Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!brl-tgr!wmartin From: wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: what makes you feel feminine/masculine? Message-ID: <2619@brl-tgr.ARPA> Date: Wed, 30-Oct-85 13:40:37 EST Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.2619 Posted: Wed Oct 30 13:40:37 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 1-Nov-85 02:49:11 EST References: <248@ssc-vax.UUCP> <1944@reed.UUCP> <32@ubc-cs.UUCP> Organization: USAMC ALMSA, St. Louis, MO Lines: 18 In article <839@nmtvax.UUCP> wildstar@nmtvax.UUCP (Andrew Fine) writes: > It would seem that a woman capable of attaining such an ideal ( 150 IQ, >glamor, and all the rest as per previous articles ), would either : >[Extract:] > 3) Would choose not to associate with the common crowd, instead being > a millionaire's or politician's plaything. Why, pray, would such a superior being choose to be ANYONE'S "plaything"? They might choose to BE a "millionaire" or a "politician", or maybe get more satisfaction [and less hassle] by being a "power behind the throne", but I think "plaything" status would rapidly bore such a woman. "Plaything" has poor connotations for this usage; I think I would have let "playmate" pass uncommented-upon, though. That has much fewer overtones of ownership and dependency. Will