HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: larry@b8.b8.ingr.com (Larry Billings)
Subject: Re: Pre-Sex Contract
Organization: Intergraph
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 20:17:01 GMT




In article <1992Dec16.073753.27294@netcom.com>, rohwerwd@netcom.com (Mr. Tickle Monster) writes:

Did I win?  Am I the two hundredth poster to this thread?  What prize do I win?
Can we now stop this Round Robin trhead?

> 
>      The negotiated agreement shows that a woman and I take
> responsibility for our past actions.  Legally, since she does not have
> to be sensitive to my changing needs if she wants to abort and I want to
> keep the child, why should I be sensitive to her changing needs?

> why should I be sensitive to her changing needs?
> why should I be sensitive to her changing needs?

Well, let us explore that question for a moment.  Could it be the fact that
SHE and NOT you will have to carry the baby for nine months?  Perhaps the
morning sickness would play a part.  Lets not forget the health risks and 
weight gain she will have, and spend several months trying achieve her
"before YOUR baby" figure.  Last and certainly not least the PAAAIIIINNNN
of delivering a child, and emotional pain of giving the child up.

ALL of these (with the possible exception of emotional pain) are 100% her
problem and 0% your problem, and anyone who is not sensitive to her changing
needs is an ASSHOLE, PERIOD.


NUFF SAID!!!!

>   Mr. Tickle Monster  

Larry
-- 
Larry

             This .sig file has been purposely left blank.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil)
Subject: Re: What would you do if...
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 07:36:16 GMT

scott@soldev.tti.com (Scott Taylor) writes:

>I have a question that you folks might be able to shed some
>light on. I am certain that there is no single correct answer
>to this one, but I am curious to hear what others think.

>First a little background. I have been seeing a woman for 
>about 6 months now, who is really a great person. We have had
>some really fun times together and really enjoy each others
>company. I am not in love with her, nor is she in love with
>me, but we really enjoy being together.

>About a month ago I met someone else, whom I now also date.
>They both know about each other and are free to ask me 
>anything about one another. I thought that I could make this
>work, since I am completely honest about the extent of
>the relationships. However, it seems like they are now trying
>to compete for my time and attention. I think of it as a kind
>of jealousy, and it is not appealing to me.

>I don't want to dump either one of them, as I get a lot of
>enjoyment from each of their company. I have tried to discuss
>this with both of them and they both deny that there is a 
>problem.

>Any Thoughts?

It could work.  I mean, it could.  But what I think you need to realize is
that people (not just women) do tend to be jealous.  Not everyone.  I do know
some people who are very comfortable with the idea of dating more than one
person at a time. 

What I would caution you to do is to make sure when you are with one of them
that she knows that at that time, she is important.  If she asks about
the other girl, then by all means, tell her.  But if she doesn't, don't offer
the information.

You could even tell them that they are both important to you but that when
you are with one of them, that she will have your undivided attention.  But
that she has to accept that you are involved with someone else as well, so
she can't expect that attention /all/ the time.  But for private time, I 
think she has a right to expect that time be for you and her alone.

>Scott Taylor, Citicorp/TTI
>pyramid!ttidca!scott
>(310) 450-9111 x2321

Sharon
oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: erc@unislc.uucp (Ed Carp)
Subject: Re: Woman: will you go out with shorter man?
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 07:29:39 GMT

Francois Souchay (souchay@CAM.ORG) wrote:

: True enough. Half the women I've dated were my height or better barefoot,
: so when you add in the heels... They didn't have a problem with it either.
: It depends on the set of value checklists imposed on the partner, I suppose.
: 
: The secure woman (person) will probably spend less time worrying about
: whether the man she's with satisfies the Relative Height Criterion
: as promulgated by Hollywood/Mad Ave.

I suppose I need to find a secure teller woman, huh? :)

I like short women, I like tall women, I like women my beight ... they all
have their own special advantages...even to someone 5'7" ... and I'm damned
tired of being called "short"!
-- 
Ed Carp			erc@apple.com, erc@saturn.upl.com	801/538-0177

Who and what would you be if you went beyond your deepest fears?
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: ccewwm@nusunix1.nus.sg (Wong Wui Ming)
Subject: Re: What is gold-digging?
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 03:54:09 GMT

I think gold-diggers are women (and men ?) who date and expect their
date to pay for everything.  Usually they will pretend not to know you
or be uncontactable after date is over.
From: jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: What is gold-digging?
Date: 15 Dec 92 01:18:38 GMT
Reply-To: jsp@pls.amdahl.com
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford) writes:

}If a man asks me out, and I don't know him very well, I assume he's
}paying.  If he doesn't, he's got no class whatsoever, IMO.  Frankly, it
}hasn't happened to me (though it did happen to a friend of mine).  

