HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.)
Subject: Re: Peeking through the curtain
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 92 06:04:03 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1992Apr7.140035.7681@midway.uchicago.edu> pooh@group-w.uchicago.edu (Pooh @ the Utility Muffin Research Kitchen) writes:
>In article <ptpj77h@lynx.unm.edu> blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.) writes:
>>There's still something wrong with this...what's wrong with asking for
>>monogamy >as it is<. 
>Nothing ... as long as that's what you really want.  But what if you
>don't really need or want monogamy?  An open relationship is when you
>don't NEED to be the only one your SO is sleeping with.  If you want
>to talk about trust, it's about trusting your SO to keep coming back
>to you even if he does sleep with someone else.  You trust that the
>bonds that hold you together are so strong that sex with another
>person can't pull them apart.  

Yes, but saying 'I trust you enough to not sleep with other people' (your
attribution) is the *same* *thing* as a monogamous relationship, only by
having to come out and >express< your trust, it weakens that trust.
Ok- some clarity is called for....
If you tell your SO you love them, say, once a day, that is fine.
But if you feel it necessary to tell them you love them, say, 12 times a
day, that is excessive, and shows that your confidence on if you love them,
or not, is weak.
If the bonds are strong enough, the 'trust' should be implicit in the
relationship, and not have to be expressed. Expressing that trust like
that, to me, is saying 'I don't totally trust you, so I'll say that I
do, so you'll keep honest.'
If your in a viable open relationship, then the matter has already been
discussed, hopefully, and re-iteration is (or should be) unnecessary.
This all, of course, is implying re-iteration takes place.
I understand that a good 'open' relationship is possible. Its not >my< ball
of cookies, but it is possible. Most 'open' relationships >I've< seen,
though, are of the type described above, and that I see as 'unhealthy'.
r.
From: epg@nature.berkeley.edu ()
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Newspaper personals (history...) - update
Date: 13 Apr 1992 18:21:40 GMT
Organization: U.C.B.
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: nature.berkeley.edu
CC: puter@no1home.nashvil.ingr.com

Puter tries to tempt me with:
>Yes, it's so impolite to talk with your mouth full! :)
>Want a piece of chocolate, little girl?
>
>Puter           puter@no1home.nashvil.ingr.com          Go UofL Cardinals!

Puter:

You <know> I want it/need it/can't resist it/gotta have it.  Are
you sure you want to give it to me?

Just me,

little 'e'
From: aahz@netcom.com (Aahzmandius)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Peeking through the curtain
Date: 17 Apr 92 00:47:39 GMT
Organization: Bill 'n' Opus for Prez

In article <1992Apr14.130116.6622@ait.com> eleanor@ait.com (Eleanor Evans) writes:
>
>Relationships are a tangled network--I have loyalties to my sisters, my
>mother, my friends and my sweetheart.  I don't see why tightening up the
>connections to my sweetheart (as we become closer / more committed) should
>mean cutting completely certain connections to my close friends.
>
>I also happen to understand the power of lust.  If my honey or I should
>trip someone and beat her or him to the ground, I don't want either of
>us beating ourselves up over it.
>
>I want to know when he's going to have, or has had sex, and with whom.
>I want him to be careful, and safe.  I also want him to love me more
>than anyone else in the world, but I'm willing to wait for that, and
>I certainly don't intend to ask him to cut off all other connections
>just for me.

I *like* this.  Based on what you're saying here, I wouldn't call what
you've got an "open" relationship, I'd call it an "understanding"
relationship.  To me, an open relationship implies that you *expect* the
other person to get involved sexually with other people, while an
understanding relationship means only that you're accepting and
supporting if a sexual involvement does happen.

