HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: infante@acpub.duke.edu (Andrew  Infante)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Attraction -> Acquiantance or vice versa?
Date: 11 Dec 92 18:01:04 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

In article <1992Dec9.212121.13220@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith) writes:
>
>	3) how many of you, actively and freely, spend significant amounts
>	   of time with a woman whom you are not attracted to?

I actually spent much time with my past girlfriends' friends, many times
without my girlfriend.  I also didn't feel that my girlfriend was all that
attractive when I first met her.  But then, we were all drunk anyway, and
it was just a typical setup by my best friend.  I had no idea I'd go out
with this girl for almost a year.
At this point, I see her at homecoming (did), and since she'd moved to a
different state (so did her friends), I tend to spend time with women
who I work with (no chance for relationships) and coworkers of my housemate
(chance for relationship, but no longer wanted by me). I've got other
people on my mind right now and meeting someone new is tough to do when
you're at a college and not a student anymore.  Of course, I could _try_
once in a while, but reading news and contacting people via email are
much safer to start a relationship that in person.
That's an obvious cop-out, but it's my opinion.

later.

andy
>
>As for me, my arms are folded in response to 1 and 2 above.
>
Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.men,soc.women,alt.flame
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Duck and Jive (was Re: Pre-Sex Contract )
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 23:41:20 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1992Dec18.085047.23945@netcom.com> rohwerwd@netcom.com (Mr. Tickle Monster) writes:
>
>     I would rather die than fuck you.  I saw you at the party and
>although you are physically pretty, I think that, overall, you are an
>extraordinarily ugly bitch.
[...]
>     Maybe you will get suckers to play your sex games.  And maybe
>one of those times, you will become pregnant and he will leave
>you cold and wet.
[...]
>     And you lost, bitch.

Please report to james dutton for sensitivity training.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA (dreas)
Subject: Re: Attraction -> Acquiantance or vice ver
Reply-To: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 20:37:57 GMT

In article 75611@apple.apple.COM, stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:
>krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith) writes:
>
>>stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:
><description of men who behaved in a semi-friendly semi-romantic manner>
>
>>That's a new one for me.... the pushme-pullyou relationship :-)
>>I would be interested in hearing how you first met these "ambivalent" men.
>>Was first contact by means of you approaching them, of them approaching
>>you, or by third-party introduction?  I cannot help but think that
>>ambivalence on the part of the one is more likely to happen when first
>>was initiated by somebody other than the one.  What do you think?
>
>I agree with your theory only in the short term. If you ask someone out 
>you will probably not feel ambivalent about them right away, but that's no
>guarantee that ambivalence won't develop sooner or later.
>
>I met one of the men at work and the other in my college dorm. There
>was no standard courtship ritual in either case, with one person going out
>of their way to ask the other person out. Hardly any of my romances have 
>started that way. They've all begun with two people getting to know each 
>other and trading off making little moves until they're involved. 

Same here. These things just have a way of happening by themselves.
I've written about this several times, but here goes:

There is an unspoken threat inherent in the action of asking anyone out.
Immediately, your intended gets into the defensive mode. This is no way to 
start a relationship. Just spending some time with somebody makes it all
happen or doesn't. There is no threat in just becoming good friends. Good 
friendships develop into better and closer friendships, and so on. Or not.
 
>--
>                  A more intimate theology, and one more consonant with 
>Stef              the nature of...love, pictures a demonic force engaged  
>stef@apple.com    in continuous creation and participation. - Iris Murdoch

Wow! I like that quote. Won't even try to improve on it!!!!

dreas 



Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: frank@austin.ibm.com (F. Karner)
Subject: Re: What is gold-digging?
Originator: frank@karner.austin.ibm.com
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 01:57:53 GMT
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division


