Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    
    
    Simple really,  Nobody but the players should be alowed in the locker
    rooms.  Ther should be a separate press room where players are
    obligated to go after they have had the chance to shower and shave
    and whatever else they have to do.  That way there is no discrimination
    against either sex and the players complaints are all taken care
    of.
    
     But then again thats to simple for people who play games for a
    living and make way to much money.
    
    John C.
    

This is under current heated discussion in the QUARK::MENNOTES conference.
One point made there was that some other professional sports do exclude
reporters from the locker rooms but require players to present themselves at
an interview room for talking with reporters.  In the NFL, the league
requires open access to the locker rooms and players agree to this when they
sign their contracts.  It does appear that some changes will be made here.

However, the title of the base note here is misleading.  The subject should
not be "female reporters in the locker room", but simply "reporters in the
locker room".  For it would be absolutely wrong to allow one sex in and not
the other.  (Allowing neither is a reasonable choice.)

				Steve

    RE: <<< Note 1086.3 by SFCPMO::TEGLOVIC "Steppin' out this old brown shoe" >>>
    >                    -< If I'm Naked, You're Naked >-

    >Make the reporters strip naked, regardless of whether they're male 
    >or female, or which sex's locker room they're in.  ;^)
    
         YES!!  What a great idea.  Until I read this, I belonged to the
    "don't let reporters in the locker room at all" school of thought, but
    after reading this, I switched.
    
                                      Greg

    Perhaps, but the players aren't required to be naked - they are issued
    bathrobes.
    
    				Steve

         Yeah, but I know that personally, showering in a bathrobe is
    rather tricky.  It's the lowest-common-denominator thing.  If anyone in
    sight is nude, the reporters must be nude.  Heck, they'll probably
    arrange to have one nude player there every time, just for the humor
    value.
    
                                     Greg

    	I agree -- no reporters in the locker rooms!  Sheesh, they may be
    sports heroes and in the limelight, but *I* think they're allowed some
    privacy!  Not only that, I just don't think it's necessary or
    appropriate.


    	I was outraged to hear that Sam Wyche was fined $30,000 for trying
    to correct this; he's right, they don't allow wives or girlfriends in
    the locker rooms either.  It's too bad that a few folks have to pay so
    much in order to correct things.


    	And conversely, when was the last time you heard about a male
    reporter in a female's locker room -- in, say, tennis?  Let's keep
    things even across the board.


    Brian

Re: .7

Please look at the discussion of this topic in MENNOTES - it contains a lot
of information you seem to be lacking.

Wyche was fined for violating an explicit rule of the NFL.

In professional tennis, no reporters are allowed in the locker rooms - there
are separate interview rooms which all players are required to go to after
a match.  The NFL rejected that as "too expensive".

				Steve

Re: .9

First ask how many women reporters were allowed in.

		Steve

Not surprisingly, the topic is also under quite a bit of discussion in 
MOMCAT::WOMANNOTES-V3, in note 401.*.  
		Helen

	RE: .7 (Brian Nelson)


>    	I was outraged to hear that Sam Wyche was fined $30,000 for trying
>    to correct this; he's right, they don't allow wives or girlfriends in
>    the locker rooms either.  It's too bad that a few folks have to pay so
>    much in order to correct things.

	It was $35,000.  And you may want to "re-think" your outrage at
	the situation.  He barred a female reporter from the locker room
	while allowing the male reporters to go in.  (at least that's the
	'story' I heard).

	I would be outraged if it weren't blatent sexual discrimination.
	However, I think the only possible solution is to set up a
	press room where the players are required to go after they
	clean up in the locker room.



	That ensures equal access.


	kath

     
    
    I think that we're getting hung up on the discrimination thing. 
    It is NOT discrimination to seperate naked men from women or
    vice versa. For those of you who would like to see a naked world and
    see anything else as "old fashioned" there are still aLOT of folks
    who feel that BOTTOM LINE :
    
    MEN ARE MEN AND WOMEN ARE WOMEN.
    
    Nothing and NO ONE can change this no matter how much we talk about
    sex discrimination. 
    
    I don't want men running around in the locker room while I'm naked. 
    I expect that (most) men would feel the same way. 
    This isn't a case of not letting women into the mens club. This is a
    case of decency and modesty which seems to get lost in the ERA.
    