I particularly like what you said about networks of relationships.
While I expect to try to be faithful to whomever I marry, I expect her
to be accepting of my pre-existing and future relationships -- and
vice-versa, of course.
-- 
                         --- Aahz (the *other* Dan Bernstein)
                             @netcom.com 

Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6

Why is this newsgroup different from all other newsgroups?
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: tlode@isis.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: Discussion Of Romantic Songs
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: Thu, 9 Apr 92 18:37:33 GMT

In article <3840056@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM> wjb@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Bill Buse) writes:
>For a change of topics, how about a discussion of romantic songs or 
>favorite songs that could be considered to be romantic.  :-)  

For me, that's a moving target, since my favorites tend to change every
week or two, but my picks for favorite romantic songs this week would
include

        "Joyride" and "Church of your Heart" by Roxette
        "I Touch Myself" by Divinyls
        "Tall, Dark, Handsome Stranger" by Heart
        "Out-A-Touch" by Pat Benatar

Trygve
From: mjln_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mikeey J. Lin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: The "first" "move" (was Re: A R C )
Date: 10 Apr 92 17:43:19 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <65164@apple.Apple.COM> stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:

>Maybe. But then maybe the men would start playing hard to get,
>and we would have to get them drunk on truffles in order to have
>our way with them.

 	Hey! Who says men don't play hard to get?  

						Mikeey

Advice for the day : Never growl at large German Shepards, unless you      
		     waiting for a lawsuit. :->


>--
>Stef                 Where am I going, and what am I doing in this handbasket?
>stef@apple.com     
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: tlode@isis.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: Male visual orientationREFRESH
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.
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 22:35:37 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.063736.20316@ait.com> eleanor@ait.com (Eleanor Evans) writes:
>>Hey, no problem--find anything appropriate in there?  (If not, I suppose
>>you could always look through a few of my closets--now, I must admit that
>>I don't have any women's clothing in there, so you might have to look for
>>a long time, but I'd be willing to help.)
>>
>>Trygve    (Would you prefer me to turn the lights on or off in the closet?)
>
>Well, the cleavage part is not a problem.  The bare midriff I might have
>a little trouble with--oh, wait a second, I'll just raid my sister's
>closet.....

Well, even if you don't find something appropriate, we can always take it
off and--voila!--bare midriff.  (Besides, the right attitude counts for
more than ten times as much as the right wardrobe.)

>Strobe the light, of course.

Ah!  A flasher at heart!

>Piglet

Trygve
From: aahz@netcom.com (Aahzmandius)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Peeking through the curtain
Date: 9 Apr 92 11:23:48 GMT
Organization: Bill 'n' Opus for Prez

In article <65044@apple.Apple.COM> stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:
>
>Personally, what I want from an SO is the knowledge that I am the
>person they care most about in the world.  There are a lot of ways
>to express that caring and for me, physical faithfulness is not
>necessarily the most important way.

MOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(Somehow, though, I don't think we're going to be SOs........)
-- 
                         --- Aahz (the *other* Dan Bernstein)
                             @netcom.com 

Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6

Mothers are inventors by necessity
From: jwalsh@aspentec.com (Jamie Walsh)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Peeking through the curtain
Date: 8 Apr 92 19:18:54 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: Aspen Technology, Inc. Cambridge, MA.

In article <vsqj9ya@lynx.unm.edu>, blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.) writes:
> 
> I think it comes down to one issue- can you get everything you want out of a
> relationship out of a single person?
> If so, then a monogamous relationship is 'good'.
> If not, then an open relationship is 'good'.
> 
> Personally, I think I can (or should be able to) find everything, or close 
> enough to everything I 'expect' out of a relationship from one person. But
> thats just me, and ghod knows I'm not everybody ';-)

Happily Married Person steps in for brief lecture to Single Persons.
(well I read the other day that that's the purpose of soc.singles)

one more time
repeat after me

It's not how many qualities on your wish list that your partner has 
that counts. It's how much you can love your partner despite the qualities 
that are not on your list.

-- 
--jamie
	  "There's a seeker born every minute."

Internet:	jwalsh@aspentec.com
UUCP:	        uunet!aspentec!jwalsh
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich)
Subject: Re: More helpful Hints
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 20:20:04 GMT
Distribution: soc
Organization: (Ha!)

