Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ccice5.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccice5!rdz
From: rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: re: Madonna
Message-ID: <848@ccice5.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 5-Jun-85 12:52:01 EDT
Article-I.D.: ccice5.848
Posted: Wed Jun  5 12:52:01 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 9-Jun-85 23:41:13 EDT
References: <333@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA>
Organization: CCI Central Engineering, Rochester, NY
Lines: 27

> 
> not really care if she wanted to be a "sex-kitten".  Your usage of the
> term seem to show some traditionalist views that you might hold; to the
> effect of "if you hate just being allowed to do this, then do that, but
> don't do the other".  Women, simply by their natural physiology, tend

I'm not sure I really understand what you mean by your quote, but I don't
think "traditionalist views" have that much to do with my opinion.  If
someone writhes at my feet and makes sexual movements and gestures, and
"speaks" (sings) sexual come-ons to me, I think I can assume that they
are interested in sex with me (strippers aside).

> for.  I cannot justify to myself restricting my daughter simply because
> she is female.

I didn't say anything about restricting females.  I said I would rather
see my ficticious daughter becoming something because of her merits as
a person, not because she can act like an easy mark.
> 
> Incidentally, Madonna's reputation largely rests upon her "sex-kitten"-style
> image.  But, so do a lot of performers.  I really do not see how you can
> single out Madonna for that.

I answered the original posting, which was about Madonna.  I didn't "single
her out".  My views apply to others who would be the same way.

	*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***