This is a prime example of why so many men today are so confused.  To
some women, if the man doesn't pay then he's got no class.  To other
women, if the man does pay then he's not treating the woman as an equal.
But how do you know which kind of woman you're going out with?  Maybe
we (men and women) should all have to fill out detailed questionaires 
about our views, opinions, desires, etc. and exchange them before we go 
out so that we don't risk offending the other person.  Myself, I just
assume I'm paying unless told otherwise.  If the woman asks about paying,
I respond that I'll get it.  If she indicates that she'd prefer to pay
her own way, then that's fine with me.  If anyone were to get on my case
for assuming that I was doing the paying, then I'd just end the date;
we'd obviously not get along in other areas, either.

}So, would any guys out there in net.land consider any of this 
}"gold-digging"?  I'm honestly not very familiar with the term.

I agree with other posters that gold-digging is far too strong to apply
to just letting (or wanting) the man to pay for the date.  True gold-
digging is being deliberately out for the man's money; having the ultimate
goal of the man not only simply supporting you but supporting you in a
lavish style.

--James Preston

Newsgroups: soc.singles,misc.legal
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Pre-Sex Contract
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:36:38 GMT

In article <168B7BF4B.SURGDM@mizzou1.missouri.edu> Diane writes:
>In article <1992Dec7.002657.12751@rotag.mi.org>
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> 
>>Well, speaking as an "offspring" myself, I understand perfectly why a man
>>would come up with such a contract, even if that man was hypothetically my
>>father.
>>
>>Perhaps you shouldn't make hasty generalizations about what people do and
>>do not understand, Ms. Gorman. Your limitations are not everyone's.
>>
> 
>Okay, agreed. But then you said:
> 
>>The woman subjects the child to a miserable illegitimate childhood, and you
>>expect the child to forgive her just because she flashes a contract which SHE
>>voluntarily signed, and says "see, it's all your Daddy's fault"!?!?!? Does
>>this pattern of callousness inspire forgiveness?
>>
> 
>Kevin, please explain what I'm missing here. It seems that you are trying
>to say that if a man, in a contractual agreement with a woman, 'fathers' a
>child but does not assume responsibility for it per the terms of the
>agreement, that the hypothetical *you* would understand. That's very noble
>of you. Why would you find it so hard to understand a woman who does the
>same exact thing? What is it about this contract that makes it understandable
>for a man to propose the terms, and horrible for a woman to agree to them?

There's nothing wrong with agreeing to the contract. But I find it deplorable
that a woman would agree to the contract, then go ahead and do the 
irresponsible thing anyway, by carrying a child to term and taking custody of 
it, under such socially and financially unstable circumstances, and then as
the ultimate insult, psychologically abuse the child by showing them the
easy-to-misunderstand contract before they're ready to handle it, thus
dealing a crushing blow to the child's sense of self-worth and "belonging", 
and probably poisoning any chance of the father and the child building a
constructive relationship later in life.

What kind of monster would do this? No child deserves that kind of treatment.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: gds@york.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Picking up the Tab (was: Re: What is gold-digging?)
Originator: gds@york.cs.ucla.edu
Reply-To: gds@cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner)
Organization: in your face!
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 19:20:27 GMT

In article <15904@auspex-gw.auspex.com> johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
>I can't believe this.  Three knee jerk responses in a row.  Look at the
>first five words of Lauren's article (If a man asks me out).  It looks to
>me like Lauren is describing a "traditional" date, in which case traditional
>values should hold.

% unlurk

I thought this was the 90's, and we were in the process of throwing
out old antiquated notions, like traditional dating.

>If *I* ask a woman out for dinner (which I assume we're talking about
>here) I will *at least* offer to pay.  I am probably going to choose
>the restaurant, or at least give the woman a choice of places to go,
>in which case I am not going to expect the woman to pay.  Not even
>half.  I am asking her out and treating her to dinner.

When I ask someone out, I expect to pay, but I appreciate it when they
offer to pay part or all of their way, or leave the tip.  To me, it
shows they have some consideration for my feelings.  I am a lot less
likely to go on a second date with someone who does not offer to pay a
little, or offer to pay next time, etc.

>If she asked me out it might be different.

When someone asks me out, I at least offer to pay the tip, or pay for
dessert.  It's a sign of consideration for the other person's
feelings.

