Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2.fluke 9/24/84; site vax1.fluke.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!fluke!tron
From: tron@fluke.UUCP (Peter Barbee)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Madonna in Playboy
Message-ID: <1105@vax1.fluke.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 29-Jul-85 22:38:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: vax1.1105
Posted: Mon Jul 29 22:38:03 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 31-Jul-85 08:14:25 EDT
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Lines: 19

Well, I bought the "Madonna Issue" of Playboy yesterday - I just wanted
to see what a boy toy might look like, and besides |-), "The Girls of Mensa"
were suppossed to be in there too (they weren't).

To set the story straight, the pictures Playboy published were taken a few
years ago (sorry I forgot) when Madonna was picking up a little extra cash
as a nude model for posing photography students.  The publihed pictures were 
those taken by the professors.  There were two sets (different professors) and
both sets were more artsy than suggestive.  Not a single photo was of a boy
toy, (damn! I still don't know what they look like |-)).

Of course the magazine, in general, sucks.  Their equalitarian viewpoint seems
to stress the ideal that if your wife has a good job your life will be easier
(more money, etc.).  I admit I liked the part where they predicted the Seattle
Seahawks to win the Superbowl, but one premature prediction does not a 
magazine make.

Later,
PeterB