Women, Men, and Brazilian Bikinis

30 12 2007

Brazilian beach 

So, I have a friend who is very cool, very nice, and generally awesome.  But then he said this (below) the other day, which made me think, and then made me think he was wrong.  So despite his coolness/niceness/general awesomeness, I’m going to talk about that today.

(paraphrased due to inexact memory)

If you go to Brazil, have you seen the bikinis they have there?  Tiny—tiny little things, barely covering anything.  If I see a woman wearing one of those, then I’ve basically seen all of her.  But if she’s changing and I accidentally see her, she freaks out and screams.  Well, so what?  I’ve already seen her in her bra and underwear, because I’ve seen her in her swimsuit–they’re exactly the same.

Women are…they wear clothes that show things, to be noticed.  But if a man shows that he notices, and says something, then she gets mad.  It’s hypocritical.

Where do I start?  On the surface, I don’t think that’s all completely wrong, and might be fair enough in many cases.  At the same time, something about it still doesn’t feel right to me.  Both statements involve assumptions that could do real harm if taken too far or too generally.

Assumption #1: If two articles of clothing look the same, they are the same for all intents and purposes, and are interchangeable, as are the situations in which they are used; thus, the woman shouldn’t care.

This assumption is flawed because it makes clothing the issue, when what must be differentiated is situations and contexts.  A woman who is fine wearing bikinis on the beach wouldn’t be fine wearing just underwear in class because it’s a completely different environment.  She wouldn’t be fine wearing a bikini in class, either.  The clothes are the same, but it is the situations that are different and so the significance of the clothes changes accordingly.  (To take an extreme example, imagine a Playboy model walking around naked in a mall.  It’s okay for her to be naked in the magazine, but not in the mall, right?  But since people have already seen her naked in the magazine, why not?  Because the situations/contexts are different.)

You could say that that’s bs and doesn’t make sense, that if you wore a bikini, the fact you’re inside a building doesn’t mean people will see an iota more of you than if you were on the beach, so it really doesn’t matter.  And you would be right.  However, society for hundreds and thousands of years has conditioned most of us to believe otherwise, to believe it does matter.  Society, in general, says to us: “It’s okay to be nearly naked on a beach in Brazil.  It’s not okay to be nearly naked inside your capoeira academy.”  This is dictated in the same way society once dictated: “Women can wear skirts, but a woman wearing pants is indecent” and “Women can wear long dresses, but anything above ankle-length is for harlots.” 

Today, obviously, women do wear pants and skirts shorter than ankle-length.  However, that was because they decided to take ownership of the situation and make it acceptable.  No men said to them, “Pants cover your legs as much as skirts cover your legs, therefore you will now feel comfortable wearing pants, and we will all be okay with that.”  So even if a guy were genuinely being forward-thinking and advocating for the further liberation of women/their bodies, it might not exactly be for him to say, since it’s not his body. 

And as much as I’m for the breaking of socially constructed mentalities like the “where is a bikini acceptable?” one, it’s not fair to ask/tell women to blatantly flout the dictatorship, since everyone else is still ruled by it and will react accordingly, to the detriment of the woman.  (For example, if a woman were to train in a bikini, she might be fine with it and my friend might be fine with it and not care, but all the other men and women would care and think certain things about that woman, since they are still ruled by the general mentality that bikinis are fine on the beach but not in class.) 

It’s almost a chicken-and-the-egg situation: people’s behaviour won’t change unless the mentality of society changes, but its mentality won’t change if people’s behaviour never changes.

Assumption #2: All women wear revealing clothes always with the intention of showing or flaunting it and getting attention.

