Conference quark::mennotes-v1

Good questions, Ger.

I see the distinction between admiring comments about women's legs and
wet t-shirt contests as being the latter are specifically designed to
put women on display for the benefit of the men who ogle and "judge" them
solely for physical attributes.  This bothers me a great deal.  But for
men to say that they appreciate looking at women's legs, and the women who
are pleased to be admired, I see nothing wrong in this.  It's strictly
voluntary.  If the men's "attentions" crossed over the line into 
unwarranted intrusion and threatening behavior, though, that would be a problem.

I didn't object to the "Legs" note because it seemed harmless and innocent.
Certainly women in other conferences have long since enjoyed discussions of
men's "buns and pecs" (as well as a few notes of admiration for certain
women's bodies from those so inclined.)

I would caution noters, though, to not take the eager participation of some
women in these discussions as an indication that they would be amenable to
sexual advances.  I've heard of that happening in the past and don't want
to see it here.

We all have bodies, and most of us would like to think that we're
attractive to others.  Occasional confirmation is a pleasure.

					Steve

	 There is definitely a distinction between admiration and
	 objectification.

	 I put admiring women's legs into the first category while I
	 place wet t-shirt contests into the second.

	 A wet t-shirt contest is based solely on physical attributes.
	 The prettiest/best formed/biggest chested/etc woman wins.

	 When a physical attribute is admired, however...it's taken
	 for just want it is......it's not a judgement on the overall
	 character of a person as a wet t-shirt contest could be
	 considered.

	 However...I might add that I wouldn't participate in a legs
	 contest either.  Contests objectify the person into just
	 something that needs to be voted on.

	 Appreciation tells me that I have something that another
	 finds attractive.  Which says NOTHING about the other parts
	 of me that they find attractive as well.

         Objectification is a judgement of the whole person. 
         Admiration is but appreciation of a facet of that person.
	 

	 kath	 

    
    Why would a flat-chested woman want to enter a wet T-shirt contest
    anyway.  She has nothing to show!
    

         >Objectification is a judgement of the whole person. 
         >Admiration is but appreciation of a facet of that person. 
    
    I couldn't disagree more. The act of talking about a woman's legs,
    in the absence of discussing the rest of her, is to objectify that one
    part of her. "Admiration" to me, is appreciating nice legs in context 
    of the whole person, and includes all facets of that person.
    
    I found the use of language by Frank as being pretty offensive, IMHO.
    
    -roger
    

    This issue is as old as time.
    
    I think of it this way...........
     
    #1 everyone is different. (and for that i'm glad)
    
    Some women will take thier top off at the beach if they are allowed,
    some will take thier top n' bottom off           "      "     ".
    some would not dare to take any part off.
    some men will ogle.
    some men will look.
    some men will not.
    
                    And that's what's it's all about......TAAAA.....DAAAA !
    
    We spend to much time worrying, what is the norm, I say h*ll with it
    
                             ENJOY !             Dan       ;-)

Roger, I find your position puzzling.  Would you find it offensive if someone
were to come up and say to you "You seem like an intelligent man", because
they had not also admired your eye color?

I can certainly agree that someone who defines a woman's worth solely by
the appearance of her legs is indeed treating the woman as an object, but
I don't get that impression from Frank's notes.  (I could be wrong, but the
evidence isn't there.)

But I'd also wonder about someone who would deny others the pleasure
of admiring someone they found attractive.

					Steve

    Steve, 
    
    I found my reaction very similar to Ger's; that some of the replies
    were warm, and some were creepy. I would have to go back and select
    out those that I thought were creepy and explain each one as to why,
    and I'm not willing to do this.
    
    Soo.....I'll restrict myself to stating my opinion on this.
    
    Anyone for starting a topic on women's breasts?
    
    -roger
    

    
Gina>    Why would a flat-chested woman want to enter a wet T-shirt contest
Gina>    anyway.  She has nothing to show!



	 Smaller chests on women are quite often more firm (less
	 flabby).  To many men smaller/firm chests are much more
	 appealing.....even through a wet t-shirt.


	 kath

re-.1
I agree.

-j

    re:wet t-shirts.....
    
    Women who enter a wet T-shirt contest **WANT** to oogled and admired
    for their physical attributes. Right or wrong in the minds of others
    has spit to do with it. the participants are willing to have all
    look and admire or judge. I have never seen a wet T-shirt contest
    where the participants/contestants were manacled or in any form
    of bondage and force into this public "humiliation". 
    
