HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject: Re: Older men and younger women
Summary: Perhaps you're asking the wrong group of people.
Keywords: older, younger, age, `Woof!'
Organization: Glassboro State College
Disclaimer: Brandy the WonderDog is almost 10, which is pretty old for a dog.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 20:24:21 GMT


"little 'e'" writes about relationships with older men that apparently just
fizzled out.  She wants to know how much stigma would be attached to such a
relationship, and why the men might not have wanted to continue it.

First, are you certain it was the age difference?  You don't report that they
actually mentioned it as a problem.

You say that you received respect from their co-workers, but it may be that
said co-workers gave the men a "nudge-nudge-wink-wink" treatment when you were
not around.  If so, and they didn't _want_ a "n-n-w-w" image, that could have
made them uncomfortable.  A stigma isn't a problem if you like having it.

Also, they may have felt (rightly or wrongly) that they couldn't be themselves
around you.  If they believed you didn't have enough common background ("where
were you when Kennedy got shot?", eg), they might have tried hiding part of
themselves and then couldn't do it anymore.

Anyway, that's just speculation (the one thing the net excels at is providing
people with speculation).  My suggestion for answering these questions:

> Why would a man not want to date a woman who is considerably younger than
> he is?  [...]  They both say that I am beautiful, caring, intelligent and
> very mature.  So if they think I'm so wonderful, why does my age matter?

is to ask _them_.  Maybe they were worried you'd drop them for the next guy
you met with all his hair; maybe they felt you didn't fit in with their
friends; maybe they got ribbing about you at work.  In any case, they are the
only ones who are likely to know.

If you ask them, you might get concrete answers about what bothered them and
you will be able to lay the concerns to rest -- or you won't, but you'll have
an answer.  Alternatively, they might not know; they might just say that it
felt wrong, or something.  In this case, there's not much you can do, but at
least you'll know it has nothing to do with you personally.

Besides, don't worry about youth; you'll grow out of it.  8^)


kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu      Darren F. Provine      ...njin!gboro!kilroy
"Age, n.  That period of life in which we compound for the vices that we
 still cherish by reviling those that we have no longer the enterprise to
 commit." -- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_
From: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Disc on Romantic Songs
Date: 14 Apr 92 17:41:22 GMT
Reply-To: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Dept., Madison, WI

In <1992Apr13.151517.3477@infonode.ingr.com> chris@medch.b17a.ingr.com (Chris Hudson) writes:
>One lyric that always gets to me is one on the Yes - Big Generator cd.  
>Unfortunately I can't remember the name of the song, but the lyric is:

>  Whenever I needed someone - you were there when I needed you
>  You saved me from falling - saved me from falling
>  I'm so in love with you...

Sounds like "Final Eyes".

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

Can't let go - there's a madness in my soul tonight.
				- Bryan Ferry, "Can't Let Go"
From: gwangung@byron.u.washington.edu (Roger Tang)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: The Second Move
Date: 16 Apr 92 16:07:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Apr16.160717.4587
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Apr16.131351.23839@cbfsb.cb.att.com> jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton) writes:
>Your stretchin it here Kiran,
>Perhaps Anglewing has but to bat her eyes and can have any man.

	Pretty much so.

	So, in that case, why change?

-- 
	"I got into theatre originally to pick up girls. Unfortunately, all I
found were women..."
e-mail:  gwangung@milton.u.washington.edu
From: sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Sanctity of relationships
Date: 9 Apr 92 23:58:41 GMT
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <1992Apr9.181931.8807@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlode@isis.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.153446.21990@panix.com> pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich) writes:
>
>I don't know about this one--I've already had a couple of women decide
>that they were in relationships with me even though I didn't know them.
>The most recent one was someone I met while leaving a party who apparently
>dated me for some time without my knowing about it (or, indeed, having
>any contact with her at all), and I only found out about it when she
>called me a few months later and broke up with me.  

Sheesh...and I thought I was the only one this sort of thing happened
to. Mine wasn't quite so pleasant...a lot more like "Play Misty for Me"...

