HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: men dancing with men just because they're friends.
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 21:28:29 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <2219@catfish.ocpt.ccur.com>  luzenko@catfish.ocpt.ccur.com (Bill Luzenko) writes:
>
> Why men can't dance with men in america without some stigma attached to it .

Well, gee, if I knew there was a stigma attached, I'm sure I wouldn't have
done it.

(I suppose it depends on where you live, and the type of dance place.)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Oh, no! Statistics! Run!! :-)
Date: 19 Aug 92 20:13:58 GMT
Organization: Trivializers R Us

In article <71349@apple.Apple.COM> stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:
>So which of you statistics-advocates have used statistics to get into what
>you considered a successful relationship? And in what way did you use
>statistics to accomplish this? Did anything other than statistics figure in?

Does it count if I considered it successful at the time, even if the
MOTAS in question later wanted my head on a platter? Actually, it was
other people who used statistics: I and this other person (let's call
her D) were the only unattached people invited to a particular
xmas party by some mutual friends; also both eastern-stuffy educated,
roughly the same age, and not into playing "identify the function, year
and model of this widget from the box on the back shelf at the jag
dealership." Statistically speaking, if anyone was going to become
newly hooked up from that party, it was us. (Not to mention the predictive
value of the observation that I have yet to become involved with someone
living in the same city :-( ).

Oops. I'm not a statistics advocate. I guess we discard this observation.

paul
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle)
Subject: Re: Commitment--The C-word?
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 08:03:45 GMT

garrison@kodak.com (Laurie Garrison) writes:
>well, i *have* to put in my knee-jerk response to this remark--
>"the woman is gaining access..."  the WOMAN????  even if the woman
>makes less money that the man, he will still enjoy a higher standard
>of living that will come from a two income household.

Knee-jerk indeed.  It depends on the type of lifestyle they both like.
If she makes less than he does, he might end up contributing to her
interests, and not be able to spend all his disposable income on books
and CDs and food and fast open-top cars (I want a del Sol...) 

Simply because they have mnore money together does not mean they will
_both_ enjoy a higher standard of living--that assumes that "higher
standard of living" means the same thing to both of them. 

>besides the obvious, she *could* make more than he does :)

Yeah, she could, but does she?

-- 
"Pliny the Elder says pearls are formed by drops of dew falling into
 the Oyster when he is yawning.  Can't something be done about that man?"
-- 
Kiran Wagle                             <kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
P.O.Box 2083 Bloomington IN 47402-2083                  (812) 335-0420
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"...
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 22:55:44 GMT

In article <71111@apple.Apple.COM> stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:

>I don't know about 'normally,' but in my experience, the person who makes a
>move is the person whose turn it is.

People don't "take turns" in real life.

> (many relationships get started
>because one person makes a small move, and the other person makes a small
>move, and so on. In those relationships it is difficult to figure out who 
>officially started things.) 

Yes, I've noticed that sort of thing happening--in several
relationships, we've discussed (i) who made the first move (often,
each of us believed that the other did) and (ii) when we first knew
that a relationship would happen.  Interestingly, I often knew before
she did; that doesn't mean that I'm more perceptive (I hope not*), but
rather that I'm less transparent.

>Or it can be the person who feels less shy who makes the first move, or 
>the person who feels more horny. 

Or the person accepting a dare from his/her friends, or...

>kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>>Now, obviously I have a problem with that in the abstract sense.  This is
>>the real world, however, and you have to deal with it as it is.  

That wouldn't be much fun.  I prefer to act the part of the
unreasonable man.

*I know how perceptive I already am; if other people are more
perceptive, then I can get better.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
From: pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"...
Date: 19 Aug 92 22:27:38 GMT
Organization: Trivializers R Us

In article <1992Aug19.152937.14677@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> allisson@turing.toronto.edu (Allisson Roome) writes:
>In article <1992Aug14.223141.18316@cbnews.cb.att.com> eleanor@cbnews.cb.att.com (eleanor.j.evans) writes:
[el piglet's stuff deleted for bandwidth and clarity]

>You mean you're going to tell about you and I alone in your bedroom
>for a good 15-20 minutes? And Josephine sitting adoringly on Paul for
>quite awhile? (I have pictures)? (Paul - you wanted slander and
>innuendo).