    	C'mon people. Let's look at this truthfully. Is this *really*
    exploitation of women??? I think not. This is the mating dance of
    the modern day human. "Look what I got! Want some??" 
    
    	Monster hooters may no be the ideal for all men, but they do
    attract attention when the owner is in a flimsy T-shirt that's
    just had a couple of gallons of water applied.
    
    	Ken

    
    RE:4 ROGER
    
      well excuuuuuuuuuse me i'll go get my book on easy grammar and not
    offend you any more. there was in no way shape or form that i intended
    for any note to sound that way i thought we all had a little common
    sense but there are people in this world who have so much brains that
    they lack being able to have common sense and be general instead they
    look in between the lines to look for something that is not there
    and exploit it to no end as i put in the other note if you want to 
    know what frank meant ask him its okay i left my gun at home
    
    i looK not ogel (i can use this word as roger used it first so its
    not offense) but to keep me safe pass me a set of those blinders
    you wear because i like looking at a pretty girl.
    there are days when i go by our sec. and she looks nice and i usually
    say "you look nice today" and there are days when i say nothing.
    but if a woman puts time into to look nice i think they would like to 
    know in a nice way and its the hold woman not a part of the woman
    i darn sure would't tell her hey nice legs if so i keep that thought
    to myself and keep my mouth shut.
    
    its still nice to look when i stop looking put me in my grave

As moderator:

I'd like to ask that people stop using terms that are generally 
considered to be offensive.  Specifically, I have seen two notes 
entered recently that use very offensive terms for women's breasts.  
Please stop.   If you can't put the word in a written memo, then I 
suggest that you don't use it here.

Thanks.


							--Gerry

PS  Back to your regularly scheduled program...

    >  well excuuuuuuuuuse me i'll go get my book on easy grammar and not
    >offend you any more. 
    
    It might help to make your meaning more clear.
    
    >there was in no way shape or form that i intended
    >for any note to sound that way i thought we all had a little common
    >sense but there are people in this world who have so much brains that
    >they lack being able to have common sense and be general instead they
    >look in between the lines to look for something that is not there
    >and exploit it to no end as i put in the other note if you want to 
    >know what frank meant ask him its okay i left my gun at home       
    
    You are trying to insult me by implying that I have no common
    sense. This takes no reading between the lines.
    
    You certainly have no punctuation, and your notes are self-explanatory, 
    Frank. 
    
    -roger
    
        

    I see Roger as the sensitive, Alan Alda or Phil Donahue type.
    
    I believe he also tries to be P.C. most (all)  of the time.
    
    Roger, lighten up.
    
    Please??
    
      Alan

    Alan- where I come from, calling someone P.C. is an insult.
    There ain't no need for it, none at all.  You wanna dispute his 
    points, dispute him; but namecalling doesn't make your case.
    
    DougO

    Psst....what's a PC? 
    
    -personnal computer
    -production control
    
    Ta ever so,
    Dave

    
    well roger i wasn't aware that puncuation was manditory here are you 
    checking for spelling to ?
    
    all i see is in one note you say how my topics are so bad
    then too notes later you want someonelse to start a note about womens
    breast whats a matter couldn't you or you didn't want to be the one
    in case someone found that a bad subject.
    i know what it is see i look at legs and you look at... oh never mind
    
    frank
    
    p.s. now don't get mad roger as this is just a friendly discussion
         and not meant to start a word fight have a sense of humour okay
     

    RE: .7  
    
    > Anyone for starting a topic on women's breasts?
    
    Roger, see note 440.
    
    Paul C.

    Re: .15
                
    >     -< don't like men much, though, huh? >-
    
    I like most men well enough, Doug, but their legs don't do a 
    thing for me.

    > Alan- where I come from, calling someone P.C. is an insult.

    You and Roger live in California, I believe. Could there be that much 
    of a cultural difference between the East and West coasts? I mean, I
    know you folks out there use the term "Hey, dudes" a lot. 
    
    I thought that calling someone  P.I. was an insult nowadays (if I can 
    believe everything I read in -WN-). Has the pendulum swung the other
    way so quickly?