Steve
From: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Male visual orientationREFRESH
Date: 10 Apr 92 04:07:31 GMT
Reply-To: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Dept., Madison, WI

In <1992Apr9.163257.8282@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> drmax@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Marianna Max) writes:
>In article <1992Apr9.153055.28148@u.washington.edu> intrigue@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing) writes:
>>Oh *reeally*, Michael.  Well I'm not married, so I must be single.  Nyah! 

>>Angelwing - Do you see a ring on this finger?  *I* don't see a ring on
>>this finger.

>Yeh, she only said she wasn't looking, makes her that much more attractive
>for the likes of Rich. More of a challenge you know. Go ahead and try to
>seduce Angelwing she dares ya.

Oh, I'm sure she'd be more than I could handle...

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

No optimistic outlook survives contact with the human race.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: userisra@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca (Mark Israel)
Subject: Welcome back!
Originator: lnds@zeus.biochem.ualberta.ca
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 08:56:49 GMT

In article <92098.220232SEK@psuvm.psu.edu>, SEK@psuvm.psu.edu (Sonja Kueppers) writes:

> -----------------------------Sonja Kueppers------------------------------
> |SEK@PSUVM (bitnet)            ____  "Sex should be friendly.  Otherwise|
> |SEK@PSUVM.psu.edu             \bi/   stick to mechanical toys; it's    |
> |MaBellNet: (814) 867-1805      \/    more sanitary." TEFL, Heinlein    |
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Welcome back, Sonja!  Are you going to drop in on your fan club,
alt.sex.sonja?

userisra@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca		Mark Israel
Instinctive grammatical moralizer.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle)
Subject: Re: A R C
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 18:28:03 GMT

eleanor@ait.com (Eleanor Evans) writes:

>Apropos of which, get those votes in!  The poll is still continuing.
>In case you've forgotten the question:  Women, please e-mail me whether 
>you are or are not aggressive in initiating relationships, and whether 
>you wish you were or not.  

Do ask them whether they mean aggressive like Angelwing (shows up at
the same restaurant) or like Teri (asks men out)

It's easy to claim one is "aggressive" but the claim is meaningless
unless aggressive is defined.
-- 
"The truffle is not an outright aphrodisiac, but it may in certain
 circumstances make women more affectionate and men more amiable."
                                                ...Brillat-Savarin
From: kahn@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Amy S Kahn)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: THE ELEMENTS OF SEDUCTION was (Re: Request : Dating advice from women)
Date: 8 Apr 92 15:37:06 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Apr6.150735.27547@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> drmax@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Marianna Max) writes:
>In article <1992Apr5.195219.18854@tigger.jvnc.net> richh@tigger.jvnc.net (RICHH) writes:

(RICHH's synopsis of Shakespeare's Richard III deleted)

>Is anyone maybe getting an idea of why many women feel the need to protect
>themselves from men, not just the rapist, but the guy next door that seems
>oh so charming? 
>
>MaX

Oh, I hear ya, MaX.  I, myself, find nothing more frightening than a man
with a wonderfully sarcastic wit and a terrific sense of humor.  Nothing,
that is, except a person without a sense of humor.  Here's a dollar, buy a
clue.  And please be careful, there's an entire comedy industry at stake.
 -- ASK
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: richh@tigger.jvnc.net (RICHH)
Subject: ROMANTIC SONGS
Originator: richh@tigger.jvnc.net
Organization: JvNCnet, Princeton University, NJ
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 15:41:07 GMT

Monica has reminded me of just how romantic the Violent Femmes can be,
when they want to be.  Note how the person in the song below, pines so
for his love, that he doesn't even care if she has changed.  He still
adores and cherishes her.
 
 "Fat"
    by the Violent Femmes
 
 
I hope you got fat
'Cause if you got really fat
You just might want to see me come back
I don't care how heavy or how skinny
Just gimme something to love
A little extra weight
Would never look no nicer on nobody else but you
And I could always use a little bit more to hold on to
And If I get a fright in the middle of the night
I'll cling to you
 
RICHH
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: dave@iastate.edu (David C Rossow)
Subject: Anti-Romantic Songs...(frustration relievers)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 06:22:36 GMT

The following list of songs are excellent at relieving frustration,
especially when I play them on guitar.  It helps to have the volume set
at slightly obnoxious though.  These songs have absolutly no romantic
implications what so ever.

