The Rock', which is a local nude beach, I introduced myself to a group of very darkly tanned people. I knew that they were out there all of the time and would most likely assist me if I encountered any trouble. After talking with them for a while, I knew that I had made the right decision. If I feel uncomfortable about a 'spectator', I will either turn around, or go jump in the water. Which I do, depends on how long I have been tanning at the time. Now, notice that I said, "spectator". I am talking about the 'clothed' ones, who don't participate. If an unclothed individual wishes to stare, they should realize that I MAY wish to stare back. (-: Annadiana Beaver abeaver@tektronix
kort@hounx.UUCP (B.KORT) (02/12/86)
Laura Creighton and Pippin Stuart have hit the nail on the head. I have noticed a curious phenomenon in interpersonal relationships which I call the "Game of A Posteriori Expectations." It works like this: I have an expectation of you which I haven't expressed. I wait for you to "do your thing". *After* you do your thing, I advise you that it was not what I expected. Curiously, when you do "A", I advise you that I expected you to do "not A". But if you do "not A", then I advise you that I expected you to do "A". It's a neat game. I always win (in the short run). --Barry Kort ...ihnp4!hounx!kort
seifert@hammer.UUCP (Snoopy) (02/12/86)
In article <1395@mhuxt.UUCP> js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) writes: >> >Imagine you are 5'2" tall and weigh 100 lbs. You are an attractive man and >> >dress accordingly. While sunning on the beach, in your bikini swim suit, a >> >> Not quite. Let's suppose, in addition, that your trunks can be undone >> at the back, and you have done so in order to get a nice even tan. >> Now, maybe, this analogy is a little fairer. >> David Canzi > > Sorry to be the one to have to tell you this, Dave, but you've got >rather unusual taste in bawdy parts. Most guys aren't turned on a whole >lot by backs. Speak for yourself, Jeff, lots of us find the female back to be quite attractive. Snoopy tektronix!tekecs!doghouse.TEK!snoopy
robert@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (02/12/86)
>[...] Oleg Kiselev, student again > P.S. Is it just my warped perception or are ALL born-again > and fundamentalist Christians either dumbshits or assholes? It's just your warped perception. You're a bigot, Oleg. -- Robert Plamondon UUCP: {turtlevax, cae780}!weitek!robert FidoNet: 143/12 robert plamondon Today's qoute: "Foolproof, Natasha, yes -- but not IDIOT proof!" -- Boris Badenov Disclaimer: It wasn't me! The check is in the mail! They made me do it! It was an accident!
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (02/12/86)
> Okay, boys and girls, listen up: Anyone who goes to a public beach > and expects privacy is a fool. They are called *public* beaches for > a reason. If you go there you had better be prepared to handle > people attempting to engage you in conversation. (And yes, many of > them will be hoping that that engaging you in conversation will > lead to engaging you in other activities.) > > If you do not want to be approached by strangers, find yourself > a private beach, or a backyard where strangers are not welcome. > Snoopy > tektronix!tekecs!doghouse.TEK!snoopy ----------- Bullshit. A public beach is not a singles bar. One does not surrender one's right to privacy at a public beach, any more than at a public library, a public museum, or a public street. Your statement is equivalent to "If you don't want to be approached by strangers, stay off the streets. You should expect to be approached walking on a public street." A woman (or man) sitting alone at a singles bar or similar setting has indicated that he or she is interested in company. That is NOT the case at public beaches. Attitudes like that of Snoopy make me understand why some women get angry. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (02/13/86)
Well folks, let's here it for Oleg, that foreigner who has followed me around
the net for a year like a monkey on my back, let's here it for his accomplish-
ment in contributing new heights of depravity to the net.
I should explain why Olegisky hounds me. Some time back I said something
about his beloved idol, Frank Zappa, that he didn't like. Obviously, being a
foreigner, he doesn't understand that we Americans have become very accustomed
to freedom of speech and have a right to our opinions. Judging by his colorful
and distasteful use of adjectives, his lack of articulation can only be
accounted for by his playing hooky instead of attending english language
classes, or perhaps he is simply of that class of person, but in any case,
Olegisky is a case. If it'll make you feel any better Olegisky, compared to
yours, Zappa's is a class act.
Even net.chess was subjected to such a posting aimed at me by Olegisky. You
see, there doesn't have to be a controversial subject to rattle his chain. He
simply rattles his own chain. Woof!
your buddy 0 0
:
<->
Ray
You don't like me anymore? Whaaat anymore?