First of all: not true.  It’s so probable that a woman just thinks a certain top looks nice or flattering on her overall, and that’s why she wears it; if it happens to be slightly revealing (within reason), that does not necessarily mean she wants guys staring at or making comments to her, etc.  It’s also possible that the top’s neckline moved or shifted without the woman noticing, although perhaps ignorance is a weak defense.  Still, the point is that you can’t assume

Now, what if a woman does wear revealing clothes deliberately to get attention?  What “rights” does that give men with respect to their behaviour or words towards this woman, if any

I think this again has to do with perceptions and social mentality.  In most places, it’s generally expected that men would “notice” this woman tactfully and unspokenly; thus if someone were to break this unspoken code and actually mention to the woman just how revealing her top is, she might feel affronted.  The point quoted at the beginning of this post attacks just this: the woman shouldn’t feel affronted, and would be hypocritical to feel so, because she got the attention she was seeking.  I think I agree with this, although obviously, whatever the “attention” entails must not exclude respect for the woman, and her dignity.  This is where it gets tricky though, because where do you draw the line?

I suppose part of it also rests on each individual woman and man involved in any interactions like that.  And that’s why it’s even more important to not make such generalizations or assumptions.  Because if you get one person wrong, what’s to say you won’t stop at the rest?

Update: I found a line that puts Assumption #2 in another, perhaps clearer, way.  From Just a girl in short shorts talking about whatever: “If a woman is not totally covered, or otherwise looks sorta sexy, she is asking for it, since men cannot be expected to control themselves.”  (That’s like saying doing a floreio in the middle of  a game is asking to be kicked or smashed to the ground, since obviously the other player can’t control themselves.  It’s insulting and unjust to both parties.)

Update 2: A friend of mine added that it doesn’t matter how revealing someone’s clothes are; she should be able to wear anything and not be judged or derogated for it, because what you wear has (should have) nothing to do with other people.  It’s a personal choice, it doesn’t change their personality or make them more or less anything they aready are or aren’t, and really it’s none of anyone else’s business.  If only people would/could realize that!

Picture source:

If you found this post interesting or useful, please
click to subscribe to my blog, by RSS feed or email!



29 responses

31 12 2007
Pirulito (D-cal)

I’m going to Rio in Feb for carnivale. I’ll be sure not to assume anything Joaninha :p

31 12 2007

Lol =P Carnivale, wow nice!

2 01 2008

I like to read these kind of articles of yours. We men don’t always know what women think and so do women regarding to men.

But with all do respect I must say that your last update is absolutely 100% wrong for two reasons.

a) … she is asking for it, since men cannot be expected to control themselves …

There is actually some truth to be found in this. Many women cannot understand the impact of testosterone on male behaviour. We are indeed educated to this unwritten code, a code which separates us from say baboons. Unfortunately testosterone does get the upper hand in some situations. Being a man myself I still can’t believe the many times testosterone pops up unexpectatly. Therefore I think it’s only fair that women should recognize this little handicap men tend to have. (But let me be clear, testosterone shouldn’t an excuse for everything. Some men just aren’t willing to even try to behave. These are the monkeys that give all men a bad name)

b) your comparison with the attack on a floreio is not correct. Attacking on a floreio isn’t a natural reaction inhibited in everyone. It’s something some people do, God knows why… A better comparison is this:

A sexy dressed woman is like more like waving red cloth at a bull. The sexier the woman is, the bigger the red cloth is and if she meant it to be sexy, she’s waving it ferociously.
The bulls are the men. Some will attack, others won’t. Even though bulls react on the red cloth because of natural reactions, wheater they will respond depends on various other variables as well.

I hope I made myself clear, I don’t always find it easy to express opinions in English.

Happy New Year btw 🙂

2 01 2008

Happy New Year!

You expressed yourself very well here actually 🙂 That is interesting…I really don’t know any to be able to say how legitimate the testosterone thing is, which means I also can’t say that much about your second point, since it’s based on your first one.

All I can say is that I made the floreio comparison to emphasize the fact that the other player (i.e. the guy) does have control–they could kick the person down since the floreio puts them in a vulnerable position, but choose not to. I believe that men can, and should be expected to, “control” themselves. Maybe men can’t control their testosterone levels, but that doesn’t mean they can’t control their words and physical actions, which are all voluntary.

