HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jfb200@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (joseph.f.baugher)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Commitment--The C-word?
Keywords: commitment,marriage,reluctance
Date: 16 Aug 92 23:25:41 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories -  Naperville, Illinois

I have often wondered why it is  that  so  many  men  are  fearful  of
commitment.   The  women's  magazines  and the feminist literature are
full of complaints about this aspect of men, and many men will readily
admit  that  it  is  indeed  true.  Just  as  soon  as  the woman in a
"relationship" starts talking about making more permanent arrangements
or  perhaps  even  thinking  about  marriage  and  children,  the  man
immediately begins to back off, fearing that he will become  "trapped"
or  "locked  into"  a  situation in which he feels very uncomfortable.
The mere mention of the "C-word" is enough to make him break out  into
a rash.

Why are men so much more reluctant than women to commit?  I think that
it is because men have a lot more to lose.

In the initial stages of  a  man-woman  relationship,  most  men  want
little more than steady access to sex.  If a woman is willing to offer
him access to her body with no strings attached, this is  just  great!
He has the potentiality of sowing his seed over a wide area, with very
little investment on his part.  However, this sort of access to  women
is  usually  available to only a very, very few men--the "Alpha Males"
(Dan Moscny, where are you? :-)) of our society such  as  rock  stars,
high-level  politicians,  top  business executives, etc., men who have
proven by virtue of their positions that  they have "superior  genes".
For  most men of lesser status, their only access to steady sex is for
them to make a "social contract" with a woman in which she essentially
says  "Yes,  I'll  sleep  with  you and with noone else, provided that
you'll agree  to  provide  me  with  lifelong  financial  support  and
protection.   In  addition,  you  must help in the raising of any kids
that may come along." This arrangement is usually  called  "marriage".
:-)

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.  Even in this day of  womens'  liberation,
the  man is nevertheless still expected to be the primary breadwinner.
When a woman asks a man to commit himself to her, she is asking a lot.

Comments?

Joe Baugher			**************************************
AT&T Bell Laboratories		*  "I'm shocked!  Shocked to find    *
2000 North Naperville Road	*  that gambling is going on here!"  *
P. O. Box 3033			**************************************
Naperville, Illinois 60566-7033		
(708) 713 4548				
ihlpl!jfb                  Who, me?  Speak for AT&T?  Surely you jest!	
jfb200@cbnewsd.att.com
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: catcher@netcom.com (Paul W. Francisco)
Subject: Re: Various ramblings...
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 05:19:04 GMT
Organization: The Vampyre's Lair

In article <1992Aug16.203713.9545@nuchat.sccsi.com> kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>The dancing itself was reasonably fun, at least until I found that I
>couldn't improve anymore (I approached the limits of what my conscious
>mind could deal with simultaneously).

Ah, there's your problem, you were using your conscious mind!  It used
to take me no less then 5 screwdrivers to get out there.  Now I dance
up on stage without anything to drink.  A lot of the difference was
realizing that I was much more awkward (at least I felt that way) when
I was conscious about it.  If I just let myself go I did a lot better.
I didn't get good overnight, it took some trial and error, but eventually
I got to the point where I could be the only one dancing at all and walk
off with one enormous natural high, and I'd have no idea what kinds of
moves I had just done.

>The strange thing is that in those 8 months, it never got any easier to
>ask people to dance, and it never got any easier to meet people or to
>talk to them.  And I went dancing at least 3 times a week.

So don't ask anyone.  Just go out there and dance.  I don't know if I
could dance with someone by now, it's been so long since I did anything
but the solo act.  It can be a lot more fun that way since you don't have   
to worry about eye contact, keeping up (or down), not stepping on them,
and you can leave when you're tired without someone wishing you stayed
out there.

-- 
From the Vampyre's Lair, 	    The thirst from a vampire bite
Paul W. Francisco        	    fills the emptiness inside...
catcher@netcom.com                      - Siouxsie and the Banshees
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton)
Subject: Re: Finding Romantic Partners (long)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 13:35:42 GMT

In article <kiran.714226535@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle) writes:
>pjb4288@ultb.isc.rit.edu (Pete Boulay) writes:
> 
>>My brother has a saying that is perfect here...
> 
>>"When you're actively searching for romance, it'll elude you. Its when you're
>>not searching that it'll come up and kick you in the ass, turn you around,
>>and give you the best hug of your life."
> 
>People who perpetuate vacuous platitudes like this should be 
>sold as slaves to a whorehouse in Tunis, where their lives will be 
>short and painful.
> 

Hey I've been to Tunis. Actually fried an egg on the deck of the ship.
Real good place to have a dress white's inspection. Could barely keep
from laughing when the caption shows up and his dress white's are
piss yellow. Ah the mammary's.
 