    Why don't we just have one big old locker room down at the Y and the
    next time you're down to your bra and panties (or jock strap and a
    smile), see how you feel to bare yourself to a stranger of the
    opposite sex. 
    
    is there NO modesty left in the world??
                                           

         Maybe Wyche should have designated locker room interviews as FMO
    topics, then it would be OK.
    
         But seriously, if the folks harrassed the female reporter, they
    should be punished.  After that, no more reporters should be allowed in
    the locker room.  Catch the interviews outside.  Problem solved.
    
                                     Greg

    
    Re: .3
    
    Somehow Gene, I knew you'd be involved in this one, AND I knew you'd
    have that reaction (ha, ha).
    
    However, I do agree that if the players sign a contract, then they're 
    bound to that contract - so there really should be no argument at all.
    
    -Lynn
    

    Re:  .3 
    Re:  .4
    Re:  .9
    
    Why don't you guys ask us women how we would feel about men in our
    locker rooms???
    
    -Lynn
    

>Note 1086.13          Female reporters in the locker room??             13 of 18
>CSC32::PITT                                          25 lines  10-OCT-1990
      16:05
      I hope you dont mind me using your words..

>>>                -< don't confuse the issue with discrimination >-
      I need this...
>     
>    
>>    I think that we're getting hung up on the discrimination thing. 
>>    It is NOT discrimination to seperate naked men from women or
>>    vice versa. For those of you who would like to see a naked world and
>>    see anything else as "old fashioned" there are still aLOT of folks
>>    who feel that BOTTOM LINE :
>    
>>    MEN ARE MEN AND WOMEN ARE WOMEN.
>    
>>    Nothing and NO ONE can change this no matter how much we talk about
>>    sex discrimination. 
>    
>    
>    Why don't we just have one big old locker room down at the Y and the
>    next time you're down to your bra and panties (or jock strap and a
>    smile), see how you feel to bare yourself to a stranger of the
>    opposite sex. 
>    
>>    is there NO modesty left in the world??
      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

      I find this argument one of the best that I have heard in a long while..
      The last time I heard it was while sitting in the Sauna. I was not party
      to the discussion. (In a Sauna you cannot help overhearing the neighbours
      discussion.) These arguments were used in almost exactly the same words
      except that the position being represented was that women should have
      their heads covered and  probably also veiled.
      The part underlined (>>>>) was strongly and sincerely represented. The
      punchline is needless to say that the Sauna was mixed. As are most in
      this part of the world.

>Please look at the discussion of this topic in MENNOTES - it contains a lot
>of information you seem to be lacking.


    	Sorry, I have neither the time nor inclination to go off reading
    more notes on the subject.  I believe the information I've gleaned from
    the news is probably as good as what most other folks are working with.


>Wyche was fined for violating an explicit rule of the NFL.


    	I was quite aware of that, actually.  Just because it's an
    "explicit rule of the NFL" doesn't make it *right*.  I think it was
    very narrow-minded of the present commissioner to levy such a heavy
    fine.  Even if he needed to fine Wyche for this to observe the letter
    of the law, a few thousand would have been sufficient.  $30,000 (or
    $35,000, whatever it was) seems exaggerated to me.


    	The point I was trying to make is that Wyche was fined for
    something which will (given the present uproar) very likely be changed.


    Brian

>	It was $35,000.  And you may want to "re-think" your outrage at
>	the situation.  He barred a female reporter from the locker room
>	while allowing the male reporters to go in.  (at least that's the
>	'story' I heard).


    	Nope, sorry, I don't.  And while I can't claim to know the whole
    scenario of what happened, I *did* hear (on Monday Night Football, I
    think) that Wyche actually gave preference to the female reporter
    somehow.  I don't remember the details of that.


>	I would be outraged if it weren't blatent sexual discrimination.
>	However, I think the only possible solution is to set up a
>	press room where the players are required to go after they
>	clean up in the locker room.


    	It's my opinion that the realities of the situation don't make it
    "blatant sexual discrimination".  It's just decency.  If I were an
    athlete, I wouldn't be real crazy about ANYone bugging me while I'm
    trying to shower and dress, but certainly I'd like it even less if the
    reporter happened to be female.  That's just reality.