We’re taught to control ourselves from the very beginning, from little kids not stealing candy, to students not cheating on tests, to spouses not committing adultery. Treating women appropriately no matter what they wear is one more, but on a much more fundamental level, if there truly is a “natural urge” of some sort involved.

I also have a problem with using biological bases for any type of discrimination, because if you can do it for gender, why stop there? Why not see what kind of “handicaps” we should excuse in Caucasians, or Asians, or Brazilians? Holding your pee is not a biologically natural reaction, yet there are laws against public urination in many places. If it’s important enough, society will make sure it is taught and learned. How can treating women appropriately be less of an imperative than keeping some patches of pavement or grass clean?

That’s how our comparisons differ but are right for each of our purposes, because I’m basing mine on the assumption that men can control themselves, whereas you’re basing yours on the assumption that they can’t. Do you think that’s really true though, or that it genuinely should be used as an excuse? Do you really want the world to think of men as nothing more than bulls, beings who need to be condescended to by wearing turtlenecks and manipulated in order for *ourselves* to feel safe?

Personally, I’d like to give you guys a lot more credit than that!

2 01 2008

You understood me wrong/ I wasn’t clear enough.
I’ll try again

All I wanted to say about the testosterone is that men more often then women think get natural reactions that are hard to control. It has been proven already that humans weren’t made to be loyal to just one partner. But in the cultural environment mankind made for him and herself we must at some point have come to the conclusion that one partner made a better change for surviving. (speculated guess, can’t really know what they decided or if they decided anything in the first place, maybe it just grew)

Anyway, the biological urges stayed, but our cultural vision stayed. Men find themselves often in duel with this. But you’re very right to expect men to have learned how to behave.

(Of course, young men must still learn it when testosterone kicks in and in other cultures men learn other ‘appropriate’ reactions. With migrations these reactions don’t always get adapted to the new culture.)

But before you get the impression I’m trying to say something completely different. I 100% agree with this statement of yours:

“Maybe men can’t control their testosterone levels, but that doesn’t mean they can’t control their words and physical actions, which are all voluntary.”

Darn, forgot where I was going to.

I’ll conclude with this:
No, I don’t want women to never wear sexy clothing again!
Yes, I too hate men who behave like morons when they see a sexy woman.

I just wanted to add that in part men can’t help it (but they must learn it).

Sorry for the somewhat chaotic answer 😉

2 01 2008

Okay, I think our bottom lines are basically agreeing here. You think men biologically can’t help it, and I’m not sure whether that’s true or not, but we both think men should be expected to help it whether or not they can to begin with. Yes?

2 01 2008
a man

I’m NOT misogynistic, lecherous, chauvinist or anti-feminist

there’s an imbalance in the semantics here, when some man leers at some women this is usually talked about in the context of social norms, gender relations blah blah but all this talk a libidinal economy within fashion/appearances/social expectations IS unfair to men.

in our group their are girls who are there just to jump on any man they can, and believe the reason we do capoeira IS to sleep with girls like them. i don’t think this of “women” per se, but i do of THEM. Thing is we male capoeiristas can’t then just jump round and claim social oppression, we just have to dismiss it with something IGNORANT sounding like “ah shes just some sket”.

Not really a comment as such, just some thoughts!

2 01 2008
a man

just to clarify, by them i don’t mean “these kind of girls who do this and that” i mean certain real life, existing, camaras who shall remain unnamed!

3 01 2008

Hmm…it doesn’t seem like you have so much of an issue with what we’re talking about and women generally as with these specific girls in your group. Clearly I can’t speak for them, but if you know for a fact that’s what they’re there for, it sounds like they would go under women who really *are* asking for it, not women in general who are mistaken to be asking for it, which was our main concern.

You brought up some interesting points though, that I’d like to go through.

