HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: state@sargent.cs.unc.edu (Andrei State)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: want-sex(women) < want-sex(men)
Date: 15 Apr 92 02:59:44 GMT
Distribution: soc
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Charles R. Martin writes:
>
> I just ran into at least one counter-example for Dan and Andrei.  A good
> friend of mine in NYC is married, used to be in a three-way live-in
> relationship, is an active member of the NYC S&M scene, and just told me
> that she is much happier now that she has eliminated her three most
> troublesome sexual relationships.

Well, your counter-example sounds pretty counter-intuitive.
Are you talking about Cecilia Tan perchance?

> She's having more sex, on purpose, than a man not only would want but
> *could possibly have*.

Hmmm.  Please don't threaten my sexual prowess.  Scary.

> So I still don't buy it.

No problem.  Dan already sold it to *me*.  You seem to have the following
statement on sale:  "The women with the highest sex drives make the men
with the highest sex drives seem like impotent grandpas."  I buy that any
day, without even having to feel I desert Dan's cause.  On the other hand,
this certainly doesn't apply to my potential ex-would-be girlfriend, for
example (the one I didn't get "lucky" with a few weeks ago, if you remember).
Unluckily, she's also a much more average person than ctan, who may or may
not be the woman you were talking about (she may well be, those women are
one of a kind for all I know :-).


Andrei

PS: Dan, do you want to have sex with me?

PPS: Here we go again.  I just love this thread.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: pooh@group-w.uchicago.edu (Pooh @ the Utility Muffin Research Kitchen)
Subject: Re: Male visual orientationREFRESH
Organization: Medieval England, Iowa
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 22:25:44 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.170420.5029@ccu.umanitoba.ca> browns@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Stuart Brown) writes:
>This brings up a major problem I've been struggling with. 
>
>I read this post and I think, gee that sounds wonderful.  I bet it would be 
>great to fantastic to do that wild thang with Pooh.. I mean, yeah its better
>with someone you love, and have a serious commitment with, but it could also
>be a blast to do it with someone who you hardly know, but who is *good* at sex.
>
>So how can I think like that, and maintain one solid, exclusive relationship?
>My current SO and I have agreed that it will only work between us if we are both
>completely honest and faithful to each other.   Damn.

No problem, Stu.  Send your SO to me and I'll train her.

Now announcing Dr. Poohth's Wild Sex Thang School of Inner Beauty
and Lime Jello Maneuvers !!  (gee, this is sounding more and
more drieuxistic ...)

Increase your Sexual Market Value ((tm) Dan Mocsny, Inc.)!!
Daily lab exercises with Nubile 18-year-olds With Velcro Shoes!!
Correct the Kama Sutra!!
Argue Esoteric Techniques with Masters and Johnson!!

Our Motto: "Once You Drive Men Crazy Enough, They Don't Care How You Look"

Send your applications to

Pooh
      pooh@group-w.uchicago.edu


Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.romance
From: greg@pomona.claremont.edu (Tigger)
Subject: Re: To pursue or not to pursue...
Organization: Pomona College
Date: 17 Apr 92 09:57:14 PDT

In article <1992Apr17.085709.25477@watson.ibm.com>, margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
> In  <1992Apr17.004120.1@pomona.claremont.edu>  greg@pomona.claremont.edu (Tigger) writes:
>> Since then I haven't trusted women for anything more than the time of day.
> 
> Shit happens.  But you can't blame *all* women because of what happened
> with *one* woman.

Intellectually I know that.  Emotionally I don't.  Or didn't, as
the case may be.

>> First, she lives four hundred miles from here.
> 
> Not insurmountable; that's less than 4 hours each way.  :-)

True.  I live about ten minutes from the airport on my end, she lives
about an hour from the one on her end, and it's only an hour's flight
in between...  :-)

>> So I'm very afraid that if I were to pursue this
>> new interest, and if I were successful in this pursuit, I'd end up in
>> the same boat I did before simply because he's there and I'm not,
> 
> Are you happy now?  Are you dating anyone else at the moment?  If the
> *worst* that can happen is that you wind up in the same place you are now,
> but you experienced some happiness that you would otherwise have missed
> out on, isn't it worth taking the chance?

