HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: keithg@cnmhnet.UUCP (keith garrard)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Fetishes?
Date: 18 Dec 92 17:56:26 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: California-Nevada Methodist Homes

In article <1992Dec16.020043.21531@netcom.com> cocoa@netcom.com writes:
>round, plump shoulders.  Does anyone else find this extremely attractive?
>Or am I just too weird?
>Just me,
>little 'e'

Well, I wouldn't call you weird.  I have to say that this is 
the first time I've heard of a shoulder fetish.  I'm so into
small women's feet, that I don't think any fetish is weird
anymore.  Give me a size 5-6 female foot, with nicely shaped
toes, polished of course, and well-pedicured, and I am just as
happy as I can be.  No, you're not weird, little "e".
--Keith
From: ftlao@acad3.alaska.edu (OSSANDER LINDA A)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Over 40 and single....Anyone that "OLD"?
Date: 20 Dec 92 03:05:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: acad3.19DEC199219051490
Organization: University of Alaska - Fairbanks
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41.UAC

In article <1h0nijINNf8u@mirror.digex.com>, huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) writes...
>In article <1992Dec17.192523.7970@netcom.com> aahz@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine) writes:
>}In article <1gpnecINNqe7@mirror.digex.com> huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) writes:
>}>In article <3b+rr8q@lynx.unm.edu> blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.) writes:
>}>}r. (a 28 year old generation X baby-buster child, and proud of it :)
>}>
>}>Let's see:  1992 - 28 = 1964, which was the final year of the baby boom.

Ha ha ha! Ya I am 43 and proud of it!  I have twins who are 18.  I didn't want
a bunch of kids but two was and is nice.

                           -Linda-
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Picking up the Tab (was: Re: What is gold-digging?)
Date: 18 Dec 1992 12:43:27 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

In article <15914@auspex-gw.auspex.com> johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
}In article <1992Dec15.190223.22158@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith) writes:
}|Please be advised that I am well-aware of the traditions here, being a
}|life-long citizen of this country.  I am simply questioning the built-in
}|assumptions _behind_ the tradition.  An answer like:
}|
}|	"But this is how it has _always_ been done."
}|
}|does not "cut it" with me.... you have to do better!
}
}Fine.  However, I live with it and you bitch about it.  Which do you think
}is more attractive?  If I ask a woman out for dinner on a "traditional
}date" I am doing so because I want to get to know the woman better.  I am
}asking for the pleasure of her company and the chance to display attractive
}qualities that I might have, one of which is my generosity to those that
}I care for.  I think that treating someone to dinner at a nice restaurant 
}providing interesting conversation, and generally pampering someone is
}a pretty nice thing to do.  I figure that women like nice things done for
}them instead of getting stuck with a bill when they didn't expect it.

Well, in Cro-Magnon terms it's an opportunity for you to display your
prowess as a hunter.  Few of us modern cavemen really go out hunting for
wild game anymore, but we still engage in symbolic hunting by going to work
to "make a killing in the market" or "bring home the bacon."  All of this
translates into little paper rectangles with pictures of dead presidents.
At the restaurant they get translated back into food.

The modern innovation is the presence of females in the traditionally all-male
hunting parties.

[some stuff deleted here]

}|Are you sure that a "smiley" is not appropriate here? 
}
}Probably, but I rarely use smilies.  I don't believe in them.

Yeah, they're for weenies who are afraid of the flames.

[more stuff deleted here]

-- Herb Huston
-- huston@access.digex.com
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: Thu, 17 Dec 92 00:45:22 GMT

In article <4beZ032cc4EN00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jsp@pls.amdahl.com writes:
>Hey John, is it ok for me to say that Greg is devoid of a sense of
>humor? 

As a famous man once said, "I laugh when I hear something funny."
From: jmd@bear.com (Josh Diamond)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Picking up the Tab (was: Re: What is gold-digging?)
Date: 17 Dec 92 17:05:57 GMT
	<1992Dec16.055755.8269@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
	<15926@auspex-gw.auspex.com> <8059@news.duke.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Bear, Stearns & Co. - FAST
In-reply-to: diamond@acpub.duke.edu's message of 16 Dec 92 20:27:43 GMT


In article <8059@news.duke.edu> diamond@acpub.duke.edu (Elizabeth Abrams) writes:

   In article <15926@auspex-gw.auspex.com> johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
   >When I go out to dinner at a restaurant, whether it`s
   >dutch or I'm paying, I will choose a place that I can afford to order anything
   >that I want off the menu on that particular night.  

