Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site SCIRTP.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!SCIRTP!todd From: todd@SCIRTP.UUCP (Todd Jones) Newsgroups: net.women,net.flame Subject: Re: Women/men and the consumption of toilet paper Message-ID: <183@SCIRTP.UUCP> Date: Wed, 26-Jun-85 17:26:38 EDT Article-I.D.: SCIRTP.183 Posted: Wed Jun 26 17:26:38 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 29-Jun-85 01:36:19 EDT References: <464@ttidcc.UUCP> <465@gitpyr.UUCP> <162@SCINEWS.UUCP> <489@gitpyr.UUCP> Organization: SCI Systems, Research Triangle Park, NC Lines: 60 Xref: watmath net.women:6124 net.flame:10851 This is what Roy first said: > > > Well, maybe you ought to try wearing the shoe for a little while before > > > you condemn it. Maybe you ought to try understanding what it's like > > > to have your gonads poke you in the ribs and say "Hey! Check out the > > > babe over there, she isn't wearing a bra! Very nice." before you > > > insist on your right to let it all hang out and then blame what happens > > > next on the man. It takes two to tango, and none of us are mind-readers. > > This was my response: > > "Oh pardon me, m'am. I thought by your mode of dress that you wanted > > to be raped. I'm terribly sorry! Boy is my face red!" > Roy attempts sensitivity: > Oh really? So that's what's on your mind when you see a pretty girl? > Maybe you need to talk to somebody about your problem.... > Oh come on! Haven't I established myself as a totally wimpy bleeding- heart post-liberal? Do I have to follow all my facetious responses with a sideways smiley face? The rest of my response totally flamed the original sexist posting. Read my entire response, mon. > What I actually had in mind is that a woman dressing in a "provocative" (and > let's not get into the discussion of what's provocative, eh?) fashion could > cause a man to approach her with a proposition. Actually, I never considered > violence. I really prefer sex when both parties cooperate. In any case, I > feel that if you dress in such a manner, it isn't the man's fault for mis- > reading the signals.... I'm not sure you were the one who introduced the "it takes two to tango" concept to this discussion, but it serves my point perfectly. Communication requires two parties: the communicator and the communicatee. How can you say the communicatee has no responsibility for miscommunication? If I choose to interpret your mode of dress as violent, can I defend myself accordingly? > > > Sorry Roy, Ya' make me kinda sick, buddy > > So sorry to have inconvenienced you. I'll try to do better next time. > -- You did! > Roy J. Mongiovi. Office of Computing Services. User Services. > Georgia Institute of Technology. Atlanta GA 30332. (404) 894-6163 > ...!{akgua, allegra, amd, hplabs, ihnp4, masscomp, ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!roy > > The Map is Not the Territory ||||| || || [ O-O ] Todd Jones \ ^ / {decvax,akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd | _ | |___| FLAME ME IF YOU DARE!