In article <oneil.724335981@cwis>, oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil) writes:
> rkf@wildrose.infoserv.com (Ray Fink) writes:
> 
> >oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil) writes:
> >>rkf@wildrose.infoserv.com (Ray Fink) writes:
> >>>crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford) writes:

 stuff deleted...
> >Yes, most women I've met were taught (directly or indirectly) to expect
> >the guy to pay.  To me, though, it's yet another gender stereotype that
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   
> >I'm trying to avoid. I've learned that it's not my job to try to change
> >somebody else's behavior to fit my view of the world.  I can be 
> >sympathetic to the fact that "that's what they learned", but I'm not
> >willing to foot the bill for their fantasies. 
> 
> Well, that's fine.  But good luck.  Most of my female friends are of the
> traditional bent: don't come to Nebraska in search of the independent woman.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 more stuff deleted...

> >>>Oh yeah, I probably do have no class whatsoever, I don't even open
> >>>car doors for women.  Another useful sorting criterion, I've found ;-)
> 
> >>You and I should talk.  I'll usually let a guy open the car door, if he
> >>insists, but it really, really, really ANNOYS the hell out of me. 
> 
> >Can you explain that... I'm curious what part of it you find annoying.
> >One of ex-wife's (numerous :-)) complaints was that I didn't make her
> >feel special by opening car doors for her.  So when I first started 
> >dating again, I thought "ok I'll try this".  Some women liked it,
> >some objected...but after a while it became like the "who pays"
> >problem:  I'm looking for a partner and equal for an equal partnership,
> >and I found it enormously difficult to view somebody as an equal 
> >while at the same time treating them as incapable of opening a car
> >door.  
> 
> Sure, I can explain that.  I am looking for a partner and an equal.  
> How can I feel equal if someone is constantly opening the door for me? 
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> It's like, I       
> have two choices?  Either he thinks I'm weak or he thinks he's my servant.
> Either way, one of us is less than equal. 
> Sharon 
> oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu
> 

Sorry to butt in, but couldn't resist.  Let me see if I got the gist
of your position: you want "equal" partnership with a guy, but want him,
expect of him, to pick up the tab?  

It looks as though in your "equality", one "partner" is more equal than 
the other.

Kind of reminds me of my ex's (your money is OURS, but my money is
MINE) "equitable" distribution of paychecks.

Goldigging of a "traditional bent", indeed!
-- 

         DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this posting are mine
            solely and do not represent my employer in any way.
       F. A. Karner AIX Technical Support | karner@austin.vnet.ibm.com
Xref: sparky soc.singles:33750 alt.personals:24187
From: alxs_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Robert Fripp)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.personals
Subject: Newsgroup or Mail List to Meet Singles?
Date: 13 Dec 92 05:49:42 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)


	Is there an internet newsgroup or mailing list where singles can send
descriptions and meet other singles? Also, what is TygerBoink?

Thanks in advance!
From: loosemore-sandra@cs.yale.edu (Sandra Loosemore)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Deep Pocket Paranoia (was Re: Pre-Sex Contract)
Date: 19 Dec 1992 09:04:04 -0500
Organization: staff hacker @ Yale Haskell project
	<1992Dec19.010032.1256@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: functor.systemsz.cs.yale.edu
In-reply-to: desiree@netcom.com's message of Sat, 19 Dec 1992 01:00:32 GMT

desiree@netcom.com (Desiree Champagne) writes:

   You cannot walk away
   from a kid like you can a puppy or a kitten you decide to adopt on
   a whimsy. 

Well, *I* object to this analogy -- it's equally thoughtless and
irresponsible to abandon pets who depend on you for food and shelter.

One of my cats (Nerf) was abandoned by his previous owner when he was
still a kitten.  He had a minor injury to his front leg inflicted by a
careless child and his owner had simply thrown him out on the street,
much as one would discard a broken toy.  That kind of attitude was
about enough to make *me* want to inflict some injuries....

-Sandra
From: johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Picking up the Tab (was: Re: What is gold-digging?)
Date: 16 Dec 92 20:11:28 GMT
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.