    > There ain't no need for it, none at all.  You wanna dispute his 
    > points, dispute him; but namecalling doesn't make your case.
    
    It's hard to dispute Roger's points which are somewhat nebulous (besides
    his criticizing Frank's grammar and punctuation). I guess I could 
    say that I don't consider most of the remarks here to be offensive,
    although yours are borderline.
    
    So, please stop. 
    
      Alan           

>                       <<< Note 438.19 by FDCV01::ROSS >>>
     
 >   I thought that calling someone  P.I. was an insult nowadays (if I can 
  


	What does P.I. mean ?



	kits

PI = politically incorrect

PC = politically correct

Why would either be considered and insult?





Jim

 I didn't see any smilies, so I'll assume you were being serious Ray. But
your explanation isn't quite right.

 The reason that PI or PC can be considered an insult is because some people
consider that if you talk about someone being PC, you are in essence saying that
they are just going along with the flow, and not thinking for themselves. If
you say "I know this is PI but I really feel..." you are in essence saying that
those that are PC didn't think it through and are going along with it because
they are afraid to rock the boat.

 I don't necessarily agree that those conclusions are valid, but that is roughly
how it was explained to me.

 Perhaps DougO would care to explain this insult issue wrt PC and PI?

 The Doctah

    Close enough, Mark.  Yes; when I see someone, Alan in this case,
    calling someone else "PC", but not bothering to specifically dispute
    anything that Roger said, I see it as tantamount to accusing someone
    of following a party line because they are unable to think for
    themselves; sort of, "you couldn't possibly think [that] if you had 
    a brain to think with!" or, "you're only saying [that] because you're
    afraid to disagree with the party line."  Note that it does not even
    pretend to refute whatever [that] was said; it merely attacks the 
    individual.
    
    It is an insult.
    
    My attempt to politely request Alan to stop namecalling seems to have 
    offended him, though, so I don't care to explain it further.
    
    DougO

    Doug, does referring to someone as being PC, carry - in your mind -
    the same negative connotations that calling someone a "Liberal" in,
    say, SOAPBOX does?

    I don't know Roger well enough to know if he was insulted by the term.
    
    In fact, I'm not sure why you felt it necessary to respond for him in
    the first place.

    However, I do know that Roger was not being particularly charitable
    (or polite) to Frank (who, I confess, I don't know either).

    I saw Roger's replies as an attempt to misdirect the topic and to 
    denigrate (oops, another non-PC word in some Conferences) those of
    us who were enjoying the conversation.

    While I don't believe that a person who is PC is incapable of thinking 
    for him/herself, I do believe that a PC person, in public - or within a 
    certain milieu - will say or do things that he/she does not necessarily 
    believe in.

    And Doug, you don't honestly think your title addressed to me in .15
    was really polite, now do you?

      Alan

Gentlemen,

I would appreciate it if there was an end to the name-calling in this note
(and elsewhere).  If you wish to continue the argument, please do it by
mail.

Thanks.

					Steve

�  <<< Note 438.24 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Is any of this sinkin' in now, boy?" >>>

�  I didn't see any smilies, so I'll assume you were being serious Ray. But
� your explanation isn't quite right.
    
    Hey, Doctah -
    
    Smilies should've been assumed.  I'm afraid I was trying to derail the
    discussion.  (: >,)
    
    I've been around enough political types (bless 'em!) that I know PC and
    PI, which are usually used in a humorously self-deprecating fashion,
    BTW.  (= "by the way")
    
    I don't like Alan Alda, Phil Donahue, OR a lot of Alan Ross's
    comments... guess I'm still PV (= "pretty vague").
    
    PR (= "Parvenu Ray")

    any similarity between Alan Alda, Phil Donahue and Alan Ross
    is mostly illusory. :-) Tho I can vouch that he is a pretty nice
    guy.
    
    Bonnie
    
    (hi Alan)

    Bonnie, when I gave you the mink coat last night, I expected 
    much more than those lukewarm words: "Tho I can vouch he is a 
    pretty nice guy."
    
    Well, at least you didn't say I was a pretty, nice guy. :-)
    
    (Hi Bon)
    
      Alan

	 
	 
         RE: .last


	 Naw........there's nothing wrong with being called a Nice
	 Guy.....it's when you get called a Nice Guy (TM) that you're
	 in trouble.

	 The trademark will do it to you every time!!