   This sounds like a good idea to me too.  However, given my current financial
   state, I could *maybe* affort McDonald's for two.  I guess that means I
   just can't ask anyone out until I inherit money, or something.  

Usually, when I go out with someone, we roughly alternate picking up
the tab.  Alternatively, whoever picks the place gets to pay...

Spidey!!!

--
You don't hunt ducks with a turnip! 

 /\ \  / /\  Josh Diamond                                          jmd@bear.com
//\\ .. //\\ AKA Spidey!!!                        ...!ctr.columbia.edu!ursa!jmd
//\((  ))/\\
/  < `' >  \                                              Do whatever it takes.
From: mlinda@novell.com (M'Linda Taylor)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Females have it easy!
Keywords: A Joke, Right????
Date: 17 Dec 92 17:44:28 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Novell Inc., Austin, TX.

In article <1992Dec17.154039.14407@cbfsb.cb.att.com> sms@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (steven.m.stein) writes:
>In article <JoeMan.7.724562272@> JoeMan@ (Joe Tooman) writes:
>>Not to bitch or anything, but it seems to me that the female does not have
>>any problem finding a guy anytime she feels like she wants a relationship.
>>As a guy, I find that it is very hard to find a female that seems intrested.
>>---------
>>Joe Tooman
>>aa422@cleveland.freenet.edu
>>
>
>I have also found this to be somewhat true, BUT,
>
>although women do seem to be approached on a sometime daily or weekly
>basis, their problem is weeding through all the offers for a man who
>meets their standards.
>

This is all a joke, right?????

M'Linda
(Who only *thinks* about chocolate but has to admit to having
a "Cat-habit" and a "Sheltie-habit")

************************************************
*           - Lonestar -                       *
*Internet: mlinda@novell.COM                   *
*UUCP: {ames,sun,apple,amdahl}!novell!mlinda   *
************************************************
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: drmax@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Marianna Max)
Subject: Re: Picking up the Tab (was: Re: What is gold-digging?)
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 03:49:14 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.033308.21800@cbnews.cb.att.com> eleanor@cbnews.cb.att.com (Piglet) writes:

>
>In all fairness, these two really were _dates from hell_.
>Details furnished on request...
>
>
What with the weird weddings thread here and the worst cooking disasters
that's hapening over in rec.cooking, I dont' see why we shouldn't renew the
date from hell thread ....... details details (I have a tow from hell story
but no real date from hell stories, maybe I've led a sheltered life or have
a selective memory)

Max
From: gerg@netcom.com (Greg Andrews)
Subject: Re: Am I banished?
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 07:54:50 GMT

keithg@cnmhnet.UUCP (keith garrard) writes:
>In article <1gjfdpINNj93@FUNCTOR.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU> loosemore-sandra@cs.yale.edu (Sandra Loosemore) writes:
>>
>>OK, I'll post my favorite weird wedding story.  A couple of years ago
>>my younger brother got married.  At the time, neither one of them was
>>working regularly and since she's a foreigner (Japanese) there wasn't
>>much point in having a big family wedding.  So one day my mother gets
>
>OK Sandra, I have to ask about what you are saying here.
>

Why?  What is it that compels you to ask Sandra about the way she
worded her article?

>
>In the above message, you state "...since she's a foreigner (Japanese)
>there wasn't much point in having a big family wedding."  
>I've got to say that at first glance, I took offense with that.
>

On what grounds could you be offended?  Or have you decided to be
offended in someone else's place?

>
>Are you saying that foreigners aren't worth having big weddings
>for?  Or you saying that because she was a foreigner, that 
>'the marriage probably won't last long enough to have a big
>wedding for, or are you saying that Japanese aren't worth
>having big weddings for.  I hope that what you meant was that
>since her family would be unable to attend due to the fact that
>they are in Japan, that a big wedding wouldn't be practical.
>

Why do you ascribe negative meanings to her article rather than
positive ones, or even allowing the benefit of the doubt?