era@ih4ep.UUCP (E. R. Anderson) (02/13/86)
> A public beach is not a singles bar. One does not surrender > one's right to privacy at a public beach, any more than at a public > library, a public museum, or a public street. Your statement is > equivalent to > "If you don't want to be approached by strangers, stay off the streets. > You should expect to be approached walking on a public street." > A woman (or man) sitting alone at a singles bar or similar > setting has indicated that he or she is interested in company. That > is NOT the case at public beaches. Attitudes like that of Snoopy > make me understand why some women get angry. > -- > Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan You lost me somewhere. First what is "a singles bar or similar setting"? Do singles bars notify people coming in that they have surrendered their rights to privacy? How do I know if it's a singles bar or just a regular bar? Is it acceptable to approach someone at a "singles beach"? Approaching someone is acceptable in almost any setting, including a public beach, a public library, a public museum, or a public street. The question is what to do if they ask to be left alone. The answer is simple: leave them alone. Eric Anderson ihnp4!ih4ep!era
laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton) (02/14/86)
In article <977@whuxl.UUCP> stu16@whuxl.UUCP (Pippin) writes: > Methinks you have completely missed the point. > > My interpretation: A person you absolutely can't >stand makes a suggestive remark - that's harrassment > > If a person you get along with quite well makes the >same remark - that's humorous. (Attitude also depends on the >harassee - how she takes the remark). >-- > Pippin Stuart > whuxl!stu16 No, I got the point the first time. I just think that the sort of non-objective thinking that produces concepts such as ``harrassment is in the eyes of the harassee'' is cruel. If you actually go around thinking this way, then I suggest you change your way of thinking, and as fast as you can, because you are probably being extremely hard on the people around you in your life. They are in the unenviable position of having to read your mind before they can determine whether their efforts are going to be considered humourous or harrassment. This is one heavy load to expect hald the human race to carry. Face it, the world is full of lonely men who would dearly like to meet a member of the opposite sex with whom they can get along. Remarks like this only serves to let them know that they have to go at it blind. What one woman will call ``humourous'' another will call ``harrassment''. When some women say ``Leave me alone.'' they mean, ``buzz off, buster, I'm not interested'' -- and others mean ``if you work real hard, I will be nice to you, but I'm going to make you work very hard, because I am shy, or interested in having you prove yourself to me or...'' It is all very unappetising. It makes you want to stay home and hack on your editor, and give up on meeting women altogether. Luckily for those lonely women out there, most guys are lonely enough to run through the mill again and again, still looking for someone they can understand well enough to like, and eventually love. (Others, of course, give up on like altogether. They fall in love on the bus, in class, at work, on the street...this is a hard way to live, but I suspect better than concluding that the other half of the race is too irrational to go out with -- after all, they are bound to run into a good one after a while.) Can't you see that it is *really*, *really*, *rotten* to hand this out to people at large? Most readers of this list (like most men, surprise!) have no interest in harrassing women on the beach. Meeting them, yes. Taking to them, yes. Persuing the acquaintance, maybe. Something more than that? also maybe. But almost nobody gets up in the morning and says ``Hey! Let's go down to the beach and harrass some women!!'' So the readers of this list are waiting, with bated breath, to figure out how it is that you go down to the beach, meet women, and don't harrass them. They have a nice strong interest in this. And what do they get? They get told that the whole situation is hopeless. If random-female doesn't like the way you look, or the way you dress, or whatever, she will consider your opening line harrassment. If she likes you, then she will not. Seems rather hard on the ego of poor old average-guy-wanting-to-meet -someone-on-the-beach. No matter what you do, sucker, I can still get you for harrassment! I find this really, really, really mean. All I can hope is that the problem is that, for all the talk of women's liberation, the people who say such things haven't ever taken the big step of approaching men to whom they are attracted and waiting to see if they are going to get an ego-crushing rejection. (Which probably won't happen. Men, being well aware of this as a big source of anxiety try to let you down gently, when they try to let you down at all. Most of the men which I have asked out have been so overwhelmed at the ego-stroke of having *somebody else* ask *them* out that that is enough to make them accept. Things will even out over time, as more women ask more men out, but right now things are pretty unbalanced.) In the meantime, I still see this horrible double-standard. There is all this talk about ``insensitive men'' and ``sensitive caring women'' but I wonder -- are those women only caring about other women? Labelling men as harrassers, without providing objective standards for harrassment goes pretty high on my ``insensitive'' list. Perhaps the problem is that many women cannot see beyond ``he said something which I didn't like'' to ``I wonder why he said that?'' It is easy to scream harrassment whenever you don't get what you want, but hardly fair. Never attribute to malice what is easily explained by stupidity, and remember -- while you are not obliged to like every man that comes around, the ones you don't like aren't obliged to live in a hole either. And you can't find their very existence harrassing -- just as they can't find your existence harrassing. ps -- for any men who have managed to read this far. Try real hard to forget the notion that if a woman rejects you it is because you have ULTIMATE LOSER scribbled across your face in a way only she can read. It's hard, like swallowing elephants, but true. keep on trucking. The first ten rejections hurt like hell. the next ten also hurt. From then on, it is not so bad. the trick is to get this far. (Big hint -- you won't get this far if all you do is hack on your editor...) -- Laura Creighton ihnp4!hoptoad!laura laura@lll-crg.arpa
laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton) (02/14/86)
> A public beach is not a singles bar. One does not surrender > one's right to privacy at a public beach, any more than at a public > library, a public museum, or a public street. Your statement is > equivalent to > "If you don't want to be approached by strangers, stay off the streets. > You should expect to be approached walking on a public street." > A woman (or man) sitting alone at a singles bar or similar > setting has indicated that he or she is interested in company. That > is NOT the case at public beaches. Attitudes like that of Snoopy > make me understand why some women get angry. > -- > Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan Nope, it is equivalent to, if you don't want to ever be approached by anybody at any time, stay off the streets. There is nothing wrong with approaching people in libraries, museums or streets. The place that the problems enters in is when the approacher gets an ``I want to be private'' out of the approachee. The question is one of ``is this serious, or do they just want me to work harder?'' I vote for treating all such requests as serious, all the time, even when you are *absolutely* *certain* that this is an unserious remark -- in the hopes that the work-harder crowd will get so lonely that they will give up this dishonest behaviour. -- Laura Creighton ihnp4!hoptoad!laura laura@lll-crg.arpa
jeanette@randvax.UUCP (Jeanette Haritan) (02/14/86)
>> Not quite. Let's suppose, in addition, that your trunks can be undone >> at the back, and you have done so in order to get a nice even tan. >> Now, maybe, this analogy is a little fairer. >> David Canzi > > Now I get it! David must find female backs every bit as sexually >stimulating and erotic as he imagines homosexuals find male buttocks. Why >else would he think that his changed analogy is better? > Sorry to be the one to have to tell you this, Dave, but you've got >rather unusual taste in bawdy parts. Most guys aren't turned on a whole >lot by backs. >-- >Jeff Sonntag >ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j Regarding Jeff's last statement, I CAN see his point, however, if there were complete truth in it, then would this discussion be going on in the first place? No sarcasm...just an elaboratory question. jlh
robert@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (02/14/86)
In article <15284@rochester.UUCP>, ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes: > Well folks, let's here it for Oleg, that foreigner who has followed > me around the net for a year like a monkey on my back, let's here it > for his accomplishment in contributing new heights of depravity to > the net. > I should explain why Olegisky hounds me. Some time back I said > something about his beloved idol, Frank Zappa, that he didn't like. > Obviously, being a foreigner, he doesn't understand that we Americans > have become very accustomed to freedom of speech and have a right to > our opinions. Do you take bigotry lessons, Frank? I knew you were a sexist, and now you demonstrate your hostility to foreigners. Of course you have a right to your opinions. Who else would want them? -- Robert Plamondon UUCP: {turtlevax, cae780}!weitek!robert FidoNet: 143/12 robert plamondon Today's qoute: "Foolproof, Natasha, yes -- but not IDIOT proof!" -- Boris Badenov Disclaimer: It wasn't me! The check is in the mail! They made me do it! It was an accident!
rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) (02/14/86)
In article <486@tekig5.UUCP> abeaver@tekig5.UUCP (Annadiana Beaver) writes: > > Here Curtis quoted part of my article, in which I said that I did not > miss the people who walk up and down the nude beaches, fully clothed, > and simply stare at all of us who are unclothed. > >> Message: Why does anyone need to snap at anyone? If you don't like my >> staring, please tell me so in a relatively civil manner and assume I won't >> be obnoxious. If I am obnoxious, pick up a tree (or lifeguard stand) and >> kill me. If you like my staring (you might if I was a candidate for GQ), >> then don't say anything against it. > > Nowere in my article had I said that I 'snap at anyone'. > A public apology to Annadiana if I did anything wrong -- I can't find the article in question. I believe I was quoting an article of hers in which *she* had quoted an article where someone yelled about a woman snapping at him for looking at her. Anyway, I'm sure Annadiana doesn't make a habit of snapping at anyone; sorry if that interpretation could be put on my article or if I just plain screwed up and that is the *obvious* interpretation. BTW, abeaver, how about sending me mail and tell me where The Rock is -- we ain't got no nude beaches 'round here... -- The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291) alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd mgnetp ]!burl!rcj ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua masscomp ]!clyde!rcj