Hrmph. Josephine Minerva is a superannuated chihuahua. Oops. I
guess that makes it even worse, doesn't it? (Actually, she's a
very laid-back dog and hardly complained at all when Alice wanted
to disassemble her.)

paul     looking back fondly
From: stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Finding Romantic Partners (long)
Date: 18 Aug 92 20:13:45 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes: 

>I'll bet acting will work great, because
>it is about the most perverse thing I can think of, with respect to what
>relationships are *supposed* to be about (aren't relationships *supposed*
>to be about honesty, openness, warmth, etc.?  In other words, everything
>that acting is the antithesis of?).  

Side note: relationships are best when they involve honesty, openness,
warmth, etc., but a healthy appreciation for perversity also adds spice. :-) 

(I.e., having a sense of humor and being able to *play* are attractive
qualities.)

Acting isn't necessarily the antithesis of honesty, openness, warmth - 
acting is learning how to communicate effectively (i.e., so that your
meaning is correctly interpreted by the audience). It may involve some 
exaggeration and simplification. But if you want to get something across, 
sometimes it is best to present a simplified version at first. Later on 
you can work on refining it. 

If you aren't used to expressing emotions, giving compliments, &c, acting 
will help you learn how. At first it will seem artificial, but perhaps later 
on it will not.

>So: they want to see confidence, eh?  No problem.  But won't they be
>surprised when they find out that it was all an act...

Not necessarily--people aren't all that easy to fool completely ... it's
more that people appreciate your *effort* to appear confident. Just as 
people appreciate your effort to wear well-fitting clothes, even if you 
don't have an athlete's body. (Note, I'm told that not all people appreciate 
these things - I'm only talking about people I know.)

>Somehow, I find the idea of fooling someone else into giving me what I
>want to have some appeal.  I wonder if this means that I'm turning into
>an Evil Person.  :-)

Good! An appreciation of Evil can be very attractive to women. :-)

Stef
stef@apple.com
--
There is a great difference between not wishing to do evil and not knowing 
how. --Seneca
From: bart@muppet.bt.co.uk (Tim)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"...
Date: 12 Aug 92 16:29:50 GMT
Reply-To: bart@muppet.bt.co.uk
Organization: British Telecom

Steve Swann writes :
>>Yup.  And this is *precisely* the thing that turned me off the most to
>>the "acting" solution.  I didn't much like the idea of "conning" someone
>>into getting into a relationship with me.

>Bingo, welcome to the pretender's club.  By the way, having a little
>bit of success for a change really does work wonders.  Pretty soon
>you're not "pretending" so much, about being self-assured.

>And hey, I didn't -enjoy- being a shy introverted, sort, either.  In
>fact, to put it in the simplest possible terms "it sucked, and I hated
>it!" :-).  That's something I -really- didn't mind leaving behind me.
>

Brrrr. Sounds all too familiar.

>Funny, though - I had gotten used to thinking of myself as being
>that way.  It was a real shock when some net.friends who met me in 
>person made comments like "I thought you said you were shy?!"

