In which a group of graying eternal amateurs discuss their passions, interests and obsessions, among them: movies, art, politics, evolutionary biology, taxes, writing, computers, these kids these days, and lousy educations.

E-Mail Donald
Demographer, recovering sociologist, and arts buff

E-Mail Fenster
College administrator and arts buff

E-Mail Francis
Architectural historian and arts buff

E-Mail Friedrich
Entrepreneur and arts buff
E-Mail Michael
Media flunky and arts buff

We assume it's OK to quote emailers by name.

Try Advanced Search

  1. Another Technical Note
  2. La Ligne Maginot
  3. Actress Notes
  4. Technical Day
  5. Peripheral Explanation
  6. More Immigration Links
  7. Another Graphic Detournement
  8. Peripheral Artists (5): Mikhail Vrubel
  9. Illegal Update

Sasha Castel
AC Douglas
Out of Lascaux
The Ambler
Modern Art Notes
Cranky Professor
Mike Snider on Poetry
Silliman on Poetry
Felix Salmon
Polly Frost
Polly and Ray's Forum
Stumbling Tongue
Brian's Culture Blog
Banana Oil
Scourge of Modernism
Visible Darkness
Thomas Hobbs
Blog Lodge
Leibman Theory
Goliard Dream
Third Level Digression
Here Inside
My Stupid Dog
W.J. Duquette

Politics, Education, and Economics Blogs
Andrew Sullivan
The Corner at National Review
Steve Sailer
Joanne Jacobs
Natalie Solent
A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
Rational Parenting
Colby Cosh
View from the Right
Pejman Pundit
God of the Machine
One Good Turn
Liberty Log
Daily Pundit
Catallaxy Files
Greatest Jeneration
Glenn Frazier
Jane Galt
Jim Miller
Limbic Nutrition
Innocents Abroad
Chicago Boyz
James Lileks
Cybrarian at Large
Hello Bloggy!
Setting the World to Rights
Travelling Shoes

Redwood Dragon
The Invisible Hand
Daze Reader
Lynn Sislo
The Fat Guy
Jon Walz


Our Last 50 Referrers

« X-rated Elsewhere | Main | Lynch Goes Digital »

August 27, 2005

Public Pleasures/Private Pleasures?

Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

I find myself wondering how the girl in these photos (NSFW) would react if she were ever to run across them on the web. Perhaps she'd feel violated, hurt, and enraged. On the other hand, she looks great. She's fit, she's young, and she's full of humor and spirit -- she'll probably never look better. And it wasn't as though she was keeping her joy and her freedom entirely to herself at the time the photos were taken. So maybe she'd feel delighted instead.

Any guesses about this from anyone? Ladies, if you were she, etc., how would you react?



posted by Michael at August 27, 2005


Even if she is dismayed to see her pictures splashed all over the Internet - ah, the joys of Voyeurweb! - she really has no reason to complain. She clearly was making a spectacle of herself at the topless beach. If you can't stand the heat ...

Posted by: Peter on August 27, 2005 05:14 PM

Have to pass on this question, I could never be 'she', by 2 reasons.
1) I love food.
2) I have a waist.

Posted by: Tatyana on August 27, 2005 07:54 PM

I'm sure she would be thrilled if she knew how much pleasure she has provided me this evening.

Posted by: ned on August 27, 2005 10:01 PM

I am guessing nubile young thang is about 17 years old, and having a good ole time. If I looked that good, then why the hell not?

Alas, although I am a child of Woodstock, I could never be that uninhibited. Besides, my nubile days have gone the way of the buffalo...

Just an old hide nowadays *grin*

Posted by: Cowtown Pattie on August 27, 2005 10:05 PM

She could probably look a bit better if she ate a few hamburgers.

Posted by: . on August 28, 2005 02:15 AM

If I was her ... I would be mortified!

It would mean that someone put a really strong drug into my drink and I lost all ability to reason. Geez, who knows what would come next. (... not to mention the web pics.)

On the other hand, if the beach was topless, I dunno. Still, it's rather public. The place is packed.

