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