To a certain extent this kind of thing happens to me too. But not often
enough:-( I think certainly there is as kind of perverse duality at work
here. For initial contact with strangers, I still bleed though shy. It's
only when they know me that they say "Why don't you get rid of this acting
shy shit ?"
There's no pleasing some people. Plus the fact I doubt many people, esp.
MOTAS  could handle "The real me" initially. Its kind of like breaking 
them in gently :-)

Then again, when you're eating dust at some point later on, you think,
"hell, Shoulda scared em off ages ago. Saved some downtime"


---
"be your own person"			ministry
"you know you're in a mess"		living colour
"stop looking out, start looking in"	van halen
"somebody tell me what the hell is going on ?"      me,  more lucid than usual
From: zagar@chester.cms.udel.edu (Randy Zagar)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"..
Date: 13 Aug 92 13:26:39 GMT
Reply-To: zagar@chester.cms.udel.edu
Organization: Marine Studies, University of Delaware

In article 13642@nuchat.sccsi.com, kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>
> [trygve writes:]
> > Trouble is, I get the feeling that how hard you're looking is getting in
> > the way of being able to see.  You don't really need to concentrate on
> > how others feel--people seem to have a built-in degree of empathy that
>>lets them pick up on how others are feeling pretty much from birth.  
>
>*I* don't have any such ability.
>

Sorry Kevin, but I don't believe that for a minute !  There are HUGE chunks of
the brain set aside for things like recognizing faces and recognizing/interpreting
facial expressions.  Unless, of course, your brain *really* *is* different...

Unless you believe in ESP for the masses, then you have to grant that all of our
information on anothers' emotional state come from non-verbal clues like facial
expression and body language.

It's certainly possible that you might not be *using* the ability or you might
not recognize that the ability is there but I don't think you have the option
of not *having* such an ability.

>
>>Fortunately, there's no reason you can't start learning to pick up on
>>how others are feeling--the world provides you with a handy reference
>>called "humanity" that can be easilly located almost anywhere in the
>>world.
>
>Umm...exactly how are you supposed to use the thing you're trying to learn
>about as a reference?
>
>I observe an object, but don't know what it is.  How is observing the object
>supposed to tell me what the object is, unless I have something to compare
>my observations against?
>

Okay, go grab your frisbee and on the next sunny day go to a park, play frisbee,
and watch kids.  Watch all of them.  Watch their faces.  They're the easiest to
interpret.  Kids aren't as adept at concealing feelings as adults are.

-RZ
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.)
Subject: Re: Finding Romantic Partners (long)
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 00:33:17 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

>In  <1992Aug14.073415.2677@nuchat.sccsi.com>  kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
> Given two environments in which I know nothing but the male/female ratio, I
> will select the one which gives me the best chance of hooking up with
> someone.

A High-schools girls locker room and a Lesbian bar.
Have fun.

The point is, like I said in an earlier post, 
Just stop and enjoy the roses, don't analyze the damn thing! :)
r.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: Romance
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 21:40:05 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.133353.24503@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) writes:
>
>On gift-giving, for instance.  He feels that if he buys me flowers or
>jewelry or clothing there is a chance he won't match my taste.  If he
>gets me something he *knows* I need or will use, like a radar detector
>or portable CD player or a ceiling fan for my bedroom (WITH installation
>mind you), it's a sure-win that I'm going to like it and get use out of it.

>I had to fall for Mr. Practical.  Anyway ...

Actually, I have nothing against practical gift-giving, but speaking as
someone who gets into impractical gift-giving when in a relationship,
one suggestion is that if you're not sure it's something that will
thrill your SO, keep it inexpensive and small or perishable.  Unless
you're involved with someone with terrible allergies, it's near impossible
to give someone the "wrong" flowers (and if you do, they'll be gone in a
few days anyway).  A small box of slightly exotic confections or a nifty
card are always good to give. 

Trygve   (On the other hand, avoid anything that would normally be
          displayed on the mantle or on a wall unless you're *real*
          sure about it.)
From: thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"...
Date: 16 Aug 92 15:16:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: convex.thurlow.713978203
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1992Aug14.052503.29487@nuchat.sccsi.com> kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:

>But I discovered that in Real Life (tm), it doesn't work like that.  Instead,
>what happens is that I make friends with them, the friendship is established,
>and then they say that they couldn't even conceive of a romance with me
>because I'm too much like a brother to them.  I also discovered, in talking
>to my male friends, that they had experienced *exactly* the same thing.