    	I agree with the idea of a separate press room.


    Brian

    
    re .19
    
    It is probably true that in this country we are more MODEST than the
    more liberal and open minded folks who have the naked public beaches
    and co ed saunas and see nothing wrong with it. 
    I applaud their openess.
    
    BUT:
    
    Because in THIS country we ARE not as open minded or liberal (for the
    most part) it is not fair to FORCE that liberalism on those of us who
    CHOOSE to be modest. 
    
    If I do NOT want men running around the womens locker room, then I
    should not be told that people in the rest of the world do it so
    I should too.  If naked baseball players don't want to be naked in
    front of a women reporter, then why can't we respect their modesty
    instead of turning it into a discrimination issue. 
    
    Bottom line, (again!) not EVERYTHING is discrimintation. We are just a
    nation of MODEST folks who are being told to get liberal RIGHT NOW. 
    Most of us will rebel and be told that we are discriminating against
    X. 
    
    Lets respect peoples privacy and appreciate their modesty. 
    
    

    The only way to "properly" respect the players' modesty is to
    allow no one into the locker room.  It is only fair.  Some men
    don't like *any* strangers eyeing them.  Some men would feel
    uncomfortable being looked at by male homosexuals, and you can't
    tell a reporter's sexual orientation just by looking.
    
    On the other hand, you could claim that men being paid that much
    money to be watched by that many people while they play games
    can just obey the law, accept all reporters into the locker rooms,
    and count their money in their heads.
    
    						Ann B.

    
    --isn't that what prostitution is?? Just bare your body and count the
    money later and forget about your modesty? 
    
    
    --I don't believe that the players are being payed by US the public. 
    They are being payed by owners, by profits from ticket sales of those
    who choose to go and watch the game, by those of us who choose to
    contribute. You pay to watch the game, not to see someone in their 
    underwear or to know who they go home with. 
    We have no RIGHTS to these people other than ON THE FIELD. They are NOT
    public servants. They do not get paid with your tax dollars. If the NFL
    makes a LAW that says that EVERYONE should be allowed in the locker
    room, then that's a law made by a private organization. We cannot
    DEMAND that someone parade around naked in front of ANYONE that they
    choose not to and tell them that they're getting paid for it....
    conjurs up all sorts of thoughts of slavery and prostitution. 
    
    These guys may be overpaid....but YOU'RE NOT FOOTING THE BILL. 

    I don't think that's what Ann's saying.
    
    Football players have to obey the laws like anyone else. They aren't
    allow to speed, steal, or whatever. If the NFL makes a rule that
    reporters are allowed in the locker rooms (the NFL cannot make laws, it
    is not a government or legislative body), then the laws may say that
    they cannot restrict some reporters.
    
    If this is in fact the case, then they have no choice but to grin and
    bear it.
    
    For example, the civil rights laws probably make it so that you can't
    exclude a reporter who's of a race that makes the players
    uncomfortable. I know that Maryland, for example, has an ERA to its
    state constitution. It's quite likely that it's illegal there to
    bar a reporter who's of a sex that the players find uncomfortable.
    
    Is this a little clearer?
    
    Now then, is it prostitution? Possibly. But many things that are legal
    can be said to be simply prostitution, including being a consultant, a
    lawyer, or an athlete. 
    
    	Jon

    
    good point on the "what is really prostitution"!! I agree.....
    
    I still don't think that any LAW should put ONE persons rights before
    another persons. That is what this one does.
    Seems that in most cases, the rights of ONE are put above the rights of
    many. 
    
    :-) 
    

    
    
    
                   JUST SAY NO!!!!

    Agreed - reporters, no matter what their sex (or sexual orientation),
    shouldn't be in the locker rooms. For that matter, I think they should
    be banned from shoving microphones in the faces of recently-bereaved
    people and accident victims, and demanding to know how they feel. And
    they should be forbidden from all talking at once; if they can't take
    turns and ask their questions in a civil tone of voice, they've got no
    business calling themselves professionals. And if they ever print
    anything without written permission from all the parties involved, or
    if they are in any way rude or pushy while trying to get a story, they
    should be fined. 
    