--gregbo

% lurk
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: larry@b8.b8.ingr.com (Larry Billings)
Subject: Re: Size 8? (Re: What is NOT attractive to "SINGLE" men)
Summary: Another Offer
Organization: Intergraph
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:35:48 GMT

In article <7901@news.duke.edu>, diamond@acpub.duke.edu (Elizabeth Abrams) writes:
> 
> Trygve, I have the greatest confidence that you (and Charlie too, for
> that matter) could survive this kind of treatment for quite some time.
> Perhaps a woman could more effectively torture the two of you by
> *refusing* to sit on your ribcages for a couple of hours?  
> 
> 				--Diamond
> 


Well, I was going to offer to allow you to punish me (I've been a very bad boy)
by sitting on my chest, but too many others have been there and done that, so
would you Refuse to sit on my ribcage?  I haven't been turned down in a long
time----it never gets that far.  :)

Larry
From: blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Over 40 and single....Anyone that "OLD"?
Date: 14 Dec 92 13:48:46 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1ghthrINNa8p@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> aa752@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Louise Billi) writes:
>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.

*laugh*....
This has to be one of the funniest posts of the week-
The Yuppies Are Getting Old, kids! Making the same gripes as their parents...
I find that highly amusing.
r. (a 28 year old generation X baby-buster child, and proud of it :)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.women,soc.men,misc.legal
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: Woman's *Consent* Necessary for Male Choice?!  NOT!
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:57:20 GMT

In article <168BF90CC.SURGDM@mizzou1.missouri.edu> Diane writes:
>In article <BzD076.GzL@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
>hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:

>>The question is one of equity.   From the standpoint of equity, apart from
>>the costs to the woman because of physical considerations, both parties
>>have equal rights.
>>                    <deleted some stuff>
>>So the rights should be balanced, with compensation if necessary.

>>At this point, the woman can unilaterally take actions to divest herself
>>of any such obligation, and can often unilaterally decide even whether
>>the birth should occur.  A balancing of rights would give a a man rights
>>as to both of these points, and would certainly not allow the present
>>unilateral imposition of financial obligations.

>Just asking for clarification...What I'm hearing is that you feel that
>men should have the option to decide whether or not they wish to be fathers,
>*and* that they should have equal say in whether or not the woman carries
>a pregnancy to term. It's this last point that I'm having trouble with. Are
>you suggesting compensation for the woman who (in this case) would be forced
>to carry a pregnancy to term against her will? What sort of compensation
>would you propose? How would you go about legislating this?

I am suggesting compensation, and in an earlier posting I discussed this.
In the event that this dispute occurs, then I would suggest that either
the pregnancy is carried to term, with compensation for the woman's time,
discomfort, risk, etc., or that if there is an abortion at the woman's 
request, she compensate him adequately, such as, for example, paying for
an egg from a woman acceptable to him to be fertilized by his sperm, 
implanted in a capable and willing surrogate, this repeated if necessary
for success, and carried to term, and turned over to him to raise, and all
this done sufficiently quickly that his interests are protected.

Of course, whatever procedure we come up with will have to be based purely
on equity, and not on the morality of somebody's religion, if it is to be
at all fair.  I also stated in the earlier posting that it should be 
necessary for someone who at least can be presumed to be able to support
the newborn to deliberately assume the responsibility, and that this 
obligation would not fall on anyone, including the parents, by default.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@snap.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:48:38 EST
From: <JET3@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Is there an FAQ?
 <1992Dec16.181514.28166@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>

Well, after reading that bit of juicy information, I'll just have to put my 2
pennies in: SWF looking for SO, prefer a PYM while POSSLQ may be possible,
will also take one of those LJBF type of guys. IMHO, would also like a little
ROTHL. And although I don't like PDA's, I will WFYITBWNBLJO. My RI at this
time is less than satisfying, so only MOTOS please apply. Jean
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 20:34:17 EST
From: Graydon <SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Picking up the Tab (was: Re: What is gold-digging?)
Distribution: usa

*sigh*
actually, make that a *heavy sigh*

Why does there have to be one standard way to approach this negotiation,
so long as everyone knows there isn't one standard way to approach this
negotiation?

I mean, I'm seen a couple flip a coin for the bill.  One lady I went out
with, it was a case of who could pounce on the thing first (as a game,
not a serious run over the waitress behaviour.)

The One Right Way To Apportion Payment When Asking Someone Out will
have to remain elusive for awhile.

Graydon
From: stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: New Netter, Ques.for Men
Date: 17 Dec 92 05:09:22 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

quirke_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz writes:

> stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:

>> Non, mon petit chou. The handcuffs and Uzi are for fun, not for arguments. 
>> (Don't ask what I use for arguments.)

>   Hmmm. What you "use for arguments" wouldn't have anything to do with those
>tactical nuclear weapons the Russians are assuring us they only temporarily 
>misplaced, would it ?

No. If you must know, I use feathers. 