Kevin, most people can sustain dozens of friends and only one lover.
Your precious statistics would seem to indicate that yes, maybe 98% of
the time, you are not going to be able to take a friendship to a
romance, just on that basis.  People also have far more tolerance with
friends than with people who may share their lives, so it's also very
possible that any particular woman might have put you in her "not on a
dare" bin the very moment she met you, but still thought you might make
a nice friend.  That reduces your odds further without in any way
validating your self-righteous bitching that women aren't telling you
the truth.

I think the kernel of truth beneath this idea is that if you want to
form a relationship with someone, you should say so; if you want to
be just friends with someone, you should say that; and if you're not
sure, you should let it slide until you are.  If you can be this
honest about what you want, and whether you're interested in making
a new friend when you really wanted a lover, you'll probably be Doing
It Right(TM).  It seems like you've reached something like that
conclusion, but I utterly object to the reasoning and the bitterness
that seems to have got you there.

>And this can mean only one thing: that the claims
>that were originally made were *bogus*!

When you've got a sample size of a million or so people and can find no
instances of friends growing into lovers, you might have a chance of
convincing us you have something here.  But you have a steep hill to
climb, because your statement runs counter to my direct experience.

>I don't care what people claim.  I care about what they actually *do*,
>because *that's* what I ultimately have to deal with in Real Life (tm).

I'm glad you at least closed with something sensible.

Rob T
--
Rob Thurlow, thurlow@convex.com
The sun is gonna shine again / We're gonna make it 'round that bend
I'll walk another mile with you, 'cause you're my friend
The sun is gonna shine again.			- Graham Parker
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: graydon@micor.ocunix.on.ca (Graydon)
Subject: Re: men in their thirties who never dated
Organization: M.B. Cormier INC.
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 11:06:47 EDT

Greetings!

The common characteristic I have noticed about men in their thirties
who have never dated is that they want to be attached to someone
less than they want to not make a fool of themselves.

Anyone able to decide you're perfect from distant observation and
decide you're the one and then be able to pay the whole initiation
costs of a relationship is not all that sane or stable.

Relationships *cost* - time and sleep and the pain of changing your
mind.  If you're in a state of mind that wants to minimize risks,
you're not going to find one.

Graydon

        Graydon the Curious         /graydon@micor.ocunix.on.ca
  Skraeling Althing, EAldormere, MK / "Nihil est quin obsisti possit"
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: aahz@netcom.com (Aahzmandius)
Subject: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"...
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 12:15:04 GMT
Organization: Bill 'n' Opus for Prez

In article <1992Aug14.052503.29487@nuchat.sccsi.com> kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>
>There seems to be *something* which distinguishes friendship and romance.
>If this were not the case, then every friend one had which was of the
>appropriate sex would be considered a romantic partner.  Since this is not
>the case in Real Life (tm), the conclusion must be that friendship and
>romance are different things (even if they overlap).
>
>Now, most of the women I've talked to (yes, yes, I know there may be some
>exceptions to this on the net.  I'm talking about women I've talked to
>in person) seem to think that it would be ideal to make friends with
>someone first, *then* start a romance after the friendship is firmly
>established.  Presumably, of course, to determine compatibility issues
>and all that.
>
>But I discovered that in Real Life (tm), it doesn't work like that.  Instead,
>what happens is that I make friends with them, the friendship is established,
>and then they say that they couldn't even conceive of a romance with me
>because I'm too much like a brother to them.  I also discovered, in talking
>to my male friends, that they had experienced *exactly* the same thing.