But, I have to add, young women are SO vulnerable and they don't even know it. Often, they don't even seem to care. There are many many deeply disturbed people that would see that sort of behavior as an invitation. She really doesn't need creeps pawing on her. I hope she has a very hulky boyfriend.

Posted by: laurel on August 28, 2005 06:27 AM

Nature's atomic weapon!

Posted by: ricpic on August 28, 2005 07:57 AM

In several of the pictures, she seems to be aware that she is being photographed. Who nowadays wouldn't suspect that photos of you taken by a stranger in public might end up on the Web?

We really need to get over the idea that young females' modesty can be effectively absent in an unambiguously public situation, including being photographed, then somehow reassert itself when it comes to being displayed on the Internet.

It's all just the same exhibitionism, isn't it?

Posted by: PatrickH on August 28, 2005 08:09 AM

I notice that you omitted the final "l" in your signature. Is that because you were typing with one hand? :)

Posted by: Searchie on August 28, 2005 10:31 AM

I'm thinking early 20s myself. She doesn't have the defiant insecurity common to 17 year olds. She looks good, she knows she looks good, and she's on display to be admired and find a prospective partner.

She could use a few pounds on the other hand.

The world's a-changin' good people. Expect more like this in the future, and in more locations.

Posted by: Alan Kellogg on August 28, 2005 02:27 PM

and find a prospective partner.

A prospective partner might be more upset about these pictures.

Posted by: onetwothree on August 28, 2005 05:12 PM

And check out this weird beach:

It's just big stones. Can't they dump some sand?

Posted by: onetwothree on August 28, 2005 05:13 PM


Why, he has her and they don't.

Posted by: Alan Kellogg on August 28, 2005 06:31 PM

Interesting thing I noticed ... in the second picture from the top, the face of a woman off to the right in a pink bikini has been blurred out. It could be a flaw on the photograph but seems deliberate. I suspect the woman in question might be the photographer's wife/girlfriend, who wouldn't be happy if she knew her Significant Other were taking pictures of topless girls :)

Posted by: Peter on August 28, 2005 07:16 PM

I find something else interesting.
In this thread men seems to assume the girl performs deliberetely for male pleasure, that it's a "comon", that she expects and likes the reaction. Women (me included) think it's the act of carelessness, I'd even say - unthinking happiness, result of joyous contact with sun, sand and water. She might be flirtatious, but no more so as if dancing; I don't think she intends to provoke sexual attack.

It is a fundamental misunderstanding; rapists' defense is often "she asked for it" and "she enjoyed it more than me".

Posted by: Tatyana on August 28, 2005 07:58 PM

Rapists? Huh?

What in the world does any of this have to do with provoking sexual attack.

The bizarre obsession of leftist women with rape, beatings and attacks leaves me speechless. Well, I should expect it by now.

I have a summer home in Woodstock, NY. Not a single reported rape in most years. Yet, the ladies fantasize and bloviate about rape and sexual assault endlessly.

Part of it is just the mischievous pleasure of tweaking the men. Keeps them browbeaten and on the defensive. Leftist women love that tactic. The rest of it... well:

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on August 28, 2005 08:32 PM

Well, Shouting, calm down and just read what was written.

Here's some statistics.

* Every 2 minutes a woman is raped in the U.S.
* 72 of every 100,000 women are raped in the U.S. each year.
* 28% of women are raped by boyfriends.
* 35% of women are raped by acquaintances.
* 5% of women are raped by relatives.
* Less than one third of all rapes are reported to the authorities.

I think I'll move to Woodstock. Where there's a legal limit to the snow there ... or is that Camelot. I'm politcally pretty conservative by the way.

