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