On 21 Feb 1997, Bear354106 wrote:
> Well it seems I've alienated a few people. I got e-mail from 4 women who
> are upset with me doing this post. I gathered from the plethora of crap
> about chain letters and money-making schemes in newsgroups that I was only
> slightly beyond the pale in doing what I did.
Okay, I will try to explain this from my point of view. This is a
professional newsgroup for women in biology, not a forum for what your
views are on the perfect mate.
> I will therefor add another characteristic to those I listed as
> desirable: If you are sexually repressed and despise anybody who isn't,
> keep your comments to yourself.
The right of free speech goes both ways. You have a perfect right to post
what you want. But we have a right to object. And you have used the
classic response of a male to criticism by women who protest being
treated like objects: you must be repressed.
This is why Canadian and other foreign
> women are so refreshing to the average US male. US women tend to believe
> the nonsense directed at them by the swaggering, stud-muffins who are so
> successful at 'seducing' them.
> Acceptance of this behavior means that the shy or awkward are ignored in
> favor of the bold and (usually) blase and proves the atavistic nature of
> sexual attraction even amongst the allegedly modern intellectual types who
> infest our society. The deer-skinner I mentioned is an example of a small
> group of women who understand the actual state of the situation between
> the sexes, and who are the most desirable to LTR's with most men in the
> USA who are fed up with the games demanded by the avg woman.
None of use were demanding any games. We were asking that you treat this
newsgroup with respect as a forum for professional women. That is it.
We don't care if you are shy and awkward, intellectual and sensitve or a
swaggering stud muffin, a generalized solitication for a mate is *not*
appropriate to this newsgroup. Get it?
Have a great weekend everyone!