No.  The pain I went through this last time is not worth a bit
of fleeting happiness.

>> is someone she could only see a couple of times a month really
>> taking his place?
> 
> Are you both at school?  Are you both permanently located where you are?

Well, I'm at a school, but it is my job, not my education.  However,
there are reasons that I intend to stay here for another two or
three years.  She just finished school, but has no immediate plans
to move anywhere.

> I think you and she have to do a lot of talking.  I think it's very
> important that you be open with each other, and try to keep in mind that
> the person you're with is *not* responsible for your past grief.

Well, if our conversation the other night is any indication, we well
indeed be doing a lot of talking.  Where it will lead is anyone's
guess...

--
|  Greg Orman                               greg@pomona.claremont.edu  |
|                      Live to Ride, Ride to Live                      |
|        A Man's Best Friends:  a Harley, a Baretta, and a Gund        |
Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.women,soc.men
From: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Subject: Re: buying things
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 17:13:48 GMT

shortell@spock.ecs.umass.edu (Laurel L Shortell) writes:

>In article <vxljs3f@lynx.unm.edu> blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr3.022831.875@ait.com> eleanor@ait.com (Eleanor Evans) writes:
>>>I'd like to buy a man thing--is there like a catalog, or something?  A
>>>toll-free number?  Where do I sign up?
>>
>>Well, I know where you can rent a great man thing- by the hour or day- with
>>the man still attached (that part being unfourtunately non-negotible ';-)
>>Leave a message at this here account ';-)

>What a disgusting thing to say! She was asking an innocent
>question, and you felt you had to jump on the opportunity
>to spout vile comments? Keep it in your pants, buster.

Just had to jump on rON, didn't you? For the record, I thought his
comment amusing, and your response schoolmarmish. By the way, his
note does not qualify for the epithet "vile"; I'll be glad to supply
one that does, if an example is requested.

Regards,
       Heiner biesel@thrall.sim.es.com
       who's waving it in the breeze.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: hevern@cac.washington.edu (M. Hevern)
Subject: Re: Avoiding dating married people
Organization: U.W. Information Systems
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 07:46:56 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.230818.17146@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu>, kscumm2@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Kimberly S. Cummings) writes:
> Let me just say first of all - I don't know that I think the idea of
> calling to check up on someone is a good idea, however, it is a bit
> naive just to ask, and believe the answer immediately.  Personally, I
> do trust people until they give me reason not to, but I also think you
> have to keep your eyes open to the possibility that the person might not
> be completely honest with you.  I recently posted about a guy who did
> lie to me when I asked him directly, and it went on for a while because
> I was naive enough to believe what he told me instead of what my eyes
> and my own common sense told me.

Sounds like another thread (RE: Lying to ones self).

> All in all, if a person has had time to develop a past history of
> trustworthiness, then by all means that person should be trusted.  But
> how can you fault a little healthy scepticism, on either side, when
> two people have just met?

Nope, can't fault healthy scepticism. Some people lie because it's a habit.

> Ah well, this is just too damn serious for a Friday night!  Have a 
> good weekend everyone!   :)

No kidding! Adios....

--	MH (Smart remark deleted due to good sense.) 
       *--------------------------------*------------------------------*
       | Michael Hevern			| Voice: (206) 685-3229        |
       | University Of Washington	| * "I can't dance...          |
       | Information Systems		|    I can't talk...           |
       | 4545 15th Ave. NE		|    The only funny thing about|
       | Seattle, WA 98105		|    me is the way I walk."    |
       | Mail Stop: JE-41               |       -- Genesis             |
       *--------------------------------*------------------------------*
	Disclaimer: If I said it I probably meant it.  My employer isn't
		responsible for my opinions.
From: jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Burp. (was Re: THE ELEMENTS OF SEDUCTION)
Date: 15 Apr 92 20:09:17 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Apr15.170541.4176@mks.com> fredw@mks.com (Fred Walter) writes:
>>really have the high sexual appetites that they certainly seem to.
>
>That's what other women are for. Of course, you then run the risk of your
>girlfriend liking the other women more than she likes you and dumping you.
>
>	fred "I think it was the gas that made me post this" walter

