alan@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Alan Algustyniak) (01/17/86)
Thanks, Moira and Jim for the kindly worded responses to my note. I observed that Eric had rejected, out of hand, the possibility that the woman was playing a tease, even tho his description didn't rule out the possibility. I see the situation this way: There *are* plenty of women who do the type of thing Eric decribed in order to tease men. (men have their own methods). This behavior is reprehensible and should be condemned when recognized. She *was* acting a little strangely for a woman who wanted to be left alone. Going to a public beach; getting into a swimsuit and unhooking the top; going alone. This pretty well describes the way a woman might look for a man. If she really wanted to not be bothered, in spite of her actions, she would probably have told the guys "Please! I'm trying to read!" right off the bat. Instead she half ignored them, wating to see what method they would think of to try to interest her. Just like a tease might so. While she might have wanted to read, usually a person tanning by himself will read a book or mag just to past the time. Her actions were not inconsistant with that. > Why do people assume that just because a female wears a small > swimsuit (or none) or that she unhooks the top of her suit she is either > teasing people and/or is looking for some "action". It simply isn't > always true. I didn't assume it. Eric assumed the opposite, to the point of rejecting any other explanation. My posting was to explain that. > Why can't you (Al) accept the idea that this girl... I can accept it. I was saying that Eric (and now you) can't accept the other possibilities. > Nice observations and good questions Eric. Note that Jim critisizes me when i am being open-minded about her motives, but praises Eric, even tho he goes thru the trouble of explaining that he is closed minded about her motives. Why couldn't Jim read what we said and see that i wasn't assuming she was a tease, and that Eric was demanding that she wasn't, even tho she might have been. I'm not sure what part of Eric's posting leads you to think that she might have been playing the tease. Eric described discomfort, brevity of answers, and consistently rejecting overtures. This is not the behavior of a tease. As to what he said that leads me to thing she might have been a tease, see the beginning of my posting. I'm sorry, Moira, but i have to disagree with you that this is not the behavior of a tease. It certainly doesn't lead to the conclusion that she was a tease, but teases *do* act like that sometimes. I guess we've had different experiences about this. > If you consider laying on the beach with the straps undone the behavior > of a tease, I suggest you have need of some serious consciousness > raising. When you add the fact that she was alone and didn't shut down the men at the start of their conversations, to make them go away immeadiately, her behavior could be construed as that of a tease. I'm sorry that you don't see that. The reason i posted is that it is Eric who needs the consciousness raising. Why can't he be more open-minded about her motives? Al Algustyniak p.s. 2 postings/subject is about the most time i can afford. I'll let the rest of you have the last word.
mccolm@ucla-cs.UUCP (01/17/86)
I suppose I have to respond to the comments in Alan's article, seeing as they were directed mostly at me. Believe me, this brings me no joy. In article <2585@sdcrdcf.UUCP> alan@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Alan Algustyniak) writes: >Thanks, Moira and Jim for the kindly worded responses to my note. I >observed that Eric had rejected, out of hand, the possibility that the >woman was playing a tease, even tho his description didn't rule out >the possibility. I guess you had to be there. The idea that this woman was playing games did not occur to me, and for good reason. I'm usually an accurate judge of character (never mind that I myself have none), and I can find no reason to suspect that her motives were as you describe. I must ascribe this to a lack of such a motive, rather than a failure on my part to see it. You may disagree, but, in my view, without substantiation. > She *was* acting a little strangely for a woman who wanted to > be left alone. Going to a public beach; getting into a swimsuit > and unhooking the top; going alone. This pretty well describes > the way a woman might look for a man. She may go to a public beach alone in unconventional dress for many reasons. Even if a woman might try to meet a man by going to a public beach alone and in such attire, this does not mean that all women in such attire at the public beach are there to meet a man. I go to the beach because I like the sun, the sound of the waves, and so on, and I read because I have much to read. > If she really wanted to not be bothered, in spite of her actions, > she would probably have told the guys "Please! I'm trying to > read!" right off the bat. .... This would not seem polite to most people, and I have found that most people are greatly concerned with appearing polite, even if there is great personal cost in seeming so. They're raised that way. >> Nice observations and good questions Eric. Thank you. But I see from my mail that I was neither observant or inquisitive