Posted by: laurel on August 28, 2005 08:44 PM

Discussing U.S. rape statistics may be misleading because in all likelihood this picture was *not* taken in the United States. I sorta have looked at Voyeurweb before, just maybe once or twi ... okay maybe a few times :) In any event, most of their topless-beach pictures are labeled as being from Spain, or Greece, or Italy, places like that. There aren't too many busy beaches in the United States where a woman could go around topless without being hauled off to jail. In addition, there's something about the young woman in these pictures that doesn't look American - as Steve Sailer has pointed out, white Americans don't really look like Europeans any more, regardless of the common racial heritage.
My point is that the pictures probably are from somewhere in Europe, where nudity isn't see as being wholly shocking and taboo as it is here. Which means that the young woman's behavoir in these pictures wasn't particularly shocking or extraordinary, and she wasn't "advertising" herself to sexual predators in the process.

Posted by: Peter on August 28, 2005 09:24 PM

A couple of things. She does look good because she's not overweight and is without cellulite, stretch marks, etc., but that doesn't necessarily mean she's fit. Could be. Or maybe she's got a three pack-a-day habit and has trouble making it to the mail box. Also, her behavior might be kind of dumb. She has more power over men right now (maybe more power PERIOD) than she will ever have in her life, and she's giving it away for free. She's shown everybody in the wide, wide world of sports what she's got, and it's never a good idea to unveil everything so early. Plus, when she's got some kids and some miles on the old bod, people will compare and say, "Wow, you used to be hot!" That "used to be" will sting.

Posted by: Beverly on August 28, 2005 09:46 PM

So many interesting things get raised here ...

To riff for a sec? Beaches (and especially topless beaches) are interesting social phenomena, no? They're public places where you can go -- where you're even encouraged to go -- and display yourself in ways that are generally discouraged in the rest of the public realm.

We seem to set a few such places aside. It isn't sanctioned misbehavior, exactly (or maybe it is, but not along the lines of demolition derbies or pro wrestling). We can be "freer" on a beach than we generally can be -- it's legally (and morally, and socially) OK.

Yet girls dressed in bikinis (or less) will cover up when they go get a soda pop or ice cream cone. Step off the sand and a mere five feet onto the sidewalk, and the social understandings and expectations are completely different. Five feet - yet a world of difference.

On the sand, much is on display (including much that's beautiful and tantalizing), but we're expected to be able to handle what we encounter. That's pretty wonderful, IMHO -- you won't find me much happier than I am on a topless beach.

Yet it's also quite something to assume, that everyone's up to being in control on a modern beaches. Many people in the world couldn't handle it. I remember, back in the backpackin'-thru-Europe '70s, bedding down in hostels. Those were the days of the first co-ed bathrooms. And some Arab guys would actually bring chairs into the bathrooms so they could sit and watch the girls get in and out of the showers. The girls had no right to complain, because there was no rule against what the Arab guys were doing. The whole arrangement of the place was based on the assumption that everyone could handle co-ed bathrooms.

Even we modernized sophisticates (snort, snort) are probably often glad to be wearing dark glasses when we're out on a topless beach -- hard to keep those eyes from darting about. God knows that part of the fun of being on the beach is the kind of sensory/physical bliss Tatyana talks about: the ocean, the sun, the flesh, the air, the smells, the sense of luxury. But in my experience, part of what's great about visiting a topless beach is also that it's pretty damn sexy.

Excusez-moi, but it often is, and in a particular way. It isn't generally like going somewhere where the goodies are being put on commercial, right-out-there display. It's a much more complicated, subtle kind of experience -- one that might almost have been designed to 1) drive you nuts and then 2) test you to see if you can handle it anyway..

It's a little provocative, a little sophisticated, a little "natural" -- and we're also all supposed to be capable of being in control, enjoying, and maybe even being a bit blase.

That's a lot of vectors flying about. I find it highly enjoyable being amidst all that -- yee-hah, do I feel like a sophisticate in a '60s French film when I'm out there doing my rube imitation of "suave" on a topless beach. The pressures, the pleasures, the provocations, the expectations -- yeah, mama!

So much sexier, IMHO, than a nude beach. Purely natural is boring, not that that kind of boring can't be enjoyable in its own right. (I remember this weekend once when ... But another time.) Has anyone else found this? The couple of entirely-nude beaches I've visited left me thinking, Damn: nobody's completely-nude body stands up very well under the harsh sun. We're all just big sacks of skin, flesh and bone, after all. I concluded that the goodies -- male and female, young and old -- need a little highlighting and dressing-up in order to look very appetizing.