	 :-)

	 kath

No kiddin'. It once got to the point where they'd just mention trademarks and
I knew I was done for the evening. :-)

 The Doctah

    
    well said roger and well taken. but there are all kinds of people
    in this world.
    
    and i'm afraid that the difference between me and you is night and
    day. because what you hate i like. S.I. for 5 years. but does this
    make us bad or evil?
    

�                           -< you say cat i say dog >-
�    ... S.I. for 5 years. but does this
�    make us bad or evil?
    
    Not as far as I'm concerned.  "Gets on my nerves" is about as much of a
    value judgment as I make on things like this.  We're not talking
    genocide here, after all.  (: >,)
    
    As long as you don't try to confiscate the "Sweet Movie" video, S. Clay
    Wilson's comix, Mapplethorpe's photographs, or my rare copy of Samuel
    R. Delany's "Tides of Lust", you're welcome to your Sports Illustrated.
    
    Ray

    re:33
    
    great note, Ray.
    
    re:26 Alan Ross
     >-< PC People Don't Always Say What They Feel, Nor Feel What They Sa >-
    
    You are unfamiliar with my notes, or you would have seen recently that
    my personal name was "apolitically incorrect".
    
    You are also unfamiliar with my distaste for the phrase "politically
    correct" as expressed in Soapbox. I always say exactly what I think
    or feel.
    
    >I saw Roger's replies as an attempt to misdirect the topic and to 
    >denigrate (oops, another non-PC word in some Conferences) those of
    >us who were enjoying the conversation.   
    
    I was stating my opinion, that's all, and if I "misdirected" what
    I construed to be a sexist conversation, then I'm glad.
    
    You're lumping me with a certain group of people, Alan, rather than
    dealing with me as an individual. This is stereotyping, and, as Doug
    was saying, doesn't deal with the issue raised at all.
    
    -roger
    
    
    
                                 
    
    
    

    I think "sex talk" in notesfiles goes to far when it starts to sound
    like people are getting off on it.  I think that's kind of
    inappropriate for a corporate resource.
    
    -Jody
    

>    I think "sex talk" in notesfiles goes to far when it starts to sound
>    like people are getting off on it. 

 That's right. So you all better keep the heavy breathing to a minimum. :-) :-)

 The Doctah

(*sigh*)

Again, as moderator:

Please do not use derogatory phrases for women's bodily parts in this 
file.  All such notes will be set hidden pending a decision on the 
part of the moderators.

THANK you.


							--Gerry

    (Edited to remove offensively colorful examples, and reposted. - Ray)
    
    "When does sex talk go too far?"
    
    Mainly when it doesn't go far enough.
    
    First, I do get a bit queasy when notes start to sound like catcalls or
    when they joke about following people home.  This is because I've been
    close to many people who were discomforted or worse by catcalls and by
    men following them home.  (I KNOW THAT THE WRITERS DIDN'T MEAN IT THAT
    WAY!  I KNOW THAT NOT ALL WOMEN DISLIKE CATCALLS!  I'M NOT TALKING
    ABOUT YOU!  I'M TALKING ABOUT WHAT MAKES ME UNCOMFORTABLE!)  (phew!) 
    
    But there's something more general bugging me here...
    
    The Swimsuit Issue offends me.  And "Playboy", pinups, most softcore,
    and the "obligatory sex scenes" in mainstream novels and movies.  Not
    because they "objectify women" - I don't really understand the phrase. 
    But because they get called "sexual", and I know for a fact that sex is
    NOT THAT BORING.  There's something off-kilter when photographs of
    carefully made-up freezing women grimacing like mad and wearing wet
    pieces of cloth are supposed to have something to do with sex.
    
    Similarly, comments like "Great legs!" or "Nice behind on that guy, 
    eh?", whether shouted from a car window or whispered under one's 
    breath, have a pretty tenuous link to Real Sex.  They only make
    sense looked at in more general cultural terms, but I'm pretty
    sure that if I tried to do so here I'd get accused of party-pooping or
    P.C.ness.  Heavens forfend.  (And if I tried to talk about the tenuous
    link, my entry would be deleted or we would go the route of SEXCETERA. 
    God forbid.)
    