Nitrous or beans?
Call me curious.
From: jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Older men and younger child (advice needed)
Date: 14 Apr 92 17:32:55 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Apr14.152101.17976@news.larc.nasa.gov> sleight@blackbird.larc.nasa.gov (DWS) writes:
>Any advice/comments on this situation ?
>
>I am 24 years old and have a good friend whom I met at
>church. During the last year I have spent a lot of time
>with her thru church activities and I think she is the
>most wonderful girl/woman I've ever known. When I first
>started to know her (last summer), I thought she was 18
>and would be starting college last fall.  I even considered 
>asking her out on a date.  Then to my surprise, I found out
>she is only a junior in high school - she is currently 
>17 years old after a recent birthday.
>
>I don't think that I'll pursue anything further than just 
>being friends (plus I don't know how she feels about me) 
>since she is still in high school, however I can't get her
>out of my mind.
 
Take her to England, the age of consent is 16. Course I don't know
if they have a branch of "The gospel according to deviant child molestors"
there. 
Is she currently going out with someone? Who made the first move?
Do you feel quilty and are you taking into account any third parties?
You want to stay relevant with this week's thread don't ya?
From: wjb@moscom.UUCP (Bill de Beaubien)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Peeking through the curtain
Date: 8 Apr 92 11:44:31 GMT
Organization: Moscom Corp., Pittsford, NY

blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.) writes:
: Besides, like I said last time, in today's oozing sexual environment,
: momogamy is better than death.

hmm... Oedipus complex here? :-)
-- 
"Bless me, Father; I ate a lizard."
"Was it an abstinence day, and was it artificially prepared?"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bill de Beaubien / wjb@moscom.com
From: intrigue@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Yoo, hoo, Angelllllllwingggggggg.......
Date: 13 Apr 92 15:50:57 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Apr10.234504.16722@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>In  <1992Apr10.195105.27227@u.washington.edu>  intrigue@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing) writes:
>> In article <1992Apr10.181036.17443@csc.ti.com> pnichols@ra.csc.ti.com writes:
>> >
>> >     Civil, yes, but lacking in color or charisma.  C'mon, insult me.  :)
>>
>> Oh ...okay.  I think you're a weinie.  How's that?
>
>I'm surprised at you, Angelwing - I thought you knew the difference
>between an observation and an insult. 

Yes yes, of course I do.  But I'm not very good at the purposeful insult. 
I generally do my insulting by accident.  There are others out there who
are MUCH better than I.

>> Like I'd say something like oh ...flowers and chocolate.  Or a big dick
>> and a *really* stupid (but rich) man.
>
>How about a big chocolate dick and a stupid rich pansy?

Nope.  But thanks any for offering Larry. 

heh  (How was that? .. insult-wise I mean?)

Angelwing - Broadening my horizons.

*------------------------------------------------------------------*
* Angelwing       |"Two things are wanted by a true man, danger and*
* U. of Washington| play - therefore, he seeks woman as the most   *
*                 | dangerous toy."       Friedrich Nietzsche      *
*------------------------------------------------------------------*
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: intrigue@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing)
Subject: Re: Spring Fever or what?
Organization: University of Washington
Distribution: world,soc
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 21:04:48 GMT

mlw@cisco.com (Monica Waldman) writes:

>In article <1992Apr10.215228.8676@u.washington.edu> intrigue@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing) writes: some foolishness regarding a hand puppet.

>No name recommendations here, but I can recommend what you use her for.