    'course, this might put a bit of a damper on Ye Olde Journalistic
    Profession - but think of all the time and hassle it'd save!
    
    -b

As I have mentioned before in this notesfile I am a practicing naturist
( vs nudist) at the hot springs I am a member there are seperate showers
even naturists prefer to shower,dress and perform bodily functions in private.
The seperate facilitys seems to be a common factor at most nude facilities I 
have visited. Everyone has modesty to some extent and that should be respected
no exceptions.

Hiya Steve....


-gort

	RE .29

	You've been reading Miss Manners again.  ;-)

    Re:
    
    
>CSC32::PITT                                          10 lines  12-OCT-1990 11:47
>
>    I still don't think that any LAW should put ONE persons rights before
>    another persons.
    
    Unfortunately most laws do this. The best one that comes to mind and
    really gets my goat is that I continually have to be on the look out
    for police cars when i drive. This is because there is a law that puts
    other peoples rights to live in an environment where everyone drives
    slowly against my right to drive at what I consider to be a safe and
    reasonable speed.
    
    Regarding the issue at hand. I personally believe it should be up to
    the individual player's teams. If they want no reporters in the locker
    room then so be it, if they only want male reporters in the locker room
    then so be it. Privacy should be respected. I'm with the player (I
    can't remember who it was) who on being bothered by a female reporter
    while he was nude and trying to dress said:
    
    "I only speak to women while I'm nude if they're on top of me or
     or I'm on top of them"
    
    Bet that shut her up. I think it is all wrong to force people to allow
    members of the opposite sex into a changing room.
    
    Dave

    > I think it is all wrong to force people to allow
    > members of the opposite sex into a changing room.
    
    Or into any meeting room?  Or certainly into a board room?  How
    embarrassing to have a *woman* ask you why you keep dropping the
    ball!  (Or worse: To have a woman *ignore* you, even though you
    are (gasp!) naked, and talk to some other man, who is clothed.
    This, by the way, was the situation in question.)
    
    						Ann B.

    Re .-1
    
    How many meetings do you attend naked? I don't think a locker room
    and a meeting room are the same thing?
    
    Dave

    The placement of a man's "feelings" (such as modesty) above
    a woman's attempt to earn her living is the same in both cases.
    
    						Ann B.

    Re .37: (If you're interested in responses from other women besides
    Ann...)
    
    I'd walk the walk. That is, if I were involved in a job or sport that
    permitted the presence of reporters in the locker room, I'd be equally
    annoyed by both the male and female reporters (or, if I were in a good
    mood, equally cooperative with both). I wouldn't run around nude in any
    event, as I'm a private sort of person, but as far as I can tell from
    previous notes, none of the athletes involved are *forced* to stand
    naked in front of a bank of microphones; if they don't want to grab a
    towel or a robe, that's their choice.
    
    Bottom line: I might very well lobby to have all reporters excluded
    from locker and shower rooms, but I would *not* lobby to have one sex
    excluded.
    
    -b

    re .35 (the placement of man's feelings (modesty) above a womens
    attempt to earn a living..... )
    
    I think that that about says it all....tough noogies that someone
    chooses to be modest, I will damn well get in there for the buck
    regardless... what *I* want outweighs what YOU want....
    
    So what you're saying is that these men should not have a choice of 
    whether or not they should have to dress in front of members of the
    opposite sex. You're saying that that's they're problem cause this
    womans livelihood is at stake. 
    
    So if you ever do something important and a bunch of reporters show
    up at your front door and you say "I'd like some privacy please",
    then you are interfering with their livelihood and ability to make a 
    buck. 
    When does privacy become important? When does ONE person's right to it
    become overshadowed by another persons need to make a buck? 
    Your statement implies to me that these wienie-asxed jocks oughta grow
    up and stop worrying about parading around naked in front of a
    woman....
    if that's ok, then maybe women should grow up and stop worrying about
    the same wienie-asxed guy who is NOT modest and flashes her in the
    park. 
    
    I can't understand the total lack of consideration for peoples privacy
    and personal beliefs/feelings. 
    Is the number one priority in life making a buck? at what cost to equal
    rights and freedom of choice?? 
    Maybe women SHOULD step back and ask themselves if they would totally
    welcome a man into their locker room if there were no place to change
    and you had no choice but to get dressed right there...with this
    STRANGER galking at you...some how, I can't imagine that being
    accepted.
    