================================================================================
 Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. There ain't no more.
================================================================================
From: walter (Walter Lego)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"...
Date: 14 Aug 92 18:43:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: walter.1992Aug14.184320.19751
Reply-To: nobody
Followup-To: soc.singles
Organization: Twisted Pair Inc.

In article <cg6m3lq.shannah@netcom.com> shannah@netcom.com (Teri Miller) writes:
>In article <9208130125.AA29602@regal.cisco.com> mlb@CISCO.COM (Marcia Bednarcyk) writes:
>>Walter goes on to say:
>>|> If you are only interested in discovering the object of your affections,
>>|> then why make the affections ambiguous?
>>
>>I guess most people are, they just want to *be* in a relationship rather than
>>*form* one. Me, I find the process of getting there half the fun.
>>
>I think it's sorta like dancing on the rocks across the stream.  If
>someone is afraid they won't make it, they may concentrate only on
>getting to the other side.  If someone is confident that they can do
>it, they can afford to take the time to enjoy getting there.

Duh? Wanting to get to the other side quickly has as much (or as less) to 
do with being afraid to dance on the rocks as wanting to dance on the rocks 
has to do with being afraid to reach the other side.

To get back to reality, the interaction is seldom as simple as taking
a more scenic route. Considering that one may not know if they are in the right 
river, that it may be foggy and that the other shore may not be visible or 
even its existence known, you think it is just a matter of bravado/confidence
if one wishes to avoid ambiguous Sirens?

>
>So, instead of trying to "catch" a MOTAS, or meet a new friend, I like
>to try to grow relationships.  I meet someone, and if we like each other,
>we grow our relationship into a friendship, or whatever we think is
>appropriate.  Like a handshake, where each party puts their hand out, 
>in a mutual gesture.  Sometimes that process happens quickly.  Sometimes
>it takes years.  

I think you are equating non-ambiguity with immediate and complete 
decisions. It is natural to be unsure of what one wants, but it is 
possible to indicate this state in unambiguous terms while you take some 
time to be sure of something (or the other one leaves in which case it is
just a question of incompatibility) or to discover some things. In the
metaphor above, a handshake in which both of you reach out is quite
unambiguous. It is when one person offers a foot because he/she is not sure
that things become ambiguous. I have nothing against taking time to
discover things. But I, personally, don't see the need to make communication 
ambiguous. If some people find a thrill in that, good for them. But it would
be ludicrous to judge people that choose to do otherwise as being 
afraid or as being insensitive to "fun".

						Walter

What disclaimer?
From: drmax@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Marianna Max)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Commitment--The C-word?
Date: 20 Aug 92 20:49:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Aug20.204953.3418
Distribution: usa
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.

In article <1992Aug20.201709.8052@beaver.cs.washington.edu> dbj@cs.washington.edu (Dave Johnson) writes:
>
>Please note: I am NOT a GodFearingFamilyValueSpoutingRepublican.

Would never make that mistake :-)

>In fact, I don't even have any kids (nor want to).  However, I do
>know a lot of couples who have decided that by the time you subtract
>the expenses of child-care, the extra commuting costs, the bigger tax
>cut, etc. from the lower of the two incomes, it ain't worth having
>both partners work at a paying job.  Then it's a question of who has
>the lower paying job, or the lower potential job.  And if a couple
>decides that one of them is going to be the full-time homemaker, and
>the other the full-time wage-earner, why should anyone else denigrate
>their choice?
>
Back to the original topic. Let's say the couple decide to go this route.
The woman, who has some job potential (for the sake of arguement) but makes
less then the man, is the one that "gets" to stay home with the kid. In a
while the couple decide to divorce. She's not working at the time at a
paying job because she is taking care of their child. How much support over
what time period should she get (if any) until she can (if ever) get back
at least to the place in her career that she was before the kid? 

A friend of mine has her MD but is staying home with their first kid and
possibly with their second before getting back into her career. Their
choice and its fine but if the couple should ever divorce she will have
lost alot of "potential" income and much time in the development of her
career. Does this count for anything?
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.)
Subject: But what are they >really< worth?
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 92 13:55:56 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque


Was watching late night TV. Ad came on,

'...Offering the highest prices for the family jewels...'

*ouch!*

r.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Exactly what I mean by "unattached"...
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 21:22:39 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  <1992Aug14.052503.29487@nuchat.sccsi.com>  kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>
> That's why I say that if the friendship is the *only* thing that's going on,
> i.e. a romance isn't developing in parallel, then eventually the romance
> will be almost impossible to develop (due to the Sibling Effect (tm)  :-).

