From: arnett@unixg.ubc.ca (Bill Arnett)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: aceptable actions?  (something worse than photographers
Date: 14 Oct 1992 02:26:39 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

>wat replies:
>>Either way the unaccepting sickos who judged and sentenced him should
>>go join the rest of the religious zealots.  Their behaviour was 
>>controlling and insensitive and should be unacceptable in civilized

But obviously it is okay for *you* to "judge and sentence" the "unaccepting
sickos"!?!?!?!  Better send yourself to "join the religious zealots"!
At least *they* had the benefit of first-hand experience.  You seem
to be omniscient enough to not need all the facts.

>>society.  From the description you gave there was nothing in his 
>>behaviour that warranted such treatment.
						  
From the *brief* description I gave, how could you tell?  (I know, it's
that omniscience.)  The anecdote I gave was just that: an anecdote.  Had
I intended it as a topic for discussion I probably would have been more
detailed with my wording.

I find it notable that -wat- (in another post) criticizes women for not
being able to put up with sexually harrassing email in response to 
rec.nude posts.  But here he accuses people of being "controlling and
insensitive" "sickos" for their (questionably) rude remarks.  Why not tell
this guy to "be a man and ignore them"?   Seems like a (self-serving)
double standard to me.

I also find it interesting to note how many people (here and by email)
have criticized the woman for being rude/controlling/insensitive/
intolerant/etc, when I see nothing in her words (as I typed them) that
suggests anything of the sort.  These people are reading between the
lines and finding something that isn't there.  Since I know this woman,
I also believe that the words would have been said with quiet sensitivity.
She would have been as concerned for him as for the people around him.
She *could* have said "look you sicko creep, we don't like your kind
around here", but she didn't.  In fact, her statement (as I typed it)
implied that it *would* be okay for him to come back another time.

I expect that -wat- and others (based on discussions of the
last few weeks) would have found it perfectly acceptable if she had
walked up and said "Do you mind if I help you with that?", but saying
"why don't you go home and deal with that privately?" somehow makes
her a sicko.   The logic escapes me.
-------------------------
To respond to the one legitimate question that arose:
  Did the guy have an implant?
  It seems unlikely.  The guy was only about 20 and the hardness was
  diminished after swimming.  (or so I was told.)
  But that *is* a very good point.  Of the erections I've seen personally
  on Wreck and a couple of other beaches, I *know* that none of them
  were permanent.
-------------------------
Finally, let me say that *none* of us know enough about this
situation to know what this guy was doing, or whether he deserved
any of the comments.  I'm not going to say they were justified
because I simply don't know---I wasn't there.  Neither was -wat-
or any of the other guys who think they know all the facts.

I didn't include the case to pass judgement.  I included it as *one* example
of how *one* person responded to a *particular* situation.  (I was
replying to someone who wanted to know how different people deal
with "situations".)
-------------------------
There.  I'm done.  That's my one and only reply to this worthless
sub-thread.

Bill.

PS: I like this response, BTW:
>"Oh no, I don't think so, I've got plenty of sun screen on and can
>last the whole day.  And I really do think I can decide for myself
>when it is time for me to leave.  It was nice of you to show so much 
>concern, ....even though I don't appreciate it."
>Jim P.   (jp@moscom.com)


-- 
Bill Arnett                            Internet: arnett@unixg.ubc.ca