valerie@sdcc13.UUCP (Valerie Polichar) (08/19/85)
[] But women don't want "fans"! It makes us feel like we're some different species. We're /all/ people, right? Don't be a slave to womankind! It's no more what woman want than a man wants a "drippy girl hanging all over him", as one friend of mine put it. I appreciate your kind attitude, but it's a little frightening to hear from someone who "loves women" in general .. Why not just say you "love people" and enjoy looking at attractive ones? And that because you are heterosexual you happen to enjoy looking at attractive female people more than attractive male people?
crs@lanl.ARPA (08/23/85)
> [] > > But women don't want "fans"! > It makes us feel like we're some different species. > We're /all/ people, right? > Don't be a slave to womankind! It's no more what woman want than > a man wants a "drippy girl hanging all over him", as one friend of > mine put it. > > I appreciate your kind attitude, > but it's a little frightening to hear from someone who > "loves women" in general .. > Why not just say you "love people" and enjoy looking at attractive ones? > And that because you are heterosexual you happen to enjoy looking at > attractive female people more than attractive male people? These are all good and valid points, points made without alienating anyone. Thank you for that. But think a moment about the article that prompted them. Isn't that, in essence, what Tom said? If he had gone into the detail suggested in: [repeated] > Why not just say you "love people" and enjoy looking at attractive ones? > And that because you are heterosexual you happen to enjoy looking at > attractive female people more than attractive male people? don't you think he would have been flamed (and, perhaps, justifiably so) for being needlessly verbose? Don't you think that all of this is implicit in what Tom wrote? That, perhaps, he focused on his feelings about women because that was the topic under discussion? I realize that the written word lacks the expressive power of face to face communication but surely we can allow some context to be implicit in what we write. [Tom, I apologize if I'm putting words in your mouth. It just struck *me* that what you said and the suggestions quoted above are not that far apart.] -- All opinions are mine alone... Charlie Sorsby ...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs crs@lanl.arpa