    Please be considerate of other peoples rights. 
    If it's ok for YOU to parade around naked in front of the dog and
    everyone, great. But don't force me to feel the same way. 
    I won't and I doubt that you will find a majority of folks who will...
    but maybe THAT'S the Crux......the majority in this country has always
    been forced to concede to the unreasonable demands of the minority....
    "you there....get naked NOW......and don't be such a wienie about
    it"...
    
    :-( 
    
    this stuff about having to get in there to get the scoop or make a
    deadline is crap IMHO...is NO ONE were allowed to interview the 
    players until they were decent, then NO ONE would beat anyone else
    to the scoop......
    
    

In my opinion, this is a right to privacy issue.  It ranks right there
with freedom of speech, one of the most fundamental rights in the United
States.  As such, it is not even an issue that majority can force
a policy on the minority.  Personally, I have no problem getting an
interview in the locker room, even naked.  However, neither NFL nor 
the government nor I can force anyone to accept members of the opposite 
sex in his or her locker room.  His or her right to privacy is a 
fundamental right that cannot be violated without overwhelming reasons 
on the part of any institution.  On the other hand, I have no problem 
with barring reporters from locker room altogether.

What is ironic about this situation is that I haven't heard anyone, who 
argues for women's access to men's locker room, arguing against segregated 
games in sport.  In short why don't they fight for women in football teams
first?  Now if they don't have any problem with men only 
football teams, why would they have problems with men only men's room?
At least if you want to argue for women on football teams, you can 
say that the matter of privacy is much less of an issue as in the
case of locker room.  After all, one might ask if a woman can play
football as good as any man, why should she be barred from the team?
Given the big bucks in professional sports, it is truly an issue
of equal access, wouldn't you say?

Eugene                        

                  "necrophone"     or     "unitard"
    
    People who recognize what those terms mean vis � vis me are entitled
    to a good snicker at the expense of those people who think that
    references to my physical modesty is some sort of telling point.
    
    However, is it legitimate to laugh at people who think that a 200+
    pound football player, who has his clothes right at hand, and who
    sticks his penis in a woman's face, is overcome with modesty?
    
    						Ann B.

>                  "necrophone"     or     "unitard"
>    
>    People who recognize what those terms mean vis � vis me are entitled
>    to a good snicker at the expense of those people who think that
>    references to my physical modesty is some sort of telling point.

	I don't recognize what "necrophone" means, period.  (and it's
	not in my tiny office edition dictionary).  However, I would
	venture a guess that it has something to do with hearing the
	dead (by the same sort of armchair linguistics that gets "six
	footed" out of sesquipedalian).

	So, what does hearing the dead have to do with modesty?

	    Sharon

      Is the discussion any more complex than was the woman discriminated
      against.
      Discriminate means to treat differently and she was treated
      differently.. Hate to spoil a good discussion when we are talking about
      naked bodies an all that.

      History is full of cases where men have been DISCRIMINATED against. It
      all started when "THEY" got the vote.. Nobody thought of creating twice
      as many seats in the houses of parliament.
      Then there has never been consistent effort in doubling the jobs on
      the job market.

      We poor men have had to compete for reduced repesentation, job market
      etc. Now this, the list goes on where will it all end.

      There is a serious question behind all this though.. Where do the rights
      of the individual stop. In the office for example who decides when the
      ladies garments reveal too much and therefore (the view) will distract
      male workers.

	I recognize both words (and must admit Ann, that I decided not to chime
in about your modesty, though I thought about it)

		--Doug_who_invented_the_original_necrophone_(a_device_to_speak
		      _with_the)dead)_in_1925_when_he_was_someone_else

    Re .44: and "the view will distract the male workers" - good question.
    And who decides what to do about workers who are so lacking in
    self-control that they are slaves to somebody else's apparel? ;-)
    
    -b

    re .43:
    
    Actually, "sesqui-" means 1�, not 6.
    
    re .45:
    
    Ahem, Mr Addison (actually the first Mr Addison), *I* invented the word
    "necrophone."
    