enough. The answers to my questions should have been apparent at the time. >Note that Jim critisizes me when i am being open-minded about her motives, >but praises Eric, even tho he goes thru the trouble of explaining that >he is closed minded about her motives. Why couldn't Jim read what we >said and see that i wasn't assuming she was a tease, and that Eric was >demanding that she wasn't, even tho she might have been. I think there is an error in the interpretations of each others' articles. The ascription of both "closed-mindedness" and "open-mindedness" to the same line of reasoning indicates a failure to communicate. I also do not believe I demanded she was not playing games, because it never occurred to me that she might have been. It is obvious my original article was less clear than I had wished, and for this I apologize. >>I'm not sure what part of Eric's posting leads you to think that she >>might have been playing the tease. Eric described discomfort, brevity >>of answers, and consistently rejecting overtures. This is not the >>behavior of a tease. > >As to what he said that leads me to thing she might have been a tease, see >the beginning of my posting. I'm sorry, Moira, but i have to disagree >with you that this is not the behavior of a tease. It certainly >doesn't lead to the conclusion that she was a tease, but teases *do* >act like that sometimes. I guess we've had different experiences about >this. I, too, have had experiences with women who play games, but Alan's comments seem to reflect a novel approach. I do not wish to sound critical of his experiences, but Moira's analysis seems to be more consistent with my own experience. Kindly forgive me if I do not wish to enlarge this experience. >The reason i posted is that it is Eric who needs the consciousness >raising. Why can't he be more open-minded about her motives? > > Al Algustyniak Of course I need consciousness raising. Why did I post the questions in the first place? Why am I reading the responses? Why do I read this group? But I think Alan is being unfair to me in his analysis of my statement of the woman's motives. >p.s. 2 postings/subject is about the most time i can afford. I'll let >the rest of you have the last word. This comment bothers me for some reason. It seems too smug to be honest. --fini-- (at long last) Eric McColm UCLA (oo' - kluh) Funny Farm for the Criminally Harmless UUCP: ...!{ihnp4,trwspp,cepu,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!mccolm ARPA: mccolm@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU Reason is Peace; Fanaticism is Slavery; Tolerance is Strength.
garth@sun.uucp (Garth R. Doverspike) (01/18/86)
The first part of this article is in reply to Alans' article > Alan Me The second part is some general thoughts on this subject. > There *are* plenty of women who do the type of thing Eric > decribed in order to tease men. (men have their own methods). > This behavior is reprehensible and should be condemned when > recognized. There was nothing in what Eric described to indicate that this woman was a tease. I agree that some women do tease, as do some men. I also agree that it is reprehensible behavior for both sexes. What bothers me is that many men assume that a woman alone is a signal that they are looking to be picked up. The typical responce of such men when they are rejected is to call the women (mentally or verbally) a tease or a dyke. The truth is a women may just want to be left alone. > She *was* acting a little strangely for a woman who wanted to > be left alone. Going to a public beach; getting into a swimsuit > and unhooking the top; going alone. This pretty well describes > the way a woman might look for a man. Public beaches are just that, public. Just because someone goes to a public beach doesn't mean that they was to socialize. Maybe she lives a block from this beach, should she have to go miles out of her way to go to a more secluded beach just so she doesn't have to worry about some jerk bothering her? She also may feel safer with people about, less likey to get into any real trouble that way. Having many close female fiends I can tell you that safety is something that is on some womens minds most of the time. It happens that it is safer to be "alone" on a public beach than a private beach if you are a woman (unless the private beach is REALLY private). > If she really wanted to not be bothered, in spite of her actions, > she would probably have told the guys "Please! I'm trying to > read!" right off the bat. Instead she half ignored them, wating > to see what method they would think of to try to interest her. > Just like a tease might so. The unfortunate truth is that many woman will not tell a man to get lost directly. They are to afraid of hurting the mans feelings, this is something that our society has ingrained deeply into women. Being assertive at all is something that takes a while for most women to learn, and when they do there is always some jerk that will then start calling them a bitch. See the problem? If they don't say "Get lost" up front the men think they are playing hard to get (after all how could they not want me), if they do then they are a bitch. No win. > While she might have wanted to read, usually a person tanning > by himself will read a book or mag just to past the time. Her > actions