All of which leaves me wondering about the girl in the photos. OK, there she is, out in public, apparently enjoying herself and at the very least feeling free (and maybe even feeling free in public). Yet the kind of public space she's in at the moment the photos were snapped is a special kind of public space, one that we reserve for a certain kind of licensed display (and enjoyment of display). Being on the beach itself offers a kind of protection, as I think MD is suggesting. If things are protected and understandings are clear, the women can be freer, more relaxed. But the camera that snapped these pix, and the act of putting them up on the web, kinda violates that protectiveness, no? So maybe she would feel like some kind of understanding has been violated.

Yet yet yet, at the same time, cameras aren't exactly completely absent on beaches ... Everyone these days knows that anything and everything can go up on the web overnight ... We're living at a time (at least in NYC) when teen girls demand to dress like pole dancers, where it's generally accepted that belly buttons and visible bra and thong straps are A-OK attire not just in the Village or in clubs, but in midtown ... Do we conclude she shoulda known better? Do we all now just do our thing and take our chances? Maybe. And she sure does look good in the pix -- always fun seeing yourself look at your best.

Still. Me, I rather like having semi-official/semi-unofficial spaces set aside for "freer" behavior. The combo of reserve and license is very pleasant, is hot-hot-hot, and also strikes me as sweet. We engage and participate in these understandings and arrangements because they make life a little more rewarding than it'd be otherwise. I like all the tensions these kinds of arrangements subject us to. Balancing restraint and lascivioiusness -- well, isn't that just about as good as "civilization" gets? And I like the fact that not quite everything is being given away for free. There might still exist something more private and more personal yet to be explored. Maybe I'm just a postdated old geezer, but it seems to me that when everything is ready for its closeup 24/7, then -- aside from enjoying the Whoa! factor -- what leads us on? What becomes of adventure, of the possibility of encountering something unexpected, of mystery and poetry?

Hey, has anyone else noticed that magazines are all putting their best photos on the cover? It used to be that magazines put their third-best pic on the cover -- they wanted to grab you, but they also wanted to lead you into the substance of the issue. They were tantalizing you, but they were also drawing you along by holding something in reserve. Something like that is happening with magazine writing too. All the best stuff is right at the top of articles. It isn't spaced out through the length of the article any longer. You give it all away, right up top; you surround it with imagery and graphics that are going pop-pop-pop ... Everything's a highlight. Which does finally make for a dull imaginative life, no?

Art itself always struck me as one of these funny official/unofficial places where what we usually don't stand for is not only tolerated but even encouraged, and where new forms of enjoyment are indulged in and tried out -- a semi-regulated twilight place where amorality and experimentation can be explored and enjoyed, because after all, once we've had our fill we're all going to leave them behind, put our street clothes back on, and return to Real Life. (With any luck, feeling a little refreshed, and with matter for our imaginations to dwell on and digest for weeks to come ...) Very "The Tempest." Topless beaches, Shakespeare -- it's all part of the same general set of arrangements, no? But if you blow the windows and doors all open, if destroy the distinction between what's outside the magic circle and what's inside it, then it's no longer quite the same world, is it? In virtual reality, the frame around the movie vanishes. In magazines, everything's a highlight and the substance evaporates. With public nudity, the protection of certain semi-formal/semi-informal understandings dissolves when pix are put on the Web.

Not that any of this leads to anything like a conclusion, of course. And not that it's going to stop me from checking out Voyeurweb from time to time...

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on August 28, 2005 11:26 PM

A propos of nothing but the fun of talking about topless beaches ... I remember being on a French one once and realizing that you could almost always tell the American girls from the French girls by the way they lay on the sand. The French girls were oiled-up, sexed-up (in that wonderful tacky-sophisticated St. Tropez kind of way) with little touches of jewelry, and when they lay back they kind of sprawled, in the most chic-lascivious way imaginable. They were enjoying the whole ritual of display, openness, naturalness, artificiality, sophistication, etc ... The American girls were quite a contrast. They wore cute little bikinis, removed their tops with reluctance, were obviously struggling with the line between "being natural" and "being sexy," were resentful if you looked at them. When they lay back in the sand, they often crossed their legs at the ankle (the French girls' legs were usually apart), and propped their hands on the waistband of their bikini bottoms. They seemed a little prim, clueless and anxious, if also eager. But incapable of sinking into the whole hypocritical decadence of the scene. They seemed like they'd have been a lot happier bursting into giggles.