    In my callow youth, I probably claimed to be "a leg man" one or two
    zillion times.  But when push came to pull, that didn't have much to do
    with real life.  Sex does not involve collapsing in a pool of saliva in
    front of Dietrich-from-the-thighs-down.  (Well, not often, anyway.) 
    For that matter, breasts (or male buns, for the women in the audience)
    are more often ancillary to the main action than full participants.
    
    This boy-talk / girl-talk stuff isn't about sex.  It's about something
    that we've been taught is a substitute for sex.  Wacky body-part
    references are culturally acceptable in a way that talk (or art) about
    Real, Varied, Surprising, Complicated, Dangerous and Messy Sex is not.
    And that's why they leave me cold or sometimes even get on my nerves.
    
    Ray

re: .40
    
>	pant ... pant ...  Oh, Jody!
>
>-mike z
    
    save it pal, heavy breathing has little or no effect in black and
    white.
    
    -Jody
    

   > Have you tried it with amber phosphor?

   >	It's quite a turn-on.
        
    
    Yup - I've got amber.
    
    And it's still totally ineffective.
     

    maybe it's just the person whose "panting"
    
    8*)

    Getting back to the original base note question... when does sex
    talk go too far ...
    
    Admiring a woman's legs and admiring physical beauty is in general
    healthy and harmless.  (Admiration being one thing and unwanted sexual
    advances being another, that is.)  Regarding wet T-shirt contests,
    women who participate in such contests are inviting men to look at and
    admire their bodies, so in this case, I do not go for the sexual
    "object" theory.  Supply and demand???
    
    The only area in which I have a problem (and I don't think this was
    mentioned yet) is when men go beyond their admiring physically attractive
    women and start putting down women who they consider to be physically 
    unattractive. Same goes for women who put down men who they do not consider
    good looking -- putdowns based solely on looks.  This type of behavior can
    be very mean and can inflict very deep pain.  I knew some guys -- and I am
    sure you've all heard stories like this -- who at least once a year would 
    sit on popular beaches with score cards for the women walking by.  When 
    they encountered females who they did not consider attractive, they would 
    draw pictures of pigs with the words OINK OINK on their cards and then 
    would actually hold them up.  So... inflicting such pain and hurt is what
    I would term "too far."   It is by no means "harmless fun."
      
    Unfortunately, our society is extremely physical-beauty oriented.  The
    pressure to be physically attractive, now for both males and females,
    can be pretty intense.  Anyways, while I think admiring physical beauty
    is fine, the putdowns that spin off from it, I think, are tragic.
    
    Paul     

    
>    Admiring a woman's legs and admiring physical beauty is in general
>    healthy and harmless.  (Admiration being one thing and unwanted sexual
>    advances being another, that is.)  Regarding wet T-shirt contests,
>    women who participate in such contests are inviting men to look at and
>    admire their bodies, so in this case, I do not go for the sexual
>    "object" theory.  Supply and demand???

Okay, Paul.

[What follows is purely hypothetical...]

Let's say that you like cocaine.  In Peru, drug lords butcher dozens 
of people who attempt to stop them from producing the drug.  In a city 
near where you live, kids kill each other with Uzzis in order for one 
gang to have exclusive drug selling rights in one area of the city.  
The cocaine comes from Peru, goes though that gang in a city near you, 
and it eventually ends up in your nose.  Also, since there is plenty 
of demand for this drug, this gang continues to supply the drug to 
people who are addicted and whose lives are getting flushed down the 
toilet.

Do you own any responsibility for the deaths and ruin lives that occur 
in conjunction with your little toot on Saturday night?  Granted, you 
certainly aren't directly responsible, but do you own any 
responsibility for supporting a system that kills?

Okay, let's say you like wet tee shirt contests.  Well, let's track 
one possible way of looking at how a little girl grows up in this 
country.  From the cradle, she gets pink when her brothers gets blue.  
She gets dolls when they get footballs.  She is showered with
compliments on her looks, when the boys are showered with compliments
on their accomplishments.  She gets dresses that show her legs when
the boys get suits that cover their bodies up.  She sees Miss America
contests on TV.  She sees the Academy Awards, in which most of the 
women were introduced as "the lovely and talented..." but the men were 
introduced as "funny" or "talented."