were not inconsistant with that. I agree, however after getting short replys and seeing that she wasn't going to put the book down, why continue trying to talk? Both the first and third men where guilty of harassment, while the second was guilty of bad timing (or poor judgement if he had seen the first man doing his macho act). This subject has bothered me for a while (and women for longer than that :-). One of my female friends greatest complaint about public transit is that men will not stop harassing her. When she makes it clear that she is not interested the still continue to make problems of themselves. I have noticed this same thing happen in bars to groups of women who do not have men present. It seems to me that more men might have more luck making female friends if women didn't feel threatened by jerks like this every time they leave the house. What I would like to ask the women of the net is, what can a man do to help if he sees this sort of thing going on. I realise that most of the time the women can handle things themselves, but what should a guy to when things start getting abusive. If he walks up and says "Leave the woman alone", he looks like a macho type himself, and will probably get in a fight because the other man(?) will not back down. I don't object to fighting for things that have to be fought for, but there has to be a better way. I am glad that Eric brought this up, it shows that yet another man has thought about this. This type of harassment of women hurts both sexes. Garth R. Doverspike Sun Microsystems !{dual, ihnp4, ucbvax}!sun!dojo!garth
jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (01/18/86)
In article <2585@sdcrdcf.UUCP> alan@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Alan Algustyniak) writes: >Thanks, Moira and Jim for the kindly worded responses to my note. I >observed that Eric had rejected, out of hand, the possibility that the >woman was playing a tease, even tho his description didn't rule out >the possibility. How can you say he "rejected" it? He didn't even *mention* it. That probably means he didn't happen to think of it. I didn't either. The question is not what she *might* have been doing, but what she was *probably* doing. >I see the situation this way: > > She *was* acting a little strangely for a woman who wanted to > be left alone. Going to a public beach; getting into a swimsuit > and unhooking the top; going alone. This pretty well describes > the way a woman might look for a man. Oh for pete's sake. If you've got a private beach, great, but generally if people want to go to the beach, it'll be a public one. And any woman trying to get a tan by herself is looking for a man? Remember, we're talking about *probabilities* here, not *possibilities*. Anything's possible. Jeff Winslow
grwalter@watnot.UUCP (Fred) (01/19/86)
In article <2585@sdcrdcf.UUCP> alan@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Alan Algustyniak) writes: > >When you add the fact that she was alone and didn't shut down the men >at the start of their conversations, to make them go away immeadiately, >her behavior could be construed as that of a tease. I'm sorry that you >don't see that. > Perhaps she was just being polite. I know that when I start talking to a female that (I later find out) didn't really want to talk to me, they usually are polite, but very brief in their responses to my questions/thoughts. This usually lets me know that they don't want to talk without them rejecting me. Or she was perhaps intimidated/slightly scared of the guys (its a wierd world out there) and felt that telling them outright to go away might cause them to react objectionally. > >The reason i posted is that it is Eric who needs the consciousness >raising. Why can't he be more open-minded about her motives? > Perhaps Erik just likes to assume the best of people (aside from the guys :-)) FRED {allegra|linus|decvax|utzoo|ihnp4}!watmath!watnot!grwalter
cs111olg@ucla-cs.UUCP (01/19/86)
I guess Al really doesnt understand... I wonder if Al feels that any woman he might find attractive and does not start rubbing herself on his leg when he makes a pass is necessarily teasing him... As for the girl Eric described not telling the men who pestered her to "Get lost" : would YOU, Al, if you were an average-build women feel comfortable antagonizing a 200 lb. gorilla of a macho beach-bum? Disisnterest is one of sure ways to get rid of a person - and it worked in this case quite well. ( "Ignore it, may be it will go away...") Well, another sexist posting to this group... Wonder why they bother... ======================================================================== From the steam tunnels of UCLA -- Oleg Kiselev
stu16@whuxl.UUCP (SMITH) (01/24/86)
If a woman wants to gets a "seamless" tan, and has a
good book she wants to read, and has a hour or two, what
better place to spend it than on a beach? If she feels too
warm from the sun, the ocean is there for a cooling dip. The
reflected sunlight from the water decreases the time needed
to obtain said tan, and the soothing water sounds are
conducive to relaxation. It sounds ideal to me. And entirely
normal not to want to be bothered while sunning and reading.
If the woman referred to in the original posting had
been a mite unattractive, would the discussion have taken
place? Think about it.
