Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site sdcrdcf.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!alan From: alan@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Alan Algustyniak) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Beach harassment: some questions Message-ID: <2585@sdcrdcf.UUCP> Date: Thu, 16-Jan-86 16:46:04 EST Article-I.D.: sdcrdcf.2585 Posted: Thu Jan 16 16:46:04 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 18-Jan-86 02:52:49 EST References: <8342@ucla-cs.ARPA> <2581@sdcrdcf.UUCP> <6269@tektronix.UUCP> Reply-To: alan@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Alan Algustyniak) Distribution: na Organization: System Development Corporation R&D, Santa Monica Lines: 80 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.