The libidinal economy of fashion/appearances/etc.:
What exactly do you mean when you say it is unfair to men? I know it’s unfair to women that fashion/appearances places so much artificial pressure on them, but as for men…is this related to Xixarro’s point, saying how fashion/appearances make women dress sexily and that “tempts” men while social expectations tell men they have to hold back? (I’m not trying to critique here, I’m honestly unclear on what exactly you meant by this.)

Social oppression:
Again, I’m a little unclear so just want to make sure I get what you’re saying correctly…are you saying that normally, if men joined a group to sleep with women, that would be called social oppression of women, but when it’s the other way around, i.e. these girls joining your group, you can’t call it social oppression of men?

3 01 2008

It seems we often basicly agree, but then still have our own slightly different opinions. That’s why I like this blog so much 🙂

Diplomatic version:
I think men are by nature easily (sexually) attracted to sexy women, but men should learn to resist these feelings according to our cultural expectations. However, it would be nice if women wouldn’t so much focus on men who fail to do so, but understand what men have to overcome to achieve this. and thus be more supportive towards those who behave like gentlemen if you will.

3 01 2008

Hehe, thanks Xixarro. It does make things interesting!

I think the reason there is so much focus on men who fail to do so is because the consequences of that are so bad, yet prevalent. If we want to be agents of change for something, we focus on what we want to change!

We would probably still differ on the degree of credit men who behave should get (since they should anyway, so it’s kind of like how much credit would you give a student for doing their homework?), but I thought your “diplomatic version” was pretty well put. 🙂

3 01 2008

It was just a diplomatic way of putting it, we can’t be expecting women to go thank every man that passes her ‘normally’, can we? 😉

3 01 2008

Hahaha, yup can’t argue with that!

3 01 2008
a man

aaah yes, the social construction of lust! i didn’t mean that women and men don’t exprience these things differently what i meant was there is an imbalalance in the language itself.

im not trying to emphasise the cultural/biological reasons here but putting it in a very very crude way when a group of men leer at angelina jolie, we can be criticised using feminist language for making assumptions about what women ought to be, but when a group of girls leer at brad pitt, men can’t dismiss it in the same way as it were!

in our grupo there are SOME girls that join for the only reason to sleep with men in the group, they believe we are somehow more “brazilian” as it were, and thus its acceptable grab our arses, touch us up, kiss us and hold our arms and things assuming we’re just gonna automatically be turned on by it. see i think its just not appropiate behaviour in training.

this is not just the conclusion of the men, this view is shared by women who are there to train. but our complaints don’t have the legitimacy of feminist concerns, we can’t be like “i’m not just a piece of meat”. people don’t take it serious and it just doesn’t evoke the same degree of sympathy 😛

but yeah like you said i don’t mean this as a critique of what you’re saying at all! just sharing some experiences.

3 01 2008

Ohhh, I get it. Okay, that makes a lot of sense and I see where you’re coming from!

You’re right; it does seem like there is a double standard at play here. If guys “rate” a girl or make a joke about having sex with her, it’s considered extremely offensive, but when girls do the same to a guy, it’s considered just a joke.

And okay, those girls as you describe them are treating you guys exactly the way we were talking about–only instead of assuming you’re asking for it because you’re wearing revealing clothes, they’re assuming you’re easy because you do a Brazilian martial art. That’s horrible, and it definitely does not belong in training, or anywhere! And not to sound like a stuffy old governess, but that is actually really appalling behaviour. How do they handle the training itself, if that’s not what they’re interested in, and what about your guys’ teacher(s)?

I think that there’s no established rhetoric for a male version of feminism because looking at the big picture of history/society/culture/the world, there has never been a need for it. And I think the reason that people don’t take it seriously now even in specific, legitimate cases is because of the age-old mentality that men really are purely testosterone-driven.