--
whuxl!stu16crs@lanl.ARPA (01/29/86)
> If a woman wants to gets a "seamless" tan, and has a > good book she wants to read, and has a hour or two, what . . . > normal not to want to be bothered while sunning and reading. > If the woman referred to in the original posting had > been a mite unattractive, would the discussion have taken > place? Think about it. So what is your point? That men shouldn't be attracted to attractive women? That they should be attracted to unattractive women? Perhaps "unattractive" was a bad choice of words. -- The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer, the government or your favorite deity. Charlie Sorsby ...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs crs@lanl.arpa
stu16@whuxl.UUCP (SMITH) (01/31/86)
> > If a woman wants to gets a "seamless" tan, and has a > > good book she wants to read, and has a hour or two, what > . > . > . > > normal not to want to be bothered while sunning and reading. > > If the woman referred to in the original posting had > > been a mite unattractive, would the discussion have taken > > place? Think about it. > > So what is your point? That men shouldn't be attracted to > attractive women? That they should be attracted to unattractive A "mite" unattractive can mean slightly overweight, not as pretty as Cheryl Tiegs, older than a beach bunny or have a nasty disposition. -- whuxl!stu16
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (02/06/86)
In article <917@whuxl.UUCP> stu16@whuxl.UUCP (SMITH) writes: > If a woman wants to gets a "seamless" tan, and has a >good book she wants to read, and has a hour or two, what >better place to spend it than on a beach? ... What sense is there in getting a seamless tan *on* *her* *back* *only*? She can't, by undoing the top half of her bikini, get a seamless tan on the front of her body or below the waist. I cannot convince myself that undoing the back of her bikini was not intended to attract men. If she was truly interested in getting a seamless tan, wouldn't she go (a) to a nude beach, if she could find one, or (b) to one of those tanning salons? I'm mainly posting this because of the several thousand articles moaning about how impolite it was for those men to interrupt her reading, as if the undone bikini strap was of no consequence. -- David Canzi "Mothers are fonder than fathers of their children because they are more certain they are their own." -- Aristotle
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (02/07/86)
> In article <917@whuxl.UUCP> stu16@whuxl.UUCP (SMITH) writes: > > If a woman wants to gets a "seamless" tan, and has a > >good book she wants to read, and has a hour or two, what > >better place to spend it than on a beach? ... > > What sense is there in getting a seamless tan *on* *her* *back* > *only*? She can't, by undoing the top half of her bikini, get a > seamless tan on the front of her body or below the waist. I cannot > convince myself that undoing the back of her bikini was not intended to > attract men. A seamless tan on the back only can be quite nice, I'm sure, as various types of halters and tops worn in the summer have narrow straps in slightly different locations. A tan line on the back is often visible. And since this woman showed absolutely no interest in anything but reading, why do you find it so hard to believe that she wasn't trying to attract men? > > If she was truly interested in getting a seamless tan, wouldn't she go > (a) to a nude beach, if she could find one, or (b) to one of those > tanning salons? Maybe she's too shy to go to a nude beach. A lot of people are. And why should she when she wasn't interested in going nude? And why should she go to a tanning salon. Beaches are much nicer, and are free besides. What's your problem, buddy? "My god, if she's going to undo the back of her top, she'd better go to a nude beach or away from this public place." What a bizarre and warped attitude! > > I'm mainly posting this because of the several thousand articles > moaning about how impolite it was for those men to interrupt her > reading, as if the undone bikini strap was of no consequence. That's right! Here, I'll type it again, very loudly and slowly, so maybe you'll be able to understand: T H E U N D O N E B I K I N I S T R A P W A S O F N O C O N S E Q U E N C E . > -- > David Canzi > > "Mothers are fonder than fathers of their children because they are more > certain they are their own." -- Aristotle And a little quote about how generally unfaithful women are! Why do I get the feeling that David is a philosophical brother of the guys on the beach that day? -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j
robert@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (02/08/86)
In article <2068@watdcsu.UUCP>, dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) writes: > I cannot > convince myself that undoing the back of her bikini was not intended to > attract men. Maybe not, but you're confusing your personal prejudices with evidence. Are you trying to say that it is *INCONCEIVABLE* that she wasn't trying to attract men? > I'm mainly posting this because of the several thousand articles > moaning about how impolite it was for those men to interrupt her > reading, as if the undone bikini strap was of no consequence. > -- > David Canzi But is *WAS* of no consequence. There are no particular taboos about leaving one's *BACK* covered. You are assigning special significance to an everyday, insignificant action. -- Robert Plamondon UUCP: {turtlevax, cae780}!weitek!robert FidoNet: 143/12 robert plamondon Thought for the day: "Kill moose and squirrel!"