In article <1992Apr13.093740.11655@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> swt@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes:
>In article <6pwjjpj.aahz@netcom.com>,
>aahz@netcom.com (Aahzmandius) writes: 
>> In article <1992Apr12.170702.29382@panix.com> pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich) writes:
>>>paul (even now having decided not to go out and search for early zucchini)
>> 
>> Now, remember, *never* buy more than one zucchini plant.  Even one will
>> supply too much zucchini for a household of four.
>
>But it's so difficult not to put in several thousand zuccini and tomato
>plants when you haven't had a real tomato or a fresh zuccini in months.
>
>Besides, they make great gifts for friends.  And strangers.  And 
>especially enemies.

But I didn't get any zucchini. Does this mean I have supernatural
fortitude? 

Just a chinese eggplant, and it won't grow worth a darn after it's
chopped up and soaked in vinegar and sesame oil.

paul (now off deadline and wondering what to do with skate bones)


Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: mcregor@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Meloney Cregor)
Subject: Re: want-sex(women) < want-sex(men)
Organization: Dept. of Psychology, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 17:34:29 GMT

In article <kuouosINNcdt@news.bbn.com> dhardin@spcink.bbn.com (Dawn Hardin) writes:
>In article <1992Apr15.184422.10973@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlode@isis.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:

>>get a few more data points myself.
>
>
>ANALYZE ME, ANALYZE ME, you brute.

No, no nonono, Dawn.  Sheesh.  You gotta acquire those data points FIRST.
So, that should be.... ACQUIRE ME, ACQUIRE ME, you brute.

The analysis would be, well,..... never mind.


Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: kerryg@stat.rice.edu (Kerry Go)
Subject: Re: date characteristics
Organization: Dept. of Statistics, Rice University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 20:36:15 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.185139.10309@morrow.stanford.edu> FA.TJM@forsythe.stanford.edu (thom mckean) writes:
>It's much harder to ask "Want to go out sometime?" than asking for a
>"real date" (that is, giving an actual date/time/place).
>
>Asking for an unspecific "date" causes much awkwardness in both
>parties and possible feelings of rejection for the asker.  Say the
>man pops the unspecified date question, and the woman would rather
>not go...she generally feels awkward turning this person down (it's
>no fun telling a person "no, I do not want to go out with you at any
>point in my life") and the degree of rejection for the man is
>extremely high.

And even if the answer is "yes" to "Want to go out sometime?" you are really
no closer to actually doing something.

>Much safer to ask "Would you like to go see Chick Corea Friday night
>at Slim's?"  If the woman is interested, she'll say yes.  If she's
>not interested, she'll say, no, thanks, I'm busy/gotta pluck my
>eyebrows/watch the hockey game/train for the Olympics.  the man can
>then rationalize away the rejection, which is still there, but to a
>much lesser degree than in the unspecific situation.   If she's
>interested, but can't go, she'll be likely to say, "I can't, but
>perhaps we can go out on Saturday [or some other day]."

You must be very fortunate to be able to get answers like this.  Many of
the people I've asked to do things say yes if interested, but do not
distinguish between the last two situations.  For some reason, they often
get offended if I *ask* them whether they are not interested in me or not
interested in the event or time.  (As if I'm supposed to be able to read
her mind.)

!@#$%^&*()_++|!@#$%^&*()_++|!@#$%^&*()_++|!@#$%^&*()_++|!@#$%^&*()_++|!@#$%^&*(

The person I want to live my life with is the person to whom I can give the
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: richh@tigger.jvnc.net (RICHH)
Subject: LOVE IS A ZERO-SUM GAME was Love, is it a power thing?
Originator: richh@tigger.jvnc.net
Organization: JvNCnet
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 16:18:41 GMT


What I really love are catchy subject lines.

RICHH
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: liz@gvlf9-j.gvl.unisys.com (Liz Loquacious [Bradley])
Subject: Re: Do You Remember - early '60s edition
Followup-To: soc.singles
Summary: Holy candy
Organization: Unisys Defense Systems, Great Valley Labs, Paoli, Pa
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 20:40:33 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.133532.25745@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) writes:
>
>Sputniks - two pieces of blue sugared communion wafer-like disks
>           bowled and stuck together with little round candies
>           inside?
>

They had a name!  Oh, this is funny, I didn't know anyone else
thought of communion wafers when they saw these!  Hee, hee, and
we'd be eating them and saying "Body of Christ"....all the time
worrying about whether or not it was a sin!