You know what, it’s the exact same mentality that says women should know better than to dress sexily because “men can’t help it.” Men can’t help it and as a corollary, they *always* want it, because they’re full of testosterone, and testosterone controls their every thought. So it really does hurt both parties, just as I said!

Thanks for sharing 🙂

9 01 2008

nice blog,here is mine

23 03 2008

What a refreshing discussion! Please could somebody help me out:

“Update 2: A friend of mine added that it doesn’t matter how revealing someone’s clothes are; she should be able to wear anything and not be judged or derogated for it, because what you wear has (should have) nothing to do with other people. It’s a personal choice, it doesn’t change their personality or make them more or less anything they aready are or aren’t, and really it’s none of anyone else’s business. If only people would/could realize that!

Does that mean I should be able to go out pantless and stick my dick to everybody’s face? Because hey, it has nothing to do with them, right? 🙂

Actually, that reminds me, would you walk into a bad neighborhood carrying $10000 in your hand and expect not to get mugged? I wouldn’t but then again, I’m no mandingueira 🙂

25 03 2008

Hi Malandro,

(Sorry for not replying sooner.)

I’d say it has something to do with them because you’re sticking it in their face. I’m not saying that women should go sticking their breasts in people’s faces. If you were walking around pantsless but not bothering anyone, then yes, I’d say that since you’re just minding your own business, people shouldn’t care that you’re not wearing any pants.

For the second part…basically, you’re saying that if you decide to walk around with $10000 in your hand, it’s your fault for being mugged since you should see it coming. So if a woman is going to show cleavage knowing what might happen, she should expect what she gets, right? Whether it’s stares, catcalls, or getting raped? If I understood the point you were trying to make correctly, then the answer is here:

25 03 2008

malandro, I’d also point out (though it’s in the link if you read it all) that it’s not a matter of going around pantsless-it’s more like you walking around in shorts and people saying you’re sticking your dick in their face, or making fun of you for wearing pants. It doesn’t matter because there’s no right answer.

25 03 2008

Hey Cenoura! Well, I’d say there is a right answer, which is to not bother, harrass, or assault people because of what they are or aren’t wearing, but yeah I agree with your analogy too. Thank you!

25 03 2008

fair point, I mean, there’s no right answer from the point of the harassed-nothing you can do will guarantee that you won’t be harassed. thus my annoyance with the pants analogy. sorry if I was too cranky about it.

27 03 2008

Hey Cenoura, I get what you mean now. And YES, there’s no “right answer” because we can’t control what other people do, and since it’s wrong to have to restrict what women wear, (like the link said) the onus should be on the (would-be) harrassers, not women. And also like the link said, women who were dressing so-called “conservatively” have been raped, not just women wearing revealing tops or what not. And no worries, I didn’t really find you cranky at all…and honestly, if I did, considering the circumstances, I would’ve been the last to blame you!

10 07 2008

hey Joaninha ,
I am sorry if I would somehow be “digging up old cows ” as we say in our language , by commenting so late on this article but some of the arguments displayed got me asking some questions . Others I just plain disagree with .
Since I have gathered you take a liking to devil’s advocates , I suppose I would do no harm listing some of my objections ?
Let me start off by saying that I have been reading many of your articles with great interest and that I find myself agreeing with you quite often , so this post should be no representation of my feelings towards your ideas .
so , here goes :
I have a bit of an issue with the habit many feminists have to take an argument and then go “runaway train” with it .
A woman walking naked down an alley and therefore getting raped is a very big step from the original statement , that a woman who wears provocative clothing will be more likely to be watched by men , and will be more likely to be thought of as ” coy ” , or “ostentatiously available” if you will .
The latter , softer point is mine , the first , derived part is not , if you know what I mean ?
This point , bears heavily on the comment you made , (or was included in the comment section )

” she should be able to wear anything and not be judged or derogated for it, because what you wear has (should have) nothing to do with other people. It’s a personal choice, it doesn’t’t change their personality or make them more or less anything they already are or aren’t’t, and really it’s none of anyone else’s business”