stu16@whuxl.UUCP (SMITH) (02/10/86)
> > In article <917@whuxl.UUCP> stu16@whuxl.UUCP (SMITH) writes: > > > If a woman wants to gets a "seamless" tan, and has a > > >good book she wants to read, and has a hour or two, what > > >better place to spend it than on a beach? ... > > > > What sense is there in getting a seamless tan *on* *her* *back* > > *only*? She can't, by undoing the top half of her bikini, get a > > seamless tan on the front of her body or below the waist. I cannot > > convince myself that undoing the back of her bikini was not intended to > > attract men. > > A seamless tan on the back only can be quite nice, I'm sure, as various > types of halters and tops worn in the summer have narrow straps in slightly > different locations. A tan line on the back is often visible. And since > this woman showed absolutely no interest in anything but reading, why do > you find it so hard to believe that she wasn't trying to attract men? > > > > If she was truly interested in getting a seamless tan, wouldn't she go > > (a) to a nude beach, if she could find one, or (b) to one of those > > tanning salons? > > Maybe she's too shy to go to a nude beach. A lot of people are. And > why should she when she wasn't interested in going nude? And why should she > go to a tanning salon. Beaches are much nicer, and are free besides. What's > your problem, buddy? "My god, if she's going to undo the back of her top, > she'd better go to a nude beach or away from this public place." What a > bizarre and warped attitude! > > > > I'm mainly posting this because of the several thousand articles > > moaning about how impolite it was for those men to interrupt her > > reading, as if the undone bikini strap was of no consequence. > > That's right! Here, I'll type it again, very loudly and slowly, so > maybe you'll be able to understand: T H E U N D O N E B I K I N I > S T R A P W A S O F N O C O N S E Q U E N C E . > > -- > > David Canzi > > > > "Mothers are fonder than fathers of their children because they are more > > certain they are their own." -- Aristotle > > And a little quote about how generally unfaithful women are! Why do > I get the feeling that David is a philosophical brother of the guys on the > beach that day? > -- > Jeff Sonntag > ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j Thanx. Your reply was better than mine could have been, and you said it all. -- whuxl!stu16
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (02/11/86)
In article <1394@mhuxt.UUCP> js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) writes: >> In article <917@whuxl.UUCP> stu16@whuxl.UUCP (SMITH) writes: >> > If a woman wants to gets a "seamless" tan, and has a >> >good book she wants to read, and has a hour or two, what >> >better place to spend it than on a beach? ... >> >> What sense is there in getting a seamless tan *on* *her* *back* >> *only*? She can't, by undoing the top half of her bikini, get a >> seamless tan on the front of her body or below the waist. I cannot >> convince myself that undoing the back of her bikini was not intended to >> attract men. > > A seamless tan on the back only can be quite nice, I'm sure, as various >types of halters and tops worn in the summer have narrow straps in slightly >different locations. A tan line on the back is often visible. And since >this woman showed absolutely no interest in anything but reading, why do >you find it so hard to believe that she wasn't trying to attract men? Because I had forgotten about summer clothing with narrow straps in the back, and backless dresses, and such. Possibly due to the fact that I haven't seen any lately. So the only other possible reason I could think of was to attract attention, a predictable result of undoing a bikini strap. -- David Canzi "Mothers are fonder than fathers of their children because they are more certain they are their own." -- Aristotle
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (02/11/86)
In article <333@fear.UUCP> robert@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) writes: >In article <2068@watdcsu.UUCP>, dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) writes: >> I cannot >> convince myself that undoing the back of her bikini was not intended to >> attract men. > >Maybe not, but you're confusing your personal prejudices with >evidence. Are you trying to say that it is *INCONCEIVABLE* that she >wasn't trying to attract men? Yes, I was. I now think I was mistaken. -- David Canzi "Mothers are fonder than fathers of their children because they are more certain they are their own." -- Aristotle
jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (02/13/86)
In article <2068@watdcsu.UUCP> dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) writes: >In article <917@whuxl.UUCP> stu16@whuxl.UUCP (SMITH) writes: >> If a woman wants to gets a "seamless" tan, and has a >>good book she wants to read, and has a hour or two, what >>better place to spend it than on a beach? ... > >What sense is there in getting a seamless tan *on* *her* *back* >*only*? She can't, by undoing the top half of her bikini, get a >seamless tan on the front of her body or below the waist. I cannot >convince myself that undoing the back of her bikini was not intended to >attract men. Huh? Haven't you ever seen backless evening gowns? Jeff Winslow "Occam's? Best for Shaving!"