--
Stef                Just as there are laws of Conservation of Matter and
stef@apple.com      Energy, so there are in fact Laws of Conservation of 
                    Pain and Joy. Neither can ever be created or destroyed.
                         But one can be converted into the other. 
                                                         --Spider Robinson
-- 
--
Stef                Just as there are laws of Conservation of Matter and
stef@apple.com      Energy, so there are in fact Laws of Conservation of 
                    Pain and Joy. Neither can ever be created or destroyed.
                         But one can be converted into the other. 
                                                         --Spider Robinson
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: What is gold-digging?
Date: 15 Dec 92 17:59:42 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <eECLrArFBh106h@wildrose.infoserv.com> wildrose!rkf@infoserv.com writes:

>Along those lines... a business acquaintance of mine opens car doors
>for *everybody*, if it's his car he unlocks the passenger door first
>and opens it as a courtesy.  I found that disconcerting at first.
>But he's the *only* person I know who opens car doors outside of
>dating situations.

We must not know the same people.

I would say for _most_ of my relationships -- both male and female -- the
driver unlocks the passenger door first.  I know I do it, and so do most
of my friends.  My fiance, and various other male friends, usually go the
extra step to open the door, too.  No, I don't think they're implying that
I'm incapable of opening the door myself, nor that I'm incapable of
standing for a few extra seconds while they get in the car first.  It's
just plain old common courtesy.  



-- 
The trick of reason is to get the imagination to seize the actual world --
if only from time to time.     -- Annie Dillard, "An American Childhood"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA (dreas)
Subject: Re: Book
Reply-To: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 21:02:03 GMT

In article 25856@galileo.cc.rochester.edu, jsmt@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Julia Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.014037.26694@sol.UVic.CA> atovorni@engr.UVic.CA writes:
>>Three more chapters makes four! </.)
>>
>>dreas
>
>Careful, dreas, your Sesame Street training is showing.

Before anyone asks: I like green eggs and ham!!!!

dreas




Xref: sparky soc.singles:33826 alt.sex:39518
From: gerg@netcom.com (Greg Andrews)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Lets be HONEST about Abusive things
Keywords: first,orgasm,sex,oral
Date: 14 Dec 92 17:25:48 GMT
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:
>]  
>] Actually, drieux, I think you've got it backwards. Women tend to be the
>] most irrational and unstable when we have *not* encountered an Orgasm
>] recently. 

     [....]
>] 
>]
>
>but Stef that is PRECISELY my point.
>
>ORGASMS are WORSE than CRACK when it comes to Addictive
>Qualities that cause unstable personality disorders when
>faced with the classic withdrawl symptoms! Women have ONE
>little Orgasm and they are off on a Life of Moral Debauchery
>from then on out. Buy Him Ice Cream, Let Him have the Remote
>Control to the TV, just so long as she can get her ORGASM!!!![1]
>
     [....]
>
>[1] this is written in a gender specific tone,
>as we all know that there is NO SEX without a
>potential gestation, and therefore only those
>persons capable of a gestational_potentiality_event_structure
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>can actually have SEX, and it is alledged that SEX is
>a pre_requisite to an ORGASM.
>

Hmmm...  What are the elements of this struct, and are they
declared real or integer?

Is this another example of how ObjektOrientedProgramming is
infiltrating everyday life?

What about cross-platform portability?  This raises yet again the
burning questions "Is Your Long As Long As My Long?", and "Are You
Little-Endian Or Big-Endian?"

  -Greg (just a NUXI-an at heart)

-- 
:::::::::::::::::::  Greg Andrews  gerg@netcom.com  :::::::::::::::::::
Heard in a Silicon Valley bar:  HE:  What's your sign?
                               SHE:  Unsigned integer.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Over 40 and single....Anyone that "OLD"?
Date: 15 Dec 92 14:29:09 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Dec15.073230.16750@unislc.uucp> erc@unislc.uucp (Ed Carp) writes:
>Louise Billi (aa752@cleveland.Freenet.Edu) wrote:
>
>: 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?
>
>Nonsense.  The most fun date I ever had was 16 years my senior (I'm 35).
>We dated for almost a year - we had so much in common it wasn't even funny.
>
>I have found personally that most women under 30 are too interested into
>partying, "being seen", and spending $$$ to be of much interest to me.
>There *have* been notable exceptions, but for the most part, that's what I've
>seen.

How fortunate you found a woman as mature and sophisticated as yourself.
It gives me a warm happy glow. I can't think of a more deserving person.
I'm so happy.
 
================================================================================
 Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. There ain't no more.
                                 doh#0000000005
================================================================================
Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.pagan,alt.romance,alt.sex,alt.polyamory,talk.religion.misc