In article <168BF8074.SURGDM@mizzou1.missouri.edu> Ann Onimous writes:
>In article <15904@auspex-gw.auspex.com>
|johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
| 
|>This is different than, say, asking someone to meet
|>me after work for a couple of drinks.  Of course in that case this would
|>probably take place in a bar and she'd just be a cheap, sleazy, hussy anyway
|>and it wouldn't make any difference if I had and class.
| 
|Cheap? CHEAP??? That's IT, John. I may be just another sleazy hussy to you,
|but I am NOT cheap.

Cheap?  Did I say cheap?  I meant "a bargain".  Besides, I did say that 
you covered your share for the beer.

| Next time I'm charging TWENTY dollars and YOU get to do the arobatics!!!! 

Shall I bring my own trapeze?  Arobatics?  Does this mean we're going to
do it Zero G next time?  This could be interesting.

|And another thing- I was FAKING!!

So was I.

-- 
+==========================================================================+
| John Fereira        | Auspex Systems | "Ask me about my vow of silence." |
| johnf@auspex.com    | Santa Clara CA |                                   |
+==========================================================================+
From: quirke_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Book
Date: 16 Dec 92 12:09:51 NZST
Organization: Welligton City Council, Public Access.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: kosmos.wcc.govt.nz

atovorni@engr.UVic.CA (dreas) writes:

> I just completed the first chapter of my first novel.
> It's a thrill, but it's draining...

Yeah ? Well, I'm a slow reader myself...

Tony Q.
(Well, *someone* had to come up with that line !)
From: martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Bad Timing
Date: 12 Dec 92 21:02:46 GMT
	<MARTINC.92Dec11220914@hatteras.cs.unc.edu>
	<1992Dec12.060247.27903@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science
In-reply-to: mel@niblick.ecn.purdue.edu's message of 12 Dec 92 06:02:47 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.060247.27903@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> mel@niblick.ecn.purdue.edu (Meloney D Cregor) writes:

   In article <MARTINC.92Dec11220914@hatteras.cs.unc.edu> martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:

   >considered perfectly normal behavior, so long as the passionate person
   >is young and (preferably) female.  Drinking to excess is considered
   >perfectly normal behavior so long as you're male and doing it at night
   >on an expense account in Japan.  Shopaholics are doing a perfectly
   >normal part of their day to day life, as are workaholics.

   Charlie, I don't disagree there are people who can have an addiction
   and carry on with their lives.  I've known some pretty productive
   alcoholics. There are varying degrees of everything, just as there
   are differences among people and their abilities to handle things.

Well, I think we're mostly disagreeing over whether we're agreeing or
not.  My point isn't that people can carry on day to day life while
being addicted, but rather that for some reason things which are
addicting to some are normal and non-addicting to others.

   >The problem isn't the sex, or the alcohol, or the shopping -- it's some
   >kind of problem with how the addict *deals* with these things.

   But, this I do disagree with.  I have agreed that there is some 
   underlying cause and the addiction is a symptom.  However, I disagree
   that the addiction is of itself not a problem.

   For many, the addiction IS a big part of how they deal with things.

I guess I just am coming across contentious today, because that reads to
me as a restatement of what I was trying to say.  *Addiction* is a
problem -- but sex (work) (shopping) as a thing it itself *isn't*.
When a 12-stepper says as step one that he/she has no control over the
locus of addiction that's an important acknowledgement about themself.
But acribing magical powers to the locus of addiction -- rather than
dealing with the addiction as a personal problem -- seems to me to be a
sophisticated form of denial.

	[... lots of examples I agree with]

   It's not the sex, it's the endorphins.  It's looking for Mr. Goodbar.

Yep.
--
		Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/martinc@cs.unc.edu
     Dept. of Computer Science/CB #3175 UNC-CH/Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175
	    3611 University Dr #13M/Durham, NC 27707/(919) 419 1754
     "Oh God, please help me be civil in tongue, pure in thought, and able
      to resist the temptation to laugh uncontrollably.  Amen." -- Rob T
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Attraction -> Acquiantance or vice versa?
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:36:45 GMT
Distribution: usa
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1992Dec11.164539.2073@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith) writes:
>
>I thought that we were talking about ATTRACTION, and when/how men and
>women discover that they are attracted to each other.  Colleagueship
>does not count.