I personally believe that what a person wears *will* be looked at by others , so it inadvertent involves them . I also find that even though a personal fashion does not *change* a person , it is definitely an expression of that person , and in some cases ( let me type that again , in some cases ) is certainly meant to change the opinion of potential onlookers about that .
My point being that some women advertise trough clothing where others don’t , and men have a very tough time to figure out who is selling what , and what not . Therefore a woman should not be surprised to modest gentlemen-like advances and tippy-toe approaches towards horizontality , should she be dressed in a way that solicits that . I know that by now your hairs are undoubtedly standing on end , because this so easily translates to the whole ” she brought it on herself argument ” of which I wish to steer well clear .
Really , when it comes down to it , I only have one thing to add to the mayhem 🙂 .

It s not the bit were women are provoking that upsets me , it s also not the raging male hormones that do , it ‘s the part where only men are supposed to act like gentlemen .
” But if she’s changing and I accidentally see her, she freaks out and screams”
In these comments it is not okay for men to ogle women ( and it is not ) but it is okay for women to assume that men de not look at them accidentally or casually . It *is* okay for women to don whatever they want ( it is , within limits , so ) but it’s sexism when men inquire even in the softest of ways ?
This all is coming from a man with many many lovely testosterone drones silently undermining reasonable thought , but still I would like to believe that when push comes to shove , I would do neither of the two .
aaah good old ranting . It had been a while .
Oh and on a final tote , just for the fun of it , there are a great deal of inadvertent physical actions in a human body , controlling all of them would be impossible , even for a zen master .

Well , enough of my banter . Cu later

10 07 2008

aarg . Upon skimming thru the comments again I noticed that many of the things I negate in my previous comment were not opinions of you personally .
Damn my lazy investigation-apparatus .
anyway , felt good just to bla .

11 07 2008

Wow, Compasso, thanks for your long–and really thoughtfully careful XD– comment. Although I did kind of want to groan in real agreement with your words about “digging up old cows”, of course there’s no time limit for commenting on posts!

I should make one thing clear though, which is that I welcome devil’s advocates who play the role for the intellectual pursuit of it, not trolls who are just mean-spirited or deliberately trying to provoke (again, I mean provoke emotionally, not intellectually). Having said that, I’m happy to also say you seem to be of the former!

So, I’m not sure how much of your comment was answered when you went through the comments after leaving it, but I’ll just reply here, anyway.

You’re right that there’s definitely a difference of extremities between the two statements you started off with, and I can understand how you see it as a runaway train argument. But the thing is, to steal the metaphor, runaway trains only arrive at their end point quicker than other, speed limit-following trains. The road in between is still the same track. If you start at the “softer” statement and keep following it logically along the road it starts you on, the extreme statement is the eventual conclusion you come to, showing the danger or fallacy in the first statement, even if it doesn’t seem “that bad” in itself.

As for the “a person should be able to wear anything” part, I agree with you. I think I didn’t get myself across very well when I said that, because I meant that paragraph as in principle…in the real world, of course, it doesn’t work at all. I was trying to articulate what I felt should be, not what is. (Although…well, I don’t know if we’re just getting into semantics or metaphysics or what now, but I might also argue that the paragraph *does* describe what is, in a universal sense, and our society is just living messed-up-ly against that.)(I mean in the same sense that different races are equal, not “should be” equal, yet the world doesn’t live by that, either.) I hope that wasn’t too confusing!

“tippy-toe approaches towards horizontality”—hahaha! I think this line made my day XD

I don’t think women are surprised by such advances, but unless they act or speak like they’re soliciting them, then the woman being annoyed or bothered has a right to be so, if she’s being solicited against her will. It all goes back to assumptions, and what you said about not knowing who’s dressing for that purpose and who isn’t, so err on the side of respect rather than sexism/misogyny, right?