At least two of my long-term relationships started out as friendships.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: probst@fraser.sfu.ca (Scott Probst)
Subject: Re: single men
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 21:33:57 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.175247.3106@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.191330.5288@sfu.ca> probst@fraser.sfu.ca (Scott Probst) writes:
>>>
>>you know, this was something i noticed in the netherlands. i was in nijmegen,
>>a relatively red-union-gay town, walking around at night, dressed a little
>>"west coast", i guess (i live in vancouver), and the only people that
>>would talk to me were the streetwalkers. weird.
>
>So well what did you and the streetwalkers talk about, and was it just 
>a flat exchange, and what rate did they give you, and did you like
>talking to the streetwalkers?

okay... it was fun, while it lasted. it was a short but lively exchange,
with honours about evenly split. i don't think i was given any break on
the rate, but at least i had someone to talk to for a while... no, actually,
i was just looking for a place to have a couple of drinks, was directed
to a club, and went on my way. sorry. they liked what i was wearing.
-- 
Scott Probst: Brain and Behaviour Laboratory, Psychology dept, SFU
              Graduate Issues Officer, Simon Fraser Student Society.
e-mail: probst@fraser.sfu.ca - ph: (604) 291 3354/3181 - fax: (604) 291 5843
              "yes, well, and here we go again..." - Dr H. S. Thompson
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton)
Subject: Re: Commitment--The C-word?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 12:46:44 GMT

In article <3532@eastman.UUCP> garrison@kodak.com (Laurie Garrison) writes:
>
>of the kids.  hey, can't have your cake and eat it too.  if you don't want
>to have to invest the time and emotional support, the least you can do
>is provide financial support.
 
 Tell that to my kids mother.

>
>it's a small price to pay for freedom from responsibility.
>
>laurie
>
>ps.  every woman i know with kids who got divorced lowered her standard of
>	living because she has the kids.  a few ended up on social
>	services for a time.  i have yet to see an ex-husband go on welfare!
>	(because of the divorce)
 
 You left out the part about when she got married she raised her standard
of living . Maybe she should have considered a career when she was staring
out the window dreaming about that meal ticket.
 

 
================================================================================
 Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. There ain't no more.
================================================================================
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: hymowitz@whatever.cs.jhu.edu (Hymie!)
Subject: Re: Various ramblings...
Organization: Creative Sensualities dept, Jacquie's House of Underwear
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 22:52:32 GMT

kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>In article <1992Aug15.170323.662@zooid.guild.org> Ross Ridge <ross@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>>Relationships are very complex, too complex for anyone to
>>understand.  
>How can anyone possibly succeed at something they don't understand,
>except through sheer luck?

it looks like you hit the nose right on the head. :)

most of the things we accomplish are luck.  why should relationships
be any different?

it's luck that i had calculus first period instead of third, and i met
the girl that i would eventually date for 4 1/2 years.

sometimes, i believe that it was luck that kept er around for that long.

it's luck that at camp in 1985, i went to a movie festival instead of
the dance, and met the girl i would date for two summers.

it's luck that, in both cases, they were also single, and attracted to me.
it's luck that i was able to figure out (very quickly) the things that
they liked, so i could make them happy and keep them for a while.

it's not luck when, in 1985 and again in 1991, one of the girls made
a blatant pass at me, and i didn't recognize it.

it's all luck.  a little skill, sure, and experience.  but it's mostly
just being in the right place in the right time.

and sitting in your room on the computer isn't the answer.

sometime, kevin, you sound like those songs of the sixties (e.g.
beatles and beach boys) where the guy just goes out, picks out the
girl (or two) that he likes (they all happen to be sitting around in
bikinis waiting for the guy to pick them out), and ride off into the
sunset.  guess what? it doesn't work that way anymore.  the girl will
be attracted to you for a reason- you're intelligent, you're caring,
you're good-looking, you're cute (very different. i'm cute; i'm not
good looking), you're fun to be with, you make her happy.
not because you're entitled to a relationship.

--hymie
hymowitz@cs.jhu.edu                                         hymie@jhuvms.bitnet
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From where you are, can you see Grand Central Parkway?  You can?
Then you're lost.
--Edith Bunker
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: rxkgre@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au (Geof Evans)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Cooling things off... - Update
Date: 15 Aug 92 17:54:31 GMT
Organization: RMIT Computer Centre, Melbourne Australia.


<<<* Hello Sarah.
               I'm posting this 'cause someone may have some words of 
     advice that you may not be able to supply. I read with interest your
     *lucid* dream note re Seth your friend and wonder if you can help me to         achieve a similar state so that I might communicate on a similar level 
     with a good friend of mine. We don't communicate very well on the concious
     plane due in part to her emotional insecurity and I think since she dreams
     well (and so do I) that this could be an avenue to greater closeness and        understanding if we can meet on an unconcious level without all the normal      fears & pressures encubrant in our waking states. What do you think ?
     Hope things work out for you and peace be with you.
                                                          Geof.

