[net.women.only] major misunderstanding

aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (12/18/84)

I have received more than one rather flaming letter (and I gather there may
have been some comments in net.flame, also) in regard to the article I posted
a while back wherein I mentioned that I have been reading the discussion on
feminine protection because someday I may need to know the things being
discussed.  What on earth is wrong with that?  I had hoped that people were
a) intelligent enough, b) well enough acquainted with me that they would
understand from that posting what I thought to be the obvious meaning of it:
namely, that someday I may be married, living intimately with a woman, and,
should this occur, it would be helpful for me to be acquainted with the things
a woman has to go through.  For crying out loud, here I was trying to be
supportive, to show that this discussion was beneficial to both sexes, and I
got flamed for it!  Unfair!  (Especially when another man had previously
posted to that discussion an article that actually was a bit cutting.)

-- 
-- Jeff Sargent
{decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq
Clearing /tmp