>
>Please clarify.
>

Why?  Why should Sandra attempt to explain her words to someone
who has already demonstrated he won't give her any slack:

	"I've got to say that at first glance, I took offense
	 with that."

who is ready to interpret her articles in the worst possible meaning:

	"Are you saying that foreigners aren't worth having big weddings
	 for?  Or you saying that because she was a foreigner, that 
	 the marriage probably won't last long enough to have a big
	 wedding for, or are you saying that Japanese aren't worth
	 having big weddings for."

who does so publically, when a short e-mail note would suffice to
satisfy him (at least for the reasons he *said* he was asking about).

If I were Sandra, all you'd get from me would be a razzberry.

That is, if you weren't already in my kill file.

  -Greg

P.S. A contribution to your Usenet Enlightenment.  Enjoy...

	cre-tin, n, 1: one afflicted with cretinism;
	         (broadly): a person with marked mental deficiency.

-- 
:::::::::::::::::::  Greg Andrews  gerg@netcom.com  :::::::::::::::::::
"I'd play with your mind, but I prefer bigger toys."
                                             -Tyger
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed Falk)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Woman: will you go out with shorter man?
Date: 18 Dec 1992 19:56:46 GMT
Organization: Sun
NNTP-Posting-Host: peregrine

In article <1992Dec13.075628.164795@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>
>I'm 5'9".  I dated a woman who's 6' tall for about a year.

How tall was she after the year was up?

		-ed falk, sun microsystems
		 sun!falk, falk@sun.com
	"Towards the end, the smell of their air began to change"
From: aahz@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Am I banished?
Date: 11 Dec 92 19:17:46 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Don't blame me, I voted for Bill 'n' Opus

In article <lihhdqINN76a@news.bbn.com> dhardin@bbn.com (Dawn Hardin) writes:
>
>This also has the added benefit of seeing the groom in tights.  (I wonder 
>how many tranquilizers I'd have to slip into my sweetie's coffee before 
>I could get him to dress up like that and if he'd be able to stand up and 
>say "I guess so" at the appropriate time.)

Yeah, Dawn's been married before, so she wouldn't be at all nervous.
Nope.  Not at all.  No way.
-- 
                         --- Aahz (the *other* Dan Bernstein)
                             @netcom.com 

Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6

"Would you like some toast?!"
From: martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: New Relationships...
Date: 19 Dec 92 19:13:05 GMT
	<1992Dec15.230110.23872@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
	<lj1b0iINNnqp@news.bbn.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science
In-reply-to: dhardin@bbn.com's message of 17 Dec 92 16:34:26 GMT

In article <lj1b0iINNnqp@news.bbn.com> dhardin@bbn.com (Dawn Hardin) writes:

   How would you like walking around with a frog in your drawers that
   you couldn't get rid of?

What an astute metaphore of the masculine condition.
--
		Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/martinc@cs.unc.edu
     Dept. of Computer Science/CB #3175 UNC-CH/Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175
	    3611 University Dr #13M/Durham, NC 27707/(919) 419 1754
     "Oh God, please help me be civil in tongue, pure in thought, and able
      to resist the temptation to laugh uncontrollably.  Amen." -- Rob T
From: jmd@bear.com (Josh Diamond)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Rules
Date: 18 Dec 92 18:54:58 GMT
	<8fKV03UOc35G00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>
	<1992Dec16.004123.11907@netcom.com>
	<47ri039qc4CW00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>
	<MARTINC.92Dec17172048@grover.cs.unc.edu>
Organization: Bear, Stearns & Co. - FAST
In-reply-to: martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu's message of 17 Dec 92 22:20:48 GMT


In article <MARTINC.92Dec17172048@grover.cs.unc.edu> martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:

   In article <47ri039qc4CW00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston) writes:


      Hey, wait a minute.  If *we're* confused and *you're* confused, then
      who the hell knows the rules around here? 

   Well you might ask.

Yes. Ask.

Rules? Rules?
We ain't got no steenkin rules!
We don't need to show you no steenkin rules!



Spidey!!!

--
You don't hunt ducks with a turnip! 