	1. Fade to Black / Whiplash		Metallica
	2. Reign in Blood			Slayer
	3. China White / The Zoo		Scorpions
	4. How Will I Laugh Tomorrow ...
	   When I Can't Even Smile Today	Suicidal Tendencies
	5. My Darkest Hour			Megadeth
	6. Losing My Religion			R.E.M.
	7. Orgasmatron				Motorhead
	8. Comfortably Numb			Pink Floyd
	9. Nice Day for a Funeral		Overkill
       10. Who Made Who	/ Razor's Edge		AC-DC

This list is positively not complete.  Such is life.

	"There are things known, and there are things unknown.
		And in between there are The Doors."
			- Jim Morrison

-- 
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
	"I spilled spot remover on my dog.  Now he's gone."
	"I have a large sea shell collection that I keep scattered across
the beaches of the world."	- Stephen Wright
-- 
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
	"I spilled spot remover on my dog.  Now he's gone."
	"I have a large sea shell collection that I keep scattered across
the beaches of the world."	- Stephen Wright
From: gwangung@byron.u.washington.edu (Roger Tang)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Soc.singles discography
Keywords: Songs
Date: 15 Apr 92 16:22:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Apr15.162213.1209
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <2387@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>Here is my "Insulin needed really, really bad"* list of songs:
>* These songs are just too romantically "sweet" for my own good.

>"Unchained Melody"		[Forgot...]
				Righteous Brothers

>	[Heard the song too much when GHOST came out.]

	The perfect antidote for this is to play the Manhattan Transfer 
version. Cures insulin shock immediately.

-- 
	"I got into theatre originally to pick up girls. Unfortunately, all I
found were women..."
e-mail:  gwangung@milton.u.washington.edu
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: richh@tigger.jvnc.net (RICHH)
Subject: THE LEFT HAND OF DAMPNESS
Originator: richh@tigger.jvnc.net
Organization: Snappy Subject Lines r Us
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 17:45:52 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.153015.1723@u.washington.edu> intrigue@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing) writes:

<stuff>

RICHH
From: pooh@group-w.uchicago.edu (Pooh @ the Utility Muffin Research Kitchen)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Time for Therapy?
Date: 10 Apr 92 12:21:23 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Medieval England, Iowa

In article <1992Apr10.015342.5329@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> sl298025@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Lawrence Livermore) writes:
>So, my question is: how does one know when one is in a situation that requires
>professional help?

Easy.  When your life is not working the way you have it going right
now, and you don't know how to change it.

>When is it truly an addiction that has to be treated?

When it's getting in the way of you living your life the way you want to.

>I want this fixed fast and cheap if it is something that requires professional
>attention.

Careful.  You get what you pay for.

Pooh
      pooh@group-w.uchicago.edu
Xref: sparky soc.singles:10865 soc.men:8261 soc.women:8818
From: ahsiung@bbn.com (Anita Hsiung)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Makeup and be Friends
Date: 9 Apr 1992 00:28:24 GMT
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
Reply-To: ahsiung@labs-n.bbn.com (Anita Hsiung)
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

In article <9204082056.AA00205@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com> GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu writes:
>
>        small 'e' admits to not using makeup.
>
>        GOOD. I *always* thought my girlfriend looked better without it.
>        Waste of time. Misleading. Bad for your skin. Carcinogens.
>        And will give you a *very* bad reputation ( if you're lucky ;) ).

Well, depends where you are and what you do.  Like, you dress up a bit
for work, wear shirts without holes in them, nice shoes, and makeup.
After work, you can take off the makeup, wear tank tops and miniskirts
and that's fine by me!  In school, I never wore makeup.  At work here,
well...  Let's say you sorta feel like you're naked if you don't have
at least eyeliner on.