kathy@tolerant.UUCP (Kathy Kister) (02/15/86)
> >[...] Oleg Kiselev, student again > > P.S. Is it just my warped perception or are ALL born-again > > and fundamentalist Christians either dumbshits or assholes? > > It's just your warped perception. You're a bigot, Oleg. > -- I agree ! ! ! ! ! > > Robert Plamondon > UUCP: {turtlevax, cae780}!weitek!robert > FidoNet: 143/12 robert plamondon > > Today's qoute: "Foolproof, Natasha, yes -- but not IDIOT proof!" > -- Boris Badenov > Disclaimer: It wasn't me! The check is in the mail! They made me do > it! It was an accident! *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
brandx@ihlpl.UUCP (H. D. Weisberg) (02/15/86)
> > Well folks, let's here it for Oleg, that foreigner who has followed me around > the net for a year like a monkey on my back, let's here it for his accomplish- > ment in contributing new heights of depravity to the net. > > I should explain why Olegisky hounds me. Some time back I said something > about his beloved idol, Frank Zappa, that he didn't like. Obviously, being a > foreigner, he doesn't understand that we Americans have become very accustomed > to freedom of speech and have a right to our opinions. Judging by his colorful > and distasteful use of adjectives, his lack of articulation can only be > accounted for by his playing hooky instead of attending english language > classes, or perhaps he is simply of that class of person, but in any case, > Olegisky is a case. If it'll make you feel any better Olegisky, compared to > yours, Zappa's is a class act. > > Even net.chess was subjected to such a posting aimed at me by Olegisky. You > see, there doesn't have to be a controversial subject to rattle his chain. He > simply rattles his own chain. Woof! > > your buddy 0 0 > : > <-> > Ray > > You don't like me anymore? Whaaat anymore? > > Compared to YOUR act, EVERYONE is a class act. I don't know anything about your postings, but you come off as extremely bigoted. Even if I saw the posting you're referring to, and even if I thought that you were maligned, I still would believe that your posting here is out of line. I guess that college educations don't make everyone educated. You have a lot of nerve calling people "foreigners" and saying that they must not understand "US Americans" (whatever that means). Howard Weisberg "Plastic People - oh baby, now you're such a drag"
mjs@sfsup.UUCP (M.J.Shannon) (02/16/86)
> Face > it, the world is full of lonely men who would dearly like to meet > a member of the opposite sex with whom they can get along. Remarks > like this only serves to let them know that they have to go at it > blind. ... When some women say ``Leave me alone.'' they mean, > ``buzz off, buster, I'm not interested'' -- and others mean ``if you > work real hard, I will be nice to you, but I'm going to make you work > very hard, because I am shy, or interested in having you prove yourself > to me or...'' It is all very unappetising. It makes you want to stay > home and hack on your editor, and give up on meeting women altogether. Thank you, Laura! I'm relieved to see that there is at least one woman in this world who is really aware of this unfortunate situation. > Can't you see that it is *really*, *really*, *rotten* to hand this > out to people at large? Most readers of this list (like most men, > surprise!) have no interest in harrassing women on the beach. > Meeting them, yes. Taking to them, yes. Persuing the acquaintance, > maybe. Something more than that? also maybe. But almost nobody gets up > in the morning and says ``Hey! Let's go down to the beach and harrass > some women!!'' More cheers! Ladies, this is how it really is. Yes, there are some men who have the sensitivity of a stone, but I believe the vast majority of us are real peaple with real sensitivity, just as you would have us believe all women are (they aren't, but again, I believe the vast majority ARE sensitive to others feelings). > All I can hope is that the problem is that, for all the talk of > women's liberation, the people who say such things haven't ever > taken the big step of approaching men to whom they are attracted and > waiting to see if they are going to get an ego-crushing rejection. Hear, hear! > (Which probably won't happen. Men, being well aware of this as a big > source of anxiety try to let you down gently, when they try to let > you down at all. Most of the men which I have asked out have been > so overwhelmed at the ego-stroke of having *somebody else* ask *them* > out that that is enough to make them accept. Things will even out > over time, as more women ask more men out, but right now things are > pretty unbalanced.) Alas, all too true. Consider it a challenge, ladies! Even things up! See what it feels like to be told, "Sorry, not interested." > ps -- for any men who have managed to read this far. Try real hard > to forget the notion that if a woman rejects you it is because > you have ULTIMATE LOSER scribbled across your face in a way > only she can read. It's hard, like swallowing elephants, but > true. keep on trucking. The first ten rejections hurt like > hell. the next ten also hurt. From then on, it is not so > bad. the trick is to get this far. (Big hint -- you won't > get this far if all you do is hack on your editor...) Yes, but for many of us (yes, I include myself, if you haven't guessed by now) it is VERY hard. (I haven't tried swallowing an elephant lately, though.) The trick is indeed trying to get to the 20+ rejections category. It isn't like it's a real accomplishment.... > Laura Creighton > ihnp4!hoptoad!laura > laura@lll-crg.arpa Again, thanks, Laura. You give hope to those of us who DO have "ULTIMATE LOSER" scribbled across our faces. (Oops!) -- Marty Shannon UUCP: ihnp4!attunix!mjs Phone: +1 (201) 522 6063 Disclaimer: I speak for no one.