-- 
  ___________________________________________________________________  
|| Geof Evans                 | DOMAIN: rxkgre@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au  ||
|| Melbourne,Australia 3000   | Tel: +61 3 663 3663		     ||
||   If they *really* wanna know...tell 'em that God was drunk.      ||
||___________________________________________________________________||

			
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow)
Subject: Re: Commitment--The C-word?
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 03:57:35 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
Keywords: commitment,marriage,reluctance
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 <1992Aug16.232541.11992@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> jfb200@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (joseph.f.baugher) writes:

>Why are men so much more reluctant than women to commit?

Because they're thinking with the little head, not the big one?  :-)

I'm single.  I'm free of committments.  Big fucking deal.  I like
freedom, but it gets old, like anything you have too much of.  I'm not
_nearly_ as hard done by as our Kevin, but I'd like that to change.  I
really want to be able to plan some things over a period of years
rather than months.  I'd like to suspect I wouldn't have to wait
%$^%!@$#^%&*@!#&%^&*&*( (dang, musta been line noise :-) between
orgasms that happen with another person.  I'd like to have someone in
my life that actually might know me more than the three years I've been
in Texas someday.  I'd like to know that someone would be there for me
on the really rough days, and that I could feel worthwhile by being
able to do that for someone special.

Oh, I'll wait for the right person, but if it's all the same to the
Creator, I'd like it to happen sooner if possible.

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: Ross Ridge <ross@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Psychobabble
Organization: ZOOiD BBS
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 13:38:18 GMT

kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>What I'm trying to do is keep myself from needlessly spinning my wheels.

You *are* spinning your wheels.

								Ross Ridge

-- 
Ross Ridge - The Great HTMU					     l/	 //
								    [OO][oo]
ross@zooid.guild.org						    /()\/()/
uunet.ca!zooid!ross						     db	 //
From: oconnell@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Kevin Patrick O'Connell)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: cooking newsgroups??
Date: 12 Aug 92 18:25:23 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center

Would some kind soul direct me to those newsgroups that deal with 
cooking, recipes, and good drink??

Thanks!!

Kev
Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.romance,soc.women
From: sms@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (steven.m.stein)
Subject: Re: California Here I Come, Again
             (San Diego, to be exact)
Summary: Things to do, people to meet !
Keywords: fun
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 22:42:45 GMT

Another business trip (solo), this time to sunny San Diego.  I
was there for a week last year (Carlesbad, for a course).  Loved
it.  Took my first helicopter ride and did some aerial photography.
One of the most exciting things I ever did.  Blacks Beach was
interesting.

I'm not sure yet exactly where in San Diego I will be.  I don't actually
have to start work till Aug. 29-30, (maybe the night of the 28th). But,
I will be arriving the afternoon of August 25th.  So lots of time to
rest, enjoy the sites and some of the people.  Maybe a drive up P.C.H.

So, if anyone has any good suggestions (I've already been to the zoo)
or would like to socialize, hit the beach, and show this poor boy
around, let me know.  Thanks.

					steve
Newsgroups: soc.singles
From: shannah@netcom.com (Teri Miller)
Subject: Re: Married Men and Single Women
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 07:29:10 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: usa
Keywords: Why are married men more attractive than single men?


In article <71172@apple.Apple.COM> stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones) writes:
>
>I agree that ratios can be misapplied, but I want to point out that not all
>women behave the way you did at that party. Some women are exploring the
>dating scene and they want to meet and date various people. They may
>not have figured out exactly what they want in a partner. Or they may not 
>be looking for a long-term partner. Such a woman might go to a party 
>intending to get dates with the most interesting people there. (Or at least
>to get their email addresses. :-)
>
Good point.  However, I do think that making oneself more interesting is
the better way to increase their chances.  If I go to a party, and there
are 5 MOTAS, but they are all compatible with me, I'm a lot further ahead
than if I go to a party and there are 25 MOTAS, but only one is compatible.
The key is in being compatible with those people I want to attract.
(Or are we violently agreeing here?)

>When I was exploring, I would have considered a party with 40 people I knew
>I didn't want to date to be a *real* dud of a party.
>
It was a fun party, even though I wound up dating only one of the people
who were there.  On the other hand, it would have been really crass for
me to have left, considering I was the hostess... 8-)

>Then again, I guess that's because the people I like to talk to, the people
>I like to be friends with, and the people I like to date all have pretty
>similar characteristics.
>
Not me.  I tend to have very specific things I am looking for in an
intimate relationship, and prefer to have a wide variety of friends.
I think that part of that stems from my somewhat schizo career - I 
work as a software engineer, but own my own design business.  So, I
run across all sorts of different people between the two careers.
Not just in the obvious ways, like technical versus artistic, but also
in more personal ways, like outgoing/shy, opinionated/flexible, 
supportive/reserved, etc.  Many of my friends don't really like one
another.  I guess we just enjoy the ways in which we click, though,
and the ways we don't click don't really matter, since we don't plan
to date.

Newsgroups: soc.singles