Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site randvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ukma!psuvm.bitnet!psuvax1!burdvax!sdcrdcf!randvax!jeanette
From: jeanette@randvax.UUCP (Jeanette Haritan)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.singles
Subject: Re: Beach harassment
Message-ID: <32@randvax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 14-Feb-86 11:44:09 EST
Article-I.D.: randvax.32
Posted: Fri Feb 14 11:44:09 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 19-Feb-86 00:47:34 EST
References: <8342@ucla-cs.ARPA> <2581@sdcrdcf.UUCP> <255@birtch.UUCP> <1167@homxb.UUCP> <118@ttidcc.UUCP> <2069@watdcsu.UUCP> <1395@
Reply-To: jeanette@rand-unix.UUCP (Jeanette Haritan)
Organization: Rand Corp., Santa Monica
Lines: 20
Xref: watmath net.women:9072 net.singles:10321

>> Not quite.  Let's suppose, in addition, that your trunks can be undone
>> at the back, and you have done so in order to get a nice even tan.
>> Now, maybe, this analogy is a little fairer.
>> David Canzi
>
>      Now I get it!  David must find female backs every bit as sexually
>stimulating and erotic as he imagines homosexuals find male buttocks.  Why
>else would he think that his changed analogy is better?
>      Sorry to be the one to have to tell you this, Dave, but you've got
>rather unusual taste in bawdy parts.  Most guys aren't turned on a whole
>lot by backs.
>--
>Jeff Sonntag
>ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j

Regarding Jeff's last statement, I CAN see his point, however, if there
were complete truth in it, then would this discussion be going on in the
first place?  No sarcasm...just an elaboratory question.

jlh