 /\ \  / /\  Josh Diamond                                          jmd@bear.com
//\\ .. //\\ AKA Spidey!!!                        ...!ctr.columbia.edu!ursa!jmd
//\((  ))/\\
/  < `' >  \                                              Do whatever it takes.
From: martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Size 8? (Re: What is NOT attractive to "SINGLE" men)
Date: 15 Dec 92 01:25:29 GMT
	<MARTINC.92Dec11221443@hatteras.cs.unc.edu>
	<1992Dec14.173038.8516@b8.b8.ingr.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science
In-reply-to: larry@b8.b8.ingr.com's message of 14 Dec 92 17:30:38 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.173038.8516@b8.b8.ingr.com> larry@b8.b8.ingr.com (Larry Billings) writes:

   In article <MARTINC.92Dec11221443@hatteras.cs.unc.edu>, martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
   > 
   > Hey, Beth, if you can get him to stop off here, I'll hold him down while
   > you kick him.
   > 
   > --
   > 		Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/martinc@cs.unc.edu

   Question is, will she be kicking him for what he said or you for calling her
   "Beth"?  Well, someone had to bring that thread back. :)

I haven't called her Betsy yet.


--
		Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/martinc@cs.unc.edu
     Dept. of Computer Science/CB #3175 UNC-CH/Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175
	    3611 University Dr #13M/Durham, NC 27707/(919) 419 1754
     "Oh God, please help me be civil in tongue, pure in thought, and able
      to resist the temptation to laugh uncontrollably.  Amen." -- Rob T
From: jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Picking up the Tab (was: Re: What is gold-digging?)
Date: 17 Dec 92 00:22:50 GMT
Reply-To: jsp@pls.amdahl.com
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

gds@york.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner) writes:

}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.  

Another difference in attitude.  It actually bothers me *a lot* when
someone I take out on a date offers to leave the tip (or, actually I
should say that it *would* bother me if it happened; thankfully, it
hasn't yet.  Is this "You get the bill and I'll get the tip" deal
something new for the nineties that I should expect to encounter when
I get back into dating?  Frankly, I'd never even heard of that way of
splitting the cost until this thread.)  And it's not because the tip is 
so much less than the bill.  Perhaps I'm just hopelessly antiquated, but 
if I'm treating someone to dinner, I really prefer that they not know how 
much I'm spending.  To me, it's the same reason that makes most people 
remove the price tag from Christmas presents.  And for the woman to leave 
the tip, she kind of has to know the final bill.  By the same token, I
might add, if someone is treating me, I would never even consider
offering to leave the tip; it would seem downright rude, almost like
I was trying to underhandedly find out how much they spent on me.

--James Preston
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Picking up the Tab (was: Re: What is gold-digging?)
Date: 18 Dec 1992 12:29:05 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

In article <1992Dec15.194604.26101@linus.mitre.org> lkahn@mitre.org (Larry Kahn) writes:
}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).  
}>
}
}I will be ever so glad when all this "traditional" stuff goes by the 
}wayside and things like this are approached more equally and fairly regardless of gender.  

If the behavior is biologically based, you might have a long waiting period.

}Seems to me it shouldn't matter who asks who, you both want to spend time 
}together.  IMHO the truly objective approach would be to split it up 
}approximately according to income.  Not that I think you have to go into 
}great details, but if one person is an attorney (ugh) and one is a teacher 
}something like a 75-25 split might be in order.

Suppose the attorney just graduated from law school and is heavily in debt
while the teacher has amassed a portfolio of common stocks (it *is* possible).
Might not net worth be a more appropriate criterion than income?

}And another thing, why do women expect you to open the car door for them just because they're female?  If there's a good reason (like you're carrying a pizza or physically unable to, sure I'd do it (for a man also)), but I don't think women should be treated THAT differently just because they're women.

Opening and closing car doors used to require more exertion than it does today.
I well remember having to slam car doors to be sure that they were secured,
and this was in the pre-seatbelt era.

-- Herb Huston
-- huston@access.digex.com
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: larry@b8.b8.ingr.com (Larry Billings)
Subject: Re: Fetishes?
Organization: Intergraph
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 20:18:00 GMT




In article <1992Dec16.020043.21531@netcom.com>, cocoa@netcom.com writes:
> So there's all this argument about intellectual, physical, etc., button-pushing
> and fetishes and what does it.  Weirdly enough, my physical fetish is,
> round, plump shoulders.  Does anyone else find this extremely attractive?
> Or am I just too weird?