>-Nance

--
Liz Loquacious
liz@gvl.unisys.com

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: FA.TJM@forsythe.stanford.edu (thom mckean)
Subject: Re: Revenge (Was: Re: A Slight Rant)
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 17:33:50 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.024057.17961@watdragon.waterloo.edu>,
jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
>In article <ktn0gnINNo21@news.bbn.com> dhardin@spcink.bbn.com (Dawn Hardin) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr2.192308.27901@ccu.umanitoba.ca> browns@ccu.umanitoba.ca
>>(Stuart Brown) writes:
>>
>>>Besides, if he is a genuine asshole, maybe someone will suggest an appropriate
>>>revenge.
>>
>>Now THAT'S my idea of a worthwhile thread!  Does anybody have any ideas,
>>thoughts, nasty fantasies that they'd like to share on the topic?
>>
>>So far, I've bribed my husband's roommate to put laxatives in his coffee,
>>but it's been kind of disappointing to date.  Can't find one strong
>>enough to really be amusing.  So I'm still in the market for a good
>>idea.
>
>        What level of casualties do you consider acceptable? To pick an
>entirely fictional example, I could spend time ruining my ex's alleged
>current marriage, which might make her 'unhappy' (To the extent her tiny,
>reptilian brain experiences the emotions real humans do), but it is entirely
>possible her alleged husband is a nice guy, aside from his appalling taste
>in women.
>
>        If the important thing is fucking up someone else's life, without
>regard for cost, framing them for drug smuggling, at least in the US, can
>result in the confiscation of their property under the RICO laws (Of course,
>if this doesn't work, they may return the favour). Less pleasant regimes can
>be persuaded to drag the ex off to a midnight rendezvous with mortality
>(Again this can work both ways) given the right political background for
>the ex.
>
>        Personally, if it doesn't require evacuating the timezone to limit
>fatalities, it isn't worth doing. I look at the iridium layer for inspiration...
>
>        Anyone who obsesses on 'getting even' with an ex really should
>consider getting a life.
>
>                                                                James Nicoll

I must concur with James.

"Revenge" in the sense of trying to do harm to someone else purely
for some sense of self-satisfaction is counterproductive to your own
life.  It is a waste of time.  Once the damage has been done,
repairs can ONLY be made by getting on with your life.

Think about it.  If you've been dumped/whatever, the other person
cares little for you anymore.  Seeking revenge will only confirm
their reasons for leaving you.  And it will color you as an immature
asshole, to boot.

No, the best "revenge" (if you must think of it in those terms) is
to live your life fully, to get out there and accomplish what you
want to accomplish.  Disregard the other person totally - show the
other person you don't need him or her BY NOT NEEDING HIM OR
HER.

Why let someone else have ANY control over your life after they've
given you the heave-ho?

Thom McKean
Corporate Poet

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: Peeking through the curtain
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 02:03:59 GMT
Organization: QQQCLC

In article <1992Apr13.205329.26063@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In  <7+xj3+#.barry@netcom.com>  barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>>      And so forth. What I'm trying to find in your position is a moral
>> spectrum, instead of the Old Testament, sheep-and-goats morality.
>
>So if I make an active effort to get Dan's goat I'm being an asshole, but
>if the goat leaves for greener pastures on its own, then should we meet,
>it's beautiful?
>
>I guess I feel a bit sheepish...

	And well you should; this was a sheep shot if I've ever
seen one.

						Kayembee
From: johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: DOES ANYBODY REMEMBER...
Date: 8 Apr 92 16:47:22 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Apr7.211644.22790@morrow.stanford.edu> FA.TJM@forsythe.stanford.edu (thom mckean) writes:
|In article <12345@auspex-gw.auspex.com>,
|johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
|>In article <1992Apr6.164453.11923@u.washington.edu> intrigue@milton.u.washington.edu
|>(Angelwing) writes:
|>|In article <1992Apr6.130849.17065@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com
|>|(nancy.l.colucci) writes:
|>|>
|>|>Lick-'m-Aid?
|>|>
|>|>-Nance
|>|
|>|Flavor Straws?
|>|
|>Care for a Pez?  I've got a Pez dispenser in my desk.  There's only
|>a few red ones left.
|>
|Pixie Stix.  Cocaine for kids.
|
|Thom
|
|and didja hear about the kid who died when he drank soda while
|eating Pop Rocks?

