<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Josh Phillips:
<B> It is legal for women to be topless in Canada. It doesn't mean that they *do*...<P>And as far as I know, nudist colonies were *always* legal... the only difference is that toplessness is now permitted in public. The obvious question is, "Why? Wouldn't they be cold? It's Canada, right?"

</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Those who live in Vancouver should know the answer to that question.

<P>Actually, out in Maple Ridge (a burb of Vancouver, where I usedta live til I packed up and hauled out 6154km to Halifax... there's a helluva drive, let me tell you!) there was a woman last summer who was exercising her rights on a regular basis. Good. The world needs more people to do that sorta thing.<P>As for J and C and the Big Naked Powwow... OF DOOM (*cough*), setting aside the morality of whatever, or the relative benefits of being merely axe murdered over sexually tortured, it seems to me that Joe is, indeed, showing incredible amounts of restraint for a presumably sexually active teenage male. It wasn't so long ago when I was that age... and if a girl sitting naked on a bed was happening right on the heels of the two of us agreeing to become an item... well, as the magic 8-ball would blithely comment: "<B><I>ALL SIGNS POINT TO 'YES'!</I></B>". Regardless of the morality of that, it's reality.<P>*Offensiveness Warning*
<B>Beware the following opinion if you're easily offended.</B>
*Offensiveness Warning*<P>The idea of someone taking advantage of another person who's judgement is impaired being considered rape is in my opinion dangerous and myopic, as it puts the ENTIRE onus of foreknowledge and responsibility on the part of the so-called "rapist". By this reasoning, any woman who gets bought a drink or two by any guy (or vice versa!) has impaired judgement and blammo, date rape ensues.<P>Worse yet, it opens up arguments like "I was in emotional disarray because [I Lost My Job/I Broke Up With My Mate/My Dog Died/The Habs Lost The Stanley Cup] when I engaged in sex with so-and-so. I was taken advantage of!" That idea sets my hair on end, and that EXACT sort of argument HAS been used. Yeech.<P>In my opinion, for an action to be criminal, criminal intent or negligence has to exist. If I guy buys a girl 23498732 drinks or spikes one so he can shovel her into a bed at home and molest her as she's passed out, that's criminal intent. If the two of them are having fun, drink a little too much and BOTH of them decide "what the hell", that's kosher (and indeed, what many people attempt to accomplish in pubs, clubs and bars every weekend). "Drinks" here can be substituted with anything that'd make someone think differently than "normal". It could be any sort of pharmaceutical, emotional or physical influence (ie. near-death "narrow escape" experiences have a tendancy to make people wanna reproduce).<P>Taken to the Avalon instance, would Joe be labeled as a "rapist" if he and C decided to bump nasty? He didn't cause C's "altered mental state", nor deliberately contribute to it (and, arguably, was completely obtuse and unaware that everything was not 100% emotionally... keep in mind that many men are a little developentally stunted in that arena <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspot.com/KeenBoard/wink.gif"> ). Moreover, there were fair number of cues given by C that she was truly interested (asking to go steady and sitting on the bed naked are major indicators). I'd say Joe would have been safe if they got together... unless, of course, Ceil emphatically told him <B>NO</B>, in which case Joe goes home and reacquaints himself with the Victoria's Secret catalogue.<p>[This message has been edited by Hatamoto (edited 08-29-2001).]