But this was 30 years ago, and god only knows how American girls and Euro-girls compare on topless beaches today ...

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on August 29, 2005 12:00 AM


I'll abandon this issue after responding by saying that the "statistics" you've quoted are political propaganda and have no basis in fact. It's all fabrication.

Now, please ignore this and flail away.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on August 29, 2005 08:52 AM

One of my favorite new weblogs,, satirizes the bizarre obsessions of feminists. It's worth the visit, particularly for its comments section. which ably lampoons the victimization mania.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on August 29, 2005 09:26 AM

Michael, your reminiscence about French beaches reminded me of an old conversation I had about 5 yrs with a former colleage, a mid-age women born in Iran. We were talking about her recent visit to Tehran, first in 25 or 30 yrs after leaving the country for architecture school in Paris. She brought with her old family albums, to browse thru with remaining family members.
The scene: 3 or 4 young female relatives looking at 30y.o. beach photos of their mothers, aunts and cousins, were positively shocked - imagine, to take away your clothes for strange male' eyes to see! in public place! and those bikinis! and they're not ashamed, they look relaxed and obviously feel safe! My mother?!!! My colleague, on the other hand, was shocked by their shock.

I'm afraid women in France aren't feeling that safe and relaxed on public as you remember them, what with population changes and all that...

Posted by: Tatyana on August 29, 2005 10:09 AM

I haven't the remotest idea how she feels, and to be honest, I care even less, but I feel very much better for looking at her, thank you very much.

Posted by: David Duff on August 29, 2005 01:18 PM

"Women (me included) think it's the act of carelessness, I'd even say - unthinking happiness, result of joyous contact with sun, sand and water. She might be flirtatious, but no more so as if dancing; I don't think she intends to provoke sexual attack."

Tatyana, you hit it. That is exactly how I interpreted the photo.

Posted by: Cowtown Pattie on August 29, 2005 04:20 PM

MB, more food for your thoughts.

Pattie, thank you.

Posted by: Tatyana on August 29, 2005 08:15 PM

Hmm, I did not express myself well earlier. I agree with the above that she looks happy and as if she is having fun, and as for pictures on the internets, I think it's a given these days that pictures may be taken of you in public and posted.

*The other stuff about the women feeling vulnerable was really a non-sequitor, and a response to Shouting Thomas and doesn't really apply this woman (although his points are well-taken, I'm not a fan of a certain type of feminism myself. Oddly enough, it does not make me feel liberated. Quite the opposite).

Vain woman that I am, I wouldn't mind having a picture like this to remind me of what I looked like in my good days, so to speak.....I feel strangely embarrassed admitting that, but alas, it's the truth.

Posted by: MD on August 29, 2005 08:55 PM

Which is not to say I ever looked like her, but, it's funny how later in life you realize how good you looked in your twenties, comparatively speaking, and wish you had just gone with that....

Posted by: MD on August 29, 2005 08:58 PM

Pattie, Tatyana -- Thanks, and ain't it lovely that women, when they're feeling free and happy, are such appealing creatures? (And thanks for the link too -- that's a hilarious little art project.) BTW, did anyone suggest that the girl in the photos was inviting sexual attack?

MD -- A lot of these feelings, wishes, and experiences are unresolvable and don't make a lot of sense, no? My high-achieving, '70s-feminist, big-corporate-success sister, for instance, was a Ross Perot fan and admits that she'd have enjoyed posing for Playboy if they'd ever asked her to. We all have many sides: who says they have to march in lockstep? A frightening idea that they should. And I've run into a lot of women who secretly or not-so-secretly wish they'd been photographed in the altogether (or close-to) when they were at their yummiest. And why not? Youth and beauty are to be cherished, at least when they aren't annoying us.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on August 29, 2005 10:08 PM

"Women (me included) think it's the act of carelessness, I'd even say - unthinking happiness, result of joyous contact with sun, sand and water. She might be flirtatious, but no more so as if dancing; I don't think she intends to provoke sexual attack."