Why not?  Julia started this thread talking about knowing someone for a
while, and an attraction growing.  Knowing them for a while could well
be through "colleagueship".

>I believe that platonic relationships work best when
>they are between (among?) people who could not imagine being romantically
>involved with each other.  Therefore, if I am looking to spend time with
>a platonic friend, I would just as soon hang out with one of my homeboys.

So you're willing to write off half the population as potential friends
if there's no chance you'd get to be romantic with them?  Strikes me as
somewhat sad...

>>>Wouldn't it be _great_ if:
>>>
>>>     When you are out someplace with one of your female "just friends"
>>>     while you are SO-less, and she actually _introduces_ you to one of
>>>     her girlfriends who is kinda' cute?

The odds are a lot better of this happening if you actually *have* female
friends...

>Most women that I know have a real problem
>with "outside women" calling up or coming over:
>
>       he:     Oh, she'e just a good friend.
>
>       she:    Yeah, right!!!
>
>Women that I have known, even as "just friends" have a real problem with
>a man that she might be out with _even noticing_ another woman while
>they are out together, much less, going to talk to her:
>
>       he:     She's kinda' cute.  I think I'll go and talk to her.
>
>       she:    Take me home!  I'm red' t go!
>
>Women that I have known, and women that my homeys known are jealous enough
>as it is, of the time that a man spends with his homeys, much less, areound
>female "just friends".

Women who are secure generally won't have a problem with this.  The reason
for the insecurity could be immaturity, or it could be because she knows
that he's looking to "trade up".  Do the guys in the above scenarios do
anything to make her feel secure in the relationship?
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.women,soc.men,ba.singles
From: don@island.COM (Don Hermes)
Subject: Vasectomies (was Re: Pre-Sex Contract)
Organization: /usr/local/rn/organization
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 18:34:00 GMT

All this debate about a pre sex contract has made me start to consider 
a vasectomy. I'm 35, already have one kid, and don't have anyone who 
I would want to have another with. My only real concern is that
if I do have one and I change my mind, is it reversable ?
Can anyone out there discribe the experiance ?
Don
don@island.com

Xref: sparky soc.singles:34427 soc.women:21699 soc.men:21480
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: Duck and Jive (was Re: Pre-Sex Contract )
Date: 20 Dec 92 02:22:56 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Living In Harmony

In article <1992Dec19.180238.7233@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com 
(Kenn Barry) writes:

>	Let me put it in plain language, Kevin: if you father a kid you
>don't want, you've got my sympathy up to the point where I and my fellow
>taxpayers end up paying for it. 

If what you really care about is the tax payer (fat chance...),
then there is the solution that Carole suggested long ago:

%A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, there was a pretty damn 
%libertarian society: cold, cruel, Dickensian by our present standards.
%People were responsible for taking care of themselves and their
%children.  There was no guaranteed governmental safety net.  If you
%fell upon bad times you asked for help from friends, relatives, or
%private charities.  The problem here was that all these sources of aid
%pretty much had an agenda, a set of rules they insisted you follow in
%order to be a recipient of their (usually grudging) charity.  If you
%lost your job you might be able to move in with your parents, but you
%suddenly got stuck with a curfew and no loud rock music and your
%girlfriend couldn't spend the night and . . . well, you know how
%parents are.  If you got pregnant and couldn't support the baby
%yourself and the man wouldn't help and your parents wouldn't take you 
%in you could go to the Catholic home for unwed mothers.  You'd be taken 
%care of, your baby would be adopted into a good home, but boy did *they* 
%have an agenda.  Listening to the nuns go on about your sinful past wasn't 
%half of it.  Everybody tried *real* hard not to fall upon bad times, 
%and kept their insurance premiums paid up; because, while nobody much
%actually starved, the alternatives sometimes didn't look all that much
%better.

