home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!agate!agate!muffy
- From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
- Newsgroups: alt.feminism
- Subject: Re: Verbs and gender connotations
- Date: 22 Jan 93 15:22:07
- Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
- Lines: 20
- Message-ID: <MUFFY.93Jan22152207@remarque.berkeley.edu>
- References: <3186@tymix.Tymnet.COM> <1jl21rINNlh1@gap.caltech.edu>
- <MUFFY.93Jan20192740@remarque.berkeley.edu>
- <1993Jan22.084538.25911@microsoft.com>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
- In-reply-to: jenk@microsoft.com's message of 22 Jan 93 08:45:38 GMT
-
- In article <1993Jan22.084538.25911@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
- > Muffy, I agree...however, I would point out that "to fuck" doesn't
- > necessarily mean "to penetrate".
-
- Well, that's the way it's generally used around here, as the shorter
- form of "to engage in penetrative sex."
-
- > Altho, if you're ever in seattle,
- > we really *must* have lunch or ... -um- ... *something*
-
- I'll keep it in mind...*grin*. And, of course, if you ever come to the
- Bay Area, please drop by...*smile*...
-
- Muffy
- --
-
- Muffy Barkocy |~Never had a lot of faith in human beings/
- muffy@mica.berkeley.edu | but sometimes we manage to shine/like a
- "amorous inclinations"? Aha! I'm | light on a hill beaming out to space/from
- not "not straight," I'm *inclined*.| somewhere hard to find~ - Bruce Cockburn
-