Nice of you to drop in Monica.  *Always* a pleasure to hear from you.
I took the liberty of reading your mind and used her for *just* the purpose
you hand in mind.  And know what?  RICHH was right!  It *is* almost like
somebody else!

Angelwing - Cheerfully yours.

*------------------------------------------------------------------*
* Angelwing       |"Two things are wanted by a true man, danger and*
* U. of Washington| play - therefore, he seeks woman as the most   *
*                 | dangerous toy."       Friedrich Nietzsche      *
*------------------------------------------------------------------*
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle)
Subject: Re: The "first" "move" (was Re: A R C )
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 20:12:53 GMT

In <65236@apple.Apple.COM> stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:

>And well I know. (shh! I don't want the secret to get out to the other women.)
Oops. Sorry.

>Or Truffles liqueur. 
What in the world is Truffles liqueur? 
-- 
"The truffle is not an outright aphrodisiac, but it may in certain
 circumstances make women more affectionate and men more amiable."
                                                ...Brillat-Savarin

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: FA.TJM@forsythe.stanford.edu (thom mckean)
Subject: Re: The 'first' 'move' (was Re: A R C )
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 19:27:21 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.155415.5466@spool.cs.wisc.edu>,
rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon) writes:
>In <65043@apple.Apple.COM> stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:
>>What if one person initiates the conversation and the other person
>>asks for the date? Who has made the first move? AAAUUUUUGGGGHHHH!
>>What if NOBODY can claim responsibility for the first move? What?
>>We might have to consider the possibility of MUTUAL INTEREST? But
>>who would get the "aggressive" notch on their belt?
>
>I think that the person who asks for the date made the first move.
>Especially if he is not certain that there IS any mutual interest.
>

What if the date is set up by a third party?  Ya know, one of those
"Oh, I've got a friend you should meet" kinda thangs.  Is the third
party responsible for making the first move?  And if there is a
third party, why wasn't I invited to the first two?

Extrapolating from this, if two people meet at a party, is the
person throwing the party responsible for bringing those two
together?  If so, does it follow that the holder of the party gets
the "aggressive" notch, and consequent power over the relationship?

If I'm promised to another at birth, did my parents make the first
move?

Thom
who counts at least four parties to which his invitations MUST have
been lost in the mail..
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: tlode@isis.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Exchanging phone numbers (was Re: The "first" "move" (was Re: A R C ))
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 18:25:15 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.133350.27832@dgbt.doc.ca> michele@dgbt.doc.ca (Michele Guillet) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.004330.19767@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlode@isis.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>>than I could keep track of.  I've had women ask me for my phone number
>>(though 99% of the time, they don't call), one woman who probably would
>
>That doesn't surprise me, 99 % of the time, men that either ask me for
>my phone number or said they called, don't call either. I think
>a number of people seem to think that asking for a phone number 
>(or saying they'll call you ) is a polite way to close a conversation 
>and say good bye.

That's an interesting thought--anybody out there take this particular
approach?  Oh, well; nobody ever said that polite couldn't be
confusing.

>Michele Guillet 			The Communications Research Centre 
>3701 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA, K2H 8S2	tel:613-998-2384
>Internet: michele@dgbt.doc.ca	

Trygve
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: lying to oneself (was Re: Sanctity of relationships)
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 08:28:22 GMT
Distribution: world,soc
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Apr10.212820.6390@u.washington.edu>  intrigue@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing) writes:
> In article <1992Apr10.192653.25304@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes
> >In  <1992Apr10.151914.6471@u.washington.edu>  intrigue@milton.u.washington.edu
> >>
> >> Oh but Larry, the *burning* question here ... what millions of people are
> >> dying to know is just HOW did you discover she was lying?
> >
> >Well, I was trying to avoid being explicit in order to not offend
> >anyone's sensibilities, but since you asked...
> >
> >I was going down on her,
>
> Oh LORD!!  Gross!

You hadda ask, right?

> What a gal....I hope you dumped her.