She receives less money for her work than her male coworkers.  She
sees TV anchorwomen fired because they have gained too much weight. 
She sees advertisements that show a breast or a buttock or some other
part of a woman's body.  She sees the current ad for the new Rob Lowe
movie that shows the two men's faces and clothed bodies, while it
shows James Spader holding (perhaps possessing an object?) a woman
who's face is not shown and whose back is naked and facing the camera.
 She sees a Seagrum's ad that shows 1 man and three women in bathing
suits; his face is shown and it is clear that he is admiring the
women, and he wears a loose fitting bathing suit; none of the women's
faces are shown and all are wearing suits that have parts of their
bodies hanging out. 

She goes to Florida on Spring break, and she takes part in the wet tee
shirt contest because she wants to feel valued, loved, lusted after,
paid attention to...for something, at least.  And her male friends 
seem to encourage her, seem to like this, seem to pay attention to 
her.  

This woman now relies on her looks and from positive, sexual feedback
from men to live her life.  She restricts her life to conform to the
boundaries that she sees around her; she buys in, and she takes
advantage of the powers that be.  She might even do this in a really
powerful way, like, say, Madonna.  Like (I hope I get this name right) 
Rep. Margery Clapprod, from Massachusetts, who uses her sex appeal to 
sway votes over to progressive causes.  

Or, she might be an "unattractive" lawyer who can't seem to get her
due, because she can't use men's attraction to her to get what she
wants, and she is having trouble exchaning her value as a smart lawyer
in this kind of a marketplace. (In fact, she might not even have made
it through law school with this kind of pressure and attitude toward
valuing "beauty" in women.) Women's lives can be restricted, stunted,
ruined. 

Do you, as a "consumer" of wet tee shirt contests, own any 
responsibility for difficulty women are having in being valued 
first for their person and second for their bodies?  Of course, you do 
not own direct responsibility for suicides, ruined lives, restricted 
careers, fragile self-esteems, and so forth.  But do you own any 
responsibility at all for the struggles that so many women are 
attempting to report to men these days?


							--Gerry

    re:47
    Very well put, Ger.
    
    re:48 Mike
    
    >	He's no more responsible than you are if a garbage truck, carrying
    >DEC waste, some of which came from your wastebasket, runs over someone
    >while en-route to the dump.
    
    I disagree completely. If Paul is in the audience to the wet T-shirt
    contest, he is contibuting to the sexist standard of behavior that
    rewards women for being sex objects, by re-inforcing the performer's
    views of what is worthwhile behavior for a woman.
    
    In your example, there is obviously no connection between the driver 
    operating a vehicle, and the act of tossing trash into a wastebasket.
    
    -roger
    
                                                                            

    Well, perhaps the analogy isn't 100% there, but the underlying reason
    for dismay at things like, oh, wet T shirts and contests thereof,
    was pretty much outlined in Gerry's note.
    
    Sure, no one is forcing these women to stand up and be admired like
    dogs in a show being judge for confirmation, but the social mind
    set that allows/encourages/finds little wrong with it is what is
    sad.  There are those who like that, and being as people are such
    visual, physical-attractiveness based creatures, it's not likely
    to change overnight.  Those that don't mind ogling defend themselves
    with "there's nothing wrong with it" and it's one of those things
    that's very hard to point out exactly what IS wrong with it because
    the prevaling opinion is that it isn't so.
    
    "round and round you go....  ::shrug::
    
    ---kim

    Now, I see my participation in a society that produces trash, in the
    course of work, as something that is necessary to that current
    society's mode of operation.  Yes, I accept responsibility for
    participating in a system that produces trash that must be disposed
    of, and in the disposal of which can involve other side effects like
    the transportation accident Mike described.  I accept that.  Partly, I
    accept it because its a very complex world, and out of thousands and
    thousands of loads of trash generated every day, not very many are
    going to end up in fatal transportation accidents.  But Mike is right;
    my participation in that system that produces trash does give me some
    eventual culpability for the accidents that happen in the disposal of
    that trash.
    
    That said, I would like to compare the effect of the social
    conditioning of wet t-shirt contests and everything else that Gerry
    mentioned as affecting a young woman in this culture, and everything
    else he *didn't mention, and consider whether our participation in a
    system that encourages women to value themselves only for what their
    bodies' appearance can earn them, similarly earns us culpability in the
    damages that accrue from this far more insidious system.  Since this
    system is far more pervasive and causes damages to many, many more 
    members of our society than do Mike's trash trucks, I consider this
    system far less acceptable, and I *won't* continue to accept these
    damages to millions of people in this society, by implicitly condoning
    it when I participate in ogling strippers or wet t-shit contests or
    pornography or whatever; however much pleasure it might give me
    personally, I consider the damages that such behavior does to valued 
    fellow human beings to make that behavior unacceptable; ultimately,
    when I'm being 100% rational, it even takes the pleasure out of it.
    