Does the answer to the second question really depend on the answer to the 
first question?

>
 
> Just me,
> 
> little 'e'
> 
> (My 3 year old nephew Andrew has really cute, round shoulders :)

Speak of robbing the cradle.

> -- 
> *  *  *    Chocolatier at Arms, and Castle Wetware Liason            *  *  *
> *  *  *    e-mail: cocoa@netcom.com   -    voicemail: 415-337-4940   *  *  *
> 

Just me---being silly again.
Larry
-- 
Larry

             This .sig file has been purposely left blank.
Xref: sparky soc.singles:34386 soc.women:21669 soc.men:21439 ba.singles:2740
From: kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.women,soc.men,ba.singles
Subject: Re: Duck and Jive (was Re: Pre-Sex Contract )
Date: 19 Dec 92 03:11:30 GMT
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI

In article <1992Dec16.190828.20581@netcom.com> desiree@netcom.com (Desiree Champagne) writes:
>
>	I am grossly tired of men that whine about double-standards
>in this here life.  Yes, I understand that are plenty of double-standards
>that we as a society have introduced.  And we all should be attuned to
>those "false" double standards and strive to rid ourselves of them.  But
>the bottom line is:  there are natural double standards over which
>we shouldn't have any control.  

What's "natural" about state-mandated child support in the first place 
though? Seems to me that the "natural" behavior for an unwilling father is 
to just walk. It's the woman who keeps on insisting on an artificial, 
socially-constructed "solution" to her "natural" problem. 

Consider carefully the side on which your bread is buttered, Ms. Champain.
Is it "nature" or "artificiality" that underpins the status quo?

>	As far as the inequality goes about you wanting the child,
>but her not -- as soon as you can figure out how your body will play
>host to the baby, your body will nurture and grow stout with the
>endeavor and your body, mind and emotions are involved in the action
>of childbirth -- then you have a cause of action.  Until then, it is
>a double standard -- and it's one that we *cannot* fix.  Get it?
>
>	Shall we now sequeway in the moaning cries of "but then
>the woman can come after me for childsupport?"  In a nutshell,
>my response is "tough shit".  

And in a nutshell is exactly where it belongs. Since it's the woman who's
begging and pleading for Big Brother to take care of her problems, the
"tough shit" attitude, when taken to its logical conclusion, results in her 
getting ABSOLUTELY NO HELP WHATSOEVER with the support of her child. Zip. 
Nada. Zilch.

There's your "state of nature", Ms. Champain. Enjoy it to the fullest.

							- Kevin
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: liz@vfl.paramax.com (Liz Loquacious)
Subject: Re: Women, Cats, & Chocolate
Followup-To: soc.singles
Organization: Paramax Systems
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:12:29 GMT

In article <thurlow.723957181@convex.convex.com>, thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow) writes:
|> In <1992Dec6.230007.16494@csi.uottawa.ca> misrael@csi.uottawa.ca (Mark Israel) writes:
|> 
|> >(BTW, I was delighted at PhillyBoink to meet people who 
|> >had never read rec.humor, so that I could relate the most hackneyed old 
|> >chestnuts as fresh material.)
|> 
|> Oh well, I guess someone had to fill in for a hoarse Liz, eh?

Rob!  Are you insulting my humor here!  I'm not quite sure how to take
this...and I thought you were a nice guy!  (watch it or I'll put that TM in!)

Liz Loquacious

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: sexual addiction
Keywords: inappropriate,postings,belong,elsewhere
Organization: QQQCLC
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:53:04 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.192334.20608@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> mel@niblick.ecn.purdue.edu (Meloney D Cregor) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.131441.15214@netcom.com> aahz@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine) writes:
>>Problem is, a number of people believe that the phrase, "beyond
>>voluntary control," is incorrect.  If it were, then we're all addicted
>>to breathing, eating, and sleeping -- which sounds just a little
>>ridiculous.
>
>Those are not behaviors.  Those are functions.

	The fascinating thing about sex is that it falls somewhere
between being pure behavior and pure function.

						Kayembee
Newsgroups: soc.singles