Well, here's an alternative for you: try to get into a half-way state.
See if you can find someone(s) with whom you can engage in friendly sex.
Although, as Trygve would point out, you don't necessarily advance the
friendship beyond that point, as least life's a lot more fun -- and it
*does* make it easier to move beyond friendship should both of you wish
it.
-- 
                         --- Aahz (the *other* Dan Bernstein)
                             @netcom.com 

Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6

"I 'got a life'.  Now what?"
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci)
Subject: Re: Commitment--The C-word?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 13:49:38 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.002712.20849@sfu.ca> probst@fraser.sfu.ca (Scott Probst) writes:
>In article <Bt5Hzw.KB4@vcd.hp.com> johne@vcd.hp.com (John Eaton) writes:
>>Pass a law stating that in a divorce the man shall get the house and kids
>>while the woman gets the bills and must pay half her salary in alimony.
>>You would suddenly find a lot of women turning into committmentphobics.

>then you must feel the same as the three-quarters of women who take a
>60+% dive in income after divorces, while seeing their ex-husbands
>take a comparable rise.

Hmmm, and pass a law stating that in a divorce the man shall get custody
of the kids while taking a cut in income but WILL get child support
payments WHEN he can catch the ex-wife who now has all the free time in the
world to set up an apartment, buy new stuff, see her new SO (who used to
be the man's best friend) every day and boff on the kitchen table if she
wants to, and who will join group-therapy sessions and learn to like
herself and buy a whole new wardrobe and everybody the man knows will tell him
how GREAT his ex looks but he hasn't got time to listen because he has
to get his kid to his piano lesson and take the baby who kept him up all
night to the doctor and then go back home and do laundry so when his ex's
mother comes to pick the kids up for a day at the zoo (his ex will be in
Vegas with her squeeze) they look like something out of Parents Magazine,
and I bet all men would just pounce on the marriage idea, right?

Contrary to what you might believe, when it comes to divorce the women
don't always have it totally dicked.  Maybe the whole lot are just more
willing to take a chance on something they believe in and work at the
relationship so it DOESN'T end up that way?  Maybe?

-Nance
"You get what you get when you go for it, and I'm ready to
take the chance again."  -B.M.
-- 
Nance Colucci  *^*^*^*^*^*    o__    *^*^*^*^*  |  Work that body!
att!ihlpk!colucci            _.>/               | Stay fit for life.
                            (_) \(_)
From: kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Finding Romantic Partners (long)
Date: 19 Aug 92 12:03:14 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

shannah@netcom.com (Teri Miller) writes:
 
>No, he didn't get lucky.  He had skills that enabled him to get the
>girl to date him.  Had he not arrived, she would have not dated any
>of the other men at the party.  How do I know?  I was the woman.
 
*laugh* Ya got 'im, Teri.  This point is yours.
 
>He talks about the latest dessert creation he made, a 
>chocolate rum cheesecake, and she is a chocolate lover.  

Serious chocolate lovers do not mix their chocolate and their cheescake. 

-- 
"The truffle is not an outright aphrodisiac, but it may in certain
 circumstances make women more affectionate and men more amiable."
 

-- 
Kiran Wagle                             <kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
P.O.Box 2083 Bloomington IN 47402-2083      (812) 336-7478 [8p-1a EST]
From: johne@vcd.hp.com (John Eaton)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Commitment--The C-word?
Date: 17 Aug 92 23:16:43 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard VCD
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

joseph.f.baugher (jfb200@cbnewsd.cb.att.com) wrote:
: I have often wondered why it is  that  so  many  men  are  fearful  of
: commitment. 
: 
: The woman  is  asking  for  a  considerable  investment  of  time  and
: resources on his part.  In exchange for steady sex, he has to agree to
: lifelong financial support.  
--------------------------------
The problem is that divorce courts have never required a woman to continue
to provide steady sex past the end of a marriage but they routinely require
a man to continue with financial support. A man is held to his commitments
even after a breakup while a woman can have all hers absolved.

Pass a law stating that in a divorce the man shall get the house and kids
while the woman gets the bills and must pay half her salary in alimony.
You would suddenly find a lot of women turning into committmentphobics.

I know a bad deal when I see one.


John Eaton
!hp-vcd!johne
Newsgroups: soc.singles