    	Jon

      Re. 46
>>    Re .44: and "the view will distract the male workers" - good question.
>>    And who decides what to do about workers who are so lacking in
>>    self-control that they are slaves to somebody else's apparel? ;-)
>>
      slaves to somebody else's apparel? ;-)
      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This bit I want...
      Or to the sex of another person. I think we are getting to point.
      Sex is a subject that lurks constantly in the thoughts of men. Some more
      so than others. Is this a reason for women to be disadvantaged/penalised
      (for those who do not have a dictionay nearby the previous word has
      nothing to do with the male organ)

      Men have the choice to either provide women with equal oportunity to
      earn their way or declare that multiple standards is the order of the
      day.

    And ofcourse we're back to square one...
    Men are sex hungry animals.
    And ofcourse women don't care about or think of sex at all.
    
    Charles

>             <<< Note 1086.48 by EICMFG::BINGER >>>
 
>      Sex is a subject that lurks constantly in the thoughts of men. Some more


	Gosh, it's a wonder they have time for anything else...eh?

	Do you have statistics to back that statement up?

		
	kits
	

       >	Do you have statistics to back that statement up?

    Of course not Kits!  Its jes plain ole fact.. you should know that.....
    
		
    	

    I'd like to compose a decent reply, but haven't got the time for it.
    My mind is on something else....
    
    Charles

    But isn't the real issue that this woman in the Patriot's locker room
    was treated differently than a male reporter in the same place at the
    same time doing the same thing would have been?
    
    -Amy.

    Timeout for a moment, folks...
    
    As it was mentioned in WOMENNOTES, the players *did* have the option
    of wearing bathrobes for just such situations. 
    
    Just thought I'd throw that in here...
    
    Thanks for listening, now I return you to your "debate."
                                           
    ;)Barb
    

Re: .55

Your question is meaningless and irrelevant.  If there were a women's sport
where reporters of any sex were allowed into the locker room, and there
doesn't seem to be, then it would be just as wrong to exclude men from there
as it is to exclude women from men's sports locker rooms.

Either both or neither.  And I think the latter is preferable.

				Steve

Re: .58

You say "common decency".  I say "sexual discrimination".

Your example doesn't mean anything, and you're arguing a different point.
First, what you're arguing is that locker rooms should be closed to
reporters, period.  Fine, I agree with that, and so do most people here, it
would seem.  But given that some reporters ARE being allowed in, is it
proper to exclude by basis of sex?  I say no, you say - what?

If for a given event, women and men are competing in the same sport, and
reporters are allowed into the men's locker room and not the women's, that
is discrimination of a different sort, and one just as wrong.  But the rules
about allowing reporters in are specific to events, sports and leagues, and
you can't compare apples and oranges and expect to come up with anything
meaningful.

Now I'll agree with you on one thing - our society places far less importance
on men's privacy than on women's.  But that's not the subject under
discussion here - feel free to start another topic on it if you wish.

					Steve

    I have to think that, given  the same situation, with a reversal in
    genders, ie male reporters in the women's locker room, that a female
    would not " wave her genitals " in the male reporter's face. But that's
    only supposition.
    
    The point remains that the issue in Foxboro was one man's actions
    toward a female reporter would not have been the same had the reporter
    been a man.
    
    (I have to agree with Steve that the cleanest solution is to not allow
    any reporters of either sex in to either men's or women's locker
    rooms.)
    
    -Amy.

    Excuse me?

    Can't go thru all those replies, so........
    
    I'm not sure I care so much whether women are allowed in the locker
    rooms or not. It obviously doesn't give the players the right to treat
    them obscenely just because she IS a woman. 
    
    Personally, all locker room interviews are DULL anyway, so............
    
    ....Bob

    On the other hand, reply .1 seems like a good idea, except I don't
    think the players should be REQUIRED to interview.......
    
    ....Bob

    >I'm not sure I care so much whether women are allowed in the locker
    >rooms or not. It obviously doesn't give the players the right to treat
    >them obscenely just because she IS a woman. 
    
    Bob - I agree, I agree, I agree.
    
    -Amy.
    
    

The team was fined $25,000 and assessed another 25K to pay for materials the
league office will send to each team clarifying proper procedures for dealing
with the media.