I always wondered what would happen if you pop'ed a whole fizzie in
your mouth and then drank a glass of water.

-- 
+=============================================================================+
| John Fereira                Al Bundy for President          
| johnf@auspex.com         "He's as good as the next guy"                     |
+=============================================================================+
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: tedwards@wam.umd.edu (technopagan priest)
Subject: Re: A Brilliant Idea....
Organization: University of Maryland at College Park
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 02:23:38 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.044821.20244@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> ted5@po.CWRU.Edu (Thomas E. Davidson) writes:
>	Stand up, turn off your computer, and slowly walk away from it.
>Uh-huh. Go call an old friend of the opposite sex and ask him/her if
>s/he'd be interested in going out for dinner and a movie. Don't come back
>home until three in the morning. Don't log back until until nine that night--
>and just do that to check your mail.
>	THAT, my friends, is how to stop being single.

Well, I made my last date over the computer, and will probably make my
next date over the computer, and have talked with three interesting women
over the computer in conversations probably more intimate that they would
have with me had we been talking in real life since they are less shy 
talking on the computer....

....don't go talking to women you have never met on the computer though...
most find this a little annoying...so at least walk around the terminal
room, introduce yourself to some, then go talk to them over the
computer.  :-)

-Tom
 romantic cybepunk/technopagan

P.S.: finger me!
From: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Love: Is it a power thing?
Date: 13 Apr 92 18:29:54 GMT
Reply-To: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Dept., Madison, WI

In <1992Apr12.025837.8445@u.washington.edu> hevern@cac.washington.edu (M. Hevern) writes:
>In article <1992Apr12.014246.9486@spool.cs.wisc.edu>, rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon) writes:
>> If love is a "power thing", does that mean I can buy one from Black & Decker?
>> :-)

>Maybe you and Pooh can send a joint order for your "power thing" and her
>"man thing"? You might even get a discount. (:

There used to be a comic book called "Man-Thing".  Back then, Marvel Comics
would frequently have "Giant-Size" issues with extra pages, so, as one
fellow fan pointed out, you could have an issue of "Giant-Size Man-Thing".
:-)

-- 
Michael Rawdon
rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI

"...Cause living alone is all I've ever done well."
				- Nanci Griffith, "Late Night Grande Hotel"
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: fredw@mks.com (Fred Walter)
Subject: Re: Discussion Of Romantic Songs
Organization: Mortice Kern Systems Inc., Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 02:00:54 GMT

"Tainted Love" by SoftCell

	fred "why am I here and not out dancing ?" walter
-- 
Disclaimer: everything I post is my *personal* opinion and does not represent
or reflect the opinion of the company which employs me.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. R. (Fred) Walter, Mortice Kern Systems Inc.,	Internet: fredw@mks.com
From: johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Sanctity of relationships
Date: 13 Apr 92 17:22:41 GMT
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Apr10.182135.23752@no1home.nashvil.ingr.com> puter@no1home.nashvil.ingr.com (Software Dude) writes:

| johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) sweats out:
|>In article <1992Apr8.200024.27259@midway.uchicago.edu> pooh@group-w.uchicago.edu (Pooh @ the Utility Muffin Research Kitchen) writes:
|>=Sex is a very, very messy business 
|>
|>Only if it's done right.
|>
|Who cares if it's done right. As long as it's done is okay with me!

I care if it's done right, and hopefully "she" does as well.  Software dude,
eh?  If you want to do it right you're going to have to use some hardware.
-- 
+=============================================================================+
| John Fereira                Al Bundy for President          
| johnf@auspex.com         "He's as good as the next guy"                     |
+=============================================================================+