The real breath of fresh air is the Anonymous posting on p.32 who actually applied basic logic to the actual letter.

Too many people are reacting to the t-shirt (not the slogan) as being inappropriate to the workplace. They are upset because younger workers do not dress in a way they think is appropriate. That is certainly one issue worth addressing but I don't think that is the issue here given the sexual language used by the LW.

The LW chose to read all kinds of sexual things into the t-shirt slogan. Cary chose to then answer with a very fine little essay on the tyranny of the workplace. Two different issues really.

I am not complaining. I think Cary generally does a fine job, especially a job that results in lots of letter response to his column.

Frankly, I would come down on the side of a little more formality in the workplace. I don't want to see the ass crack of anyone who bends down to stock shelves or open a file drawer, but who am I to say? I work at home, in a caftan. Workplaces vary.

The real steamy issue in the responses is whether or not Kitty equals Pussy and whether or not the LW is being sexually harrassed. In my opinion, he gave up all claims to being a victim by the way he responded to the "Kitty" person. His own response was completely unprofessional.

Moreover, I doubt that he is really a senior manager, although I suppose it is possible. There are idiots at all levels.

When I was a teenager I had two close friends. One was a quiet one named Ann. Ann had dishwater-colored hair, a ski-slope nose, bad ankles and a flat chest. My other friend was Ginger, a redhead with a big chest and long shapely legs. My Dad never could remember Ann's name. Even after meeting her a number of times, he would always asked me, "Who was that again?" He never asked that about Ginger. Instead, he always greeted her by name and a big smile and then a surreptitious glance at her chest.

This girl with the Kitty tee will have no trouble keeping her job if the LW (if he is a senior manager) has anything to say about it. Trust me, whatever he may actually say, his actions will be to keep her around because he has already fixated upon on her. Chances are he is fantasizing and obsessing about her and trying to figure out how he can make a move without being accused of sexual harrassment. Poor Kitty Not Happy. She could end up unhappier still.

However, I also feel sorry for the Ann's of the world, overlooked by men who have power for the flashier Gingers, who cannot help being Gingers because they must wear their breasts wherever they go.

Now that I know a significant number of people think Kitty means Pussy, I too would advise women not to wear Kitty shirts to work.

However, since you want to discuss the message given versus the message received, please look at the words below which I copied directly from the original letter of the LW:

>>I pointed out to her that this was possibly in contravention of the company dress code, which forbids personal ads on clothing. She informed me that Kitty was a cartoon character. I replied that what she was saying might very well be true, but there was an obvious double-entendre (double meaning). She responded by telling me that I was really sexy when I spoke French.<<

There is no indication that the t-shirt wearer is breaking the rules because she explains that the words are not from advertising but refer to a cartoon character. At this point, the LW -- if he had any further complaint -- should have spoken to the supervisor or the HR person and not spoken further to the t-shirt wearer. Pointing out that he saw a double meaning was inappropriate. If she did not get the double meaning, he would have had to explain it to her, wouldn't he? My guess is that he did so pretty explicitly or how else could she come to understand that her shirt meant more than just a cartoon character to him?

He is not her supervisor. Co-workers should not be correcting other co-workers missteps. I do not buy that he is in any way her superior. In his first letter he indicated co-worker. If he does not want to risk being seen as having a sexual interest in the t-shirt wearer, it is a serious misstep on his part to even mention the possible double meaning.

Later in this letter he mentions that another co-worker is interested in the t-shirt wearer. Relevance? If he is a fellow co-worker, why does this even matter? If he is a senior person, why does he not concern himself with problems that could arise in the workplace from this other co-worker's interest? Wouldn't that be the time for a senior manager to mention workplace rules?

In his conclusion the LW indicates that he is upset that she has these words across her BREASTS. Why did he not choose the word CHEST?

So to me the LW is sending out a certain message. The message I, as a reader, receive is that he's into her. One of the reasons I thought that is that I simply could not fathom that the word "kitty" has a sexual meaning. If she wanted to convey a sexual meaning that by Kitty she meant pussy then it would have made more sense to have the slogan on the hem of the tee closer to her crotch, wouldn't it?

I don't know why some readers do not trust the many other readers who are familiar with Hello Kitty. It IS a cartoon character just as the wearer said.

However, why the readers do not trust the words of the LW is pretty obvious. Why is he reading her BREASTS? Why is he reading sexual meaning into the words across her BREASTS.

Please don't tell me that intentions don't matter in sexual harrassment cases. Intentions certainly matter. For instance, some sexual harrassers like to "accidentally" brush up against their targets. However, in the close quarters of an office people certainly do brush up against people accidentally sometimes. Intentions really matter. Patterns matter. If every shirt this woman wears has some sort of sexual slogan and not just Kitty Hello reference, then there is a problem.

How she replied to him is ill-advised? It was a young smart ass thing to say and I'll bet it does not signal her sexual interest in him at all but rather her contempt that the LW, a CO-WORKER, thinks about her BREASTS and her PUSSY.

An earlier response letter mentioned that in sexual harrassment cases that what reasonable people think is harrassment must prevail. It seems that, here at Salon at least, the reasonable people are divided as to the meaning of the work Kitty.

My reading of the LW is that he is creepy. Many reasonable people seem to agree with me.

The word "work" should be read as "word."

Oh sure. That's why they sell Kitty shirts and Kitty handbags and Kitty shoes in the children's department. They're trying to appeal to both mothers and pedophiles.

Geez! People with dirty minds surely do want to control the way everyone else thinks!

First you say that it is what the observer (reader) thinks in the context of the rhetorical triangle that matters here. Then you dis me for playing observer (reader) and telling you that I read the LW as a creep.

I read him not only as a creep but as a liar.

Also, what does it say about you that you completely glossed the point I was making that CO-WORKERS are out of line correcting CO-WORKERS of equal standing?

Maybe it says that you are quite willing to ignore the inconsistencies that others have pointed out in the LW's writing. You want to read what you want to read. So do you think you should get a pass for that behavior while criticizing me as being "all over?"

Repeat after me: "The rhetorical triangle includes the writer, the text, and the reader." You cannot claim it as a viable defense for the LW and at the same time deny it as a viable tool for me. To do so is illogical.

Yes, the LW is most probably an unreliable narrator.

Also, please go to the links others have provided to view the completely innocuous Kitty's Not Happy t-shirts. Then tell me what evil you see in them.

would probably throw a piss-fit if some woman had her baby brought to her to breast feed during her work break. It would ruin all their sexual fantasies.

think Kitty = Pussy probably hate real life cats. Go back and look at the thread where some people were concerned about their actual cat's behavior and look at those fellas who wanted to shoot the cat or drown the cat.

What does that say, huh? Anybody care to make any leaps?