Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watdcsu.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!bellcore!petrus!sabre!zeta!epsilon!gamma!ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!watnot!watdcsu!dmcanzi
From: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Re: Beach harassment:  some questions
Message-ID: <2068@watdcsu.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 6-Feb-86 04:50:43 EST
Article-I.D.: watdcsu.2068
Posted: Thu Feb  6 04:50:43 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 8-Feb-86 05:13:49 EST
References: <8342@ucla-cs.ARPA> <2581@sdcrdcf.UUCP> <6269@tektronix.UUCP> <2585@sdcrdcf.UUCP> <8405@ucla-cs.ARPA> <917@whuxl.UUCP>
Reply-To: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi)
Distribution: na
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 23
Summary: 

In article <917@whuxl.UUCP> stu16@whuxl.UUCP (SMITH) writes:
>      If a woman wants to gets a "seamless" tan, and has a
>good book she wants to read, and has a hour or two, what
>better place to spend it than on a beach? ...

What sense is there in getting a seamless tan *on* *her* *back*
*only*?  She can't, by undoing the top half of her bikini, get a
seamless tan on the front of her body or below the waist.  I cannot
convince myself that undoing the back of her bikini was not intended to
attract men.

If she was truly interested in getting a seamless tan, wouldn't she go
(a) to a nude beach, if she could find one, or (b) to one of those
tanning salons?

I'm mainly posting this because of the several thousand articles
moaning about how impolite it was for those men to interrupt her
reading, as if the undone bikini strap was of no consequence.
-- 
David Canzi

"Mothers are fonder than fathers of their children because they are more
certain they are their own." -- Aristotle