	-- Anita --



---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Anita Hsiung       |                                                    |
| ahsiung@bbn.com    | "Roads?  Where we're going, we don't need roads!"  |
| BBN, Inc.          |                               Doc Brown            |
| Canoga Park, CA    |                                                    |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: (Traditional) Sanctity of relationships
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 20:16:21 GMT
Organization: QQQCLC

In article <1992Apr12.084729.18669@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca> userisra@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca (Mark Israel) writes:
>In article <x_qjzkq.barry@netcom.com>, barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>> Ever hear the saying, "all's fair in love and war"? That's the
>> traditional wisdom on this question. The tradition in our culture is 
>> that a person is fair game right up to the moment they marry, and off 
>> limits thereafter. Oh, there was a slight quandary if it were your best
>> friend's girl you were after, perhaps, and a serious practical problem 
>> if her current sweetie were mean and jealous and a lot bigger than you 
>> :-). But mostly it was OK to chase someone who was already seeing 
>> someone else.                                              ^^^^^^
>
>   By "seeing", I presume you mean "going steady with"?  But "going
>steady" didn't (officially) exist in (for example) upper-class Victorian
>England:  if you weren't engaged to be married, you were completely
>unattached.  So it's not surprising that there were no rules to cover
>an unheard-of situation.

	I agree "going steady" is pretty much an invention of 1950s
America. But courting is a old custom, and we are really saying the
same thing.: that a person who was being courted by another was not
considered off limits, until rather recently.

>   And weren't engaged women considered to be (at least slightly) off
>bounds?  If not, what was the purpose of engagement rings?

	Unless I misremember, engagement rings are a 20th century
phenomenon, brought to us courtesy of a long-term ad campaign by the
diamond industry.

	I know less of England than the US, but my impression is that
"all's fair in love and war" applied. I mean, if you caused the end of
an engagement and then didn't marry the woman, yourself, you were
without doubt a cad, but as long as it was True Love, you had a lot of
leeway.

>> you could tell a story about two close friends trying to sabotage one 
>> another, chasing after the same woman (e.g., HOLIDAY INN) and no moral 
>> quandary is ever suggested - it's a "light romantic comedy".
>
>   I haven't seen the film.  Is it clear that the woman is "going steady"
>with one of the men?

	I don't recall specifically. I do recall that Bing Crosby had
historical precedence (i.e., had been chasing her longer). But if you
watch these old films, the pattern is clear: short of chasing a married
person, the morality of your actions are judged by seriousness of intent,
not by the object of your affection's other attachments. If you "stole"
someone else's sweetie, it was expected that you intended marriage, in
which case it was OK. Except to the other suitors, of course :-).

>Now that marriage is 
>largely a *legal* term, why treat married couples differently from 
>unmarried ones?

	Good question.

-  From the Crow's Nest  -                Kenn Barry
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTRIC AVENUE:    			barry@netcom.com
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: intrigue@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing)
Subject: Re: More Disc on Romantic Songs
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 22:35:43 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.211619.3913@morrow.stanford.edu> FA.TJM@forsythe.stanford.edu (thom mckean) writes:
>I suppose a discussion of "romantic" music is appropriate to this
>group (I hope I don't incur the cynical wrath of Angelwing...).

Oh geeze .. I guess I'll let you off the hook *this* time.  But don't get
used to it.

Angelwing - I've already been an asshole today.

*------------------------------------------------------------------*
* 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: tlode@isis.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: Peeking through the curtain
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 18:20:27 GMT

In article <7sqj2ff@lynx.unm.edu> blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.) writes:

>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.

I have to take issue with this--how often and in what way you express
your love to your SO should depend on you and your SO, not distributed
through some sort of quota system.  Once a day and twelve times a day
are perhaps both a bit extreme, but I've known people who wouldn't be
comfortable with more than once a day and others who really wanted to
be told twelve times a day.  Fortunately, saying "I love you" in words
or otherwise isn't a limited resource that we're in danger of running
out of if we fail to use it sparingly.