    [(*sigh*)  This is a cruel world, sometimes; one then has to really,
    really think hard to discover what sorts of sexuality *are* ok, that
    don't cause damage to other people.  That's a rathole.]
    
    I accept partial responsibility for the miniscule number of
    transportation system accidents in the disposal of this society's
    trash, Mike.  I expect that far more responsibility for problems with
    esteem and self-valuation that women have, to be accepted by those who
    encourage wet t-shirt contests and similar behavior patterns.
    
    DougO

    
    There ARE laws against rape.  The prisons are full of 'sex offenders'.
    
    The real problem is that the legal system is geared to protect 
    the criminals rights much more than it is geared to protect the 
    victims rights.  Society indicates that it is better to let 100 
    criminals go free than it is to wrongly convict one innocent person.
    
    I HAVE NO SEMPATHY FOR RAPISTS.  BUT.  IMHO.  A woman whow would
    falsely accuse a man of rape does much more harm to women in
    genral than any one rapist does to women in genral because just
    *one* case of false accusation makes it *much* harder for someone
    who is really raped to get justice.
    
    ALSO.  More rapists go free because the victim is to *afraid* or
    too *embarresed* to prosecute or does not report the crime, than 
    because a D.A. will not prosecute 'for lack of evidence.
    
    Hysterically blamming *men* for what *some* men do is not only
    ludicrous, it does more harm than good.
    
    fred();

    
    
    
    Mike:
    
    This is really a chicken and the egg argument, but I do totally disagree
    with you that those who create the demand are not responsible for the
    supply.
    
    A relevant parallel is the Columbia drug cartel, which would not exist
    without the American drug user. The violence that happens is the direct
    result of the very high prices generated by high demand. Big money
    in a poor country.
    
    The woman who makes a choice is partly responsible for her situation,
    but each man in that audience creates that demand, and is so a
    participant in perpetuating the woman-as-object social ethic. She might 
    be a woman who is in tough financial circumstances that discovers that
    she can make the best money selling her body.
    
    Delegating blame is nothing new, by the way. It is the basis of the Western
    legal system, and always has been.
    
    -roger
    

    > I suppose expecting people to take responsibility for their actions
    > and choices is too much to hope for.
    
    Why, that's what I thought your point to be; that's why I accepted your
    trash-disposal-culpability example; that's why I expected you to at
    least acknowledge that in a complex society, a culture which encourages
    men leering at women on display, is the joint responsibility of the
    leering men as much as the displaying women.
    
    Its obvious to me which participants in the cultural problem want to
    duck responsibility for their end.
    
    DougO

>    A relevant parallel is the Columbia drug cartel, which would not exist
>    without the American drug user. The violence that happens is the direct
>    result of the very high prices generated by high demand. Big money
>    in a poor country.

 No, not really. The "high demand" you speak of has very little to do with the
actual price of the drug because it is not a free market situation. It is
a black market situation, therefor different rules apply. The cause of the
high prices is the prohibition of the drug. The demand all by itself would not
have caused the drug cartels' profits and their related violence. Our government
ensures immense profitability by preying upon one of man's basic needs and
outlawing the successful indulgence thereof. Thus your analogy is not terribly
tight.

>    The woman who makes a choice is partly responsible for her situation,
>    but each man in that audience creates that demand, and is so a
>    participant in perpetuating the woman-as-object social ethic.

 Wet t-shirt contests and strippers do far less to perpetuate the "woman as 
object social ethic" than the media and advertisers do. Men like women. Men
like women's bodies. Men like to ogle women's bodies. If we were able to
accept the "time and a place for everything" school of thought, we'd be all set.
Women would be objectified sometimes, but would not be objectified to the
exclusion of being considered to be a human being. Instead, we are constantly
barraged by the female form in inappropriate instances. "Buy this car, and you
can have sex with this girl" is the major selling point for many autos. That's
absurd.

