Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watmath.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!saquigley From: saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) Newsgroups: net.women.only Subject: Re: feminine "protection" Message-ID: <10164@watmath.UUCP> Date: Wed, 5-Dec-84 23:00:33 EST Article-I.D.: watmath.10164 Posted: Wed Dec 5 23:00:33 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 6-Dec-84 04:02:47 EST References: <10083@watmath.UUCP> <1528@sdcrdcf.UUCP> Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 28 > > > > So, is that what we've > >been so worried about all this time? protecting our underwear? not only that, > >but protecting it against ourselves? it sure doesn't reflect well on the > >concerns of "modern woman" does it? It's funny, but the impression I have > >from the tone of the ads I hear on TV or see in magazines, is that we are > >the ones being protected. The only thing I can think of we are being > >protected against are our own icky bodies with their dripping fluids > > > >Sophie Quigley > > > > Right On, Sophie! What self-respecting, liberated person would use toilet > paper now-a-days, anyway? > sdcrdcf!alan OK, well, I agree with you then, pads, tampons and toilet paper serve similar purposes. So why isn't toilet paper advertised as "protection" then? Obviously if we are to be protected against these kind of things, we need much more protection against the icky stuff that comes out behind us then from the icky stuff that comes out in the front, since the former is much more smelly, and comes out much more often. How come nobody's offering us any protection in this case? Also if there is going to be a protection racket for all of these things, why not target it to the whole population rather than just a subset? Sophie Quigley ...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigley