HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: c188-ba@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Malfador)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Just blow/sex with lights on or off
Summary: What about night?
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:15:58 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley

In article <ro22eINNrlr@agate.berkeley.edu> epg@nature.berkeley.edu () writes:
>One of the best times to have sex is in the morning/early afternoon
>after a good night's sleep.  It solves the problem of energy
>conservation in more ways than one.  So have sex in the morning, it's
>good for the environment! :-)
>
>just me,
>
>little 'e'


What about night? You go to a boring job, work hard, and what do you have to
look forward to? SEX. That's right boys and girls. If you have that to look 
forward to at night, it helps you get through the day. And when night
does come, your sexual energy has reached dangerous proportions. I'll admit
in the morning is nice, but 6 hours in the morning really wears you out for
the rest of the day. I guess if you have a weekend free, that would suffice,
but if your on a weekday, it sure makes work look unattractive. 

The best time to have sex? On a weekend which you entirely devote to that
purpose. Not exactly relaxing, but definitely a different type of "grind".


                                               Sex is what you make of it,

                                                          Malfador

"So how do you feel about that fall Mr. Horse?"
"No, sir, I don't like it." -RnS
From: johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Male visual orientationREFRESH
Date: 9 Apr 92 16:46:29 GMT
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Apr9.153055.28148@u.washington.edu> intrigue@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing) writes:
|In article <1992Apr8.222755.21043@spool.cs.wisc.edu> rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu writes:
|>In <1992Apr8.025018.4511@midway.uchicago.edu> pooh@group-w.uchicago.edu (Pooh @ the Utility Muffin Research Kitchen) writes:
|>>I nominate Angelwing for the Soc.Singles.Fantasy.Goddess for
|>>the male contingent.
|>
|>You can't; she ain't single.  She just said so herself in a recent post.
|>
|Oh *reeally*, Michael.  Well I'm not married, so I must be single.  Nyah! 

Even if she wasn't single it doesn't mean that men couldn't fantasize about 
her.  Just don't do it at the beach if she`s wearing a diaphanous dress.
(soc.singles.oldtimers will know about this)
-- 
+=============================================================================+
| John Fereira                Al Bundy for President          
| johnf@auspex.com         "He's as good as the next guy"                     |
+=============================================================================+
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle)
Subject: Re: The Second Move
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 22:36:19 GMT

>kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Me) writes:
>>and asks them out, then they are brutally rejected because they didn't

FA.TJM@forsythe.stanford.edu (thom mckean) writes:
>No, the problem is with your assumption of rejection being "brutal."

My use of "brutally" was pure hyperbole. Which smiley indicates that one?

>Far fewer problems if folks just got offa their asses and took some
>real initiative.  The results can be devastatingly wonderful.
Exactly.
-- 
"The truffle is not an outright aphrodisiac, but it may in certain
 circumstances make women more affectionate and men more amiable."
                                                ...Brillat-Savarin

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.)
Subject: Re: Peeking through the curtain
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 92 09:02:46 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1992Apr5.213658.12947@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlode@isis.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>In article <s4mjv9f@lynx.unm.edu> blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.) writes:
>>Calling a non-monogamous relationship 'open' is simply a candy coating for
>>the fact that you can't trust your partner (or yourself) enough in a
>>trusting relationship to remain faithful. IM(Never)HO.
>I know a number of people who get claustrophobic when committed to one
>partner, others who don't want someone to be committed to them exclusively,

I still say that a lot of this has to do with trust, and fear.
Fear that you're not good enough for your partner, or vice-versa.
Most of the 'open' relationships I've ever seen, or been in, involved
one partner who 'didn't want to be tied down to one person', and another
who was so desperate to hold on to their partner that they 'let' their
partner 'roam'. 'Oh, he/she needs his/her space', or some such crap.

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.

Besides, like I said last time, in today's oozing sexual environment,
momogamy is better than death.
r.

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: userisra@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca (Mark Israel)
Subject: Re: Male visual orientation
Originator: lnds@medievil.biochem.ualberta.ca
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 06:36:41 GMT

In article <1992Apr3.175010.21219@morgan.ucs.mun.ca>, kirsten@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Kirsten Starcher) writes:

> I think the original question was more, *why* do men find the visual 
> aspect so much of a turn-on?  If a guy sees some voluptuous women 
> walking along the street, why does that "do something for him"?  Does 
> it remind him of what he'd like to be doing with them?

   Well, I guess so.  But on the other hand, a good part of what I'd like
to be doing with her is looking at her.

> Is it something he can't explain?

   None of us can "explain" *all* our preferences; we can only reduce them
to an axiomatic preference set.  I'm not attracted to beautiful women 
*because* I think that will help me achieve some *other* goal.  I'm
attracted to beautiful women, period.

   Now, a small part of this is the "trophy" aspect -- I do confess to 
enjoying the envy of other men when they see me with a beautiful date.  
But it *is* a *small* part -- I also like a beautiful date when we're in
privacy.

> From what I've seen, though women often find a man attractive, it's not 
> so frequent that they instantly find him *sexually* attractive.  Men, 
> on the other hand, seem to be easily overwhelmed by the right women.

   Introspection doesn't tell me why this is so.  Biology or sociology
might furnish some answers, though.  How do ducks react to drakes?  How do
peahens react to peacocks?  In the Renaissance, when men wore fancier 
clothing, were women more visually oriented?

userisra@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca		Mark Israel
Instinctive grammatical moralizer.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Peeking through the curtain
From: eleanor@ait.com (Eleanor Evans)
Date: 14 Apr 92 13:01:16 GMT
Organization: Artificial Intelligence Technologies, Inc.

>I have some friends like this. They are honest (as honest as people who
>are convinced that they can't get aids so they don't have to practice
>safe sex can be) with everyone that they get involved with.
>They are happy, and so are the various people they are involved with.

Who here thinks that was a slam?  <the sound of hands raising all over
the net....>

Fred, the AIDS crack was a little gratuitous, don't you think?  Why should
you assume that the sex I described isn't safe?  I wasn't talking about
indiscriminacy, or sex without condoms, for that matter.

>Gee, are you sure you aren't one of my friends in disguise ? :-)
>They are living this type of lifestyle (and to think I could have
>been too, but I chose not to :-/

I'm living this "kind of lifestyle" because I cannot be consistent with
my ethical views and live otherwise.  It would be hypocritical of me to
say to my partner "you can't ever have sex with another person as long
as we're together, which could be the rest of our lives, without incredible
amounts of guilt and shame."  I understand sex is a basic drive of
human nature, just as is eating.  No one would ever think of saying "you
can't ever eat with another human being while we're together".  Now that
women are no longer property, and there is good birth control available,
why should we put the same strictures on sex?  I certainly wouldn't have
sex with everyone that I'd have food with--my selection criteria are quite
strict, in fact.  

Let me give an example--a very dear friend of mine is just separated from 
his wife.  She moved out on him--took their daughter and went home to mother.
He and I have been friends for over 10 years, and were lovers for a couple
of weeks (we decided we worked better as friends).  I went to see him when
I was home for a week, and ended up giving him a shoulder to cry on.  He
needed to be held.  If that had turned into a need for sex, I would have 
had no problem coming through for him.  (DOWN, Larry!)  I also would have
had no problem telling my sweetheart about it--mostly because we've talked
about this already, and pretty much agree that fidelity is more emotional
than physical.

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.

Piglet
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: tlode@isis.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: The "first" "move" (was Re: A R C )
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 00:43:30 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.212354.25236@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle) writes:
>intrigue@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing) writes:
>>GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu writes:
>>>
>>>        Alison Rebecca Colman errors with
>>>
>>>                " There are *plenty* of aggressive women willing
>>>                  to make the first move "
>>>
>>>      At last. Somebody more deceived than me.
>>>      Man, what a relief.
>>Oh pooh Broward!  There ARE lots of aggressive women willing to make the
>>first move. Just because they don't move on you doesn't mean they don't exist.
>>Angelwing - Alison is right, Broward is wrong.
>
>In order to determine who is right and who is wrong, we must fist
>settle on a definition of "move" (and of "first" as well.) Does
>smiling and batting one's eyelashes constitute the first move?
>
>I think not. The "first move" has to involve initiating a conversation
>with a complete stranger, and following it up with a request for a
>date if the chat goes well. 

I think I can accept your definition of "first move"--smiling at the
right time or being at the same restaurant I think falls a little
short of being aggressive.

However, I think it's easy to prove the existence of women who would
be considered to be making the first move--in the last year, I've been
to a few SF cons and to the local renaissance faire and at each of
these events, I've had more women approach me and initiate conversations
than I could keep track of.  I've had women ask me for my phone number
(though 99% of the time, they don't call), one woman who probably would
have made a good pickpocket managed to slip notes into my pockets, and
others who initiated writing me letters afterwards.  I think any of these
would qualify as a "first move" and could be considered aggressive.

The next question is whether or not there are "plenty" of such women--
personally, I'd prefer there to be more of them than there are (I'd
particularly prefer to have more of these aggressive women who express
an interest in me be closer to where I am), but considering that there
are lots of people who get more (and more serious) attention like this
than I do, I don't think they're all that rare.

Trygve
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: dbj@cs.washington.edu (Dave Johnson)
Subject: Re: Romantic Songs list
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 15:50:10 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.091948.6436@bsu-ucs.uucp> 01ksdavis@bsu-ucs.uucp writes:
>
>	Of course, certain songs by Rod Stewart come to mind:

	Mandolin Wind (one of my all-time favorites)

	Stay With Me  (see, I just can't do that romantic stuff)
-- 
  Dave Johnson

"You're not too smart, are you?  I like that in a man."
    --Kathleen Turner in Body Heat 
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: tlode@isis.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: THE ELEMENTS OF SEDUCTION was (Re: Request : Dating advice from women)
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: Sun, 5 Apr 92 21:43:49 GMT

In article <1992Apr5.195219.18854@tigger.jvnc.net> richh@tigger.jvnc.net (RICHH) writes:

>There are few things as thrilling or as challenging as seducing a woman
>who absolutely loathes you.
>If you can't see the sport in this, you will never understand men.

That explains it--no wonder I don't understand men.

>RICHH

Trygve    (Sport?   Euuurgh.) 
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: tlode@isis.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: A R C
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 17:54:59 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.162742.23717@ddsw1.MCS.COM> jailbird@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Ron D. Harvey) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.092859.29878@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tlode@isis.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>
>>Well, I suppose I must be at least as deceived as Alison, since I seem to
>>run into lots of aggressive women willing to make the first move (a good
>>thing too, since I happen to like that particular quality).
>
>>Trygve   (At least they seemed pretty aggressive to me.) 
>
>	This is a great justification for being chronically passive-
>aggressive.  And as any dedicated soc.singles reader knows, this is also 
>a great way to get into a relationship with exactly the *wrong* person.
>
>	(The Other) Ron

I suppose it would be a great justification for that if I ever had any
interest in being passive-aggressive.  It's possible to be fond of 
strong-minded, aggressive MOTAS because you want someone who can be an
equal in a relationship rather than because you happen to be the passive
sort.  I have no interest in being passive in a relationship, nor do I
have any interest in a partner who would be passive in a relationship.

Trygve 
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: walter (Walter Lego)
Subject: Re: "hitting on"
Followup-To: soc.singles
Reply-To: nobody
Organization: Twisted Pair Inc.
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 12:10:57 GMT


In article <1992Apr15.062740.487@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca> userisra@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca (Mark Israel) writes:
>In article <1992Apr14.185854.15398@midway.uchicago.edu>, pooh@group-w.uchicago.edu (Pooh @ the Utility Muffin Research Kitchen) writes:
>
>> Men: I love 'em, but just because they have a hammer they think 
>> everything is a nail ... ;-)
>
>   Wasn't there a song about that in the '60s?  "If I had a hammer,
>I'd probably hit my thumb."

But S&G had the right perspective with "I'd rather be a hammer than a nail..."

						Walter

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: I am posting under a pseudonym for personal reasons. There is 
enough info in the headers to determine my posting site and possibly even 
determine my login name which is all the information you get from other
postings except that in this case you KNOW for sure that the name in the
headers is a pseudonym. If you don't like the idea put me in your kill file. 
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: mcregor@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Meloney Cregor)
Subject: Re: Male visual orientationREFRESH
Organization: Dept. of Psychology, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 15:18:59 GMT

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.

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: Sun, 5 Apr 92 21:36:58 GMT

In article <s4mjv9f@lynx.unm.edu> blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.) writes:
>
>Calling a non-monogamous relationship 'open' is simply a candy coating for
>the fact that you can't trust your partner (or yourself) enough in a
>trusting relationship to remain faithful. IM(Never)HO.

I disagree entirely--there are a lot of people who strongly prefer open
or non-monogamous relationships for a great variety of reasons, with
"lack of trust" being one that I've yet to hear.

I know a number of people who get claustrophobic when committed to one
partner, others who don't want someone to be committed to them exclusively,
others who don't believe that monogamy has even the possibility of working
and wouldn't even consider trying it, and even a few happilly married
couples who have just reached the mutual decision that they want to have
sex with people outside the marriage.

Open relationships aren't my cup of tea, just because they don't suit my
emotional needs nearly as well as monogamous committed ones do--but that
doesn't mean that there's anything less appropriate or less moral about
other people not sharing my personal taste in this regard.

Trygve

Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: chucksi@stc.comm.mot.com (DX504 Chuck Siu)
Subject: Re: Newspaper personals (Just try it...it's ELECTRIC!!!)
Organization: none
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 20:03:15 GMT

>Yeah, I actually tried this once. After being somewhat disappointed with the
>results, I accidentally ran into one of the people who works at the paper.
>Found out that the average response to an add made by a male in his early to
>mid 20's is about 4 for a 5 week run. The average response to a female add in
>the same age group is well over 90 in the first week. Anyone know if this is
>a strictly local phenomenon?
>
>Chris.

	I'll agree with all the arguments I've seen on this thread. The personals
have been *fabulously* successful. I met a 33 year old (6 years my senior) gorgeous
auburn blonde with electric blue green eyes, a body to kill for, and legs that wouldn't
stop....and are your ready for this? Guess who her best buddy is? Roger Ebert! Jeezus.
Whatever...life is strange that way....I'm having the time of my life with these
personal ads...but maybe 'cause there's a certain technique to it...and part of that
is that men simply shouldn't expect many responses, but should do their damndest to
respond *UNIQUELY* and humorously to the women's ads, since you're up against 50 or more
of the competition in almost every case...
	3 dates last week, 3 this week, and Carolyn (the redhead) & I are hitting the
Chicago Civic Opera House tonight....JUST DO IT and be persistent. It'll pay
eventually.
				The Chuckster

-- 
Chuck Siu                      |  Things that
CAS Systems Consulting, Ltd    |  go "Schwing!" in the night...
chucksi@comm.mot.com           |
From: swt@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: More helpful Hints
Date: 15 Apr 92 14:28:04 EDT
Distribution: soc
Organization: Cornell University

In article <1992Apr13.202004.28761@panix.com>,
pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich) writes: 

> 
> 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)

No, it just means you don't like zucchini (does that have an 'h' in
it?  Have I been spelling it wrong all this time?  How embarassing) as
much as I do. :-)  If there's ever a zucchini blight, I won't know what
to cook during the summer months.
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
swt@VAX5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU|"Watch what you say, they'll be calling you a radical,
			| A liberal,
			| Fanatical, criminal..."  -- Supertramp
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: fredw@mks.com (Fred Walter)
Subject: Re: Peeking through the curtain
Organization: Mortice Kern Systems Inc., Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1992 19:00:09 GMT

tlode@isis.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>Well, let's just say that, given a real person who appears trustworthy
>and someone I know nothing about and might only imagine would have the
>feelings you think he might

Given the context of this conversation (the 'someone [you] know nothing
about' being the husband of the woman you want to have sex with), you
can bet that in the majority of the cases the husband is going to feel
the way you seem to have difficulty imagining he might. In this society
monogamy is still considered the norm in a marriage, and people get
upset when their partner screws around on them.

>The adults are the ones who take responsibility for their own actions
>and accept the consequences of their decisions while treating others
>(until proven otherwise) as capable of making their own decisions and
>being responsible for them as well.

It has been both my experience and observation that most people don't
behave as 'adults (your definition above)' when it comes to sex.
Unsafe sex, unwanted pregnancies abound.

Your insistence on believing a woman who says her husband "wouldn't mind",
when, in the majority of the cases he would mind, makes you sound like you
don't give a shit about innocent third parties when you stand to gain; is
this how you made your millions ?

(Yes, I know you said you found a couple of instances where the partner
 truly didn't mind; I've found one of those myself - of course, I asked
 to make sure, whereas you didn't ask and lucked out with the woman 
 actually being truthful and not deluded. However, these instances are few
 and far between.)

	fred
-- 
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
Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.men,soc.women