Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucla-cs.ARPA Path: utzoo!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!ucla-cs!mccolm From: mccolm@ucla-cs.UUCP Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Beach harassment: some questions Message-ID: <8405@ucla-cs.ARPA> Date: Fri, 17-Jan-86 15:48:28 EST Article-I.D.: ucla-cs.8405 Posted: Fri Jan 17 15:48:28 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 18-Jan-86 11:25:28 EST References: <8342@ucla-cs.ARPA> <2581@sdcrdcf.UUCP> <6269@tektronix.UUCP> <2585@sdcrdcf.UUCP> Reply-To: mccolm@ucla-cs.UUCP (Eric McColm) Distribution: na Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Lines: 93 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.