"Carelessness"?? (Wha..?) Sure, if (say) leaving a baby in his carrier at the grocery and driving home without him is "careless." Unthinking happiness is one thing, but this strikes me more as the result of joyous contact with a phenethylamine. Probably provided by the photographer a couple of hours earlier. Or maybe she was paid. Or just calculating(in that wonderful tacky-sophisticated St. Tropez kind of way). There's a wide spectrum of possibilities between intending to provoke sexual attack and being in the animistic throes of sun-sand-water grooviness. Or maybe my brain is just too crippled by testosterone to get it. Certainly too much so to get the comparison of (pretty much)naked flirtation with dancing, as if each didn't tend to elicit extraordinarily different reactions from most men (or even, perhaps, from most women... but now I'm stepping beyond my competence), even if that wasn't the intent. OK, for the sake of argument, I'll hypothetically agree with what I perceive to be the tacit assumption here: that any reaction from the man is wrong, if the woman finds it undesirable, regardless of *any* action on her part that may have served as its proximate cause. What I'm wondering is, and I assume this blog is the place to ask (or else I wouldn't presume to disturb its equipoise): doesn't communications theory posit that a message is that which is received, not that which is sent? Or maybe I'm thinking of C.S. Peirce's "cash value" of an idea (subsequently knicked by James)? Any theory mavens to the rescue?

Posted by: bald cypress on August 29, 2005 11:13 PM

What a bummer to see the specter of rape shake out in this thread, and the implication that most men are capable of rape.

The only person who might have thought she was inviting such a thing would be a sexual predator. The vast majority of men are not sexual predators. And predators, from what I've read, don't necessarily key off of normal sexual triggers, since their problem is obsessive behavior and a fetish for violence and domination - and that they don't wait for "invitations" goes without saying.

On that beach that day, the overwhelming (healthy) male reaction was probably more like, "Wow, boobies!" "She's cute!" And stuff like that.

If there was a sexual predator hanging out on the sunny beach that day, her little freedom dance probably sent him home to his momma's basement where he resumed cutting up magazines for his sick little collage or something, and you can bet that the last thought that might've gone through his head was to actually approach her.

Posted by: Yahmdallah on August 30, 2005 09:39 AM

Afraid I'm to blame, Yamdallah, for the rape spectre. I tend to make this sketchy dot-line notes forgetting not everyone is on my wavelength and expect the blanks filled automatically.

I still think my observation is valid: men read body language differently then women; see comments above (men see a come-on or at least presume the girl was signaling her sexual availability, women see unthinking self-expression of a happy young thing, not necessarily an invitation to sex).

Look at this note from above:"She looks good, she knows she looks good, and she's on display to be admired and find a prospective partner" - and tell me it's not the same logic if expressed in more aggressive terms: "the bitch is asking for it".

Forgive me, but that's the reason I often hear given on TV, in numerous trivial cases of the famous athlete raping a 18 y.o. in some hotel. "She dressed provocatively", "she accepted the drinks I bought", "she agreed to come up to my room", etc. So what, fellas? I'm not saying they are wrong in 100% in their assumptions (just look at the jaw-dropping expose' girls put on the net) - but the gap is still there. Men lack nuance, exactly that wide spectrum of possibilities Brian (BC) was talking above, is passes right by. [Again, I'm generalizing here, usual disclaimers apply].

I had many chances (and I'm sure, ladies will recall their own examples) to confirm how thin that layer of culture and social norms covering neanderthal thinking is - in men. One recent example.
I'm at the business meeting with big hotel-chain client. 7 people are present - me, my boss, 4 execs from Hotel and a G.C. All men, except me. Suddenly, in a middle of discussing phases and schedules, Chief-Engineer turns to me and says: I noticed you preferred mineral water; that's because you're from Europe; mineral water spas are popular in Europe - I bet you're fun to bathe with. And nobody moved a lash - I guess it's normal...