Trygve 
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: eleanor@ait.com (Eleanor Evans)
Subject: Re: Peeking through the curtain
Organization: Artificial Intelligence Technologies, Inc.
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 22:25:11 GMT

>I can believe that there are probably some quite viable relationships where
>both partners have agreed on 'openness', but for the vast majority of 'em
>it one partner yakking the other one off.

I can buy this.  That's certainly true of half the "open" relationships
I've seen.  Actually, it's true of all the ones that called themselves
"open".  

My approach?  I'm so glad you asked.  My view is that there are times at
which physical intimacy is a necessary component of relationships among
friends.  I don't see "I'm sorry, I can hold you / touch you / make love
to you, I've got a SO" as a valid reason for rejecting that component.
The only way my partner can hurt me is emotional infidelity.  Of course,
excess physical activity with other people would give me a clue that
there was something wrong in our relationship, but the occasional foray
doesn't concern me.


Piglet--standing out on a branch and listening for that saw...
From: bruce@supr.scm.liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Male visual orientationREFRESH
Date: 10 Apr 92 13:53:09 GMT
 ago.edu><1992Apr8.005319.19993@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu><1992Apr8.025018.4511@midway.uchicago.edu>
Organization: Centre for Mathematical Software Research, Univ. Liverpool, UK
Nntp-Posting-User: bruce
In-reply-to: pooh@group-w.uchicago.edu's message of 8 Apr 92 02:50:18 GMTLines: 15

>>>>> On 8 Apr 92 02:50:18 GMT, pooh@group-w.uchicago.edu (Pooh @ the Utility Muffin Research Kitchen) said:
> I nominate Angelwing for the Soc.Singles.Fantasy.Goddess for
> the male contingent.  Why, whenever she posts I can hear men
> for thousands of miles around breaking into a sweat. :-)
Oh, absolutely!  Definitely sweatworthy.  Or is it just the heat?
(It's just become so hot here that I'm not wearing my winter coat.
Must be Spring at last.)

> Pooh
>       pooh@group-w.uchicago.edu

Bruce (Just *don't* mention the election.  Please.)
--
Bruce Stephens.  Centre for Mathematical Software Research, Liverpool Univ.
Internet: bruce@uxb.liv.ac.uk     JANET: bruce@uk.ac.liv.uxb
From: dhardin@bbn.com (Dawn Hardin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Male visual orientationREFRESH
Date: 13 Apr 1992 18:34:19 GMT
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
Reply-To: dhardin@spcink.bbn.com (Dawn Hardin)
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

In article <1992Apr11.151859.8012@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> mcregor@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Meloney Cregor) writes:
>In article <12407@auspex-gw.auspex.com> johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
>
>>Of course she would.  She just told us she has tremendous hooters.  Since
>>I recently attended a "Tremendous Hooter Management" BOF I'm no longer
>>timorous when I meet someone like Angelwing.
>
>Fascinating.  I never found them so hard to manage that I needed to take 
>a class.  They're quite well behaved.  Most of the time, they just sit
>there and don't do anything.

Reminds me of the first time that I left the baby with a sitter to go out 
for the evening.  There I am, sitting in a room full of spotty-faced 
eternally-adolescent type males, the only female in the room, and somebody 
asked me about the baby.  Then WOOSH, the front of my blouse is suddenly 
*soaked* with milk.  Nobody ever told me the damn things just started 
*leaking* like that.  Not well behaved.  Not at all.

Dawn
From: fredw@mks.com (Fred Walter)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Peeking through the curtain
Date: 12 Apr 92 15:20:31 GMT
Organization: Mortice Kern Systems Inc., Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA

ra@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (Starcap'n Ra) writes:
>barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>>gratuitous sex.
>
>     I'm still waiting for Fred or somebody
>to define gratuitous sex.

sex just for the sake of sex

Nothing wrong with it, depending on the circumstances.

>Or did I miss that posting?

Yup, you missed it.

	fred
-- 
Disclaimer: everything I post is my *personal* opinion and does not represent
or reflect the opinion of the company which employs me.