Not for that, no.  As I said, it didn't bother me that she was screwing
around, it bothered me that she lied to me.  (And the way I discovered it
was in bad taste...)  But she was also lying to herself.  She had a lot
of emotional problems due to past abuses.  I couldn't blame her for
being screwed up when it was other people that had screwed her up.  She
was managing amazingly well, all things considered.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: The Third Move
Date: 16 Apr 92 12:51:09 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Apr15.222634.22314@u.washington.edu> intrigue@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing) writes:
>In article <1992Apr15.195859.9024@cbfsb.cb.att.com> jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton) writes:
>> 
>>Let's see Anglewing responded to a post, therefore she want's to
>>bear my children and is in fact being more than friendly and
>>yet somehow aggresive.
>
>Ooo!  He's reading my mind!!  He's reading my mind!!
>
>>Anglewing stop stalking me or I'll have to spank you.
>
>Don't toy with me, babycakes.  Show me your paddle.
>
>Angelwing - With or without panties
>

Well twould appear since spring is spranging, your more in a midwest
frame of mind.
From: browns@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Stuart Brown)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: THE ELEMENTS OF SEDUCTION
Date: 7 Apr 92 16:54:14 GMT
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Apr02.203559.14998@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>In  <1992Apr2.161033.22766@u.washington.edu>  intrigue@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing) writes:
>>
>> Oh now Larry, don't be so hard on the lad.  Actually his post *was*
>> meaningful in a strange, almost cosmic way.  Just as I was reading that
>> line about waking up and smelling coffee .. well I was at that *very*
>> instant taking a SIP OF MY COFFEE!!!
>
>And as I read your post, I was making coffee...  This is eerie!
>
>> Maybe RICHH is psychic?  Coincidence?  I think not.
>
>There's a tiny difference between "psychic" and "psychotic", and that's
>the letters "OT" - and there were a lot of crazies in the Old Testament.
>Coincidence?  I think not.  (Fortunately, I'm not Descartes.  :-)
>
>> Angelwing - We have all been here before.
>
>I know what you mean - I have this incredible sense of deja vu...
>
>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)

Ouh ooh,  sounds like we've got a bad case of deja vu all over again.
		(apologies to Yogi Berra)

	-Stu

-- 
Stuart M. Brown                               Postdocs rush in where wise men
U. of Manitoba, Dept. Plant Science, Canada       Fear to tread. 
browns@ccu.umanitoba.ca        
				Disclaimer?? Sure: "That Disc is Mine!"
From: pooh@group-w.uchicago.edu (Pooh @ the Utility Muffin Research Kitchen)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: THE ELEMENTS OF SEDUCTION
Date: 16 Apr 92 17:59:38 GMT
Organization: Medieval England, Iowa

In article <1992Apr14.212458.25276@tigger.jvnc.net> richh@tigger.jvnc.net (RICHH) writes:
>"Nah, you are far more interesting than anything going on in that
>silly old ICU."
>
>*BARANGUS*
>
>RICHH
>--of course, if you already have a beeper, you're one step ahead.

RICHH, I'm surprised you didn't say anything about the joys of
setting the beeper on silent -- that is, vibrating -- mode ...

Pooh (call me!  anytime!)

       pooh@group-w.uchicago.edu
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Older men and younger women (advice needed)
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:17:40 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <1992Apr14.152101.17976@news.larc.nasa.gov>  sleight@blackbird.larc.nasa.gov (DWS) writes:
> Any advice/comments on this situation ?
>
> started to know her (last summer), I thought she was 18
> and would be starting college last fall.  I even considered
> asking her out on a date.  Then to my surprise, I found out
> she is only a junior in high school - she is currently
> 17 years old after a recent birthday.
>
> I don't think that I'll pursue anything further than just
> being friends (plus I don't know how she feels about me)
> since she is still in high school, however I can't get her
> out of my mind.

Why does a year or two difference in what you believed her age to be
make such a big difference?

Why not ask her how she feels about you?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)