As for the ogling vs. looking accidentally/casually, I don’t think women should expect men to forever and always not look, and that it is unfair if they do. What women should expect is that if the men do look or see accidentally, they’ll still be treated and thought of with respect regardless of what they’re wearing. And respect means, to sum it all up in the ultimate cliche, respecting her decision and understanding that “no means no”. (Wow, that’s actually the first time I’ve used that phrase on this entire blog, believe it or not!)

As for the zen master, coming on to, hitting on, schmoozing, and picking up don’t count as inadvertent actions =P Inadvertent physical actions are fine! But saying certain words in a certain order with a certain tone, and most other things involved in “soliciting” are definitely not inadvertent. But of course I don’t blame any guys for blushing, sweating, feeling weak in the knees, or…other such reactions…lol.

11 07 2008

lol ,
well thank you for not writing me off as a whinging schmeagol for that matter 🙂 .
I must say , even though I still strongly disagree with the fact that you feel exaggerating an argument is exposing it’s true “harshness” ( hope I captured that correctly ) , you have made most other points crystal . Sparkly ,even .
Anyway , I surely appreciate your answer , thanks . 🙂

ps : I really want to believe you on your use of “nay is nay” , but still , it drew a chuckle 🙂

12 07 2008

Hmm you know what Compasso, thinking on it more, I’m not sure if I’m quite okay with the whole exaggerating thing either…I mean, exaggeration, by definition, is exaggeration, after all.

The reason I thought it was fine at first, and am still not sure, is because I was definitely in good company saying/doing that (not to sound pretentious or anything 😛 ): Atwood’s Oryx and Crake and Handmaid’s Tale, Bradbury’s Farenheit 451, and of course Orwell’s 1984 and Animal Farm, not to mention Huxley’s Brave New World are all 300-page “runaway trains” for the same reason as mine (social if not feminist commentary), yet famous and lauded for the points they so excellently make about society, and for how they make them! And Atwood actually said that she wrote Handmaid’s Tale in order to show what the “logical conclusion, if followed all the way to the end” (paraphrased) of today’s society would be. And parts of all of those novels have actually come true to a certain extent, and they were all way ahead of their times.

Not that I’m comparing my blog to their novels of course, I don’t mean or want to do that at all, but just in terms of looking specifically at that technique of “exaggerating”, or following allllllllll the way through to the end of a certain line of logic or progression based on existing malfunctions in society.

So, that’s my excuse, but now I really want to answer the question myself why it’s okay to use it that way (or why I think so), but at the same time doesn’t really make sense to say, for instance, “Speeding can kill people so people should NEVER drive fast.”

I will get back to you on that!

p.s. Lol I swear, just do a search on it! =P

12 07 2008

“I will get back to you on that!”

Please do . And there is no shame in comparing your blog to their novels , I would call it only a very mild exaggeration , if any at all . =p

ps : Did search , your story checks out 😉

28 12 2008
angoleiro - catatau

well, to put it in my own words, females are attracted to males and vice versa. Males like seeing females, specially their curves, their beauty, their feminine ways of moving, etc. .. I’m a male, so I only know one side of the coin here. I do however would “wow” on a sexy gorgeous lady walking in front of me.. It’s natural. Look at male dogs sniffing a female dog’s behind, look at cats doing the same thing, it’s called sexual attraction. Yes, sex. Sex is pleasure, it feels good, but religion, culture, school, parents , etc.. tells you it’s bad. It is bad and good. We all know it. Why do you think it takes a gazillion sperm to fertilize ONE egg cell? Same thing in our everyday lives, one woman can make a difference on a gym full of guys.. either the guys would start competing against each other, shows off, race against each other on who would get her name first, same thing on the sperm – egg cell scenario. So my big question is, why wear tiny bikinis in the first place? I’m not complaining at all, in fact, I love seeing lovely ladies in bikinis, as it makes my life better 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: