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!decvax!decwrl!amdcad!cae780!weitek!fear!robert
From: robert@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Re: Beach harassment:  some questions
Message-ID: <333@fear.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 8-Feb-86 00:19:55 EST
Article-I.D.: fear.333
Posted: Sat Feb  8 00:19:55 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 9-Feb-86 00:53:39 EST
References: <8342@ucla-cs.ARPA> <2581@sdcrdcf.UUCP> <6269@tektronix.UUCP> <2068@watdcsu.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: Weitek Corp. Sunnyvale Ca.
Lines: 26

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!"