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (02/16/86)
> -- > Laura Creighton > ihnp4!hoptoad!laura > laura@lll-crg.arpa A big thanks to Laura Creighton (article 10755) for her intelligent insights regarding the dating game of the human species. It is in my opinion one of the best articles on this subject submitted to net.singles. It should be required reading for those concerned, which is most of us. ray
abeaver@tekig5.UUCP (Annadiana Beaver) (02/16/86)
> > < ray writes > > > scantily clad to the extreme limits of the law be indignant when a > > healthy red blooded American male gives her the attention she > > obviously desires? > > You're making a lot of (ignorant, biased, sexist) assumptions here. This kind of attitude is more than biased or sexist. It is very DANGEROUS. > > she simply a victim of her own misguided attempts at attracting a > > desirable male. Please no flames, just honest opinions desired. > > Remember, we're talking scantily clad here, you know, fish net > > bikinis with more holes than material. As a woman who goes out alone, because I like to do things OTHER than stay at home all of the time. If I go out on a hot night, to listen to music, I might wear something which has a minimal amount of fabric to it. This would NOT be an effort to attract people. It would be ME staying cool. > You have absolutely no reason to believe that she's trying to attract > men. Your assumption that "less clothing=promiscuous tramp" is the > only basis for any of your speculations, and the assumption is silly. > -- > > Robert Plamondon Once again, I must disagree, in that you are not expressing just how TWISTED this type of logic is. If people are to be safe when they wish to go to any type of public place, EVERYOME should understand that how you LOOK is to make yourself happy. Not to solicit the attention of others. So many rapists have used that type of logic to justify their lack of self- control. Annadiana Beaver abeaver@tektronix
cheryl@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (cheryl) (02/17/86)
In article <8837@ucla-cs.ARPA> cs111olg@ucla-cs.UUCP (Oleg Kiselev (the student incarnation)) writes: >[To rip the throat out with my teeth and hear with glee the blood gurgle out...] > >Ray, old pal! I thought you left the net for good, but alas! you are back to >enertain us with your unique and disarming sense of Born-Again humor, >pearls of Fundamentalist wisdom and under-ripe intelligence! > >How 'bout this scenario, Ray? You are sitting on the beach suntanning wearing >a 3-piece suite and a tie... Naw, even YOU are not THAT weird and dumb! > >And now, for a few inflamed comments about your stand on the "Beach Harrassment" >issue: >I wonder if you spontaneously ejaculate every time you see a naked woman... >Or any naked flesh for that matter! What's wrong with human bodies, Ray? >Why's it that a strip of flesh MUST be construed by you as a sexual innuendo? >Are you so stupid that you can't tell when a woman is paying SPECIAL attention >to you and when she'd rather you left her alone? After all if she was interested >in your company she would have probably come up to you herself... >"Dressing less accordingly".... Your mediocre mind as always has noted only >the surface... > >What if the girl in question was naked? Like on a nude beach? Or topless, like >on a European beach? What if you walk down the street and run into a naked >woman -- is your first reaction going to be "She probably wants to fuck me!"??? >Do you unzip your pantin public places and let your penis hang out (if you have >it, that is!) as a sign that you are available and looking for a fuck?! > >And WHAT'S WRONG WITH FISH-NET beach-wear?! Or does a sight of a woman's breast >give you a heart attack, Ray? > >Then again, as I remember from the rape discussions last fall, a sight of a >sexually attractive woman is enough to cloud your mind, demolish your morals, >annihilate your self-control and threaten to turn you into a fuck-crazed >monster-rapist! > >-------------------------------------------------------------- >SKEPTICAL? EAT THIS ARTICLE NOW! Oleg Kiselev, student again > > >P.S. Is it just my warped perception or are ALL born-again and fundamentalist >Christians either dumbshits or assholes?
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (02/17/86)
> In article <1395@mhuxt.UUCP> js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) writes: >>> >Imagine you are 5'2" tall and weigh 100 lbs. You are an attractive man and >>> >dress accordingly. While sunning on the beach, in your bikini swim suit, a > >> > >> Not quite. Let's suppose, in addition, that your trunks can be undone > >> at the back, and you have done so in order to get a nice even tan. > >> Now, maybe, this analogy is a little fairer. > >> David Canzi > > > > Sorry to be the one to have to tell you this, Dave, but you've got > >rather unusual taste in bawdy parts. Most guys aren't turned on a whole > >lot by backs. > > Speak for yourself, Jeff, lots of us find the female back to be quite > attractive. > Snoopy I just want to make two points: 1.) I think that a discussion of which female body parts are the most attractive is not appropriate to net.women; maybe this discussion should be routed to net.high-school.locker-room. 2.) I still think that anyone who finds backs *as exciting as gays must find male buttocks* is rather unusual. I suppose I could be wrong, since David and Snoopy have announced themselves as counterexamples. Watch your backs, ladies! -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j
davida@umd5.UUCP (02/18/86)
> > > < ray writes > > > > scantily clad to the extreme limits of the law be indignant when a > > > healthy red blooded American male gives her the attention she > > > obviously desires? > > > > You're making a lot of (ignorant, biased, sexist) assumptions here. > > This kind of attitude is more than biased or sexist. It is very DANGEROUS. > > > Robert Plamondon > > Annadiana Beaver I have a question: Why are you all taking the extreme approaches to this issue? Are *all* the guys that approach a woman on the beach Neanderthalls? Do *all* women approached feel threatened/nauseated? Please just remember that sometimes, the guy appeals to the woman, or goes away when politely told to. I mean, there are some guys out there that walk upright without dragging their knuckles on the ground ..... No, I'm not trying to re-start the sensitivity issue again. * sigh, I guess I'll get flamed for this ... * -- David Arnold University of Maryland UUCP: { {allegra, seismo}!umcp-cs, ihnp4!rlgvax } ...!cvl!umd5!davida ARPA: davida@umd5.ARPA
dick@ucsfcca.UUCP (Dick Karpinski) (02/19/86)
In article <519@hoptoad.uucp> laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton) writes: > >No, I got the point the first time. I just think that the sort of >non-objective thinking that produces concepts such as ``harrassment >is in the eyes of the harassee'' is cruel. Thank you, Laura. I thought about trying to say this stuff, but felt inadequate to the task, especially given my gender, size and history. You seem to hate the sin but not the sinner quite effectively. Dare I say "You are a credit to your race/gender/species."? In any case, it is my pleasure to read your well chosen words. Dick -- Dick Karpinski Manager of Unix Services, UCSF Computer Center UUCP: ...!ucbvax!ucsfcgl!cca.ucsf!dick (415) 666-4529 (12-7) BITNET: dick@ucsfcca Compuserve: 70215,1277 Telemail: RKarpinski USPS: U-76 UCSF, San Francisco, CA 94143
jeff@utastro.UUCP (Jeff Brown the Scumbag) (02/19/86)
> ...., or goes away when politely > told to. I mean, there are some guys out there that walk upright without > dragging their knuckles on the ground ..... ... and some of us whose knuckles DO drag on the ground will go away when told to, politely or otherwise. Jeff Brown the Scumbag {allegra,ihnp4}!{noao,ut-sally}!utastro!jeff jeff@astro.UTEXAS.EDU Astronomy Department, U. of Texas, Austin 78712 "Some of us are just more -- or less -- evolved than others."