I know I'm running a risk to sound like that obsessed middle-aged aunt every family got. I once had a repulsive coworker who complained the contractor grabbed her butt (during plumbing inspection), sigh. Well, then, let's look at other woman's reaction (and she's 17yrs younger).

Posted by: Tatyana on August 30, 2005 06:56 PM

in numerous trivial cases of the famous athlete raping a 18 y.o. in some hotel. "She dressed provocatively

This always smelt of urban legend to me. It's unreasonable on about 500 different levels, and even a stupid football player wouldn't seriously use it as a defense. (Or so it seems.)

Posted by: onetwothree on August 30, 2005 07:07 PM

Well, I'd like to think that one can bring up any topic as long as it fits, in some way, with Michael's post. But it seems that we'd all feel more comfortable talking about the electric chair instead of rape.

I don't think it's fair to try to shame a person away from a valid topic.

Really, think of all the far out things that are talked about here. Some of it, I'd rather not have to wade through to be honest. But because I like the posts, especially on the arts, I'll suck it up for that mere five percent that doesn't appeal.

It's strange to me ... this reaction from some of the men. And who implied that most men are capable of rape? Most men are wonderful ... most women know that.

Posted by: laurel on August 30, 2005 07:22 PM

Tatyana and laurel, good points.

My wife, who's very pretty, still gets come-ons daily - even from grocery boys half her age, so I'm aware of the way men can be. Rather than assume it's more aggressive than it is, I think it should be pointed out that men are expected to be the ones who do the approaching, and sometimes the clues are muddled. Most, though, when rebuked will walk away and try to find the remainders of their pride. The hound dogs that most women have had to contend with are another story, and yes they need to be put on a leash at times.

Also, men can be clueless in their interaction with women. A guy can treat you like "one of the guys" and to you it will feel like something icky, such as the bathing comment from that clod you spoke of Tatyana. Some men are simply not aware the female politics are different than male politics.

I had no intention of oppressing anyone's comments, but was just honestly truly bummed when we went from "what do you think of this woman on a topless beach" to "she's tempting rapists". Even though that is, of course, a reasonable impression, I think I speak for a lot of guys in saying it's kinda annoying to be painted with that broad brush when most violence is performed by a very small group of deviants.

I think it's led to a lot of unfortunate behavior, such as: If my daughter wants a playdate with a pal, half the moms won't allow the playdate if they discover my wife will be out doing errands and I'm the one who will be home with the girls. Yes, we see the stories on the news, and it does happen, and caution is appropriate, but it does suck to be presumed a potential molester just because I'm a guy. (Yet, when it's a woman who's the molester, the news programs cover the wedding to her victim as though it were a royal wedding.)

I think leaping to thoughts like rape when the topic is men and sexuality contributes to that.

And everyone it entitled to their opinion, natch.

Posted by: Yahmdallah on August 31, 2005 10:16 AM

"every 2 minutes a woman in the US is raped"

I call bullshit. 1 rape every 2 minutes = 30 per hour = 720 per day = 262,800 per year.

FBI uniform crime reports report less than one half that number.

all the rest of your numbers are probably lies too.

Posted by: realist on August 31, 2005 03:50 PM

99.9 percent of the time, I would like to keep my "joy and her freedom" private. In the same way that you would not like to be observed in your worst moments.

This, or course, keeps me off of pubic topless beaches. But if someone used a telephoto lens to take photos like this of me, and put them on the internet, I'd feel about like you would feel if a prankster secretly taped and then broadcast a phone conversation in which are at your most helpless.

Posted by: j.c. on August 31, 2005 09:25 PM

She looks like she's having fun. I bet she wouldn't mind about the pictures. Hell, she might wish she had some of them herself, to keep as the memory of a great day.

Posted by: Peggy Nature on September 1, 2005 09:57 AM

Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember your info?