Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site fear.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!amdcad!cae780!weitek!fear!robert
From: robert@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.singles
Subject: Re: Beach harassment
Message-ID: <330@fear.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 3-Feb-86 21:34:13 EST
Article-I.D.: fear.330
Posted: Mon Feb  3 21:34:13 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 5-Feb-86 02:34:15 EST
References: <8342@ucla-cs.ARPA> <2581@sdcrdcf.UUCP> <255@birtch.UUCP> <14986@rochester.UUCP>
Organization: Weitek Corp. Sunnyvale Ca.
Lines: 56
Xref: watmath net.women:8703 net.singles:10116

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