You, and zillion people like you, rejected this solution.
You also refuse to pay a personal price for the stupidity of women
who have kids that they can't support.

As a real idealist you just force someone else to pay for you ideals...

>-  From the Crow's Nest  -                Kenn Barry

Hillel                                     gazit@cs.duke.edu

"I am not sure that Liberal Guilt is any better than the open bigotry.  At 
least you know where you stand with an open bigot."  --  Oleg Kiselev
From: loftis@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Kirk Loftis)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:07:36 GMT
Subject: Re: Over 40 and single....Anyone that "OLD"?
Organization: the HP Corporate notes server
Newsgroups: soc.singles


|Over 40 (just a tad) women have a terrible time of it.
|Men in that age group are all looking for the young "Tenderoni"
|to make him feel like a kid again.  Can't men realize that 
|most younger women see them as either a "Father Figure" or
|a "Sugar Daddy"?  Is that what they really want in a mate?
|
|And it is sad today that wrinkles on a woman mean she is OLD, 
|yet on a man, they add character.  This 'youth oriented' 
|culture leaves the over 40 woman out in the cold.
|
|Brrrrrrr.....
|
|Louise
-- 

I hate to say this, but I feel that it is very tough for a male in his
late teens and early 20's.  All the women/girls are very tough to date.
They play so many mind games at that age.  From my own experiences, when
I was that age, it was very difficult/nearly impossible to get a date,
much less a relationship.  Now that I am getting older (33), there are
more women that are availble.  

I feel that women get what they deserve when they are older, since they
gave me so much shit when I was younger....

A bit cynical, but life is bitch.....

Kirk


Xref: sparky soc.singles:33659 alt.pagan:14148 alt.romance:15146 alt.sex:39364 alt.polyamory:2096
From: zed@cats.ucsc.edu (Francis Edward)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.pagan,alt.romance,alt.sex,alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Truth
Date: 12 Dec 1992 02:25:24 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu



and it is written : " We hold these Truths to be self-evident..."

we now have here a big discusion about truth,belief,justice
and the american way(s). truth truely has many meanings, like
many of our words. it can mean fact :" you must tell the truth about
what happened, scotty" implies that scotty must relate the facts
of the incident in question. and then we have religon and its 'truths'
(as i wrap my cloak tight about my body lest i get scorched)
but churches have been known in the past to proclaim things as
truth and be wrong. wars fought with 'god on our side' lost etc.
and so on adnauseum. so we all , i think, defined our own definition
of what truth is and for each of us that is truth. 
(at least this is my truth) 
			see ya |} zed
_____________________________________________________________________________
|   |      \     ha! | "something witless this way cumz."                   |
| \ | /    / |\      |                                                      |
|---|---   \ |\ |\   |  [ insert favorite video clip here ]                 |
| / | \  the  \ | |  |                                                      |
|   |    man w/  \|  |                                                      |
|   |    no plan     |"1Adam 12 see the man at rear of AppSci. on the ledge"|
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------|
| This message is being brought to you by the makers of SLUDGE              |
|   The Breakfast food that makes you wish it was Lunchtime.                |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
ps... this is my first post! so be nice.   bye!
From: johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: What is gold-digging?
Date: 18 Dec 92 17:20:48 GMT
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Dec18.034834.22160@cbnews.cb.att.com> eleanor@cbnews.cb.att.com (Piglet) writes:
|Piglet  <I suppose, if you ask nicely, and don't forget the
|         blow job--unlike Muffy, I _don't_ get off with a kiss...

Hmmmm...someone kisses your muffy and you don't get off?

-- 
+==========================================================================+
| John Fereira        | Auspex Systems | "Ask me about my vow of silence." |
| johnf@auspex.com    | Santa Clara CA |                                   |
+==========================================================================+
Newsgroups: soc.singles