abeaver@tekig5.UUCP (Annadiana Beaver) (02/19/86)
> > ... When some women say ``Leave me alone.'' they mean, > > ``buzz off, buster, I'm not interested'' -- and others mean ``if you > > work real hard, I will be nice to you, but I'm going to make you work > > very hard, because I am shy, or interested in having you prove yourself > > to me or...'' It is all very unappetising. It makes you want to stay > > home and hack on your editor, and give up on meeting women altogether. > > Thank you, Laura! I'm relieved to see that there is at least one woman > in this world who is really aware of this unfortunate situation. Now wait a minute.. What makes you think that only one of the sexes is like this and that ANYONE can end up feeling this way? There have been several times in my life when I have taken refuge in my room and logged on, simply as a distraction from 'relationships'. Each of us (people) have our own idea of 'just how close' we can let others get to us. It is a defence mechanism. There are many 'men' as well as 'women' who are slow to get into new relationships. > > Most of the men which I have asked out have been > > so overwhelmed at the ego-stroke of having *somebody else* ask *them* > > out that that is enough to make them accept. Things will even out > > over time, as more women ask more men out, but right now things are > > pretty unbalanced.) There has only been once that I had had someone accept my dinner offer because he was flattered that someone asked him out. It turned out that he was working at starting a relationship with another woman. He had only accepted because of surprize. > > Alas, all too true. Consider it a challenge, ladies! Even things up! > See what it feels like to be told, "Sorry, not interested." I guess that the way that you take it depends on how well a person can accept the fact that we are all individuals and will do as 'we' feel we should. Some people don't seem to understand that some times there ARE other things in life. Each of us is the center of our own universe. We each have the right to decide whether to allow another person to enter into that space. > > Try real hard > > to forget the notion that if a woman rejects you it is because > > you have ULTIMATE LOSER scribbled across your face in a way > > only she can read. > > Laura Creighton > It isn't like it's a real accomplishment.... > Again, thanks, Laura. You give hope to those of us who DO have "ULTIMATE > LOSER" scribbled across our faces. (Oops!) > Marty Shannon And then there are those of us who are just "Incredibly Busy". It's not too easy to make dates if you have to get up early. Annadiana Beaver abeaver@tektronix I took the week off to prune my roses... If only the snow would melt so that I'd feel more like going it....
chris@globetek.UUCP (chris) (02/19/86)
In article <519@hoptoad.uucp> laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton) writes: >In article <977@whuxl.UUCP> stu16@whuxl.UUCP (Pippin) writes: >> Methinks you have completely missed the point. >> >> My interpretation: A person you absolutely can't >>stand makes a suggestive remark - that's harrassment >> >> If a person you get along with quite well makes the >>same remark - that's humorous. (Attitude also depends on the >>harassee - how she takes the remark). >>-- >> Pippin Stuart >> whuxl!stu16 > >No, I got the point the first time. I just think that the sort of >non-objective thinking that produces concepts such as ``harrassment >is in the eyes of the harassee'' is cruel. If you actually >go around thinking this way, then I suggest you change your way of >thinking, and as fast as you can, because you are probably being >extremely hard on the people around you in your life. They are in >the unenviable position of having to read your mind before they can >determine whether their efforts are going to be considered humourous >or harrassment. > >This is one heavy load to expect half the human race to carry. [The rest of Laura's article goes on to say a lot of good and sensible and kind things about not getting discouraged by rejections and that women should approach men too, and ... oh hell, read it.] Laura, I've just GOT to take issue with you on this one. If we all knew in advance how other people would take our remarks, the world would be a wonderful place indeed. It would also be quite unbelievable, alas. Life is just FULL of context-sensitive things, and what we say to people is one of them. Harassment in many cases *IS* in the eyes of the harassee, because there simply *IS* no way we can tell in advance what a stranger is thinking or feeling with complete accuracy. Suppose I ask a man on the street quite politely if he is interested in reading this wonderful leaflet I'd like to give him. Am I harassing him? From my point of view, of course not. From many people's point of view, probably not. From his point of view? How can I tell? If it's been a good day for him, he probably says "no thanks" and think no more about it. If 17 people have tried to hand him leaflets in the last 3 blocks, he probably thinks something along the lines of "ANOTHER *&^$%!@+ harassing me!". From his point of view, I have harassed him. (Now, as to whether it's *reasonable* or not for him to feel harassed by by me is another question entirely, and I don't intend to go into that here.) On the other hand, there are some things which will practically ALWAYS be considered harassment -- like following someone around and yelling obscenities at them. The point I'm trying to make is that we often just can't know how another person will react to something we say. There are no SURE guidelines, not even common sense and common courtesy. "Common" does NOT mean "universal". All you can do is try to be considerate, and take "no" for an answer if that's what you get (I couldn't agree with you more here, Laura). If you approach a stranger in what YOU think is a polite and non-threatening manner, and they act like you're trying to rape/murder/whatever them, then from YOUR point of view that's their problem. However, if most of your approaches to strangers meet this kind of reaction, then it's probably time to re-think your view of what's "polite" and "non-threatening". -- Christine Robertson {linus, ihnp4, decvax}!utzoo!globetek!chris Money may not buy happiness, but misery in luxury has its compensations...
woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (02/21/86)
> And then there are those of us who are just "Incredibly Busy". > It's not too easy to make dates if you have to get up early. Sorry, but I don't buy this one. It's a story, an excuse. To avoid just saying you aren't enough interested. If you really wanted to go out with the guy who asked, you would MAKE the time, even if it meant losing a few hours of sleep. This is the worst rejection of all, when you get handed a line of BS. The "true" story is: my sleep (or whatever) time is more important to me than a date with you. I guarantee that if a guy who you really wanted to go out with asked you out, you wouldn't tell him you were too busy. --Greg -- {ucbvax!hplabs | decvax!noao | mcvax!seismo | ihnp4!seismo} !hao!woods CSNET: woods@ncar.csnet ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA "If the game is lost, we're all the same; No one left to place or take the blame"
jcp@osiris.UUCP (Jody Patilla) (02/22/86)
> > And then there are those of us who are just "Incredibly Busy". > > It's not too easy to make dates if you have to get up early. > Sorry, but I don't buy this one. It's a story, an excuse. To avoid just > saying you aren't enough interested. If you really wanted to go out with the > guy who asked, you would MAKE the time, even if it meant losing a few hours > of sleep. This is the worst rejection of all, when you get handed a line > of BS. The "true" story is: my sleep (or whatever) time is more important > to me than a date with you. I guarantee that if a guy who you really wanted > to go out with asked you out, you wouldn't tell him you were too busy. > 'Fraid you are wrong, pal. In fact, lack of sleep time can really wreck a relationship that's already established. Myself, I need alot of sleep and I get up very early - it's not fair for ME to be the one who loses sleep while the other person can sleep much later in the morning. Sacrificing sleep for a date can mean that I'll get sick, and losing more sleep means I won't get better, either. This happens just as easily when you live with a person who keeps different hours, and it's a real problem. And yes, my sleep time is VERY important, because it determines my general health and productivity. Not many things short of a major crisis are worth that. -- jcpatilla ..{seismo,allegra}!umcp-cs!aplcen!osiris!jcp Look for beauty in all things; let the fountains of delight refresh your heart.
g-rh@cca.UUCP (Richard Harter) (02/24/86)
[---------- Line eating is a disgusting perversion ------------] I've been following a discussion on asking people out on dates with some bemusement. Apparently the problem is -- what does it mean and how to react if the other person is too busy for one reason or another. How many times do you try before you give up and so on. What's going on here? Did somebody make up a bunch of rules that I didn't hear about? Is there a rule that says that you have to say "Would you like to go and do X at time Y -- yes or no?". Do you lose a thousand browny points if she/he says no? When I ask someone out on a date the conversation runs something like this: The first question is on the order of "would she like to get together some evening". The second is to ask what she would like to do, coupled with some suggestions. (Make it easy for her to express a preference if she has a preference or to let her have me decide if that's what she wants.) The third thing is to figure out when -- I tell her what my schedule and preferences are and ask what hers are. Naturally there are variations -- if I have tickets for a play and am looking for someone to go with me to it, I start from there. If that's out, I may go into the general routine, but that's another matter. Naturally there are a thousand variations -- asking someone on the spur of the moment if they would like to do something is a different matter from asking them out on a date. It seems to me that this is only common sense. I'm a busy person and most people that I know and am interested in are busy also. I would be interested in comments from the ladies (who are usually on the asked rather than asking end of this bit) as to whether they prefer this kind of approach. And, yes, I've been on the asked side of the fence, and have sometimes said yes and sometimes said no. And my feeling is that the approach doesn't matter that much -- the problems are on my side. If the answer is yes, I help work things out to a satisfactory arrangement. If the answer is no, I say so in a firm but tactful way. The problem is when I don't know what I want to do. Richard Harter, SMDS Inc.
woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (02/24/86)
> > > And then there are those of us who are just "Incredibly Busy". > > > It's not too easy to make dates if you have to get up early. > > Sorry, but I don't buy this one. It's a story, an excuse. To avoid just > > saying you aren't enough interested. If you really wanted to go out with the > > guy who asked, you would MAKE the time, even if it meant losing a few hours > > of sleep. > 'Fraid you are wrong, pal. In fact, lack of sleep time can really > wreck a relationship that's already established. If I didn't make it clear, I apologize, but I thought the discussion was about dates with a NEW person, NOT continued dates within an already established relationship. My point was, if you aren't willing to ONCE sacrifice a few hours of sleep to go out with me, or at least suggest an alternate time which would be more convenient for you, then you really aren't very interested in starting ANY kind of relationship with me. This is NOT the same thing as saying I ALWAYS expect you to sacrifice your sleep time. In fact, such a sacrifice might not even be necessary (see above), but using this as a reason for not going out with me is just a story to avoid telling me you really don't want to. > Myself, I need alot of sleep and I get up very early How much sleep you need is almost totally a product of how much you *think* you need; given the proper motivation, you could probably make do with a lot less than you now get. (As an extreme example, if your house was on fire, you wouldn't say you're too tired and go back to sleep. You'd get up.) > - it's not fair for ME to be the one who > loses sleep while the other person can sleep much later in the morning. Agreed. MAINTAINING a relationship required BOTH persons to compromise now and then. This is NOT the issue I was talking about, however. > Sacrificing sleep for a date can mean that I'll get sick If insufficient sleep ONE NIGHT can actually make you sick, you should see a doctor immediately, as that might very well be an indicator of a very serious problem. More likely, though, it's a product of your belief that you can't function without X hours of sleep a night. Such beliefs tend to become self-fulfilling prophecies. --Greg -- {ucbvax!hplabs | decvax!noao | mcvax!seismo | ihnp4!seismo} !hao!woods CSNET: woods@ncar.csnet ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA "If the game is lost, we're all the same; No one left to place or take the blame"
laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton) (03/04/86)
In article <230@globetek.UUCP> chris@andor.UUCP (chris) writes: >Laura, I've just GOT to take issue with you on this one. If we all knew >in advance how other people would take our remarks, the world would >be a wonderful place indeed. It would also be quite unbelievable, alas. > Hi Chris. How you doing? Write to me and tell me what globetek is. I agree with you that life is full of context sensitive things. My point of contention is over ``if I don't like it, then it is harrassment''. Harrassment is serious stuff -- that somebody you think is unattractive is attracted to you is inconvenient, but in no way that serious. I guess I am here for purity of language, more than anything. It is hard enough to communicate with people as it is without having the meanings of words slip out from under you as you speak. A certain amount of linguistic change happens all the time, but that does not mean that ``more is better'' and we should all plunge headlong into 1984 where people cannot communicate because all the words are too overloaded -- and more words are disappearing every year. That some people are going to get upset when perfectly good and reasonable people approach them, I can understand. But if they can't tell the difference between ``I'm upset'' and ``I am being harrassed'' then they have a very serious problem. After all, sexual harrassment is the sort of thing that you sue people for. But you don't sue people because they are attracted to you and you find them unnattractive. But if people can't keep it straight in their mind what harrassment is, and mistake it for being upset ,then there are going to be a lot of unneccesary lawsuits... >of the harassee, because there simply *IS* no way we can tell in >advance what a stranger is thinking or feeling with complete accuracy. >Suppose I ask a man on the street quite politely if he is interested in >reading this wonderful leaflet I'd like to give him. Am I harassing him? >From my point of view, of course not. From many people's point of view, >probably not. From his point of view? How can I tell? If it's been >a good day for him, he probably says "no thanks" and think no more >about it. If 17 people have tried to hand him leaflets in the last >3 blocks, he probably thinks something along the lines of "ANOTHER >*&^$%!@+ harassing me!". From his point of view, I have harassed him. Nope -- he is upset. Now if you are in a conspiracy with the other 17 people to drive him up the wall, you are harrassing him -- otherwise, he is just upset. Unfortunate, yes. Upset, yes. With good cause -- maybe. But you haven't harrassed him. >(Now, as to whether it's *reasonable* or not for him to feel harassed by >by me is another question entirely, and I don't intend to go into that here.) But that *is* the question. That is why I asked for an objective standard for harrassment -- not for ``feeling harrassed'' -- but for actually harrassing people. -- Laura Creighton ihnp4!hoptoad!laura utzoo!hoptoad!laura sun!hoptoad!laura toad@lll-crg.arpa
rdh@sun.uucp (Robert Hartman) (03/05/86)
> >But that *is* the question. That is why I asked for an objective >standard for harrassment -- not for ``feeling harrassed'' -- but for >actually harrassing people. >-- >Laura Creighton How about: person A did something in such a way that it was reasonable to conclude (to me and perhaps to others as well) that they intended me harm, inconvenience, or upset. If I were on a beach and some burly macho sort of woman towered over me in an intimidating fashion because I'd rather read than stroke her ego, I'd be rather perturbed. I'd feel that maybe she was trying to make me 'regret' my poor taste. I'd merely regret that I forgot to bring along my pet grizzly. If more of a milquetoast sort clumisly interrupted me twice, and then a third time to say she was sorry, I'd wish her lots of luck in life. If an average sort, made a sort-of-average single-pass, I'd parse the input, return 0 on stderr, and keep reading my book. If there were 15 leaflet passers, all from the same group, who were more interested in detaining me (in order get my money or attention) than in freely speaking, I would begin to get rather combative after the 3rd one. -bob.