 It doesn't make sense to outlaw girls and women in commercial. On the other
hand, there must be a way to encourage manufacturers to utilize socially
responsible advertisements and to stop using stereotypes. Perhaps a few
letters saying "I would have bought your car, but the advertisements offended
me so I bought a ___ instead" would help...

 The Doctah

Re:       <<< Note 438.56 by USIV02::BROWN_RO "void where inhibited by law" >>>

>    A relevant parallel is the Columbia drug cartel, which would not exist
>    without the American drug user. The violence that happens is the direct
>    result of the very high prices generated by high demand. Big money
>    in a poor country.

The Columbian drug cartel, and the violence associated with the traffic 
in illegal substances, is *not* caused by the "American drug user."  And
the high prices are not caused by high demand, they are caused by
limited supply in a black market. 

And no, I don't believe the user of drugs - legal or illegal - is
responsible for the violent or criminal acts of the suppliers.  Neither
is the supplier responsible for violent or criminal acts of the user. 

The problem here is misguided laws that attempt to prohibit possession 
and use of psychoactive substances.

Didn't we learn the first time?  The prohibition of alcohol gave rise to
organized crime in this country.  The prohibition of marijuana, cocaine,
heroin, LSD etc has now given birth to a whole new infrastructure of
organized crime. 

Legalize it all, prohibit it to minors, deny "under the influence" as a 
defense against irresponsible acts, tax moderately, educate widely, 
provide treatment on demand.  

This, I believe, will solve the world's "drug problem."  If you don't
believe this will work, look at the current trends in the use of two
highly addictive and damaging psychoactive drugs currently legal in the
United States - alcohol and tobacco. 

We return to our regularly scheduled programming...

Bob

    > 	I can understand the logic behind such considerations.
    >
    >	But, I reject it in favor of placing the blame for actions on the
    > shoulders of those who actually commit those actions.
    
    I consider those who encourage such actions by their open approval
    and by their economic support, to be "comitting actions" of their own,
    and to be responsible for the effects of their choices.  I see those
    effects as damaging to the culture.  But I've already made that point,
    so I'll stop here.  I make different choices.
    
    DougO

>	What I disagree with is that those who create the demand are
>    responsible for the crimes committed by the suppliers.

I never said this, Mike.  I believe the words I used were "some 
responsibility" for the situation, certainly not responsibility for 
the crime/action.

I agree with you that the individual is responsible for the 
crime/action.

						--Ger

    
    When did the government get the right to make itself our guardian
    angel? 

re-.1
When we allowed it the first time by allowing laws of that nature to be passed.
Examples: mandatory helmet laws
	  Seat belt laws
	  gun control laws
	  and any other law designed to "protect" us from ourselves.
Liberal attitudes will continue to propagate this trend until we no longer
have any substance to our lives.
Living is a dangerous occupation and no law will change that fact.

I have to agree with an earlier reply that legalizing drugs is the only way
to gain control of the problem. 

-j

more on -.1

The gist of what I said there is you cannot "protect" those those that do not
wish to be "protected". What the government is doing is offering a "gift"
that *must* be accepted or you pay the price.

-j

Um, folks, I think we've strayed a bit too far from the base topic.  Please
return to the subject.  Thanks.

				Steve

    >   Sex talk goes too far when your phone bill exceeds $100.
    
    Mike, is that $100 per day? :-)
    
      Alan

    Alan
    
    That gets more expensive than a fur coat!
    
    Bonnie

    well, with those 976 numbers it adds up fast.
    
    $2.00 per call plus any applicable tolls.
    
    -roger
    

    
    with all the bad mouthing about wet t-shirt contest i was wondering
    how many men here have seen one? 
    and how many are saying how bad they are and never seeing one.
    
    i use to judge wet t-shirt and ref. female mud-wrestling and most
    of this was entertainment.
    
    these women are not forced to do this and some make a good sum of
    money.
    it goes back to what was said in another topic "if she has it flaunt
    it"
    
    frank
    

    re: .74 by -mike z

�	I saw two during spring break '83 in Bermuda.  They were boring.
 
    Mike,
    
    If they were so boring, how come you went to the second one?
    
    		;-)
    
    Bob

    Mike
    
    is that a typo?  I think you subsituted an 'a' for a 'u'.
    
    BJ

    in re .78
    
    okay