Zeke Mowatt was fined $12.5K for both "verbal and demonstrative actions" against
the reporter 

Robert Perryman and Michael Timpson each were fined $5000.



Ownership and management were also "blasted" in a letter from the commissioner.




Jim

    At least one of the earlier replies here spoke of the more "liberal"
    attitudes toward nudity or near-nudity prevailing in other cultures and
    hinted that MODESTY may not be a concept that would be understood in
    these societies.  After having lived in Europe for the past three years
    (Geneva, specifically), I couldn't resist commenting (this has little,
    or maybe, just a little to do with the Lisa Olsen affair).
    
    Even though we Americans might feel that nudity or near-nudity in some
    "social" situations (the beach, swimming pool or sauna) might reflect a
    lack of MODESTY on the part of the individuals involved, we miss the
    point.  There are quite distinct definitions of modesty and "proper"
    behavior in these societies.  No self-respecting Swiss (or French)
    woman, who sees absolutely nothing at all "wrong" about wearing the
    tiniest of mono-kinis at the beach or the pool, would ever dream of
    travelling to or from the beach or pool in this attire, or to use a
    common (gender indiscriminate) shower or locker room facility.
    
    I first noticed this while I was staying at a hotel near Geneva which
    had an outdoor swimming pool surrounded by a waist-high chain link
    fence.  It was perfectly acceptable to be nearly naked within the
    bounds of the chain link fence, or even to lean over the fence in
    conversation with someone outside, but when venturing outside of the
    enclosure, the required attire appeared to be bathrobes of at least
    mid-calf length.  We lived near a small beach on the lake, and it was
    not uncommon to see neighbors there with little on, but I NEVER saw
    anyone walk the ten meters or so from the parking area to the beach
    area dressed in anything that would raise an eyebrow here in the US!
    
    Human beings are endlessly fascinating!!
    
    Regards,
    
    Bill

    re .68
    
    Bill,
    
    Your example cited social behaviors.  The Lisa Olsen case is about
    professional sportswriters access to locker rooms.
    
    Personally I agree with the idea of setting up an interview area to
    allow reporters access to the athletes and other pertinent people while
    at the same time allowing the athletes privacy while they shower and
    change.
    
    
    Judi
    

    Judi,
    
    I was reacting to note -.n where someone brought up the subject of
    other cultures not being so up-tight about nudity (I believe the
    reference was to saunas in Finland).  My point was that there are
    limits beyond which it is not socially acceptable to be without clothes
    of some kind in nearly every society.
    
    This in no way should be construed as a defense of anyone involved in
    the Lisa Olsen case.  There are limits in every society, and you
    overstep them at your own risk.  I, too, thought that the suggestion of
    a separate interview room for ALL reporters made a LOT of sense.  After
    all, after having lost a football game by a score of 51 to 3 (to
    mention a recent example), what player really wants to have some jerk
    reporter (male or female) asking the dumb question of the day.  I know
    that I would like to have a few minutes to myself in order to re-gain
    composure before facing the press.
    
    Regards,
    
    Bill

    Bill,
    
    Mea culpa.  My apologies about the crossed communication.
    
    
    Judi

    As an example of societal differences, though nudity is not involved. 
    I was in a Men's Room in Paris (in a McDonald's, so it had 'our' style
    of fixtures rather than the more common WC style) when a cleaning woman
    came in and mopped the floor.  Nothing wrong with it, it's just not
    done in the US.
    
    ed

    re: .72 (ed)
    
          ...not necessarily.  Obviously, you haven't experienced it,
    but it occurs.  I have had precisely that experience while in college
    in my dormitory bathroom (all male dorm) and I've experienced that
    on occasion in hotels, etc. (the public male bathrooms.)  I have seen
    at least one or two occasions of the reverse...where a male janitor
    was cleaning, etc. the women's room while women were using it (my
    ex-girlfriend and her girlfriend did exactly that just last year...
    they said "so what?  ...we have full bladders and we have doors on
    the stalls anyway..."
          If you *really* want to make a case, look into "room service"
    in hotels, wherein it is almost scandalous the way those people
    (of both sexes) will let themselves into PRIVATE rooms, especially
    the men serving breakfast, although I understand that American women
    somehow seem titillated by it (in foreign countries, at least.)
    
    Frederick